Rant #2: Films are getting lazy

In my second rant, I wish to discuss the declining quality in today's film industry. I worked a bit harder on this rant than the last one, so hopefully there won't be any problem reading it.

In an almost pseudo continuation of my last rant, I want to talk about how the current film industry is turning into a giant shitfest. As I've come to notice in recent years, style is being prioritized over substance. What do I mean by this? As long as you can make your piece of crap look shiny, then people will buy it, watch it, and all that jazz. Using the movie Avatar by James Cameron as an example, look at the movie from a subjective point of view. What does it bring to the table that we haven't seen before? As noted by many media outlets, the plot is incredibly similar to famous movies such as the disney version of Atlantis, Pocahontas, Dances with Wolves, and many others. This "Plot" has been recycled so many times it's become cliche, and I've hated it after watching it for the third time. It's solid, but overused. So why is it that this movie has such an amazing special affects treatment, yet very little in the way of plot? Time constraints? Lack of creativity? Anyone who's seen the movie and is even remotely familiar with cinema of the past 10 to 15 years will tell you that this movie is a pretty piece of crap. All style, no substance. It befudles me that more care wasn't put in the plot when this movie really could have been amazing.

My second issue is camera techniques. I like to see when film makers and animators get creative with how they present their scenes. A camera pan, quick cut, zoom in/out, and fade away can be used to amazing effect that really gets your blood pumping and dramatically increases your immersion in the movie. Take Star Wars for example. When Luke Skywalker goes to see if his adoptive family is okay in episode IV, the film effects really give you a sense of the weight this scene holds. None of this info is relayed to you through words or actions. You can see clear as day that this will affect his character as he leaves his hold life behinds to become a Jedi. In the scene, he runs up the desert dune, and with sad music playing in the background, you see the wrecked remains of his old home being shown by a slow pan of the camera. It's a simple scene that holds a lot of character motivation without saying barely a word.
Now the major problem is not that any particular style is bad, we just seem to have a lot of the easier styles exploited. The most annoying overused cheat is lack of pans and WAY too many jump cuts. When you look at a scene in most modern action movies, it resembles a puzzle that the film makers put together at whim. Very rarely is there dynamic camera movement. It's just flashes of images. It's absolutely lazy and overdone, and it keeps being used because it's easier to do, and thus cheaper to do. As silly as it may seem to rant about camera technique, it really does matter when making a film. Animated films follow a similar sensibility, just instead of lightning fast cuts, it's a static image with two people flapping their gums. Anime in particular is a big culprit for doing this, as there is a ton of animated material produced in Japan (More than any other country) and sacrifices must be made. Quantity over quality I guess.

And my last point for this rant is acting. A preformers ability to acurattely portray a character either in person or in voice really matters when you're trying to be immersed in a movie. The movies we remember are the ones where you really feel like the characters went through all of the things they experience on screen. Even if the situation is in a fantasy setting, you can still have believable acting that enhances the tone and immersion factor of the film. Take Lord of the Rings. Those movies take place in a time and place that could never exist, and yet it contains accurate emotional responses from the characters that make the world come alive. When Frodo is being tortured by his burden of destroying the ring, you see overtime how his health and personality warps. Even if what happened to him could never happen, you still get caught up in it by how well he's able to act like he's being tortured (Physically and mentally).
Coming to the present day, I notice a lot of acting relies on the main character either being A) An emotionless piece of shit who blows shit up, beats shit up, or just is unemotionally attached, B) Being so obnoxious that all they have to do is act like a jackass, or B) Has the guts of a 9 year old girl who still keeps her light on at night when she sleeps and then suddenly grows up into person A (By this I mean they play the role of scared person who usually evolves into the first main character cliche I brought up). Since a movie is centered around a main character, the supporting actors have to work around this role to give a good preformance. What you usually find is the JarJar binks character (Annoying, stupid, talks too much, stalks the main guy, etc.), the sassy female character, the good natured man who dies because we know he will, and the badass character who says nothing and always shows up at the right time to be... badass. There are more than this, but these kinds of roles are never belivable because they're either flawed to begin with (As in no one would ever act this way) or are just done by bad actors. Very few actors know how to just act well. You either see overacting or underacting, never a good balance. Mind you, I'm aware that a lot of old movies had hokey acting (Some worse than what we have now) but you'll find that the last decade has produced less good films than ever before. All because of laziness and a lust for money where companies can get it, even if it means cutting things out. Like good actors, proper filimg technique, and a goddamn script.

And so ends my rant that is way too long. Congrats if you read it all. Be sure to answer the poll as I'll be making another rant by this Sunday or Saturday (I admit, I do enjoy making these :P ). I also would accept correcting my grammar and spelling as I didn't pay much attention to spelling when reading through this, I mainly just wanted to be sure it made sense).


