[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Seriously???
Blazing Saddles
Airplane
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Naked Gun
Blues Brothers
Young Frankenstein
Life of Brian
History of the World Pt 1
Ferris Bueller's Day Off
Caddyshack
Trading Places
Ghostbusters

Do you want more?

For every actual good, smart comedy on that list (of which there are three at most, don't mistake nostalgia for quality), there are 50 mindless drecks like Weekend at Bernie's, Cannonball Run, Porky's, Student Bodies and endless amounts of crappy sequels.

[Jim Paradise]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Yeah but look at all the rest of the crap released that year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_in...leased_in_1982

Actually, I find that list to be really quite amazing. Seems like '82, on the whole, was a banner year for films.

[gradient]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Terrible. Any movie on the '80s list is way better than these three.

Obviously there is a tonne of personal taste and era bias at play in any discussion like this. My point wasn't that those movies were necessarily better, but that the overall quality hasn't changed much over the years.

Really, though, if you're seriously saying that you think Naked Gun was a way better film then I Heart Huckabees (), we should probably just mutually agree to not comment on each others' posts regarding film in general.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Porky's

One of the top-grossing movies of 1982.

Right.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

For every actual good, smart comedy on that list (of which there are three at most, don't mistake nostalgia for quality), there are 50 mindless drecks like Weekend at Bernie's, Cannonball Run, Porky's, Student Bodies and endless amounts of crappy sequels.

I'm not saying there aren't, but you basically wrote off all comedies from 1960-1989. My only point was that there are TONS of great comedies from that era, and I only posted a handful.

[ghporter]

I think this is actually appropriate to the main subject of our discussion:


There were a LOT of really fun comedies from the mid-60s through the early 2000s. But there were a lot more that were really bad wastes of film and time. I think there are a couple of rules we can apply: new and inventive stuff that's also funny constitutes "good," and rehashed, formulaic stuff that someone else thinks is funny is "not good." So if you hadn't seen a film like "Movie X" and you thought it was funny, it was "good," but if you'd seen "Movie X" and then you saw "Movie Y," which was the same story but set in Serbia instead of Seattle, then you'd think it was "bad."

Fortunately there were a lot of interesting ideas that didn't get rehashed. "Cat Ballou" was a pretty basic "overcoming adversity" story, in a Western frontier setting. But the way the story grew and evolved, and especially the way the characters evolved, made it both a pretty good story and a funny one. I'd never seen a drunk cowboy on a drunk horse before...

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I think this is actually appropriate to the main subject of our discussion:


There were a LOT of really fun comedies from the mid-60s through the early 2000s. But there were a lot more that were really bad wastes of film and time. I think there are a couple of rules we can apply: new and inventive stuff that's also funny constitutes "good," and rehashed, formulaic stuff that someone else thinks is funny is "not good." So if you hadn't seen a film like "Movie X" and you thought it was funny, it was "good," but if you'd seen "Movie X" and then you saw "Movie Y," which was the same story but set in Serbia instead of Seattle, then you'd think it was "bad."

That is true often enough, but there are definite exceptions.

Especially when you consider that a number of "classic" movies were remakes themselves.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

That is true often enough, but there are definite exceptions.

Especially when you consider that a number of "classic" movies were remakes themselves.

There are several instances of remakes with some of the same cast of stories within a few years of each other. Holiday Inn and White Christmas are two examples. Both were successful, maybe because of Bing Crosby, maybe because of the story. But just because it's a remake doesn't mean it's "bad." A lot of those remakes were successful because the original wasn't well made or marketed or both.

[besson3c]

ghporter and starman: have you seen Teen Wolf?

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by starman 

Looked up more movies that came out the summer of '82

Blade Runner
Conan the Barbarian
Annie
An Officer and a Gentleman
Secret of Nimh
The Thing
Fast Times at Ridgemont High
The Road Warrior

Along with what I stated already:

Rocky III
Star Trek II
Poltergeist
E.T.
Tron

So why is it that movies nowadays are such crap? It's like the music industry.

One good summer doesn't make a trend. Unless you could make most of the 80s summers look this good, than the summer of '82 is just an anomaly.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

One of the top-grossing movies of 1982.

Right.

Um, if you're trying to imply a movie is good because it was top-grossing, uh *cough* Revenge of the Fallen *cough* .

