Stephen Dorff BW garbage nonsense

[Dunkelzahn]

Has nothing to do with lazy. The point is we shouldn’t have to look for thought provoking movies. Unfortunately the industry only pushes anything that is sci-fi or horror. Even comedies are now on the back burner.

But getting back to the thread, ScarJo is a very talented actress, but it does seems she has been wasting her talents on the wrong type of movies.

She made more movies than just MCU ones. And most of the other ones were anything but wasted. JoJo Rabbit for one. Or one of her first Lost in Translation. If that is wasting her talents....

[Dunkelzahn]

Golden age Hollywood was among the good times.

The Bridge on the River Kwai, The Guns of Navarone, Rear Window used to be the highest grossing movies of their year.

For one thing Guns of Navarone was the action movie of its time. And if you should really see what movies were made during your mythical time. A ton of cowboy movies for one. But that were all important movies made with a vision I am sure.

[Immortal Weapon]

Although I disagree with how Dorff went after ScarJo. I have to admit that we are living in a sad film age when superhero movies rule the day. What happened to movies with good and important storylines that used to rule? What happened to movies that is made for intelligent adults rather than adult children? I think this what Dorff was trying to say. I think he was also trying to praise ScarJo. I think he is saying she such a great actress and shouldn’t be wasting her talents on a superhero film.

They are on streaming now.

[luprki]

They are on streaming now.

That is definitely true, because theaters has become blockbusters only houses.

[thwhtGuardian]

That is definitely true, because theaters has become blockbusters only houses.

...they never weren't.

I'm really confused as to when you think that "adult" dramas had the same footing as big money blockbusters at the cinemas...because that never actually happened in reality...ever. Serious dramas were always something that had fewer showings or were only screened in bigger cities that had theaters that specifically catered to a more art house clientele.


What time period do you think smaller films had more prominence?

[j9ac9k]

...they never weren't.

I'm really confused as to when you think that "adult" dramas had the same footing as big money blockbusters at the cinemas...because that never actually happened in reality...ever. Serious dramas were always something that had fewer showings or were only screened in bigger cities that had theaters that specifically catered to a more art house clientele.


What time period do you think smaller films had more prominence?

Pre "Star Wars." I don't agree with the uptight nostalgia of the MCU detractors, but I think it's just as wrong to take some hardline oppositional stance as though the film industry and movie theaters haven't changed in the last 60 years. There was a time before multiplexes and there was a time when a movie would stay in the theater for many months prior to the ubiquity of VCRs and cable, etc. The "adult dramas" weren't arthouse movies - they were the mainstream.

[Sutekh]

I blame Ben Hur and Cleopatra for getting movie audiences all over spectacle over story.

[inisideguy]

...they never weren't.

I'm really confused as to when you think that "adult" dramas had the same footing as big money blockbusters at the cinemas...because that never actually happened in reality...ever. Serious dramas were always something that had fewer showings or were only screened in bigger cities that had theaters that specifically catered to a more art house clientele.



What time period do you think smaller films had more prominence?

There was a time you can look back at the 70s where serious movies made real money in movie theaters, and also were the ones nominated for awards. Not sure when the "inflection" point where all this changed was. But it was sort of inevitable especially when special effects and CGI became more common. I mean for me personally why would I spend money on a good drama at the movie theater. Seeing it there doesnt add anything to the experience. Times change.

I should edit that and say there are a few serious dramas that I might go see. A Tarintino flick or something. But really even those I can enjoy at home just as easily. But younger people might go to the theater and watch things like Knives out that catches a wave. And of course horror movies and such.

[Bunch of Coconuts]

A Tarantino film is considered a "serious drama"?

[inisideguy]

A Tarantino film is considered a "serious drama"?

Good point. I just meant it is one of the types of movies I might consider going to the theater now a days other than a big blockbuster type movie IE marvel, Star Wars ect.

[j9ac9k]

It's funny - I used to only go the theaters to see Big action movies for the Big Screen experience, but since tvs have gotten bigger and better, I don't feel the same need. Instead, I'll more likely go to the theater for a comedy since experiencing humor with a big crowd is something that can't be replicated at home.

[thwhtGuardian]

Pre "Star Wars." I don't agree with the uptight nostalgia of the MCU detractors, but I think it's just as wrong to take some hardline oppositional stance as though the film industry and movie theaters haven't changed in the last 60 years. There was a time before multiplexes and there was a time when a movie would stay in the theater for many months prior to the ubiquity of VCRs and cable, etc. The "adult dramas" weren't arthouse movies - they were the mainstream.

It was the same pre-star wars too, for every "serious, adult drama" film there were ten that were what ever genre was popular then. The only thing you have right is that the theatrical window was longer but that doesn't have any bearing on the discussion at hand.

[Kirby101]

Jaws was the turning point for the summer blockbuster. Star Wars revived the SciFi FX movie.

[j9ac9k]

It was the same pre-star wars too, for every "serious, adult drama" film there were ten that were what ever genre was popular then. The only thing you have right is that the theatrical window was longer but that doesn't have any bearing on the discussion at hand.

Even if you had any evidence of this,(do you?) the thing to look at in terms of being relevant to his discussion (or at least the point I was bringing up about audience access) is how many screens those movies were shown on and how long they were in theaters before being moved aside. The number of "serious" v "genre" films released isn't relevant without that other information.

[thwhtGuardian]

Even if you had any evidence of this,(do you?) the thing to look at in terms of being relevant to his discussion (or at least the point I was bringing up about audience access) is how many screens those movies were shown on and how long they were in theaters before being moved aside. The number of "serious" v "genre" films released isn't relevant without that other information.

Pick a year, and pick a "serious" film that you believe had as much footing as the rest of the market and we'll see.

That Sturgeon's Law has been a thing for so long shows that it's known for a very good reason: it's true.