Why are there no intelligent movies these days ... - Rampage (2018) Discussion

[–] Rorikon (16509) 6 years ago

They cater movies to loud noise and no sense plots while taking your money and sparkling your eyes with random colored CGI. The sheeple/drones flock and just stare at screen hoping for some minor comedic jokes in between so they can exercise their jugular before clapping after the movie has ended to justify their useless spending then complain why they can't afford anything else and demand higher wages. XD

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8340) 6 years ago

Plenty of intelligent movies still come out. It seems you're just missing them.

Blade Runner 2049 was my favorite film of last year. Quite the thoughtful movie.

reply

[–] brux (14666) 6 years ago

Saw it on Amazon ... I think that more supports my argument than yours, or we just have different standards for intelligent. But then I would not call the original intelligent either, or thoughtful, or true to PKD's book or sensibilities.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8340) 6 years ago

Out of curiosity, what would you consider to be an "intelligent" film?

reply

[–] brux (14666) 6 years ago

Well, there's been a lot of talk about the 50th anniversary of 2001, and having seen it when it came out, I'd say that is an intelligent movie. I think the TV series Homeland is intelligent. In the discussion forum on the MovieChat home page, Man From Earth just came up ... that one is good, but the sequel is not.

There are other categories like movies that are good but not particularly intelligent, but that minimally insult viewers' intelligence, such a Terminator, or Game of Thrones.

It's hard to just pick movies out of thin air. Some various at random ...

Das Experiment, Vera Drake, An Ideal Husband, Squid And The Whale, Soldier, Enemy Of The State

Just a few at random from the movies I have rated on IMDB

And of course documentaries. Just think of how much money is spent on making all these movies and how many resources are consumed, and what the result is ... how much time is wasted, how many brains anesthetized. Terrible.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8340) 6 years ago

Surprised you would considering something like Soldier or Enemy of the State "intelligent" but not a film like Blade Runner or its sequel.

I don't see either of those films approaching Blade Runner's incredible thematic richness, as it explores questions about the nature of humanity, consciousness, humanity's responsibility toward the things it creates and what it means for a thinking, feeling being to be "real."

reply

[–] brux (14666) 6 years ago

Maybe another term would be though-provoking. Both Blade Runners were visually rich in style, but as far as themes, I guess what you are pointing out was mentioned, but not central to the plot or characters. They were special-effects action movies. So was Soldier, and Enemy of the State, especially EOTS that called out the surveillance society before it was ever instantiated.

reply

[–] Titaanzink (44) 6 years ago

Blade Runner was a special-effects action movie?

It was panned when it came out exactly because it was NOT the special-effects action movie people were expecting.

reply

[–] brux (14666) 6 years ago

It's my opinion that it was. What do you want me to do? Any movie based around guns and killing, whether you want to call it "retiring" androids or whatever is an action movie. Maybe they just thought it was a bad one.

reply

[–] atarofker (300) 6 years ago

TV series is where it's at. They're created for niche audience instead of catering to the general populace and about movies being made nowadays, I'd rather watch Fight Club or any other dialogue heavy movie again and again

reply

[–] Renovatio (2990) 6 years ago

Film culture is infantalised, as the current generation of adults is holding onto their childhoods in a very strong way.

reply

[–] brux (14666) 6 years ago

That is an interesting comment. Are you familiar with the work of the psychologist Harry Harlow and his experiments with monkeys and attachment? That guy was on to something. It is almost like Americans on a massive scale are being emotionally crippled but the limited products we are offered, and the goading we receive to allow that to be the sum total of our universes.

reply

[–] Renovatio (2990) 6 years ago

I'm not that familiar with his research, but just read up on it... Interesting stuff!

I think there is little heart in current movies and there is little that is sensual... Even TV shows today trade in a lot of nudity and sex, but they have none of the sensuality... You can see body parts, but no warmth in the touch...

The things that are actually adult such as empathy to those who we disagree with... And hope and stoicism in the face of adversity... are in limited supply... Instead we get nihilism and cynicism, or rage, which are adolescent responses...