<hr>Posts merged

Japanese Stuff: I'll rant on certain aspects of Japanese media and how they are perceived by foreign audiences. I have things I don't like about some of the people who like Japanese media, and I also have things I don't like about people who dislike it. I'll also rant on what parts of anime, manga, and music I dislike.

Animation: I'll rant about how animation quality is going down rather than going up. I'll be limiting myself to traditional animation only, so stop motion and CGI will not be included.

Cliches in movies: I'll rant about certain movies cliches kill the experience and show little creative effort from the film makers.

Handheld Gaming Market: I'll rant about how devices like Iphones and Ipads are being embraced as gaming devices and why they shouldn't be unless they improve.

Comments

Coming from a movie buff, I'll counteract your argument.

1. The Pocahontas/Dances With Wolves/Atlantis plot. In all truth, I do believe that Avatar's plot is derivative, but the truth is, they made that movie a lot more socially relevant. Unlike the other films, the picture's plot is related to caring for nature and greed of man. It's not that original, but it's immediately relevant, something people fail to grasp.

Also, if you think that style is being prioritized over substance, think again. Since when did films like Slumdog Millionaire or Hurt Locker or perhaps even Social Network become redundant or focused on style? Also, you also fail to see that style is still important; without the amazing camera tricks, Forrest Gump wouldn't have been as good, Requiem for a Dream would have never been able to show the addiction from it's own point of view, and most recently, Inception wouldn't have been as good. The true test of a movie is to integrate style and other elements of the movie into a plot, something that many movies have accomplished recently.

2. Again, you're generalizing based on one movie. Star Wars had good camera angles yes, but you don't compare it with The Expendables or some shit like that, you compare it with movies that are on par with it, like No Country for Old Men. You're drastically generalizing the movie industry, that it's all non-emotional cuts, but it's not. There's good cuts everywhere, even the movie you bashed on, Avatar.

3. ACTING? Are you seriously bagging on acting? Have you watched any good movies? At all? Most of the time, acting is the best part of a movie. Watch Colin Firth, Jeff Bridges, Meryl Streep; GOLD. If you can't appreciate acting today cause it's not "AS GOOD AS FRODO", there's a problem here. I question if you've watched ANY gems in 2010. 127 Hours, King's Speech, even KICK-ASS had good acting. You can't compare friggin LOTR to some shitty commercialized movie.

Your viewpoint is limited to the big blockbuster movies. You focus on movies as a business instead of an artform. More and more people are getting creative, more young minds, more plots to be unlocked. It's either that you've watched few movies, or that you have made conclusions to early. There are a LOT of fantastic movies, with fantastic plots. You generalize "FILMS" using only one film. You can't, you have to base it on the movies that are equal to it. Films can't be generalized, they're varied immensely, you can't compare 2010's best (The Social Network) to it's worst (The Last Airbender). Casablanca can't be compared with Jackass, it can be compared with Brokeback Mountain. The ratio of good films is still high and above, it hasn't changed at all. Wait until every film is bad, then you can say that, but until then, we can't generalize "FILMS" as a whole.
 
[quote name='KingdomBlade' post='3509019' date='Mar 10 2011, 10:47 AM']Coming from a movie buff, I'll counteract your argument.

1. The Pocahontas/Dances With Wolves/Atlantis plot. In all truth, I do believe that Avatar's plot is derivative, but the truth is, they made that movie a lot more socially relevant. Unlike the other films, the picture's plot is related to caring for nature and greed of man. It's not that original, but it's immediately relevant, something people fail to grasp.

Also, if you think that style is being prioritized over substance, think again. Since when did films like Slumdog Millionaire or Hurt Locker or perhaps even Social Network become redundant or focused on style? Also, you also fail to see that style is still important; without the amazing camera tricks, Forrest Gump wouldn't have been as good, Requiem for a Dream would have never been able to show the addiction from it's own point of view, and most recently, Inception wouldn't have been as good. The true test of a movie is to integrate style and other elements of the movie into a plot, something that many movies have accomplished recently.

2. Again, you're generalizing based on one movie. Star Wars had good camera angles yes, but you don't compare it with The Expendables or some shit like that, you compare it with movies that are on par with it, like No Country for Old Men. You're drastically generalizing the movie industry, that it's all non-emotional cuts, but it's not. There's good cuts everywhere, even the movie you bashed on, Avatar.]

3. ACTING? Are you seriously bagging on acting? Have you watched any good movies? At all? Most of the time, acting is the best part of a movie. Watch Colin Firth, Jeff Bridges, Meryl Streep; GOLD. If you can't appreciate acting today cause it's not "AS GOOD AS FRODO", there's a problem here. I question if you've watched ANY gems in 2010. 127 Hours, King's Speech, even KICK-ASS had good acting. You can't compare friggin LOTR to some shitty commercialized movie.

