There is a strong message in the film Idiocracy that shows a future due to happen if Hollywood has its way.
Entertainment was in a slow spiral of stupidity, and independent thought was discouraged and civilization crumbles. We see this brave new world through the eyes of an “average” man who is put into hibernation for 500 years. When he emerges, he is easily recognized as the smartest man on the planet.
So this brings me to ask, can we just be entertained without being made stupid?
I started thinking this based on a question DJ Machismo offered in a comment. “Does anyone go to the movies anymore to be entertained? To have fun?” and I have to agree.
Does every movie have to be an Oscar contender. Can movies be made with tons of entertaining qualities and still not just be an insult to our intelligence?
I am not talking about BAD movies, but why is it when there is an entertaining movie, people automatically start calling it a crap movie because it didn’t change their entire life. Can’t we just watch something blow up without going into a deep dissection of why and how it happened.
Sometimes things just blow up. And it makes us smile.
The obvious example of this is the often debated and hated Transformers. I thought the movie rocked. I love it. As a purist, I had to admit that despite the changes, it still held true to the “spirit” of Transformers. People complained that it had too many of Bay’s trademarks (waving flag, meteor strikes, wide pan angles) and are quick to make presumptions about the sequel because they don’t like Michael Bay movies.
At the same time, people are quick to defend Jackass and spoof movies like Meet the Spartans. If I dare say that Jackass was stupidity, I get a lot of flack saying “You just don’t get it”.
Some movies are just bad because they are stupid. Not because I “feel” they are stupid, but because they are. People cannot even begin to think they can defend the deeper meaning of the Jackass movies. They purely are just one scene after another to make you say “WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT?” and flinch a lot. I know some people have some entertainment with that, and that is fine, but call it what it is. Stupidity.
So can movies just be entertaining? Why are people so critical over movies just because they were just entertaining. Perhaps you didn’t like a movie or didn’t find it entertaining. If someone else enjoyed them then so be it. Let them.
Movies are made to entertain. Despite some failures, we have to assume that this is the mission of every filmmaker out there when they undertake the process. Not all movies are going to be moving like The Power of One. And not all comedies will make you laugh.
If people enjoy fluffy action, cool. Stupidity, that’s fine too. Opinions are like bellybuttons. We all have em.
What movies are you tired of hearing the same griping about that you still managed to be entertained with?
I’d have to say I’m constantly entertained by Uwe Boll’s films. Simply because I go into them knowing that they’re not going to be great, just mindless fun. I grab a beer and forget about my day.
See… Like I said: “Entertainment is subjective”… Some great points raised by many…
Classy.
Unlike most 18 year olds, you write excellently.
Lara Croft 1 and 2. More fun than I ever expected, twice!
Posts 12, 13, 26 and 32 make excellent points. I feel the same way about comic books as post 32 does about animated films which I also like very much.
Roger Ebert always tries to find the type of audience for a film when he reviews it. This can largely be applied to the genre that film belongs to (when it can be categorized in one) and the base requirements of said genre.
Films can be either entertainment, thought-provoking, informative or all of the above. It’s knowing what a film is aiming for and how much it succeeds at it. Certainly it would be great if all films were all of the above and that is what filmmakers should be aiming for, however, there are certain types of films that I feel do not need or even should encompass all these aspects. I think this is where some people are maybe expecting too much or too little.
I find it common for some people to make invalid criticisms of a movie simply because it didn’t fulfill their expectations when it is clear that the movie never meant to and was aiming for something else. This is an extreme example but just to clarify my point. “I hate Lord of the Rings because that shit can’t happen in real life.” There is a suspension of disbelief that is required or expected and the only way to know this is for the film to establish its own internal set of rules or logic to create a sense of believability and natural flow/progression.
Another point is what is one’s definition of entertainment? Is seeing a film about genocide or war or serial killing necessarily entertaining? It could be a great thought provoking informative film but entertaining? Maybe not so much unless it somehow manages to be a satire but there are times when entertainment and thought provoking/informative simply don’t mix.