But I think the audience (not just Americans), has partly chosen this... People want not to feel, not to be emotionally engagged, not to have their ideas challenged... They want to remain eternal children... At most, adolescents... Spectacle and titilation... the lastest toy movie...

Last night, at dinner, a friend of mine mentioned that on his last trip to Italy he had the best time catching up on movies... Marvel movies... He saw loads and enjoyed them... Yet the idea to watch Dunkirk, Brooklyn, or any other movie that deals with actual human adult experience never crossed his mind... He's a 36 year old heart surgeon, well-read and highly intelligent. He has time for Game of Thrones, but no time to explore feeling anything... Not wanting to venture outside of his comfort zone...

I think this is a common view today... I wonder if it is simply because people don't have the opportunity to see 'real' movies, or if they've been conditioned not to... it's clear that these movies are no longer be at the centre of the culture, having been supplanted by toy movies (video game, comicbook, CGI/cartoon, etc...).

But are these movies an innocent escape? or are they a retreat into childhood? 🤔

I wouldn't mind hearing from people who watch these movies, but the usual reponse is to call me a hater. 😂

reply

[–] brux (14666) 6 years ago

I just either ignore or put annoying people on IGNORE. The majority are annoying, it doesn't bother me that I have a large ignore list since I recognize that. Not enough time to get upset or waste time - they are easy to recognize. Disrespect is another annoyance.

Ben Carson was a brain surgeon, supposedly brilliant at brain surgery, but he is an idiot. Surgery is like complex gardening. It is understanding how things work and grow together, it is a craft.

So much is thrown at people these days, you either go all in on something you are good at, like your friend, and you have no time for anything else or even to know yourself or others. Do that and you get sucked into a whole way of life that like a machine. I like biology and technology, but I do not want to become someone else's machine for money doing it, at least totally.

I think mostly the answer to the question you asked is that these movies are a colossal waste, like eating junk food. It was normalized in our society by lies, ie advertising that made us think everyone was doing it. A herd stampede was set up and it has been increasing all the time. Junk food, junk education, junk news, junk medicine ... all massaged to work together by the higher ups in order to make the system more self-replicating.

Harry Harlow did these experiments with monkeys where he raised them in cages in isolation. When they were isolated they would cling to things that stimulated their senses, unconsciously, like a metal frame simulating a mother covered in cloth. The cloth mother was preferable to one with a food, ie a bottle. So physical sensual stimuli was more important to security than food.

These simple experiments that I learned about way back in high school have a whole new meaning to me today as I see a lot of the early psychological experiments playing out in the way our system and economy is designed.

I doubt they teach this any more, or that if they did students would get the point.

reply

[–] Galactus03 (4295) 5 years ago

I dont use ignore. I would rather engage people and their opinions.

reply

[–] Moonglum9 (10746) 6 years ago

I think you'll change your tune once you see the reboot of See Spot Run. Here's a bit of the screenplay:

Opening voiceover: See Spot. See Spot Run. Run, Spot, Run!

Narrator: The street shakes as a gigantic explosion rocks the city. The street begins to crumble and fall into a giant chasm, seemingly following behind Spot as he races to keep ahead of the destruction.

Will Smith: Yo Spot! Yall better be ghostin or youse gonna be dead!

Spot: Ruff, ruff!

Narrator: Spot suddenly does a 720° front flip and simultaneously kicks two hideous aliens in the face that had jumped out from behind a building.

Spot: Invade that! (lifts leg and pees on the downed aliens)

Will Smith: Oh no he dit-int!

The scene fades...

reply

[–] Renovatio (2990) 6 years ago

Nailed it...

reply

[–] maximmm (3089) 6 years ago

The simple answer is this: most intelligent films don't do well in the box office.

Studios want to create films with mass appeal - that is, films which appeal to adults and kids alike.

BUT - I have to admit, it's possible to tweak actions/mass appeal films just enough for them to be semi-intelligent, but that's seldom done. In fact, it often seems as if they take specific measures to dumb films down - create plot holes and other inconsistencies. I'm not exactly sure why this is done - but perhaps plot holes appeal more to casual viewers? I'd be interested in the results studios obtain when showing early versions of films to test audiences. I suspect we'd be able to learn a lot from those ...

reply

[–] brux (14666) 6 years ago

I'm not going to take the time and energy necessary to make a complicated argument here on Moviechat, but you have to read into what I am saying.

