I think sometimes just the buzz of being part of a community that consumed the latest thing is part of the appeal. A great example is 50 shades of grey- people mostly went into it knowing it was awful, but the real fun came afterwards complaining about how awful it was with friends. At the other extreme for some "literary" type works people consume them as an act of solitude and exclusivity. If the masses suddenly started foaming over Proust the current Proust fans might find an excuse to look down on it. I was also amazed at how forgettable the first avatar was, and don't plan on bothering with the sequel. But maybe that was part of the appeal for modern audiences. Kind of like salvia or DMT- profound, but over in five minutes so you can get back to scrolling on your phone.
So so much to unpack here! First, I have to admit, as a psychonaut––aspiring, anyway––I want to try DMT quite badly. Salvia scares me more.
But as for the masses effect, kudos for bringing that to the conversation. I think you are spot on, and especially that literary effect. As a grad of an MFA, I look back on the attitude toward "literature" and find it almost sad how limiting and exclusive it is.
And then, we're talking two blockbusters in MCU v. James Cameron, nothing "artistic or literary" in either case, and I wonder what the warring clans are trying to accomplish. Is it "my CGI is better than your CGI?" or is it "your story is petty entertainment and mine is climate activism, which is the most important thing since the hole in the ozone"?
I'm at a loss here, because neither Ant Man nor Avatar are my thing - never saw either, and have no interest. I'm not a comic book fan, and have no interest in today's obsession with all things anime, comic book heroes, and CGI. Ever since the writer's strike of 2008, we've been getting nothing but remakes of existing movies, CGI-heavy eye candy, and no substance. Indie movies, anymore, are the closest thing you have to "story" - and, alas, I have other criticisms on the specifics of many of those.
Having said that, I truly enjoyed "Red" and "Red 2," which I didn't know were DC comic-related at the time.
Writers like us have little opportunity anymore to breach the Hollywood/film industry, despite often having more interesting work. Only rarely will you get a Where the Crawdads Sing come out. And, though it's not new, much of what made the book great is on the cutting room floor. Hollywood is less cinematic these days and more a special effects playground. It's dumbed down the audience and frozen out real talent. Writers are the enemy to them, anymore. Directors write many of the actual "original" scripts, and they openly scoff at real writers. Some may disagree with me, but I've spoken to insiders who confirm this. All blockbuster and no epics. That's huge. And disappointing.
However, a comment on Mr. Cameron: ANY artist who steps out from behind the art they create to steal the spotlight from it is like the reporter who makes himself the story. It's a huge no-no in journalistic settings. It would be one thing if Cameron's personality was "so big" that people gravitated to him. But he's the one making all that of himself? No thanks. Seriously.
My question is: when deciding the biggest grossing film, are they comparing apples to apples? Tickets are considerably more expensive now. It would be easy to eclipse a top-grossing film of 1939 nearly a hundred years later. So are they doing the math? For a top-grossing film, it seems odd that I'd never heard of it until this podcast.
Blockbusters are all hype. It's shiny, kleg lights, and studio-pushed. What made Titanic so amazing was that it was good, but no one expected it to be such a hit. It was Epic. Not a blockbuster. Avatar would be blockbuster. So would Star Wars, by the way, except that - again - no one expected it to be so big. And lo and behold? Titanic AND Star Wars were story-centered with tons of heart. Blockbusters are the shiny things. They're neon. Epics are natural sunlight, and not fake.
That's my opinion. And yes - today's parameters of political correctness and the like has dealt the final blow to the film industry. Old Hollywood is gone. It's tragic. Especially when so many stories out there - stories by you and me - would be wonderful on the screen.
And P.S. - yes, as a writer, I feel like I've written something only I'm interested in.
I love when you and I have different frames of reference, Heather. Your stance on film right now is one I'd love to debate more fully.
From what I can see, there is so much GREAT film happening. The Golden Age of Film is alive and well, with a great deal of it being in streaming TV format. NARCOS, OZARK, HOT ONES, WEREWOLF BY NIGHT and many others.
And go back 10, 20 years, you have BREAKING BAD, THE SOPRANOS, most of Tarantino (though he's had some misses for sure), Will Smith is nearly perfect in his picks: THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS is a masterpiece. Anything with Edward Norton is art. Anya Taylor Joy is a vision.
And the very best of the best of all the best, is the British TV series, THE TRIP and all its subsequent seasons, which in America have been made into films. I owe my comedic sensibilities to Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon.
There's THE QUEENS GAMBIT, a miniseries adapted from a great novel, the first season of THE GOOD PLACE, a network TV special was amazing. It flopped in later seasons.