Your viewpoint is limited to the big blockbuster movies. You focus on movies as a business instead of an artform. More and more people are getting creative, more young minds, more plots to be unlocked. It's either that you've watched few movies, or that you have made conclusions to early. There are a LOT of fantastic movies, with fantastic plots. You generalize "FILMS" using only one film. You can't, you have to base it on the movies that are equal to it. Films can't be generalized, they're varied immensely, you can't compare 2010's best (The Social Network) to it's worst (The Last Airbender). Casablanca can't be compared with Jackass, it can be compared with Brokeback Mountain. The ratio of good films is still high and above, it hasn't changed at all. Wait until every film is bad, then you can say that, but until then, we can't generalize "FILMS" as a whole.[/quote]

The one problem I have with your argument against me is that you don't see that my examples are what were considered "Large commercial movies" during their time. Yeah, I don't deny we have gems hidden in the shit, but the industry as a whole has let these terrible movies become the norm. Take a movie like "Who Framed Roger Rabbit". If you heard a movie like that was coming out today, you'd probably think it would suck, and it likely would suck. Star Wars is constantly compared to Avatar since they both supposedly "Raised the bar", but anyone who has seen both will tell you Star Wars is way better. Maybe I should have said I was comparing commercial films now to before, but that's what I meant really. I wasn't trying to say the best movies now are worse than the best movies then, more that the average film is worse today is worse than the average movie before.
 
With movies having been around for over a century, I doubt we'll get original plots all the time. Most of them are interesting takes on familiar themes in movies. Like the Pocahontas theme is the danger of man to the environment and native people of somewhere. It's been elaborated on quite a bit. Themes like corporate greed, doomsday, Jekyll and Hyde, technology, etc, have been around for decades and are just elaborated on in movies.

In general, Avatar is a poor example of modern film. It pioneered 3D but there's hardly been any movie to combine the action and special effects of Avatar with deep plot and characters. It's still seen as a gimmick to pump up ticket prices to like $15. It's ridiculous.

Being a film student myself, personally I see no reason why jump cuts and pans are bad. One of the movies to really take advantage of these were the Bourne movies, and to great use. The cuts were quick to show the quick action. They were meant for the fast paced action in the movie. Or when you look at Edgar Wright films (Scott Pilgrim, Shaun of the Dead, and Hot Fuzz), he uses short quick cut montages to show a short passage of time or effectively segway from one scene to another.

Sure as hell beats the fucking canted angle shots. Like Battlefield Earth, which we all know sucked. Every shot is a fucking canted angle. Nowadays kids on Facebook think it's "cool" to use a canted angle shot for their profile pic. It's not, stop being a douche.
 
[quote name='Guild McCommunist' post='3510054' date='Mar 10 2011, 10:21 PM']With movies having been around for over a century, I doubt we'll get original plots all the time. Most of them are interesting takes on familiar themes in movies. Like the Pocahontas theme is the danger of man to the environment and native people of somewhere. It's been elaborated on quite a bit. Themes like corporate greed, doomsday, Jekyll and Hyde, technology, etc, have been around for decades and are just elaborated on in movies.

In general, Avatar is a poor example of modern film. It pioneered 3D but there's hardly been any movie to combine the action and special effects of Avatar with deep plot and characters. It's still seen as a gimmick to pump up ticket prices to like $15. It's ridiculous.

Being a film student myself, personally I see no reason why jump cuts and pans are bad. One of the movies to really take advantage of these were the Bourne movies, and to great use. The cuts were quick to show the quick action. They were meant for the fast paced action in the movie. Or when you look at Edgar Wright films (Scott Pilgrim, Shaun of the Dead, and Hot Fuzz), he uses short quick cut montages to show a short passage of time or effectively segway from one scene to another.

Sure as hell beats the fucking canted angle shots. Like Battlefield Earth, which we all know sucked. Every shot is a fucking canted angle. Nowadays kids on Facebook think it's "cool" to use a canted angle shot for their profile pic. It's not, stop being a douche.[/quote]

I agree with you. The "quick cut" method isn't too bad, but it isn't usually used in correct context. With the bourne films it made sense since they're action movies, and it's not like the whole series uses it the entire time. I recall a ton of great scenes from the first film that weren't action scenes. They were just good. However, a lot of movies use it THE ENTIRE FILM and I feel like I'm watching a slide show rather than a movie. It's an okay technique for television, but in a movie you need a variety of different camera shots that are appropriate for the scene. Even though I didn't like Avatar, I will admit the camera work was pretty effective and not as annoying as it is for some films.

The canted angle thing makes me feel sick. Whenver I see it, I get the urge to tilt my head to one side to see the scene properly. I don't recall ever enjoying the effect.
 

Blog entry information

Author
Tonitonichopchop
Views
147
Comments
8
Last update

More entries in Personal Blogs

More entries from Tonitonichopchop

Share this entry

General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
    K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2: Lol sparking zero is getting more attention than cs2