To me entertainment mainly comes in the form of action and/or comedy and a good story that is thought provoking. It doesn’t necessarily have to be informative of or wet within the circumstances of any current events, history etc. but that can certainly enhance a film but also limit its accessibility. I can understand that for some movie fans a good, though provoking story isn’t necessary for entertainment purposes.
I don’t think Transformers was a good movie with a good story. Could it have been? Of course, all movies can be and should aim to be but what was this film aiming for really? Mainly it was aiming for entertainment in the form of lots of robot fight action. Did we get that?…not much. There weren’t many action scenes and they were poorly filmed with lots of quick cuts and fast moving shots that made some of the action impossible to follow. The transformations went by so quickly I couldn’t appreciate them. The final battle and defeat of Megatron was super lame and anticlimatic. Thus I found this movie to be lacking in its base requirement to entertain. My opinion on the movie was based on no preconceptions of Michael Bay or Transformers cartoon having never watched it as a kid. I only knew who Optimus Prime was and that’s it. If there’s one thing that’s lacking is that I don’t have any means to determine whether the film captured the spirit of the cartoon or not. Whatever the spirit the film had, I did not feel it.
Spider-man 3 on the other hand had more tangible expectations for me following the excellent Spider-man 2 and the comics. Was it a disappointment in the character/story department, yes but was it entertaining? Also a yes. It had some great action scenes even if Venom was not handled so well. Spidey vs Sandman, Spidey vs Goblin and then Spidey/Goblin vs Sandman/Venom were highly entertaining. The plot was contrived to get to those scenes but there was enough entertainment to make it worthwhile. Yes when comparing it to previous films it was a colossal disappointment but judging it on its own merits compared to Transformers, it was more entertaining. My opinion is based on having read many Spidey comics. A lot of things bugged me about the movie but in the end I got at least one thing I wanted which was some good old Spidey action.
For me, only comedies can sometimes be brainless entertainment. Everything else needs to have a story that makes sense, good acting, good directing, and everything you’d generally expect from a good movie. I don’t mind an action movie with a THIN, simple plot, but I do mind one with a DUMB, stupid plot – like Transformers, for example. And I can ignore some flaws as long as the movie has enough redeeming qualitites and it doesn’t insult my intelligence too much.
I loved Idiocracy and I think that’s exactly where we’re going. I HATE it how some people look at movies just as “entertainment”. That they go to see a movie just to be “entertained”. This is probably the most powerful medium, with which you could achieve amazing results in impacting people, and all you use it for is nice fireworks and cheap entertainment? Reminds me of another stupid preconceived idea, that animation is just for kids. It took the Japanese to show what this kind of art is capable of, what amazing results you could achieve with it. It’s the same with movies.
Classy,
I wish you were in the majority in your age group instead of your friends. The quality of ALL films would skyrocket if teenagers didn’t go and see everything, no matter how crappy.
Vic
Look at a movie that is considered one of the greatest ‘The Godfather,’ the heart of the story is gangsters, then look at all the gangster movies that just don’t stack up with Godfather. Hell, look at Godfather III. If you can be entertained by Godfather III, well more power to you, I certainly can’t be entertained by that crap.
I will never understand why the studios spend all that dough to make a movie when they must know it can’t be any good. The premise is flawed, the actors aren’t any good, or what have you. Must be a tax shelter thing.
I will also never understand why a studio would spend the dough to make a movie like Watchmen if they are going to make the Watchmen as Interpreted by Zach whats-is-name, instead of just making the Watchmen. Ridiculous. Why by the rights to the Watchmen if you are going to change the story?
Well Alfie, as far as your point about Daredevil and Ghost Rider, I’ll counter with the X Men films, Batman Begins and Hellboy. ;)
I do think we have pretty much the same ratio of good to bad as we always did. I could pick out loads of films from the past decade that were exceptionally good and entertaining. Yes, there’s crap like the films you’ve mentioned, but there’s still loads of awesome ones.
Come on… Serenity? Pirates of the Caribbean (First one)?