And the majority of the Marvel Cinematic Universe movies through phase 3 were trailblazers in big budget meets great storytelling. (Virtue signaling and political correctness have weakened these last 2 phases of MCU movies, and I hope it stops happening.)
IRON MAN was great. Good moral tale; good acting; good CGI. THE INCREDIBLE HULK was fantastic. All of the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY films have been stellar. They blend humor, high stakes and sincerity in such subtle and satisfying ways.
When done correctly, few things can critique society as well as sci-fi/fantasy/comicbook properties. That is why the MCU is faltering, because rather than critiquing society right now, they are trying to check the inclusiveness boxes over all other things.
And let me not forget every single Pixar film through Toy Story 3. Utterly divine. They couldn't go wrong.
Nothing listed there is an "epic," or a great, sweeping love story. It's action. And so many of the examples are CGI-heavy. Not actor-heavy. There are no more Kramer vs. Kramers, no Casablancas, no English Patients, no Out of Africas, no Titanics, no Gone With the Winds. People like me, who don't like comic books or Iron Man/Galaxy-themed stories are largely left out. There isn't the heart in stories that there used to be. Just politically correct, virtue-signaling, woke sentiments and a shunning of the "morality plays" of the past, which is what so many sit-coms, for example, started out with. The Pursuit of Happyness isn't recent - though, yes, it's good. And a good example of what we lack anymore. (Also, it's a 2006 movie - before the 2008 writer's strike.) Ed Norton is brilliant - but he's not a "leading man" in the sense of the Golden Age of Hollywood. He's great, but Fight Club (just as an example) isn't exactly something warm and cozy, or feeling-provoking (bad choice of words).
I do like British television, and Coogan and Brydon are both brilliant comedians, but aside from the absolutely stellar acting Coogan did in Shepherds and Butchers in 2016 (yes, post-writer's strike but also a South African film), it's pretty much comedy. English comedy - which is a style of its own. And that's fine. We need comedy. But I'm talking about the sweeping Hollywood epics that moved people - not just a bunch of action flicks from comic books. There is a whole bunch of folks, like me, who find it very difficult to find things to watch anymore. That makes it a great time to be a writer, for me. Less distraction.
Pixar is cartoon. Stunning visually, and yes, Toy Story has some heart ... but nothing you listed there disproves what my initial point was. We're not "allowed" anymore to have our feelings hurt, or to portray those traits that are so pearl-clutchingly "offensive" that people can learn from them. Art is restricted. Perhaps not visually, but certainly in scope. And actors are suffering every bit as much as viewers. Not everyone is Tony Stark. What about Rain Man? What about the Color Purple? What about Sling Blade? What about War of the Roses? Movies just aren't the same anymore.
Love the debate. It's so rare that we're so far apart on things. Makes us human, huh? LOL
Sling Blade is a masterpiece. No denying it, but Fargo (TV show not film) is as bold and offensive as Sling Blade.
If you want golden age, Tick, Tick, Boom! Is every bit as epic, as honest, as offensive, and grand. Inception has a nice blend of CGI and acting and story with romance and disregard for PC. Dunkirk leans on the technology of modern film, but I'm confident James Stewart would have approved.
But as I just wasted 20 minutes combing through IMDB I got the uncomfortable feeling that the majority of my favorite films were made before 2008. Nothing outside of Comicbook movies within the past 5 years…
Note that, outside the Comicbook-verse, most of the examples are TV.
What brings people to pay $20+/ticket to sit in a theater with strangers (who rudely and unrepentantly talk and are on their phones and you'd better not say anything) has changed. I'm not a fan. And yet, there are clearly people who don't mind. Or do they?
Films by and large don't attract folks these days like they did in the Godfather days. And as for television, most shows are casting adults as adorable (or overbearing or abusive) fools while their "evolved" and "wise" children set them straight. It's an entire break-down of humanity. And the proof is in every corner of society. Parents have to parent by committee (lest they have the authorities called on them for daring to set down rules) and parents - particularly single parents - are walking on egg shells. Or they've given up. Whether we like it or disagree about it, art often steers the ship of society. And, where it's hamstrung, so goes society. We've seen changes in every decade. Art is part and parcel of changes. Perhaps even in a Wag the Dog sense.
Anyway, there is also the "taste" factor. Some may enjoy nothing but super heroes and CGI. My point is, many don't. I know I don't. I dislike the thinly-shrouded propaganda-esque shows of today with their PC garbage. So much so, I cut the cable cord years ago. Other than British TV, there are precious few shows I'll watch on, say, Prime or Netflix of HBO. In fact, I routinely get rid of the former two because there's nothing there. I tend to buy movies and series I enjoy on Prime, then watch them over again. I don't want to be preached to, or shamed, or scolded for an "unapproved" way of thinking. And to the extent this practice has gone on for decades (which I agree it has), it's so much more blatant these days. It's a turn off.
