Ratings--WTF?

For posts related to a specific film -- beware of spoilers o ye who dareth enter!
Stewball
Posts: 3009
2188 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: Ratings--WTF?

Post by Stewball »

tonydal wrote:You're expecting something challenging nowadays? In this Golden Age of Mindless Affability? (Not to mention the endless horde of Nagging Hall-Monitor Know-It-Alls.) Best put the whole business on fast-forward until the general tenor of the times changes (if indeed it ever does)...


Indeed, the change is already in progress, albeit very slowly. The dawning talent displayed by many in the Indy and rebel mainstream segments is already in place. The Golden Age of Film started, ironically, in 2000 with a blockbuster, Gladiator. Gracchus doubles down on Lucilla's characterization of the Roman populace being a mob, saying, "I think (Commodus) knows what Rome is. Rome is the mob. Conjure magic for them and they'll be distracted. Take away their freedom and still they'll roar. The beating heart of Rome is not the marble of the senate, it's the sand of the coliseum. He'll bring them death - and they will love him for it"--all while that very "mob" is literally being served with bread and circuses as they watch. It was the opening shot of the challenge to the movie industry, to challenge us...the mob. And almost nobody recognized it, or it was steadfastly ignored, and it's still there.

If you want examples, just look at my superlatives this year alone, so far. Not a tremendous number, but they're very strong, and only 2 (*) are more entertainment oriented than provocative, and that's okay. The ultimate ideal is quality.



The Good Catholic
The Only Living Boy in New York
Wind River
Before I Fall
The Promise
*Guardians of the Galaxy—Vol. 2
*Baby Driver
Brad’s Status
Only the Brave
Last Flag Flying
Roman J. Israel, Esq.
Rebel in the Rye

MacSwell
Posts: 1721
2706 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:03 am

Re: Ratings--WTF?

Post by MacSwell »

Erm...

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... s-donald-/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37987306

https://www.snopes.com/denzel-washingto ... hes-trump/

Thus, in relation to your original paragraph, isn't the natural conclusion that maybe this is what 2017 audiences are after? Not everything, particularly taste in film, has to boil down to some liberal vs. conservative argument - that just can't help but feel like a completely contrived viewpoint. Legal dramas were big in the early-to-mid 90s, with The Firm, The Pelican Brief, JFK, A Time to Kill, A Few Good Men, Primal Fear etc. all doing good business, but the genre hasn't been nearly so popular since then, has it? How many critically or commercially successful courtroom movies have there even been since 2000?

For the record, I personally much prefer the look of Roman J. Israel, Esq. to the likes of Lady Bird. If Nightcrawler is anything to go by, Dan Gilroy looks like a great filmmaker.

90sCoffee
Posts: 173
2242 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 5:15 pm

Re: Ratings--WTF?

Post by 90sCoffee »

No Maaxwell it's only fake news if it comes from that darn 'liberal media' like the BBC and we should follow the more objective right-wing media. :lol:

Stewball
Posts: 3009
2188 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: Ratings--WTF?

Post by Stewball »

Maaxwell wrote:Erm...

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... s-donald-/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37987306

https://www.snopes.com/denzel-washingto ... hes-trump/

Thus, in relation to your original paragraph, isn't the natural conclusion that maybe this is what 2017 audiences are after? Not everything, particularly taste in film, has to boil down to some liberal vs. conservative argument - that just can't help but feel like a completely contrived viewpoint. Legal dramas were big in the early-to-mid 90s, with The Firm, The Pelican Brief, JFK, A Time to Kill, A Few Good Men, Primal Fear etc. all doing good business, but the genre hasn't been nearly so popular since then, has it? How many critically or commercially successful courtroom movies have there even been since 2000?

For the record, I personally much prefer the look of Roman J. Israel, Esq. to the likes of Lady Bird. If Nightcrawler is anything to go by, Dan Gilroy looks like a great filmmaker.


Yeah, I liked Nightcrawler a lot, and he's currently working on a project with the same two leads, set in the art world.

But I don't understand equating my OP point of film criticism or comity based on dishonest political affiliation, rather than given story lines like courtroom dramas, which are still often included as part of a movie. Excellent subject matter such as court room dramas will always be around, but it seems so will movies being used for covert social manipulation and demagoguery--which are two separate issues.

Stewball
Posts: 3009
2188 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: Ratings--WTF?

Post by Stewball »

90sCoffee wrote:No Maaxwell it's only fake news if it comes from that darn 'liberal media' like the BBC and we should follow the more objective right-wing media. :lol:


Sarcasm, that's all ya got? And, BTW, the BBC is way down the list of fake news sources, actually the British press is still pretty objective and honors the idea of objectivity to some degree, as opposed to pushing an agenda at all costs
. CNN tops the list, and PBS is a close second.

AFlickering
Posts: 641
2994 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 6:15 pm

Re: Ratings--WTF?

Post by AFlickering »

-wants "originality with high-caliber, challenging movies we'll remember for more than a couple of months or a year or two at most."

-has generic garbage like THE IMITATION GAME and THE MARTIAN tier 10

k brah, keep fighting the good fight

Stewball
Posts: 3009
2188 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: Ratings--WTF?

Post by Stewball »

AFlickering wrote:-wants "originality with high-caliber, challenging movies we'll remember for more than a couple of months or a year or two at most."

-has generic garbage like THE IMITATION GAME and THE MARTIAN tier 10

k brah, keep fighting the good fight


Yeah, so, 9/10, what's your point, or more to the point, what are you're tens. I notice you didn't pick any of my tier tens from this years to ridicule. The Lobster, The Wonder, The Master, really. Pretentious psychobabble.

90sCoffee
Posts: 173
2242 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 5:15 pm

Re: Ratings--WTF?

Post by 90sCoffee »

I'm sorry but this reeks of old man yells at cloud. Firstly, since when did films NOT have political affiliations? It may not be as obvious as when Hollywood or the British film industry was pumping out propaganda pieces between the 30s to the 70s but they always have. If your reason for disliking them is finding some vague attempt at a political connection then that's a sad way to filter out film and it shows a lack of critical sense. If you're influenced by a film based on its "covert social manipulation" then that's on you. I can guarantee there's at least one recent film any given person likes which has had funding drawn from either the US military or some media conglomerate with an agenda.

Speaking of which, not to defend CNN or PBS but exactly what is not 'fake news' to you? They all have agendas to push, you're just on a different side of the agenda based on the one you follow.

CosmicMonkey
Posts: 594
1271 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:52 pm

Re: Ratings--WTF?

Post by CosmicMonkey »

"I don't like political movies" = "I am unable to recognize the inherent political biases that are present in every piece of media, and therefore only notice it when it's both very obvious and in direct opposition to my only personally held political biases, biases which, due to a lack of self-awareness, I probably don't even recognize in my self."

iconogassed
Posts: 919
7281 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:41 pm

Re: Ratings--WTF?

Post by iconogassed »

CosmicMonkey wrote:"I don't like political movies" = "I am unable to recognize the inherent political biases that are present in every piece of media, and therefore only notice it when it's both very obvious and in direct opposition to my only personally held political biases, biases which, due to a lack of self-awareness, I probably don't even recognize in my self."

As far as dumb what-ifs go, if the left, in the years since the appearance of the internet, had accorded even a fraction of the energy/resources expended in criticizing the political biases of media to criticizing the inherent biases of the technology of that media, the likelihood of certain monstrous calamities would surely have been minimized.

And yet we still persist under the insane delusion that sandwiching our culture's essential discourse in chunks between a live-feed of a baby panda cage and a low-res GIF culled from a television sitcom has no effect on its significance.

Post Reply