What I'd love to hear is what films since 2000 do people think will be revered in the same way we talk about specific films from the '70s and '80s.
this is a good question. and kinda hard to answer what i would pick off the top of my head
-city of god
No doubt.
Yeah, there are still certainly great movies being made... they're just not coming out of Hollywood. And that's unfortunate, because it wasn't always the case.
post 2000 high impact films, i gotta go with jackass and borat with a return to the cinema of spectacle.
So will these two movies begin a new movement in cinema?
they already have. i mean, all this talk about plot and character development blahblah blah is like listening to old crusty dudes talk about the heyday of theatre and live performance based acting. i mean, these are different times. information is relayed at lightning fast speeds. the development of character and unfolding of plot are becoming elements of a bygone era. as it was with books to cinema, now it is with cinema unto itself.
post 2000 high impact films, i gotta go with jackass and borat with a return to the cinema of spectacle.
So will these two movies begin a new movement in cinema?
they already have. i mean, all this talk about plot and character development blahblah blah is like listening to old crusty dudes talk about the heyday of theatre and live performance based acting. i mean, these are different times. information is relayed at lightning fast speeds. the development of character and unfolding of plot are becoming elements of a bygone era. as it was with books to cinema, now it is with cinema unto itself.
True. But teenagers are now the largest ticket buyers. And DVD's have been killing the movegoing exp.
post 2000 high impact films, i gotta go with jackass and borat with a return to the cinema of spectacle.
So will these two movies begin a new movement in cinema?
There is an episode on Viva La Bam (I was watching it last night) where Johnny Knoxville and Ryun Dunn pull pranks on Bam Margera. And they go back and forth destroying each other's cars and such. Breaking of taboos, high drama, character development. It's all there. In the end, you even get a heartfelt moment, where each says it's over. This is nothing short of genius. The epitome of great 30min. television programming.
for real, it was a weird thing in the 70s. the director had so much control.
Dont forget the emergence of Pron in the 70's.
thomas edison was doing the pron in the 00s. it has been a staple of nickelodeons and stereogram parlor gimmicks long before the 70s.
Of course. Pron predates the 70's. But didnt middle america line up to watch it instead of reel to reels at the stag party. It joined the "mainstream".
post 2000 high impact films, i gotta go with jackass and borat with a return to the cinema of spectacle.
So will these two movies begin a new movement in cinema?
they already have. i mean, all this talk about plot and character development blahblah blah is like listening to old crusty dudes talk about the heyday of theatre and live performance based acting. i mean, these are different times. information is relayed at lightning fast speeds. the development of character and unfolding of plot are becoming elements of a bygone era. as it was with books to cinema, now it is with cinema unto itself.
True. But teenagers are now the largest ticket buyers. And DVD's have been killing the movegoing exp.
exactly. which brings up a good point. that soderbergh flick bubble or something. didnt see it but the direct to dvd as well as theatre release is prolly another seminal turning point in modern cinema.
and dont forget, todays teenagers are tomorrows adults. cinema is going in that direction no matter how u slice it.
True. But teenagers are now the largest ticket buyers. And DVD's have been killing the movegoing exp.
The latter is an interesting point but the former: is this quantifiably true? I think studios pander to that demographic but are they the largest group of ticket buyers? I'm doubtful.
Disagree. I think documentaries have taken a huge stride forward post-2000 in terms of general awareness within popular culture. I'm not claiming they're better made in this decade but movies like "Bowling For Columbine," "Super Size Me" and "An Inconvenient Truth" ("March of the Penguins" too) have been embraced in a way that docs haven't been in previous generations.
post 2000 high impact films, i gotta go with jackass and borat with a return to the cinema of spectacle.
So will these two movies begin a new movement in cinema?
they already have. i mean, all this talk about plot and character development blahblah blah is like listening to old crusty dudes talk about the heyday of theatre and live performance based acting. i mean, these are different times. information is relayed at lightning fast speeds. the development of character and unfolding of plot are becoming elements of a bygone era. as it was with books to cinema, now it is with cinema unto itself.
True. But teenagers are now the largest ticket buyers. And DVD's have been killing the movegoing exp.
exactly. which brings up a good point. that soderbergh flick bubble or something. didnt see it but the direct to dvd as well as theatre release is prolly another seminal turning point in modern cinema.
and dont forget, todays teenagers are tomorrows adults. cinema is going in that direction no matter how u slice it.