Look at how much movies cost. They have a budget and they want to make money - capitalism. The tradeoff of money and art/literature is completly topsy-turvy.

Before there are big special effects budgets and action movies, they had to hire good writers, and even bad movies had fairly good drama and plots and characters. Today everything is subsumed into the budget for flash and repetition.

You are defending that based on the market, but like a lot of things, maybe most things, so-called market competition ruins the quality and breed lies and cheating.

And why? Most movies are made and distributed through major movie and theater distribution companies - with a huge barrier to entry, and rather large monopolies.

This is why the Indie niche has gotten so popular. People accept the stupid stuff because that is what there is when they want to go to the movies, but they don't want it, and there is not other choice. It's like the domination of AM radio by preachers and right-wing nuts. Those channels are bought by right-wing organizations with lots of money because they are a cheap way to brainwash captive ears.

Someday we are going to have to learn that driving everything by market and money means that we get crappy movies that create crappy citizens, crappy food that creates sick citizens, crappy internet companies that sell our data to places they cannot get it back and do not even know, crappy news that talks endlessly about the opinions of the opinionists and does not report or really analyze the facts, crappy education that creates people who cannot tell the difference, and cannot qualify for jobs that will lift them and their children up enough to make a difference.

Finally, Americans are too stupid, and too expensive to employ, so to keep the military junta running we offshore and being in high level talent from overseas that cuts the income of Americans, and low level talent from Mexico and the like that has no rights and undercuts both pay and workers rights.

Maybe that creates a big need to stupid movies so people do not have to think about how bad their lives have gotten and how rotted out and undermined our system has become.

reply

[–] maximmm (3089) 6 years ago

Look - I'm not defending this, but simply trying to rationalize it.
By the way, when it comes to most budget being spent on sfx - I suspect the biggest reason for that is the film piracy.
A pirate is more willing to watch a drama film on PC than a sfx film - which usually look better on big screen.

As for the humanity getting dumber - I'd blame smartphones/social media for that - too many people these days suffer from ADD primarily because of those 'technological advances'. With ADD comes the inability to focus on cognitive tasks for a long time.

reply

[–] brux (14666) 6 years ago

It is not humanity that is getting dumber ... it is Americans. More and more tech companies have to import workers from Europe, India and China because Americans are not competent in critical, logical thinking.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Teenagers have disposable income. They're a great financial force for any industry. This is why games and TV shows focus on base emotions, violence, and nudity. The entire model of MTV is based on this marketing strategy.

As for this movie: I just wanted to see a movie with giant animals destroying a city. The ad didn't make it seem like the movie was anything more than that. If I wanted to enjoy an intelligent film, I'd watch Being There, 2001 a Space Odyssey, Patton, The Usual Suspects, etc... But, if you want an escape from reality and a laugh, this movie and others like Sharknado, are perfect.

As for the term stupid: I remember a time when stupid movies were celebrated for telling jokes and being outlandish. Movies like Caddy Shack, Goofballs, meatballs, Police Academy (1-6), Hunk, Scary Movie(s), National Lampoon's: (add title here), Ghoulies, Munchies, Killer Klowns from Outer Space, or the Naked Gun series. SNL was notorious for making horrible movies with stupid plots (Superstar and Night at the Roxbury). Sure, they're stupid movies, but they have their place.

reply

[–] brux (14666) 6 years ago

Quioby .... I did not really mean to say or imply that "stupid movies" do not have their place. But there are 2 points that you whiz right by in your defense of stupid.

1. Almost ALL movies are incredibly stupid and brainless - anti-intellectual.

2. Even the intelligent movies are aimed at a low level. Nothing to stretch or reach for. So a movie about say Alan Turing, or John Nash has really nothing about what these people were famous for.

