movies/tv Modern Movies and Meanings

[Fire_Fly 499]

I was debating this with my friend a few days ago, and I wanted to know what everypony here might have to say on the matter:

 

Are modern movies all special effects and visual candy, or do they carry messages and sentiment like old movies used to?

 

During our debate, the modern movie 'Sucker Punch' came to mind. It was a balanced combination of modern visual effects, and pure old-fashioned imagination. The plot was a mountain of twists and developments that were too original to be lumped together with most movies today.

[Jadefire 2,798]

It's tempting to be cynical these days, but you can still find movies with substance within today's eye candy.

[Swordfishtrombone 384]

See Momento and Primer. Otherwise I think alot of these new movies are a bit too "shiny shiny". Like Avatar, and most cheap 3-D movies. There always gonna be one somewhere.

[Fire_Fly 499]

I realize that special effects typically equate to more viewers, but I think the main problem with movies today is that production teams focus too much on that. Special effects and good visuals are fine, but they start diminishing the plot and any kind of message the movie is supposed to have, then it becomes a problem.

[ScottishUnicorn 284]

Define modern

[Fire_Fly 499]

Define modern

 

It mostly depends on who you ask, but I'm talking primarily about early/mid-90's to present day.

[Swordfishtrombone 384]

And yet those movies are the ones that hit the box office the most. Its a fad, they see that visuals draw in audiences. So by focusing on that aspect they are generating the greatest financial gain for the smallest loss. They wouldn't do it if it didn't work.

[ScottishUnicorn 284]

Well a Pulp Fiction is a pretty good movie from the mid nineties, Toy Story has quite a lesson behind it and it's great eye candy animation. Also Heat, Law Abiding Citizen, The King's Speech, the list goes on.

 

*edit* Can't believe I forgot Shawshank Redemption.

Edited March 11, 2012 by ScottishUnicorn

[Fire_Fly 499]

And yet those movies are the ones that hit the box office the most. Its a fad, they see that visuals draw in audiences. So by focusing on that aspect they are generating the greatest financial gain for the smallest loss. They wouldn't do it if it didn't work.

 

That's the thing. I'm not sure what annoys me more; the fact that most movies are turning into nothing but light-shows with actors thrown in, or the fact that people actually APPROVE of producers sacrificing plot and imagination for special effects. I don't get what makes it excusable for people to trim movies of the important things, and then replace them with more graphics.

[Swordfishtrombone 384]

You could find this lust for money at the price of quality in nearly everything these days. Music, movies, books, electronics, any product even. I've heard so much about it I've stopped caring really. Even the beloved MLP is a merchandise-driven IP.

[Fire_Fly 499]

This is true. I know the main goal of the production team behind anything is to make it sell, but at what cost, though? I just don't think they should have to KILL the production to SELL the production.

[Swordfishtrombone 384]

Well people who use autotune and computer enhancement aren't exactly famous for there goodwill and level of moral superiority. Remember that if not for some greedy captain of industry years ago, we probably wouldn't be able to read. Money is the ultimate goal of nearly anything, and will be attained at ANY price. Its just greed man, they don't care.

[SrFrog 927]

I'll give you that Sucker Punch is one of the nicest looking films in the last couple of years, but that's just it. The problem I see with modern films is that they lack substance and instead try to disguise plot devices behind computer effects or plain shock value.

[Fire_Fly 499]

I'll give you that Sucker Punch is one of the nicest looking films in the last couple of years, but that's just it. The problem I see with modern films is that they lack substance and instead try to disguise plot devices behind computer effects or plain shock value.

 

That's my problem with them, too. I don't understand why people respond to the lack of plot and cheap shock effort. It's like people have forgotten what real movies are, really.

[cuteycindyhoney 13,316]

I have a huge problem with what passes as comedy in movies today. (I sound old!) I was actually dismayed at how well received a movie about a group of people getting so mind damaging drunk that they didn't know what they did the day before. They even had a baby they got somewhere! I admit I never saw "The Hangover" but I see no humor in people being so stupidly drunk that they possibly kidnapped a baby, and have no idea where it came from. Then, this same group pf people were so damn stupid, that they did the same thing again in the sequel! If you want to see what I think is comedy, go and find a copies of "Arsenic and Old Lace" "Bringing Up Baby" and "Abbot and Costello Go to Mars". Oh, and any one of the Marx Brothers movies!

(Sorry, not a Stooges fan though)

 

More recently, there was 1986's "Ruthless People". I found this movie to be wickedly funny. Here's one of my favorite clips.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqUZ04UWRk4

 

 

Here's the main theme sung by Mick Jagger.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eYU2B67a0s

[Osaka Bomb 39]

It is kind of a shame to see films relying more on visual effects to impress people as opposed to any real substance. The most recent one I saw like that was The Immortals. The film looked pretty nice, and the fight scenes were...admittedly, pretty cool. But it is extremely rare that I care so little for what is actually going on in a film. Haha.

But I like it when films manage to effectively use newer visual effects to actually tell their story and give it substance. This is just my opinion, but I recently saw the movie Chronicle and I think did this very well. It used the "found footage" style of storytelling, but it wasn't a horror movie (although some parts could be considered scary, I suppose). But I felt like it was really more of a character driven story and really puts a realistic and human view on the idea of getting superpowers. I mean, they're high school kids who get these powers.

(I am going to majorly avoid spoilers for this, obviously)

But, yeah, I felt like it used more modern visual filmmaking techniques to simply tell a story of what would realistically happen, more or less, if these teenage kids suddenly got these incredible powers and how they'd use them to deal with things in their daily lives.

[Fire_Fly 499]

I haven't seen Chronicle, but I plan to after seeing ads for it. I respect the "found footage" camera style, and the visuals were pretty awesome. More than that, though, it did look like a developing storyline, and not just all grapic thrills, looking at the beginning of a few trailers, it seemed like the movie would take a while to "get started", which means there has to be some substance for the plot to get from point A to point B.

[Osaka Bomb 39]

Yeah, the found footage style is interesting. Chronicle was definitely a bit more slow paced. But not boring. The pace was excellently done, in my opinion. There's also The River. It's a horror tv show that's done in the found footage style, and they are doing it very well in terms of bringing a refreshing style to that genre.

[14griffin 1]

alot of it is just visual affects and dont usually have a morale

[Splashee 28,566]

On 3/11/2012 at 7:00 AM, Fire_Fly said:

Are modern movies all special effects and visual candy, or do they carry messages and sentiment like old movies used to?

There is nothing wrong with visual candy.

I think the audience has started to question how movies are, to the point where the movie makes had to respond. They can no longer just make special effects and get away with it. But it used to be that way. Again nothing wrong with making movies that just look pleasing.

[EpicEnergy 23,224]

It really depends on the movie, some modern movies have similar aspects to that of older movies.

[Dreambiscuit 10,168]

I think a lot of new movies, in fact most of them, are way over the top with CG effects and grossly deficient in plot and good writing. A special effect is not so special if it doesn’t stand in support of a good story. SPFX are enhancements to the plot and it should never be the other way around. Visuals these days are too often used as a crutch and audiences seem to gobble it up, to the point where studios don’t even have to try anything intellectual anymore, and it just gets boring. There are some exceptions but they become fewer every year.