Will thes "ADD" adults of the future have the patience to sit through a "movie" in 20 years. Or will they upload that shit on thier OMNI-VIEWER? Yuichi just said he's taken a braek from movie going. Or will movies become like Koyaanisqasti on crack/mashup/reality show/cnn/collage?
post 2000 high impact films, i gotta go with jackass and borat with a return to the cinema of spectacle.
i was dragged to see Reno 911 last night not expecting to find that schitt funny at all, but i was pretty much out of breath from laughing the whole time
Disagree. I think documentaries have taken a huge stride forward post-2000 in terms of general awareness within popular culture. I'm not claiming they're better made in this decade but movies like "Bowling For Columbine," "Super Size Me" and "An Inconvenient Truth" ("March of the Penguins" too) have been embraced in a way that docs haven't been in previous generations.
the only documentary worthy of mentioning is jackass and/or jackass 2. and im sure one could argue against them being considered a "documentary", but in its essence, it is a basic document.
it is true that "documentaries" now have enough box office clout to run in theaters on their own merit. and that is worth something. but supersize me does not really fit into the other docs u mentioned as it didnt have anywhere near the theater release as those others.
True. But teenagers are now the largest ticket buyers. And DVD's have been killing the movegoing exp.
The latter is an interesting point but the former: is this quantifiably true? I think studios pander to that demographic but are they the largest group of ticket buyers? I'm doubtful.
I'm pretty sure teenagers make up a good portion of movie-goers.
But I just think that cinema came into its prime then, because things like effects started to get big and the budgets grew.
I think that's pretty much what ruined American popular cinema. Nobody over twelve years old or so should actually be going to the theater for the sake of effects and I find the emphasis on them in current cinema to be downright insulting to me as a viewer. Another thing: effects-laden films generally age very poorly, as the technology quickly starts to look obsolete, and they typically have very little else to offer. But quality writing, acting and direction never get tired.
[Michael Bay fanboy]You mean "Armageddon" won't look real in a few years? Oh no![/Michael Bay fanboy]
I don't disagree with what's being said here but I wonder if this isn't potentially cylical...or, at least, holds out the promise for some kind of "bounce." I mean, modern Hollywood was premised on the basic idea that $100,000 ---> $60,000,000 (I>The Birth of a Nation[/i]) was an industry worth investing into. Profit-motive was at the heart of modern cinema's growth from jump (that and revisionist White Supremacy but let's put that aside for the moment).
I think if movie profits decline, it might create opportunities for more risk-taking (or make studios even more conservative). Hard to predict the future. Let's just hope I>Transformers[/i] flops really, really hard (though who are we kidding? I'll go see that shit.).
True. But teenagers are now the largest ticket buyers. And DVD's have been killing the movegoing exp.
The latter is an interesting point but the former: is this quantifiably true? I think studios pander to that demographic but are they the largest group of ticket buyers? I'm doubtful.
I'm pretty sure teenagers make up a good portion of movie-goers.
Yuichi - please to put down your Lakers pom-poms and put on some reading glasses.
I asked if they were THE LARGEST GROUP. Of course they're a "good portion" but are they, in fact, a numerical majority (or at least plurality)?
and dont forget, todays teenagers are tomorrows adults. cinema is going in that direction no matter how u slice it.
This movie was not "good" but in some ways, seemingly prescient:
beat me to it oliver. the second shig started posting about jackass knocking out all traditional norms of movies, that is what came to mind.
We will all be watching people farting on camera or getting kicked in the nuts for an hour and a half in 20 years. Screw plots, lets just run into walls with shopping carts.
But I just think that cinema came into its prime then, because things like effects started to get big and the budgets grew.
I think that's pretty much what ruined American popular cinema. Nobody over twelve years old or so should actually be going to the theater for the sake of effects and I find the emphasis on them in current cinema to be downright insulting to me as a viewer. Another thing: effects-laden films generally age very poorly, as the technology quickly starts to look obsolete, and they typically have very little else to offer. But quality writing, acting and direction never get tired.