Alfie@
Today is easy to make entertainment movies.
recipe is 2 or 3 cutie faces for the heros,1 ugly for the badie,1 director (cinema experience not required)and some good money for the CGI.
Very easy combo to make.
In the past this kind of production always ended on the hands of the the little studios(cannon,golan globus),so less money to produce less shit to hit the market.
karl hungus has a good point though..there was a ton of shit bacxk in the day absolutley but I am sorry these days for every casino royale there is a daredevil, a ghost rider and 2 transporters…..
i just feel that the makers of these types of films today are lazy. they rely on special effects more then they do the thing we are all ultimately there for….to see a great story unfold. why can;t we have both the great effects and the great story, acting and every thing else that goes into making truly great films.
lets face it…and this is coming from someone who liked transformers but at the end of the day the story was terrible…all it had going for it was the action….
and while I managed to enjoy it imagine how truly great it could have been in the hands of a truly talented film maker as opposed to the hack that bay is. and make no mistake..bay is a hack in the truest sense of the word.
classy you have a good point about bay….you really do get the feeling at the end of the day he doesn’t give a shit as long as shit looks cool. all he cares about is that explosion and that slow mottion helicopter and that is why he is the absolute definiton of style over substance his films are big loud noisy empty spectacles with nothing to offer outside of that.
compare the action films of today against the action films of yesteryear..not to sound like an old miserable “back in the good old days” moaning cunt but compare raiders of the lost arc, ghostbusters, die hard, lethal weapon, robocop etc to what we get today…..what are their equals??
lethal weapon is at its heart big loud obnoxious action film but richard donner wasn’t content to let it be just that….he brings so much more to it and makes it transcend its genre.
he proves it doesn’t have to aim for the explosion and nothing else. you care about the characters..does anyone seriously claim to give one shit about any character in the bad boys movies at all?? does anyoen give two shits if the driver in the transporter saves the day?? no you don’t but you sure as shit want to see riggs make it out alive…
you wanted john mclane to live and want him and his wife to get back together.
you really cared if murphy reclaimed some of his humanity and kicked clarence boddickers ass….
I am not saying all films have to be masterpieces and change the world every time but they do not have be lazy and stupid either….and that seems to be what we are dished more often than not.
I don’t know whay we have to accept that big effects films justt have to be inane nonsense with no substance. we pay the same amount to see them as we do other films so why can’t we expect more.
OK. I am a teenager who will turn 18 in a few months. The entertainment argument is a frequent one I have with friends. Let’s take Transformers as an example. My friend loved it, I hated it. His argument was that I couldn’t just be entertained by a movie. My argument was that he(a very intelligent person) should have higher standards and not be entertained by crap. I pretty much agree with Karl Hungus, except that Crank is a terrible movie. There have been recent films which could easily be described as “popcorn” “entertainment” movies which have value to them. Spiderman 1 and 2, Casino Royale, The Bourne Movies, Batman Begins, Grindhouse, and even Lord of the Rings are all entertainment movies from just the last couple years. If you go back you will find a great tradition of entertaining movies, such as Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Arc, Back to the Future, Die Hard, Jaws, etc. The list can go on and on. I wouldn’t think Transformers was worthy of being mentioned in the same sentence as these films. Neither are any of the summer movies of 2007 or even 2006 If we are being really honest. I would even go so far as to say that I was entertained by movies such as The Departed and No Country for Old Men. Yes, in the past there were bad movies, but they were usually not as excepted by the public at large(for more on this listen to the Hollywood Saloon episode called Apocalypse Hollywood 4. Then listen to the rest of their shows, best podcast on the net.)
In conclusion, there is much more to say on this topic. Ultimately, I do watch movies to be entertained. One of my favorite directors of all time is John Carpenter. I’m just tired of people using the “just entertain” theory to criticize me. As a high school student who hated Transformers, I can tell you that I feel very alone in my world. But I will say that i took the same friend who loved Transformers, mentioned above, to see No Country for Old Men, and he loved that as well. Not that every film needs to be on that level, but can’t they try a little harder? I don’t think Michael Bay gives two shits about film making. It’s just a job. I would bring up Rob Zombie, who is certainly not brilliant by any stretch of the imagination, but he’s not as bad as John(I know he didn’t write this post) says he is. Watching his films and special features for his films, I can say that his passion for film making is intense and visible. Likewise with the hundreds of directors like Spielberg, who can entertain at least as well as Michael Bay. And if you think Transformers was the best science fiction film of the year, you should go rent Sunshine.