[besson3c]

Teen Wolf came out in 1985

[Dakar V]

Sorry to inform you that's not enough to carry the entire year.

[Laminar]

Or a meme.

[Dakar V]

Holy ****, what a Zing!

[Eug]

IMO the best movie of 1982 was Gandhi, but it didn't come out in the summer.

[Chuckit]

I skimmed the list of movies from 1985, and here are the ones that seem to be notable:

Back to the Future
Brazil
The Color Purple
Day of the Dead
Desperately Seeking Susan
The Goonies
Out of Africa
Pee-Wee's Big Adventure
Teen Wolf (I guess)
National Lampoon's European Vacation (I think this is one of the ones people like)

[Eug]

2002 for example:

Lord of the Rings: Two Towers
Spider-Man
My Big Fat Greek Wedding
The Pianist
Gangs of New York
28 Days Later
About A Boy
Adaptation
The Bourne Identity
Punch Drunk Love
Etc.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Um, if you're trying to imply a movie is good because it was top-grossing, uh *cough* Revenge of the Fallen *cough* .

God forbid.

I would imply that "Porky's" was a great movie? Sir!

That's a gauntlet if I've ever seen one.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Eug 

2002 for example:

Lord of the Rings: Two Towers
Spider-Man
My Big Fat Greek Wedding
The Pianist
Gangs of New York
28 Days Later
About A Boy
Adaptation
The Bourne Identity
Punch Drunk Love
Etc.

Yeah, but since then?

Nothing but crap.

Movies have got so stupid since 2002, er 1982, er 1968, er

[SpaceMonkey]

Talkies are so lame.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

God forbid.

I would imply that "Porky's" was a great movie? Sir!

That's a gauntlet if I've ever seen one.

"Porky's" was hardly great, but it had a decent story (plenty of solid plot, if a bit far fetched), good characters and was well made. I though it was a lot of fun for a "see it once" movie.

Great movies include films like Citizen Kane, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Color Purple, and Gone With the Wind. They are, and should be, few and far between. The rest of the movies made are there to show you just how good the really good ones are, and the really good ones are to show you how GREAT really great ones are.

[Dakar V]

Those are generally accepted great films.

Ferris Bueller's Day off? That's a great movie.

(Yes, I realize even I don't adhere to my own strict usage, but still)

[Eug]

I wonder why people try to differentiate these words, when it seems that most in the industry don't really make this distinction.

When I hear interviews, many people seem to use the words almost interchangeably.

[Railroader]

[My $0.02]

I think people often call something that was created as more of a work of art as a film, and something that was created strictly to entertain as a movie. Though I disagree and feel both terms could be used interchangeably. It is obvious that some movies were made as a deep work of art and aren't very entertaining, and some movies were made strictly to entertain and aren't very deep. Eyes Wide Shut is a work of art that is far from entertaining. Clerks is a movie that is extremely entertaining but is quite shallow.

Movies made lately are of such a high caliber of special effects work that the audience does not need to have much of an imagination. Even movies that on the surface appear to have no special effects still have scenes touched up post shooting to clean them up and perfect them. As such, I think directors are getting lazy. They are creating some scenes that aren't paramount to the story, or even add to it, but look cool and make a good trailer clip.

Though some movies have been MUCH better lately than nearly exact films that were shot decades ago. Take the stories of Superman and Batman. Even Star Trek is much better than movies in the series a decade ago.

Movies are much more expensive to make as audiences require epic stories lately. Actors are demanding outrageous salaries. Therefor, a studio can only make one movie with the same budget they could have made two or three films previously, even accounting for inflation.

[/My $0.02]

[starman]

Ok, for example....

"Knowing" was stupid because of the fact that the plot itself is flawed. Aliens whisper in the ear of a girl in 1959, giving her the information about every major disaster for the next 50 years, so the paper can GO IN A TIME CAPSULE? WHAT? This is so stupid because they unearth the thing mere days before the end of the frakkin' world. At the end you find out that only the "chosen ones" are able to go with the aliens a few hours before the sun sends out a wedgie to the Earth. Why on Earth would aliens do that to a poor girl 50 years before any of it would even frakkin' MATTER? On top of it, they have this MASSIVE spaceship, but OH NO, DAD, YOU CAN'T GO. YOU'RE NOT A CHOSEN ONE. WHAT? Is there no room in that MASSIVE spaceship for one more frakkin' person? On top of it, you come to find out that there are hundreds of these MASSIVE spaceships, so more than one person got the whispers about the disaster dates, but they wait until the last second to leave. Oh, did I mention that they have no room for the non-chosen ones? Then they flash forward where they leave the kids....KIDS off on the planet without a frakkin' adult in sight. No engineers, doctors, mathemeticians, politicians, teachers, NOTHING.