[Michael Bay fanboy]You mean "Armageddon" won't look real in a few years? Oh no![/Michael Bay fanboy]
I don't disagree with what's being said here but I wonder if this isn't potentially cylical...or, at least, holds out the promise for some kind of "bounce." I mean, modern Hollywood was premised on the basic idea that $100,000 ---> $60,000,000 (I>The Birth of a Nation[/i]) was an industry worth investing into. Profit-motive was at the heart of modern cinema's growth from jump (that and revisionist White Supremacy but let's put that aside for the moment).
I think if movie profits decline, it might create opportunities for more risk-taking (or make studios even more conservative). Hard to predict the future. Let's just hope I>Transformers[/i] flops really, really hard (though who are we kidding? I'll go see that shit.).
Is Armageddon the joint where it has the classic jam by Aerosmith?
For solidifiying the Superhero genre/era that we are currently in.
Eh - you could have said that about the Tim Burton Batman movies back in the '90s. Or the Chris Reeves' I>Superman[/i] movies of the '80s. The frequency may have picked up with improvements in FX technology but for the most part, I think it's hard to draw a clear line as to when the superhero era really began.
And in any case, I don't know how many people would NOW consider the I>Batman[/i] films a definitive statement of the '90s so I'm not certain even something as relatively "good" as I>Spiderman 2[/i] is going to hold up for the 00s.
In contrast, I cosign on I>Lord of the Rings[/i]. It's just a pity that every major movie director now feels it necessary to include their own siege scene. Zhang Yimou, I'm looking at you.
and dont forget, todays teenagers are tomorrows adults. cinema is going in that direction no matter how u slice it.
This movie was not "good" but in some ways, seemingly prescient:
beat me to it oliver.
the second shig started posting about jackass knocking out all traditional norms of movies, that is what came to mind.
We will all be watching people farting on camera or getting kicked in the nuts for an hour and a half in 20 years. Screw plots, lets just run into walls with shopping carts.
the future is awesome!
but lets just stop and think for a moment. we are discussing cinema. a deviant artform in itself. im trying to say its prolly the single most reason for the beginning of the end of literature. and i'll bet the farm that them book dudes from way back were crying the same poo except about films. that cinema was a progressive dumbing down of humanity. that by literally portraying a story, it bounds the imagination. so i ask u, do you feel dumb, punk? well...do ya?
For solidifiying the Superhero genre/era that we are currently in.
Eh - you could have said that about the Tim Burton Batman movies back in the '90s. Or the Chris Reeves' I>Superman[/i] movies of the '80s. The frequency may have picked up with improvements in FX technology but for the most part, I think it's hard to draw a clear line as to when the superhero era really began.
And in any case, I don't know how many people would NOW consider the I>Batman[/i] films a definitive statement of the '90s so I'm not certain even something as relatively "good" as I>Spiderman 2[/i] is going to hold up for the 00s.
I did say "Solidifiying" the genre. Batman in the 90's killed itself. The Mask and The Crow were hits but not by the standard of Spiderman. Blade really ushered in this the current resurgence.
Comments
So will these two movies begin a new movement in cinema?
Yeah, there are still certainly great movies being made... they're just not coming out of Hollywood. And that's unfortunate, because it wasn't always the case.
Dont forget the emergence of Pron in the 70's.
they already have. i mean, all this talk about plot and character development blahblah blah is like listening to old crusty dudes talk about the heyday of theatre and live performance based acting. i mean, these are different times. information is relayed at lightning fast speeds. the development of character and unfolding of plot are becoming elements of a bygone era. as it was with books to cinema, now it is with cinema unto itself.
thomas edison was doing the pron in the 00s. it has been a staple of nickelodeons and stereogram parlor gimmicks long before the 70s.
True. But teenagers are now the largest ticket buyers. And DVD's have been killing the movegoing exp.
it will be forgotten
There is an episode on Viva La Bam (I was watching it last night) where Johnny Knoxville and Ryun Dunn pull pranks on Bam Margera. And they go back and forth destroying each other's cars and such. Breaking of taboos, high drama, character development. It's all there. In the end, you even get a heartfelt moment, where each says it's over. This is nothing short of genius. The epitome of great 30min. television programming.
Of course. Pron predates the 70's. But didnt middle america line up to watch it instead of reel to reels at the stag party. It joined the "mainstream".
exactly. which brings up a good point. that soderbergh flick bubble or something. didnt see it but the direct to dvd as well as theatre release is prolly another seminal turning point in modern cinema.
and dont forget, todays teenagers are tomorrows adults. cinema is going in that direction no matter how u slice it.