Karl@
1n Murtaugh and Righs we trust!
Not trying to blind me self though!
We had some stinkers back there too!
You see… just to point that standers are variable i KIND OF enjoyed Red sonja.(im a scwharzie sucker).
Oh, and Leathal Weapon! Seriously entertaining, seriously good movie.
Takata – I think people generally forget a lot of the bad 80’s action films, and honestly, there were a lot of them. For every Conan there was a Red Sonja. So I don’t think that action movies were nessicerally better back then, because there’s been great ones recently as well, I wouldn’t look back with rose tinted glasses.
I guess we just didn’t have as many people making excuses for them, and saying “What did you expect?” or “It’s just entertainment.”
¨Honestly, I think we’re taking far too many bad movies on the chin these days.¨AGREE 100%
i think its a sign of the times we live.
Someone here agree with me thats 15 or 20 years ago,the action movie industry was A LOT BETTER then today?
Still,if you take movies like 300 or CRANK or any other people citted above you will see thats ACTION PACKED,GOOD WRINTING,CONVINCING ACTING,GOOD DIRECTION can be inserted in a entertaining movie as well.
EYE CANDY IS GOOD and i can see why people say ¨ITS JUS A FREAKING MOVIE¨.
EXAMPLE:
If you look back for movies like Total Recall you can easily see all the points you writed on this and in your last post.
The movie is not like the book,Arnie and Sharon play their roles like piece of wood and has a lot af eye candy action sequences,still its a better movie then a lot of the todays action movies(well this in my opinion).
So maybe the reason is that i am getting old and dont understand what youngsters think is fun TODAY.
Or filmakers get the quality levels downgraded because they think they dont have to go that far,AFTER ALL ITS JUST ENTERTAIMENT!
Movies are movies and are made to entertain. There are many levels of entertainment as there are people. A level 15 entertainment person will disagree with a level 42 person. All based on what they thought was entertaining. Remember people – IT’S JUST A FREAKIN MOVIE!!
Honestly, I think we’re taking far too many bad movies on the chin these days.
Why can’t a movie be both entertaining and actually GOOD? Off the top of my head, The Matrix, Casino Royale, Crank, Gladiator, the Die Hard films, they’ve all been vastly entertaining. There’s a lot more I could name, but the point is, a film can be hugely entertaining, and at the same time, not be a condescending piece of rubbish that makes your brain hurt while watching it.
Why settle with an inferior product? Why berate those who don’t?
Nobody is saying that every film should be a Coen Brothers-a-like, but I think we should expect some quality from films. Spielberg crafted some of the most entertaining films of all time in the Indiana Jones trilogy (And I’m sure the new one will follow suit), Paul Verhoeven did it with the likes of Robocop and Total Recall, John McTiernan did it with Predator and Die Hard. John Woo crafted some absolutely terrific films like Hard Boiled, The Killer, Bullet in the Head and so forth, which were not just supremely entertaining, but also pretty flawless in other aspects.
And honestly, I’m not going to excuse a bad film (Unless it falls into the “So-bad-it’s-good” category) because I’m simply not entertained. If a film is crappy, contrived, it’s going to impede my enjoyment of the film.
To me this discussion is kind of pointless.
I’m not walking into ANY movie expecting it will change my life or in some significant way alter my level of thinking or makes me see the world with different eyes.
I want a movie to entertain me and I expect nothing else.
I’m not overly critical and if a film is just charming, I’m willing to overlook a lot of flaws, just because I have a good time with it.
Is BARBARELLA a smart, well-thought through and amazingly executed movie? God no, but it entertains the hell out of me and I love it with all my heart.