It harkens back to the show you did with Jason Cheng. I like all the angst-y stuff that lets ME feel and work out in my head how I process it...sadness, longing, morality-wrestling, etc. Entertainment today doesn't leave the viewer/reader/listener many options. And it shows. Just as we see the decline of movie-going in general, or book stores, etc. The humanity is being leeched out of the stories. The foibles. The failures. The heart. It's all eye candy, to me.
I can't imagine, for example, anyone ever turning my saga into a series (TV or movies). There's the diversity quota that I apparently lack, for one. Second, there would have to be actual actors and actual salaries for those actors (another reason CGI is so popular these days, which they've admitted, is the bonus of not having to pay many actors when then can get away with it). All manner of reasons. But that's one reason I write what I write. I write what I want to read. I'd love to see someone do something similar to mine on the big screen. Fat chance.
I think sometimes just the buzz of being part of a community that consumed the latest thing is part of the appeal. A great example is 50 shades of grey- people mostly went into it knowing it was awful, but the real fun came afterwards complaining about how awful it was with friends. At the other extreme for some "literary" type works people consume them as an act of solitude and exclusivity. If the masses suddenly started foaming over Proust the current Proust fans might find an excuse to look down on it. I was also amazed at how forgettable the first avatar was, and don't plan on bothering with the sequel. But maybe that was part of the appeal for modern audiences. Kind of like salvia or DMT- profound, but over in five minutes so you can get back to scrolling on your phone.
So so much to unpack here! First, I have to admit, as a psychonaut––aspiring, anyway––I want to try DMT quite badly. Salvia scares me more.
But as for the masses effect, kudos for bringing that to the conversation. I think you are spot on, and especially that literary effect. As a grad of an MFA, I look back on the attitude toward "literature" and find it almost sad how limiting and exclusive it is.
And then, we're talking two blockbusters in MCU v. James Cameron, nothing "artistic or literary" in either case, and I wonder what the warring clans are trying to accomplish. Is it "my CGI is better than your CGI?" or is it "your story is petty entertainment and mine is climate activism, which is the most important thing since the hole in the ozone"?
I'm at a loss here, because neither Ant Man nor Avatar are my thing - never saw either, and have no interest. I'm not a comic book fan, and have no interest in today's obsession with all things anime, comic book heroes, and CGI. Ever since the writer's strike of 2008, we've been getting nothing but remakes of existing movies, CGI-heavy eye candy, and no substance. Indie movies, anymore, are the closest thing you have to "story" - and, alas, I have other criticisms on the specifics of many of those.
Having said that, I truly enjoyed "Red" and "Red 2," which I didn't know were DC comic-related at the time.
Writers like us have little opportunity anymore to breach the Hollywood/film industry, despite often having more interesting work. Only rarely will you get a Where the Crawdads Sing come out. And, though it's not new, much of what made the book great is on the cutting room floor. Hollywood is less cinematic these days and more a special effects playground. It's dumbed down the audience and frozen out real talent. Writers are the enemy to them, anymore. Directors write many of the actual "original" scripts, and they openly scoff at real writers. Some may disagree with me, but I've spoken to insiders who confirm this. All blockbuster and no epics. That's huge. And disappointing.
However, a comment on Mr. Cameron: ANY artist who steps out from behind the art they create to steal the spotlight from it is like the reporter who makes himself the story. It's a huge no-no in journalistic settings. It would be one thing if Cameron's personality was "so big" that people gravitated to him. But he's the one making all that of himself? No thanks. Seriously.
My question is: when deciding the biggest grossing film, are they comparing apples to apples? Tickets are considerably more expensive now. It would be easy to eclipse a top-grossing film of 1939 nearly a hundred years later. So are they doing the math? For a top-grossing film, it seems odd that I'd never heard of it until this podcast.
Blockbusters are all hype. It's shiny, kleg lights, and studio-pushed. What made Titanic so amazing was that it was good, but no one expected it to be such a hit. It was Epic. Not a blockbuster. Avatar would be blockbuster. So would Star Wars, by the way, except that - again - no one expected it to be so big. And lo and behold? Titanic AND Star Wars were story-centered with tons of heart. Blockbusters are the shiny things. They're neon. Epics are natural sunlight, and not fake.
That's my opinion. And yes - today's parameters of political correctness and the like has dealt the final blow to the film industry. Old Hollywood is gone. It's tragic. Especially when so many stories out there - stories by you and me - would be wonderful on the screen.