EDIT: Two more stupid points.

Apparently the girl in 1959 couldn't finish her paper, so what does she do? Hides in the janitor's closet and scratches the last of it on the door with her bloodied fingernails. STUPID. Why? Uh, she couldn't do it on another piece of paper?

Later in the film, Cage's son starts writing down the numbers again. WHY? THE END OF THE WORLD IS IN 12 HOURS. The numbers don't MEAN anything anymore. Why not just tell the kid the Lat/Long and be done with it?

STUPID, STUPID, STUPID.

Now, some people asked me "what did you expect?". Well, nothing THAT dumb.

EDIT 2:

My point is this: I'd rather have a movie that's not quite A-quality with a solid script than a flashy piece of crap with plot holes you can drive a Battlestar through. Take Krull. Why do I pick that? Because it was decently made. Not the best, but at least you can't pick the plot apart because things are so obvious.

[ApertureValue]

Ok, so you all paid to see these movies you hate, right?




The movie studio just pwned you. Their purpose has been fulfilled. Fortunately for me, I really don't get this worked up about movies.

[starman]

Originally Posted by ApertureValue 

Ok, so you all paid to see these movies you hate, right?




The movie studio just pwned you. Their purpose has been fulfilled. Fortunately for me, I really don't get this worked up about movies.

I rented it for $1. I don't think they pwned me. I think I pwned them.

[ghporter]

I think Railroader and Eug are completely correct-in most cases the difference between "film" and "movie" is that one of 'em has an extra letter. SOME productions qualify as "art" and can use the more pretentious sounding "film" seriously. But most of the people who make motion pictures (how's that for generic!?) will figure that their work is "art" whether it is or not. Ever see the American Airlines commercial with the movie producer who has a flaky director? A lot of directors are like that-clueless and just plain a pain.

Also, I think a lot of posts in this thread indicate that the posters take all of this personally. 99% of studios' execs and 99.999% of "film makers" couldn't care less whether you, I or anyone else thinks their work is worth the dog doo needed to cover it over. Taking their "artistic vision" seriously is the real "pwnage," and they win. Just don't give 'em your money if you don't want to play their game.

[ApertureValue]

Originally Posted by starman 

I rented it for $1. I don't think they pwned me. I think I pwned them.

Only if they didn't break even during the film's initial run, which, globally, most movies do. Once they've paid everybody, everything else is bank.

The point is, they got your $1, regardless of whether you liked the movie or not.

[ApertureValue]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

also, i think a lot of posts in this thread indicate that the posters take all of this personally.

qft.

[starman]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Also, I think a lot of posts in this thread indicate that the posters take all of this personally. 99% of studios' execs and 99.999% of "film makers" couldn't care less whether you, I or anyone else thinks their work is worth the dog doo needed to cover it over. Taking their "artistic vision" seriously is the real "pwnage," and they win. Just don't give 'em your money if you don't want to play their game.

There WAS a time when movies mattered to people personally.

[ApertureValue]

Originally Posted by starman 

There WAS a time when movies mattered to people personally.

I don't think he's saying that movies don't matter to people, because we all know that movies can be inspiring, romantic, sentimental, etc. But, for people to be up in arms about how movies don't particularly make THEM happy, and that movies are generally bad nowadays, that might be a bit excessive.

The same argument could be waged about music or art or architecture or waffle fries or microbrews. Everybody has their own opinion, and since nearly every movie ever made is PRETEND (no matter whether it's based on a true story or not), it's a little much to be so worked up about them.

[starman]

Originally Posted by ApertureValue 

I don't think he's saying that movies don't matter to people, because we all know that movies can be inspiring, romantic, sentimental, etc. But, for people to be up in arms about how movies don't particularly make THEM happy, and that movies are generally bad nowadays, that might be a bit excessive.

The same argument could be waged about music or art or architecture or waffle fries or microbrews. Everybody has their own opinion, and since nearly every movie ever made is PRETEND (no matter whether it's based on a true story or not), it's a little much to be so worked up about them.