There is so much that can be said about this topic, yet I want to throw something else in here:
The contrary is the case with most movie-going audiences nowadays. Most people will judge a movie far too kindly, people aren’t too critical, but not critical enough. That’s the way I see it.
This is a wonderful article, but I have to disagree for the same reasons as Alfie. Why can’t we expect more?
Yes, there are movies I watch (usually on DVD) that I am not expecting much more than to be entertained. Even if I am entertained by a movie there is always a part of me that wished it could have been better. A part of me that says you know, that really wasn’t a good movie, but it entertained me and so I forgive the parts that were lacking.
Like a lot of people I enjoy mindless entertainment; however I enjoy it even more when it goes that extra mile to have good performances and a cohesive story.
I recently watched Shoot ‘Em Up with my brother, we were both a few drinks in and ready for an action flick with a lot of cool action. Did we get that? Yes. Was it a good movie? HELL NO. This movie was horrible, but I was forgiving because I got the action I was looking for with a side eye candy to go with it. Honestly, I’m tempted to watch this movie again, completely sober, and see if it still entertains. I’m afraid it won’t and I’ll ruin the fun my brother and I had watching it even though we were groaning and laughing at how horrible the story (or lack there of) was.
Some good posts on both sides, but I agree with Alfie on the major point of “why must the movies that ‘entertain us’ be fluff instead of worthy contention come Oscar time”. There seems to be a lot of differing opinions as to what makes a “good” film good vs a “great” one. There are those of us that at times enjoy movies for what they are, and at others demand more from what we’re expecting. I think that’s the underlying aspect. If we “expect” a movie to be “great” then we raise our standards as to what we’re watching (and vice versa). Over the years of repetition by Hollywood, we’ve become our own “critics” and judge movies before they’re released based on what we know is coming. Then we’re surprised when there’s even the slightest change for the better/worse.
The basics of entertainment can change over time, and unfortunately, I believe we don’t have movies push our limits much (our mental capacities, not just our tastes). Instead of rehashing this Transformers thing to death (yet again) let’s look at The Matrix. The first one kicked ass, took names, and left people wanting more. It had depth of story, excellent action second-to-none, and the hero wasn’t some “geeky nerd with no sense of self” that scored the chick (because he was believable as a guy that didn’t take the world so seriously).
When we get to the sequels, everyone’s all on the trilogy calling is blasphemous, not as good as the original, etc., criticizing the story that didn’t seem to push the same buttons the original did (or maybe pushed too far?). Personally, being a philosophical person, I could enjoy the second and third instalments almost as much as the first. Sure there’s things to change, but the “entertainment value” was still there, just not the “expectation value”.
Rodney, you mentioned the Jackass films, where people say to you “you just don’t get it”. Well, I’m one of the people that don’t get it either. I don’t get why shooting your friends in the nuts with a paintball gun is fun(ny), nor do I get why fart jokes and puke are all the rage amongst highschool/parody flicks either. There’s no “entertainment” value in those sorts of things to me, but there are to the subjective, young, and dare I say uninformed minds of the youth? At the end of the day, it’s still all subjective to what we expect and what “entertainment” means to us personally, and individually.
“Can’t We Just Be Entertained?” by: Rodney
I don’t understand why people keep missing the obvious…
John,
Although you know I disagree with you on the merits of “Transformers,” that was a great post. I get that kind of flack every time I rip a lousy movie in a review on my site. You wouldn’t believe the AVP-R defenders that come out of the woodwork to hurl epithets my way.
Of course most of them come across like uneducated, ignorant 12 year olds…
Vic
I for one wasn’t bothered at all by Fox’s acting in Transformers. Her character was the typical hott high schooler, and she nailed it, period. I personally don’t think she’s a terrible actress. I don’t think she’s an amazing actress but she did a good job.
Could Transformers have used stellar writing and acting? Well what film couldn’t use those.
However Transformers didn’t NEED to have those, though Mr. Voight always brings his A game and Shia knocked it out of the park in my opinion. The story worked and provided the right amount of interest, could have had more and a few less plot holes, but it worked. Just because a film could use something doesn’t mean that it NEEDS to have something.
