Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chino tradicional)
日本語 (Japonés)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandés)
български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Danés)
Deutsch (Alemán)
English (Inglés)
Español - España
Ελληνικά (Griego)
Français (Francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandés)
Norsk (Noruego)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugués - Brasil)
Română (Rumano)
Русский (Ruso)
Suomi (Finés)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Informar de un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
That's a bit of fuzzy logic though...
It's not an artform first... it's a product first, artform second... companies make a movie to make money... not to hang in on the wall and muse how "deep" it is.
One could claim a movie 5 people ever watched as 'the best movie ever" then, but who says those 5 people are right?...
No, just claiming Cinematography make it a 'better" movie ignores the fact that more people ~agree~ it's a good movie... like I said companies make movies to make money.
Edit:
The art world is full of people who wouldn't know "good" art if it bit them on the behind...
More to the point...
It's not from people who ~wanted~ Suicide Squad 2016 as a actual release, and a wave of other garbage t.v. and movies like Birds of Prey, etc... and it burnt them big time.... it's from the new management that sees what happened before and wants to prevent it from happening again.
Once burnt, twice shy...
If fact, it can even be the worst product of it's kind, with a mass audience having horrible taste.
Paul W. S. Anderson is generally the example of this.
tbh most people don't want PC crap into the movies
they just wanna see exploding things fights robots giant robots giant robot fights and flashy lights or just a good performance.
Most modern movies nowadays are pretty formulated and people get burnt out.
High chance for example disney high chance if you saw one in the past 10 years (that's being super generous) you'll get the plot of the other new ones
BUT
It's made for kids. Just "deep" enough for them to be amazed. With an ever expanding audience they can just recycle that crap forever.
But modern "adult" as in 18+ as in legally not teens anymore movies have to change with the times. Sadly it's not always a good thing
and yeah D.C. sucks with live action movies compared to marvel (yeah i'll admit it in this one case). They'd rather take the L than pay more later on
They'll make a small profit but lose potential millions / billions in the future with bad PR
again look at how the last air bender ruined M. Night Shamalan's career as a director. Made tons of good movies prior but that movie.
Everyone ignores you becoming state champion of X or this of Y. But get crapped on once by an animal or poop the bed and that's it. Everyone labels you the bed pooper or guy that got crapped on.
Apply that to anything irl. People will forget achievements (even in sciences) but will remember your mistakes for years to come (demon core incidents, the nuclear testing islands, WWII in general, etc.).
And that's b/c mistakes tell more about something than success on something. Like if you make $$$$ well just repeat it duh but you learn nothing. Just ain't broke don't fix it.
But if you bomb bad on a project or lose potential billions / trillions then people will study that to try to not repeat that again (enron, snake oil salesmen, sears, toys r us, etc. the list goes on).
Seems we are back to "everyone stop liking what I don't like and disliking what I like"...
Like I said, that's fuzzy logic... just because a majority likes something and you don't doesn't mean it's bad... and just because a majority dislikes something and you don't doesn't mean it's good...
People usually don't like to waste money or are masochistic... they spend money on what they like and don't spend money on what they don't like...it's usually people so out of step so small in numbers that want people to accept them that want everyone else to be wrong that want the majority to just accept what they don't want.
It still doesn't mean they are having horrible taste... just not the taste some people ~think~ they should have... like them.
A small group of "art critics" praised once a piece of art... calling it a work of a decade and the artist a "genius"... they put a muti-million dollar price tag on it... and it looked like garbage.
And then the "art critics" found out that a local zoo keeper had sent the painting that was done by one of their elephants...
I don't trust any "movie critic" to tell me what's good and what's not... but if the makers of the movie won't release it because it's so bad they don't want to damage further their companies reputation and future in making movies... I have to believe it's probably not good.
I have a good rule of thumb with that one since this round of political correctness kicked off around the mid 2000s.
If the "professional" critics say it is a good movie... Then it is almost always a bad movie.
If the critics say it is a bad movie.... Then it is likely a good movie.
This can usually be seen in places that have audience score reviews, because very rarely do the critics AND audience line up review wise specifically for big movies.
Corporations have spent so much money on "corporate activism" over the last 10-15 years it is insane. They want to make it look like the big heartless corporations "care" about the people they are ripping off, abusing, and manipulating. And we see this in everything from things like "pride month" pandering, to the bought out awards shows, and paid-for critic reviews.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxHjg8pJUwY
For me, the problem with Hollywood at the moment is that with these really large budget films they are too afraid to take a risk on a new story or, well, something different.
There are far better stories coming out of other countries or small film studios.
I am surprised they just scrapped a $100m film. It must have been really, really bad.
Just another feminist version of the real thing as usual.
Edit: as bad as the last mad max or supergirl
My only problem with that is that it kills the ambiguity of the first one as to whether or not he was the actual Joker and not just some lunatic in a ward imagining the whole thing.
If there's a good "professional" critic that will give a good, honest, review of a movie without fearing for the outrage and pushback they'd get for criticizing certain types of movies... I don't know who it'd be.
I'll give a literary example to avoid controversy...
If you write a novel in first person, present tense, you're automatically going to raise some eyebrows and there's going to be a bunch of people jumping on the bandwagon to call you the next James Joyce. (First, it's terribly difficult to do well. Second, a good many beginning writers choose it because they don't know what they're getting themselves into. Lastly, it sucks and should be outlawed...)
Add in whatever social memes are going around, especially those that demand people have sympathy for a character, and you've just forced a certain segment of the critical reviewers to gush all over themselves. Many boxes of Kleenex™ will be abused.
Add "Nazis" or the oppressive equivalent, and you'e guaranteed a "Best Seller" that doesn't require you to pre-purchase the first run for a whole week so you can get on the "NYT "Best Seller" List." (Nobody really thinks individual people are rushing out to buy up that whole print run by an unknown author, do they?)
End of formula, rinse/repeat. I guarantee there will be a good selection of "glowing reviews." It's "lightning in a bottle" for that kind of fare.
Movies? Exactly the same. Woe unto the critic that dares give a negative review to a movie that's got the "perfect formulae" social elites have determined must be defended at all costs against all critics, no matter how fair the criticism.
Go look at archives of Paul Fieg's Twitter feed in response to people questioning whether or not "Ghostbusters (2016)" should have been slathered over otherwise perfectly good film stock.
The only critics I pay attention to are those that get into the basic meat&potatoes of story-crafting and the mechanics of the medium being used to do that. That's how I know whether or not the critic is worth paying attention to. As soon as they start yaulping about "social relevance" I turn the page.