- 21,286
- GR-MI-USA
- YSSMAN
- YSSMAN
There has been an interesting discussion going on among film-buffs in the past week or so in light of the successes and failures of two movies, GI Joe: Rise of Cobra and District 9. The /Filmcast: After Dark (Ep 64) series had the author, Laremy Legel on the show after his post on Film.com entitled The Fallacy of Low Expectations or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Hate the G.I. Joe .
Much of this has to do with whether or not is legitimate for directors, film studios, and everyone else to excuse poor film-making in the sense of low expectations. Otherwise, the "What did you expect?" review that excuses a bad film from criticism. This flies mostly in the face of the stark contrast of movies between 2008 and 2009, and certainly, with movies that have come out just in the past few weeks. Why is it that in a world of The Dark Knight and Iron Man we should allow for things like Wolverine and Transformers 2 to exist? Much less, make money (and lots of it)?
[SIDE NOTE: Go and read io9.com's "Summer 2009: What Just Happened?" story - An excellent view on the situation]
On a personal level, I find the original article offering a compelling critique of the current situation we face with many of our movies, but I'm not totally sold on the entire idea. I think it is totally fair to expect a "good movie," especially given what we have been seeing with prized franchises over the past several years. However, what can be defined as a "good movie" ultimately becomes a bit of a subjective discussion. Certainly, expectations play into that as well. I do feel like there is some level of a handicap involved when directors like Michael Bay and Stephen Sommers are involved with any movie. Expectations, similarly, are often quite high when well-loved franchises are involved.
Something like Batman Begins comes to mind when there is a well-known director attached, known for his dark and complicated dramas, jump-starting a franchise that had otherwise been left for dead. Successes in that sense become the model for what people want to go after. But if I'm honest, if GI: Joe had attempted to do the same thing, I'd have been mad as hell. A "serious" GI: Joe wouldn't have made sense, and it wouldn't have been fun. If it is true that Sommers set out to make his movie like a cartoon, he succeeded. It was what made the movie fun to watch, despite it otherwise being a "bad movie." If we were so serious about our movies, we would never have the Troma Series to laugh at. Or totally awesome movies like My Name is Bruce and Bubba Ho-Tep (Sorry Bruce, I do love 'ya). If I were to go into those expecting some kind of thought-provoking movement in my mind, I'd have been severely disappointed. But they are good fun, and have their own place in film.
To me, "bad movies" can be good because of my lowered expectations, and I don't feel sorry for doing it. I can certainly see how that would give certain directors an excuse for doing whatever the hell it is that they want to do, but at the same time, it lets me enjoy movies for what they are - entertainment. I often feel like this is creating some kind of rift amongst nerds across the country, around the world, and I often ask myself why its even that important in the first place. We're all more than welcome to be mad as hell about how franchises from our childhood are being "destroyed." But when it comes down to art vs story vs money, right now, money wins. If you don't want "bad movies" to be made anymore, the easiest way of preventing it would be to stop spending your money at the theater. Nerds, unfortunately, cannot take their own medicine. Furthermore, with the constant seeping of nerd culture into the mainstream, there seemingly is not much we can do to prevent the MTV-approved madness into the theaters anymore.
This is where movies like District 9, Moon, 500 Days of Summer and Cold Souls come in. Films like these are made on a small budget, with a narrow focus, and a greater emphasis on film making. Its no wonder that these films have become the darlings of the 2009 summer film season. Although they likely won't make as much money as your average big-budget blockbuster, they will likely be successful in their own right as independent films.
What we have left to wonder is how things like Where the Wild Things Are, The Road, and The Surrogates will do in the face of all of this. For that matter, Sherlock Holmes and Avatar. Will they live up to expectations?
Much of this has to do with whether or not is legitimate for directors, film studios, and everyone else to excuse poor film-making in the sense of low expectations. Otherwise, the "What did you expect?" review that excuses a bad film from criticism. This flies mostly in the face of the stark contrast of movies between 2008 and 2009, and certainly, with movies that have come out just in the past few weeks. Why is it that in a world of The Dark Knight and Iron Man we should allow for things like Wolverine and Transformers 2 to exist? Much less, make money (and lots of it)?
[SIDE NOTE: Go and read io9.com's "Summer 2009: What Just Happened?" story - An excellent view on the situation]
On a personal level, I find the original article offering a compelling critique of the current situation we face with many of our movies, but I'm not totally sold on the entire idea. I think it is totally fair to expect a "good movie," especially given what we have been seeing with prized franchises over the past several years. However, what can be defined as a "good movie" ultimately becomes a bit of a subjective discussion. Certainly, expectations play into that as well. I do feel like there is some level of a handicap involved when directors like Michael Bay and Stephen Sommers are involved with any movie. Expectations, similarly, are often quite high when well-loved franchises are involved.
Something like Batman Begins comes to mind when there is a well-known director attached, known for his dark and complicated dramas, jump-starting a franchise that had otherwise been left for dead. Successes in that sense become the model for what people want to go after. But if I'm honest, if GI: Joe had attempted to do the same thing, I'd have been mad as hell. A "serious" GI: Joe wouldn't have made sense, and it wouldn't have been fun. If it is true that Sommers set out to make his movie like a cartoon, he succeeded. It was what made the movie fun to watch, despite it otherwise being a "bad movie." If we were so serious about our movies, we would never have the Troma Series to laugh at. Or totally awesome movies like My Name is Bruce and Bubba Ho-Tep (Sorry Bruce, I do love 'ya). If I were to go into those expecting some kind of thought-provoking movement in my mind, I'd have been severely disappointed. But they are good fun, and have their own place in film.
To me, "bad movies" can be good because of my lowered expectations, and I don't feel sorry for doing it. I can certainly see how that would give certain directors an excuse for doing whatever the hell it is that they want to do, but at the same time, it lets me enjoy movies for what they are - entertainment. I often feel like this is creating some kind of rift amongst nerds across the country, around the world, and I often ask myself why its even that important in the first place. We're all more than welcome to be mad as hell about how franchises from our childhood are being "destroyed." But when it comes down to art vs story vs money, right now, money wins. If you don't want "bad movies" to be made anymore, the easiest way of preventing it would be to stop spending your money at the theater. Nerds, unfortunately, cannot take their own medicine. Furthermore, with the constant seeping of nerd culture into the mainstream, there seemingly is not much we can do to prevent the MTV-approved madness into the theaters anymore.
This is where movies like District 9, Moon, 500 Days of Summer and Cold Souls come in. Films like these are made on a small budget, with a narrow focus, and a greater emphasis on film making. Its no wonder that these films have become the darlings of the 2009 summer film season. Although they likely won't make as much money as your average big-budget blockbuster, they will likely be successful in their own right as independent films.
What we have left to wonder is how things like Where the Wild Things Are, The Road, and The Surrogates will do in the face of all of this. For that matter, Sherlock Holmes and Avatar. Will they live up to expectations?