Why does that matter to you? Aren't you kinda doing the same thing? Criticizing what someone thinks?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ApertureValue 

I don't think he's saying that movies don't matter to people, because we all know that movies can be inspiring, romantic, sentimental, etc. But, for people to be up in arms about how movies don't particularly make THEM happy, and that movies are generally bad nowadays, that might be a bit excessive.

The same argument could be waged about music or art or architecture or waffle fries or microbrews. Everybody has their own opinion, and since nearly every movie ever made is PRETEND (no matter whether it's based on a true story or not), it's a little much to be so worked up about them.

On the contrary, it would be much sillier to get worked up over something that was not pretend. "What? The ending of that burger run was so anticlimactic!"

[ApertureValue]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

On the contrary, it would be much sillier to get worked up over something that was not pretend. "What? The ending of that burger run was so anticlimactic!"

I would find it very amusing for that to be the case.

[ApertureValue]

Originally Posted by starman 

Why does that matter to you? Aren't you kinda doing the same thing? Criticizing what someone thinks?

Why does what matter to me? The fact that people in this thread are taking fake movies this seriously? I suppose it just seems a bit over the top, that's all.

Criticizing? Nope. Just a bit taken aback, that's all.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by starman 

Ok, for example....

 

"Knowing" was stupid because of the fact that the plot itself is flawed. Aliens whisper in the ear of a girl in 1959, giving her the information about every major disaster for the next 50 years, so the paper can GO IN A TIME CAPSULE? WHAT? This is so stupid because they unearth the thing mere days before the end of the frakkin' world. At the end you find out that only the "chosen ones" are able to go with the aliens a few hours before the sun sends out a wedgie to the Earth. Why on Earth would aliens do that to a poor girl 50 years before any of it would even frakkin' MATTER? On top of it, they have this MASSIVE spaceship, but OH NO, DAD, YOU CAN'T GO. YOU'RE NOT A CHOSEN ONE. WHAT? Is there no room in that MASSIVE spaceship for one more frakkin' person? On top of it, you come to find out that there are hundreds of these MASSIVE spaceships, so more than one person got the whispers about the disaster dates, but they wait until the last second to leave. Oh, did I mention that they have no room for the non-chosen ones? Then they flash forward where they leave the kids....KIDS off on the planet without a frakkin' adult in sight. No engineers, doctors, mathemeticians, politicians, teachers, NOTHING.

EDIT: Two more stupid points.

Apparently the girl in 1959 couldn't finish her paper, so what does she do? Hides in the janitor's closet and scratches the last of it on the door with her bloodied fingernails. STUPID. Why? Uh, she couldn't do it on another piece of paper?

Later in the film, Cage's son starts writing down the numbers again. WHY? THE END OF THE WORLD IS IN 12 HOURS. The numbers don't MEAN anything anymore. Why not just tell the kid the Lat/Long and be done with it?

STUPID, STUPID, STUPID.

Now, some people asked me "what did you expect?". Well, nothing THAT dumb.

EDIT 2:

My point is this: I'd rather have a movie that's not quite A-quality with a solid script than a flashy piece of crap with plot holes you can drive a Battlestar through. Take Krull. Why do I pick that? Because it was decently made. Not the best, but at least you can't pick the plot apart because things are so obvious.

Uh...maybe a spoiler tag if you're going to recount an entire current movie?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by starman 

There WAS a time when movies mattered to people personally.

SOME movies mattered to some people. If they had the time for non-productive entertainment, they went to the movies. There was no television, no Internet, no national weekly magazines tailored to incredibly specific interests. Just movies and radio.

At one time movies and radio were the only mass media beyond print, and they fulfilled ALL of the public's needs. Television was supposed to "kill" the film industry and instead it caused it to reinvent itself into both motion picture and television production. The Internet was supposed to kill television, and instead now we often watch television online. It's an evolution, both in the media and our needs and desires.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Television was supposed to "kill" the film industry...

Funny you should mention that... in some places television has "killed" the film industry. For example... Greece. They had a *thriving* film industry in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. Many good movies (and many not-so-good movies, but much better than anything made for TV). There were top notch actors who demonstrated that they could play a range of roles... comics who could do drama, etc. Lots of films have scenes filmed in a taverna where one of the popular musicians or bouzouki players of the day would play their songs while the characters would dance to them.