This is great when we are children. For example, Star Trek, which I loved as a kid when I watched the first episodes, I watched around age 11. It was supposed to be "adult science fiction", but it was perfect for me at that age and I still love it. But, it is stupid in a lot of ways. I am not using Star Trek as an example of stupid, but as an example of the low bar of intellectualism we have today, and there are no shows today even as good as Star Trek was back then.

I am pretty much exclusively talking about commercial TV too. There is tons of higher level stuff on PBS, and some on cable shows like the History Channel, but not so much. The commercial inventive is to aim low and coddle the stupid with flash and drama, but leave out anything complex or requiring thought.

We are turning whole generations into mental vegetables.

So, are you saying your preferred mix of TV shows is 95% stupid ... because I heard you say there is a place for stupid ... so, what exactly are you defending or saying?

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

My defense is based on this: movies are a business. The business works within the free market of ideas. In that market, they will cater to what makes money. Stupid movies make money.
This isn't anti-intellectual because most movies do not seek to be educators so much as story tellers and entertainers. If a movie is set out to entertain, it's goal isn't anti-intellectual so much as pro-entertainment. Documentaries may set out to educate, but they too fall into stories and narrative over information. They also need to make money so the film maker can pay back what was used to make the movie and possibly go on to make more. In the end, film industry is a market place and not a school.

As for intellectual discussion: What do you want? What would be intellectually appropriate in your eyes? Why not make that rather than expect others to do so?

Movies and Television are products made to entertain. They tell a narrative for financial gain to go and make another product. Some products are artistic, but they are still a product meant to make profit.

As for turning whole generations into mental vegetables: I think this is a gross misrepresentation of people in general. People have focuses on subjects that differ from one person to the next. Just because they may not be focused on what you consider intellectual, they do have talents and information you may not.

In the end, I don't care if products are 95% stupid. Most products purchased today are useless fun that people enjoy. If you want something to be intelligent to raise people's awareness... go make it. It is a free market of ideas. You obviously have the desire for better entertainment. Go and be a solution.

reply

[–] brux (14666) 6 years ago

You should question your own understanding of the "free market". The free market is BS, it does not exist. Your blind naivete is part of the problem that allows the market to screw up as it has been. For an example look at:

A Capitalist's Lament: How Wall Street Is Fleecing You and Ruining America by Leland Faust

How Markets Fail - The Logic of Economic Calamities by John Cassidy

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

LOL, okay. You go ahead and have fun with that. I'm fine being a part of your problem with movies. ;)

reply

[–] brux (14666) 6 years ago

Kind of a useless comment, and don't be so proud of your lack of understanding. As I mentioned in many other comments, for the most part, there is no free markets in movies. There are the studios, the unions, the distributors and the people who raise capital, then TV rights and broadcast and a lot more. This has been proven over and over by Indie films that are better in quality than than the studio films.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

And you just proved that the free market of ideas exist by stating that the indie market has better ideas. Congratulations and thank you. Now, go ahead and be a solution by taking the example of indie films and promoting intelligent films for people to watch. If you don't want to do that, you're expecting others to do it for you which is exactly why you don't see a change. If that is the case, you're just as much the problem as I am and I'm happy to have you on board.

My challenge is simple: Create an intelligent film. One that will make things better. Or... accept that you're stuck with the works of other people and do nothing.

It's up to you.

reply

[–] brux (14666) 6 years ago

What is the total budget for all Indie films compared to studio films?
What is the percentage of the industry for all Indie films compared to studio films?
What is the profit for all Indie films compared to studio films?
That is not competition, that is merely exploitation of the indie market by those with the money and power - monopoly - a failure of the market.

Just asking rhetorically since you are the kind of annoying pest who cannot seem to hold to a thread of conversation, facts or debate ... before I put you on ignore so I do not have to waste any more time on your next pointless comment.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Ignore away. You're obviously a person who doesn't believe he could make a good film. So, you get to enjoy all these "stupid movies" while you complain like a millennial. That's funny.

reply

[–] TandyMan (10434) 6 years ago

Movies are now made for international audiences that have to translate into all languages and cultures without offending any of them. There will never be another intelligent big budget film.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Same reason that Coke-cola and Cigarettes sell in the billions while being completely destructive.

reply