The latter is an interesting point but the former: is this quantifiably true? I think studios pander to that demographic but are they the largest group of ticket buyers? I'm doubtful.
you know what won't ever be forgotten post-2000?
Disagree. I think documentaries have taken a huge stride forward post-2000 in terms of general awareness within popular culture. I'm not claiming they're better made in this decade but movies like "Bowling For Columbine," "Super Size Me" and "An Inconvenient Truth" ("March of the Penguins" too) have been embraced in a way that docs haven't been in previous generations.
No, that's Divine Horsemen ('47), which is available over at UBU btw. Link.
This is a short dealing with Maya's identity and place in society. It's introspective and beautiful, dreamy.
It's up on YouTube, if you can stand the quality (or lack there of)
Part 1
Will thes "ADD" adults of the future have the patience to sit through a "movie" in 20 years. Or will they upload that shit on thier OMNI-VIEWER? Yuichi just said he's taken a braek from movie going.
Or will movies become like Koyaanisqasti on crack/mashup/reality show/cnn/collage?
This movie was not "good" but in some ways, seemingly prescient:
i was dragged to see Reno 911 last night not expecting to find that schitt funny at all, but i was pretty much out of breath from laughing the whole time
the only documentary worthy of mentioning is jackass and/or jackass 2. and im sure one could argue against them being considered a "documentary", but in its essence, it is a basic document.
it is true that "documentaries" now have enough box office clout to run in theaters on their own merit. and that is worth something. but supersize me does not really fit into the other docs u mentioned as it didnt have anywhere near the theater release as those others.
I'm pretty sure teenagers make up a good portion of movie-goers.
[Michael Bay fanboy]You mean "Armageddon" won't look real in a few years? Oh no![/Michael Bay fanboy]
I don't disagree with what's being said here but I wonder if this isn't potentially cylical...or, at least, holds out the promise for some kind of "bounce." I mean, modern Hollywood was premised on the basic idea that $100,000 ---> $60,000,000 (I>The Birth of a Nation[/i]) was an industry worth investing into. Profit-motive was at the heart of modern cinema's growth from jump (that and revisionist White Supremacy but let's put that aside for the moment).
I think if movie profits decline, it might create opportunities for more risk-taking (or make studios even more conservative). Hard to predict the future. Let's just hope I>Transformers[/i] flops really, really hard (though who are we kidding? I'll go see that shit.).
For solidifiying the Superhero genre/era that we are currently in.
Yuichi - please to put down your Lakers pom-poms and put on some reading glasses.
I asked if they were THE LARGEST GROUP. Of course they're a "good portion" but are they, in fact, a numerical majority (or at least plurality)?
the second shig started posting about jackass knocking out all traditional norms of movies, that is what came to mind.
We will all be watching people farting on camera or getting kicked in the nuts for an hour and a half in 20 years. Screw plots, lets just run into walls with shopping carts.
Is Armageddon the joint where it has the classic jam by Aerosmith?
Eh - you could have said that about the Tim Burton Batman movies back in the '90s. Or the Chris Reeves' I>Superman[/i] movies of the '80s. The frequency may have picked up with improvements in FX technology but for the most part, I think it's hard to draw a clear line as to when the superhero era really began.
And in any case, I don't know how many people would NOW consider the I>Batman[/i] films a definitive statement of the '90s so I'm not certain even something as relatively "good" as I>Spiderman 2[/i] is going to hold up for the 00s.
In contrast, I cosign on I>Lord of the Rings[/i]. It's just a pity that every major movie director now feels it necessary to include their own siege scene. Zhang Yimou, I'm looking at you.
the future is awesome!
but lets just stop and think for a moment. we are discussing cinema. a deviant artform in itself. im trying to say its prolly the single most reason for the beginning of the end of literature. and i'll bet the farm that them book dudes from way back were crying the same poo except about films. that cinema was a progressive dumbing down of humanity. that by literally portraying a story, it bounds the imagination. so i ask u, do you feel dumb, punk? well...do ya?
I'm not sure "lit = dead."
Cinema killed vaudeville deader than dead however.
Poor Al.
I did say "Solidifiying" the genre. Batman in the 90's killed itself. The Mask and The Crow were hits but not by the standard of Spiderman. Blade really ushered in this the current resurgence.