Then, television came. The 1980s and 1990s are full of crap movies. Gone were the scenes of characters having a good time dancing to the bouzoukis of George Zambetas or Manolis Hiotis (look them up on YouTube. Most of what you'll find there are scenes from the movies I just mentioned). The stuff that television demands of actors is less demanding, thus you get wooden performances, and heaven help us if the role requires something other than what the actor is known for.

This was brought home to me recently because I saw two Greek movies, both intended for the movie theatre. One from 1965, and one from 2007. The one from 1965 featured an actress who played dual roles. She played a woman who looked like the actress and got mistaken for her all the time, and she played herself, the actress. Both were totally different performances. Not to mention that she has a great singing voice (Rena Vlahopoulou). The one from 2007 was terrible from an acting standpoint. In fact, they had one of the same actors from the 1965 movie in the 2007 movie and the differences in acting ability were readily apparent.

[jokell82]

You think television came in the 80s???

[starman]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Uh...maybe a spoiler tag if you're going to recount an entire current movie?

Spoiler already posted on page one.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

The one from 1965 featured an actress who played dual roles. She played a woman who looked like the actress and got mistaken for her all the time, and she played herself, the actress. Both were totally different performances.

Like Bowfinger.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Like Bowfinger.

Yes, but Eddie Murphy played two different characters, a movie star (not named Eddie Murphy) and his brother.

In the movie I saw, Rena Vlahopoulou played Jenny, a woman who looked like Rena Vlahopoulou, and she played herself.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

You think television came in the 80s???

No, but it took that long for all the good actors to get too old to play young characters.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

Yes, but Eddie Murphy played two different characters, a movie star (not named Eddie Murphy) and his brother.

In the movie I saw, Rena Vlahopoulou played Jenny, a woman who looked like Rena Vlahopoulou, and she played herself.

Like Julia Roberts in Ocean's Twelve.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

The stuff that television demands of actors is less demanding, thus you get wooden performances, and heaven help us if the role requires something other than what the actor is known for.

I don't think it's necessarily less demanding. They just get fewer takes.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I don't think it's necessarily less demanding. They just get fewer takes.

It's a combination of factors... smaller budgets, not as many takes, and yes, less demanding roles (an audience's expectation for TV is lower than for movies in many cases).

[Shaddim]

Best year for movies? Why, 1939, of course.

Gone With The Wind
The Wizard Of Oz
Gunga Din
Stagecoach
The Hound Of The Baskervilles
The Hunchback Of Notre Dame
The Lady Vanishes
Mr. Smith Goes To Washington
Of Mice and Men
Wuthering Heights
Ninotchka
The Rules of the Game
The Women
The Adventures Of Sherlock Holmes
Love Affair
Drums Along The Mohawk
Charlie Chan in the City In Darkness
Goodbye, Mr. Chips
Only Angels Have Wings
The Saint Strikes Back
Union Pacific

I'd probably put 1999 as second, because two of my top five favorites came out that year:

Fight Club
American Beauty
The Matrix
Toy Story 2
Being John Malkovich
Magnolia
Office Space
The Green Mile
The Virgin Suicides
The Blair Witch Project
Run Lola Run
The Insider
The Sixth Sense
October Sky
The Iron Giant
The Limey
Princess Mononoke
Boondock Saints

and that Star Wars thing, which was disappointing but did have a large impact.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

The stuff that television demands of actors is less demanding, thus you get wooden performances, and heaven help us if the role requires something other than what the actor is known for.

Series television is VERY demanding both physically and mentally. Performers work very long hours-often bored out of their skulls waiting for a shot to act in, but other stuff gets in the way and they wait, wait, wait. There are major compromises in how the actor gets to perform, based on a production schedule that usually means six, 14+hour days to get all the script filmed without any of the shots being too bad. Performances are driven by the director and the script-you'd be surprised how GOOD a lot of television actors are when they have a solid script and a decent director-and a little elbow room for actually performing.

Of course that all really only applies to hour-long dramatic shows. Most of television is still sitcom rubbish that is SUPPOSED to be formulaic tripe because that's what Joe Sixpack (aged 22.34, income between $31,500 and $45,5000, education between 0 and 2 years of college, living alone in an urban location, no pets) ASKS for through supporting the shows' advertisers. And still, a LOT of those performers are WAY better than you see on TV because sitcoms are made on a production line too.