The Big Screen vs The Small Screen

[miguel1984]

I go to the movies once per month and there are plenty of good movies being released, but it is a shame that the most interesting films, like Loving Vincent or Mother, are overshadowed by superhero crap.

[Ascrobius]

I don't give the Hollywood establishment my money, at least in terms of going to see a film on a big screen. With the garbage they tend to produce at this point, it just isn't worth it. I won't even get into the "programming" and "social engineering" aspects of Hollywood and the system as a whole. They, in many ways, have become another propaganda arm of the "system", if you will, although those connections were established long, long ago, something that's been documented rather extensively.

[bendk]

What keeps me out of the theater more than anything is that they will list a movie as starting at 2:00 PM, and then it doesn't start until almost 2:30. They force you to watch nearly a half an hour of commercials first. The last movie I saw at the theater was Blade Runner 2049. It was a fine film, but a little longish. I bet I was in the theater for three hours. That's a bit much.

[GirlyGirlMask]

My wife and I take the kids to the movies once in a while for the new Disney or Pixar releases, or Star Wars, etc. I always end up falling asleep ten minutes in. But that's fine, I can always use a good nap.

But I'm no longer interested in the Hollywood blockbuster fare. There's nothing wrong with it, it just doesn't appeal to me. I just don't think there are many good films or filmmakers anymore. I'd much rather go on filmstruck and watch the classics from the masters of cinema. I can do that in my mancave in front of a huge TV with surround sound, and can even pause the film when I want to use the restroom, get high, etc.

[GirlyGirlMask]

Quote Originally Posted by bendk

What keeps me out of the theater more than anything is that they will list a movie as starting at 2:00 PM, and then it doesn't start until almost 2:30. They force you to watch nearly a half an hour of commercials first. The last movie I saw at the theater was Blade Runner 2049. It was a fine film, but a little longish. I bet I was in the theater for three hours. That's a bit much.

Yes, I know. And the trailers...every movie is the same thing. It's like there is a formula and they all have it down to a science. The movies all look the same, and the trailers all look (and sound) the same. Bass drops, tubas blaring, crappy electronic music one of my kids could have written on a casio keyboard. Barf.

There are a lot of good films still being made. It's just that the big pop culture ones are uninteresting, whereas in previous decades many great films would often rise to the top. The benefit of the modern age is that we now have access to more films than ever before, so it somewhat evens out.

2017 films I saw and enjoyed:

The Love Witch
Get Out
The Blackcoat's Daughter
It Comes at Night
A Ghost Story
Gerald's Game
Raw
Baby Driver
Prevenge
Split

[GirlyGirlMask]

Quote Originally Posted by James

There are a lot of good films still being made. It's just that the big pop culture ones are uninteresting, whereas in previous decades many great films would often rise to the top. 2017 films I saw and enjoyed: The Love Witch Get Out The Blackcoat's Daughter It Comes at Night A Ghost Story Gerald's Game Raw Baby Driver Prevenge Split

Maybe I'll check a few of those out. I'm just incredibly snobbish and pretentious about films. I hate the way modern cinema is edited, and I don't like the pacing of most newer films I see. Shots never linger...I think I read that the average length of a shot in a film these days is 3 seconds. It's all so A.D.D. And over half the shots in a film these days are close ups, it's like watching two hours of floating heads. The close up was intended to have an impact, to put an emphasis on an important detail or highlight a character's emotions in an intense moment. I want to see things in a beautifully composed wide shot, where the actors and director have worked hard to establish blocking and camera movements, where the shot is a longer take and the talent is on display. It's too easy to just cut back and forth between close-ups of actors' faces with a fuzzy background. That doesn't take any skill at all. I'm rambling here, my apologies.

[Robert Adam Gilmour]

If you don't live near an independent cinema and investigate what they're showing, you're probably going to struggle to see many good films at the cinema.
I don't really pay much attention or care enough to seek out good films at the cinema for their own sake, so I don't see much. I'm happier with whatever I can find for home viewing and honestly it's mostly procrastinating.

I liked Handmaiden, Villainess and I Am Not Your Negro. Baby Driver, Head Shot and Prevenge were okay but I don't think anything else made a strong impression.

Quote Originally Posted by GirlyGirlMask

Maybe I'll check a few of those out. I'm just incredibly snobbish and pretentious about films. I hate the way modern cinema is edited, and I don't like the pacing of most newer films I see. Shots never linger...I think I read that the average length of a shot in a film these days is 3 seconds. It's all so A.D.D. And over half the shots in a film these days are close ups, it's like watching two hours of floating heads. The close up was intended to have an impact, to put an emphasis on an important detail or highlight a character's emotions in an intense moment. I want to see things in a beautifully composed wide shot, where the actors and director have worked hard to establish blocking and camera movements, where the shot is a longer take and the talent is on display. It's too easy to just cut back and forth between close-ups of actors' faces with a fuzzy background. That doesn't take any skill at all. I'm rambling here, my apologies.

I would strongly argue that the editing you are referring to at the end there (the 'shot reverse shot') was far more prevalent during classic cinema than it is today. Even in big budget shlock the camera movement and editing is generally more dynamic in conversations than the average 1940s film:

Casablanca (4/6) Movie CLIP - I Still Love You (1942) HD - YouTube

Spider-Man: Homecoming - Tony Takes Peters Suit Scene (HD) - YouTube

Both random examples of mainstream studio films from both eras I could YouTube. The Spidey scene soon settles into the same grammar as the 40s scene.

In terms of the length of a shot, I don't find a fast or slow editing style more valid than the other, and each can be executed wonderfully or poorly. It doesn't take any less skill if the shots aren't around for as long a time. If anything there is even more pressure for the director and cinematographer to convey all of the information and beauty in a shorter span of time.

Requiem for a Dream - Hip Hop Montage Manipulating Time - YouTube

[Robert Adam Gilmour]

I like ADD films when done well but I think the real problem is just mainly lazy storytelling and overuse of computers. Perhaps a narrowing of visual language?