Cinema; A pessimistic view

[JAYTALITY]

90 odd percent of what I see in the cinema does be bog standard average rehashes. Some are blatant remakes and some are the same old stories with different titles done boringly.

There are few exceptions every so often but most Hollywood blockbusters are just expensively watery in my view. Expensively watery? Never heard of the idiom; to sell an African expensive water? Of course you haven't because I just made it up.

Where were we? Oh yeah expensive Hollywood blockbusters, to me, they are just uninteresting as art forms. I have come out of cinemas shaking my head so many times in the last ten years, I tend to stay clear.
I only see films I find out about before (and not from typical beauts that can't wait for the 2nd version of the 3rd Spiderman movie or whatever) but just from my own research and different ways and means, there are a few scumbags that I would listen to but I preemptively get a feel for the movies I want to go see. Evidently I did take a jelleton form of vagria with a close friend before I went to see Die Hard 4 but that was a different kinda preemptive feeling all together. Draw whatever 'die hard' pun from that if you wish.

Nightcrawler was decent, most entresting one I have seen and to reiterate; after a long series of bang average movies in my view.

 

[Tramps_mate]

Is this spam?

 

[coollino]

If you find a decent, independent cinema you'll pretty miss all those kinda films. With the exception of hunger games, I havent seen a Hollywood film in years.

Find it pretty easy to miss all that stuff I feel.

 

[sageyefc]

Who cares about the movies, only go for the ice blasts and to eat a alot of sweets

 

[ste d' indica]

If you find a decent, independent cinema you'll pretty miss all those kinda films. With the exception of hunger games, I havent seen a Hollywood film in years.

Find it pretty easy to miss all that stuff I feel.

This. Cast your net a little wider and there's great and innovative films being made, foreign and independent US and UK cinema is in good shape creatively.

 

[The Cowboy]

This. Cast your net a little wider and there's great and innovative films being made, foreign and independent US and UK cinema is in good shape creatively.

My nearest independent cinema is about 40 mins away, and still shows the same crap. For genuine non-blockbuster films I need to travel to London.

 

[Prevenger17]

90 odd percent of what I see in the cinema does be bog standard average rehashes. Some are blatant remakes and some are the same old stories with different titles done boringly.

There are few exceptions every so often but most Hollywood blockbusters are just expensively watery in my view. Expensively watery? Never heard of the idiom; to sell an African expensive water? Of course you haven't because I just made it up.

Where were we? Oh yeah expensive Hollywood blockbusters, to me, they are just uninteresting as art forms. I have come out of cinemas shaking my head so many times in the last ten years, I tend to stay clear.
I only see films I find out about before (and not from typical beauts that can't wait for the 2nd version of the 3rd Spiderman movie or whatever) but just from my own research and different ways and means, there are a few scumbags that I would listen to but I preemptively get a feel for the movies I want to go see. Evidently I did take a jelleton form of vagria with a close friend before I went to see Die Hard 4 but that was a different kinda preemptive feeling all together. Draw whatever 'die hard' pun from that if you wish.

Nightcrawler was decent, most entresting one I have seen and to reiterate; after a long series of bang average movies in my view.

I don't go to the cinema much myself anymore, but I think it's more to do with preferring the format of a TV series. Films, particularly blockbusters, try to cram a full plot and multiple character developments into about 2 and a half to 3 hours. With a TV show, there's no rush on a character arc and you get to see really good actors flesh out roles in ways that seems a lot more natural. I think a lot of Hollywood actors are making the jump to TV and Netflix because the roles are meatier and there is a much better and varied standard of scriptwriting talent, whereas most major films are following a stock formula that is becoming obsolete.

 

[ste d' indica]

I don't go to the cinema much myself anymore, but I think it's more to do with preferring the format of a TV series. Films, particularly blockbusters, try to cram a full plot and multiple character developments into about 2 and a half to 3 hours. With a TV show, there's no rush on a character arc and you get to see really good actors flesh out roles in ways that seems a lot more natural. I think a lot of Hollywood actors are making the jump to TV and Netflix because the roles are meatier and there is a much better and varied standard of scriptwriting talent, whereas most major films are following a stock formula that is becoming obsolete.

I think writers and directors are looking at TV for the same reason mate, much more scope to explore characters and ideas. But that does make an elegant narrative or theme captured and expressed well inside a couple of hours all the more impressive, a lot of films are pretty bloated these days, can't be arsed with 3 hours of hobbits fannying about for eexample.

 

[Pat's Van]

90 odd percent of what I see in the cinema does be bog standard average rehashes. Some are blatant remakes and some are the same old stories with different titles done boringly.

There are few exceptions every so often but most Hollywood blockbusters are just expensively watery in my view. Expensively watery? Never heard of the idiom; to sell an African expensive water? Of course you haven't because I just made it up.

Where were we? Oh yeah expensive Hollywood blockbusters, to me, they are just uninteresting as art forms. I have come out of cinemas shaking my head so many times in the last ten years, I tend to stay clear.
I only see films I find out about before (and not from typical beauts that can't wait for the 2nd version of the 3rd Spiderman movie or whatever) but just from my own research and different ways and means, there are a few scumbags that I would listen to but I preemptively get a feel for the movies I want to go see. Evidently I did take a jelleton form of vagria with a close friend before I went to see Die Hard 4 but that was a different kinda preemptive feeling all together. Draw whatever 'die hard' pun from that if you wish.

Nightcrawler was decent, most entresting one I have seen and to reiterate; after a long series of bang average movies in my view.

how are the chillies going mate ?

 

[coollino]

This is my local cinema

http://www.broadway.org.uk/

Listings at moment probably not the best but they do try and cover all ages. Good food too.

 

[coollino]

I think writers and directors are looking at TV for the same reason mate, much more scope to explore characters and ideas. But that does make an elegant narrative or theme captured and expressed well inside a couple of hours all the more impressive, a lot of films are pretty bloated these days, can't be arsed with 3 hours of hobbits fannying about for eexample.

Pretty much what Lynch said the other week. Soderbergh has done this too (although yet to watch The Knick).

 

[Seamus Colemole]

Boooooooooooooooo, Hollywood are evil and have no creativity when making loads of money.

Booooooooooooooooooo. Yet i still go pay to watch them.

 

[riddick]

This. Cast your net a little wider and there's great and innovative films being made, foreign and independent US and UK cinema is in good shape creatively.

Even Australia has done good independent films. Watched one the other day and had a reaction to it.....hang on, was it Horns? Can't recall if that was Australian but it was pretty good.

 

[andym78]

Big, expensive hollywood films are only made to make money. There's no 'art' to them.

So the studios use the same stories, ideas, actors, directors etc. because they know people will watch them and they don't want to take any risks.

 

[Allezfan]

Bunch of snobs. Most big expensivie dumb hollywood films are far more entertaining than the kind of 2 men in a basement serbian films about chilean economics that you all wank over.