Besides, as Doug would say, Transformers doesn’t need those things, what it needs is a hell of a lot more focus on the Transformers if anything… and MORE LAZERBEAK!!! (Did I nail that last part Doug?)
And yes, I do generally end up liking quite a lot. Thats not to say that I’ll watch it over and over again like I do some films, but I still like them and will watch them again.
this all comes to taste so you are never going to get a clear answer.
personally I need more than pretty explosions and nice cinematography. bays films look terrific but they are the supermodels of the movie world. pretty to look at but empty inside.
look i liked transformers but i think it was good inspite of bay rather than because of him.
i remeber campea saying at the time how bay was perfect as you don;t need great writing or acting for a film like this …. you don;t oscar winning performances etc etc
but why not?? transformers could have transcended what it ultimately was if had been directed by some one who is interested inmore than explosions and set pieces…
why can’t we hope to see more comic films, action movies big effects films have substance to them??? why not hope to have oscar calibre film making attached to the genres we love??
you guys are the guys who are helping dumb everything down by defending these stupid movies by saying we should just enjoy them and accept them as they are.
I don’t see any problem at all in wanting more from an action film or a sci fi film than set pieces and megan fox stomach.
I mean she said when she went to audtion she was asked 2 things “can she run and how flat was her stomach” and she wasn’t kidding. I saw bay say the same thing. i mean why should we just be happy with that and not complain. because lets face it…she is a terrible actress who stinks up every scene she is in…if you had a film maker who cared about story and making a truly great film as opposed to making a disposable piece of junk he would have been more intrested in her acting then her fucking abs.
dj machismo..I don;t believe you when you say you pretty much enjoy everything. and if that is true then more power to you but i persoanlyl wnat more from a medium I pay a of money to enjoy.
films like transformers don;t have to be dumb but we keep going and letting get away with this lazy film making……
DJ Machismo, my RSS feed always says john for some reason, didn’t catch that.
I heard it at the end of two different movies, “The ending could have been happier.” The latest one that I heard this on was “I am Legend”. Sometimes the hero is the hero because he dies, period. He doesn’t die for some nobel cause or sacrifice, he just dies. It can still be a good movie without a happy ending. In this case, it was a fairly happy ending because compared to the short story, there is hope for the future.
Oh, and Paris Hilton films. I just love rich people with the depth of a teaspoon making crappy films.
“Why are people so critical over movies just because they were just entertaining.”
You lost me when you wrote that.
These movies are bad because they AREN’T entertaining. Transformers just wasn’t entertaining to me.
“Can’t we just watch something blow up without going into a deep dissection of why and how it happened.”
Yes, we can. The problem is that explosions are boring when you film them like Bay does, and that kills the entertainment.
Your beef isn’t with people who don’t like to be entertained. It’s with peiople who have a different opinion of what entertainment is.
“Sure transformers was entertaining at points but just imagine a transformers movie where you actually cared about all the characters. Where the action is filmed better. And where it doesn’t simply rely on the geeky guy getting the girl to drive the first half of the movie. I think we complain about these big popcorn flicks because really when it comes down to it they don’t have to be bad. Take a look at Bourne Ultimatum. It has a great story, great action and in my mind is a great popcorn flick. If we simply say that was enjoyable and ignore the flaws then we are basically telling Michael Bay and others that we simply want to see shit blow up and couldn’t care less about characters and plot.”
QFT
Looking back on my post, it pretty much only explains the two opposite ends of the spectrum.
I can see for those people in the middle, it reminds me of a line or two from Gladiator:
“Are you not entertained?!?!?!”
The point Proximo had to hammer home to Maximus after this, was that you needn’t simply do what is required of you, but you have to put on a show along with it. That’s what people are expecting I suppose.
I’m just glad I can be on the end of the spectrum that can appreciate well acted classics for what they are and their achievements, as well as the stupid comedies (which I enjoy) and the popcorn flicks, mindless action flicks. I feel lucky that I can simply enjoy them all for what they are.
Roguepirate, I think I’ve already come across at least one person on the internet already who has an insanely blind love of Miss Hilton.
steven, its Rodney, not John that wrote this. Does anyone even read who posted the articles on here, or do we all just think its John, hahaha.
I seem to be one of the view that thinks Phantom Menace is a great movie. I grew up with the Star Wars movies, to me its Star Wars. I don’t watch it for great acting or Oscar winning performances, I watch it for Star Wars. Phantom Menace delivered Star Wars story and feel in spades, at least to me. I went in for the story of Anakin Skywalker (which is essentially the Star Wars Saga’s main story arc in my opinion) and the Star Wars feel. So I loved it and will continue to love it, and damnit be entertained by it.
I feel bad for all of you who habitually hate on movies because of an actor, director, producer or what have you. I paid my money for the experience too, and I happen to enjoy it 99% of the time. So at least I’m getting my money’s worth. What did you get out of it?
Sure transformers was entertaining at points but just imagine a transformers movie where you actually cared about all the characters. Where the action is filmed better. And where it doesn’t simply rely on the geeky guy getting the girl to drive the first half of the movie. I think we complain about these big popcorn flicks because really when it comes down to it they don’t have to be bad. Take a look at Bourne Ultimatum. It has a great story, great action and in my mind is a great popcorn flick. If we simply say that was enjoyable and ignore the flaws then we are basically telling Michael Bay and others that we simply want to see shit blow up and couldn’t care less about characters and plot.
Lets also take a look at 3:10 to Yuma it is your standard popcorn western flick yet it has a good story and strong characters. I think everyone would have to agree it is a much better movie that Transformers yet it did no where near as well in box office. Why is that? I would have to say that majority of the movie going crowd are indeed younger and they are simply there for the Michael Bayisms. They want their movies big, loud and action packed. Why bother thinking about character arcs when you can either be laughing at a transformer pissing on someone or being blasted by the noise and explosions.
So I guess what I’m saying is that there is no reason that we can’t be both entertained by special effects and action yet also still have a good story driving the action and effects. If we don’t complain and demand better we won’t get better.
Oh and as for what Bay did wrong in my mind it has nothing to do with what you listed but his poor filming style when it comes to action plus I can’t stand the characters or their arcs and I’m not a purist by the way.
I also enjoyed the Star Wars movies. I also enjoyed Fantastic Four. Daredevil was great. There are a number that most people I know did not enjoy because they were too critical and didn’t just go to enjoy a film. I find that if I go with the idea of just having a good time, then I enjoy all movies more. They may not all be great, but they are better then just watching with a critical eye. Especially if you go with your mind made up already, which a lot of people seem to do these days.
Honestly?
My one big pet peeve is people complaining about not “being true to the story” or “not getting it right”.
A movie is its own story.
In the case of the upcoming Watchmen, yes Alan Moore distanced himself from it. Of course he did. He wrote a brilliant story. He is not writing the screenplay. no matter what I will go see it with an open mind, because I really want to see what they do with it. It wil be its own story based on the comics.
When, someone films something from Shakespeare, do we hear the movie nerds complain about “getting it right”? (Hello Richard III!) or being true to the story “Hello Romeo + Juliet)?
I dunno. Sometimes it is fun to just go enjoy a movie and quit yammering on about this that and the other.
movies are subjective and thats one thing i love about film.
the new star wars films are something that i’m personal tired of hearing people gripe about…people take that particular franchise so personally. the “lucas raped my childhood” thing is so over the top.
i don’t think that certain movies are the problem. i think that the blogosphere is the problem. no offense john. i just read so much venom on certain sites, and ALOT of it is hate with no reasoning, and it’s never a mature debate about what and what not makes certain films work.
i don’t think that in this internet world, your gonna find a movie that unanimously agreed to be entertaining. your always going to find some person who didn’t like it, and really didn’t like it
I know there’s somebody out there, it’s just a matter of time. Who’s going to be the first one to defend Hottie and the Nottie? Now that will be good entertainment.