And P.S. - yes, as a writer, I feel like I've written something only I'm interested in.
I love when you and I have different frames of reference, Heather. Your stance on film right now is one I'd love to debate more fully.
From what I can see, there is so much GREAT film happening. The Golden Age of Film is alive and well, with a great deal of it being in streaming TV format. NARCOS, OZARK, HOT ONES, WEREWOLF BY NIGHT and many others.
And go back 10, 20 years, you have BREAKING BAD, THE SOPRANOS, most of Tarantino (though he's had some misses for sure), Will Smith is nearly perfect in his picks: THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS is a masterpiece. Anything with Edward Norton is art. Anya Taylor Joy is a vision.
And the very best of the best of all the best, is the British TV series, THE TRIP and all its subsequent seasons, which in America have been made into films. I owe my comedic sensibilities to Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon.
There's THE QUEENS GAMBIT, a miniseries adapted from a great novel, the first season of THE GOOD PLACE, a network TV special was amazing. It flopped in later seasons.
And the majority of the Marvel Cinematic Universe movies through phase 3 were trailblazers in big budget meets great storytelling. (Virtue signaling and political correctness have weakened these last 2 phases of MCU movies, and I hope it stops happening.)
IRON MAN was great. Good moral tale; good acting; good CGI. THE INCREDIBLE HULK was fantastic. All of the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY films have been stellar. They blend humor, high stakes and sincerity in such subtle and satisfying ways.
When done correctly, few things can critique society as well as sci-fi/fantasy/comicbook properties. That is why the MCU is faltering, because rather than critiquing society right now, they are trying to check the inclusiveness boxes over all other things.
And let me not forget every single Pixar film through Toy Story 3. Utterly divine. They couldn't go wrong.
Nothing listed there is an "epic," or a great, sweeping love story. It's action. And so many of the examples are CGI-heavy. Not actor-heavy. There are no more Kramer vs. Kramers, no Casablancas, no English Patients, no Out of Africas, no Titanics, no Gone With the Winds. People like me, who don't like comic books or Iron Man/Galaxy-themed stories are largely left out. There isn't the heart in stories that there used to be. Just politically correct, virtue-signaling, woke sentiments and a shunning of the "morality plays" of the past, which is what so many sit-coms, for example, started out with. The Pursuit of Happyness isn't recent - though, yes, it's good. And a good example of what we lack anymore. (Also, it's a 2006 movie - before the 2008 writer's strike.) Ed Norton is brilliant - but he's not a "leading man" in the sense of the Golden Age of Hollywood. He's great, but Fight Club (just as an example) isn't exactly something warm and cozy, or feeling-provoking (bad choice of words).
I do like British television, and Coogan and Brydon are both brilliant comedians, but aside from the absolutely stellar acting Coogan did in Shepherds and Butchers in 2016 (yes, post-writer's strike but also a South African film), it's pretty much comedy. English comedy - which is a style of its own. And that's fine. We need comedy. But I'm talking about the sweeping Hollywood epics that moved people - not just a bunch of action flicks from comic books. There is a whole bunch of folks, like me, who find it very difficult to find things to watch anymore. That makes it a great time to be a writer, for me. Less distraction.
Pixar is cartoon. Stunning visually, and yes, Toy Story has some heart ... but nothing you listed there disproves what my initial point was. We're not "allowed" anymore to have our feelings hurt, or to portray those traits that are so pearl-clutchingly "offensive" that people can learn from them. Art is restricted. Perhaps not visually, but certainly in scope. And actors are suffering every bit as much as viewers. Not everyone is Tony Stark. What about Rain Man? What about the Color Purple? What about Sling Blade? What about War of the Roses? Movies just aren't the same anymore.
Love the debate. It's so rare that we're so far apart on things. Makes us human, huh? LOL
I love this!
Sling Blade is a masterpiece. No denying it, but Fargo (TV show not film) is as bold and offensive as Sling Blade.
If you want golden age, Tick, Tick, Boom! Is every bit as epic, as honest, as offensive, and grand. Inception has a nice blend of CGI and acting and story with romance and disregard for PC. Dunkirk leans on the technology of modern film, but I'm confident James Stewart would have approved.
But as I just wasted 20 minutes combing through IMDB I got the uncomfortable feeling that the majority of my favorite films were made before 2008. Nothing outside of Comicbook movies within the past 5 years…
Note that, outside the Comicbook-verse, most of the examples are TV.
What brings people to pay $20+/ticket to sit in a theater with strangers (who rudely and unrepentantly talk and are on their phones and you'd better not say anything) has changed. I'm not a fan. And yet, there are clearly people who don't mind. Or do they?
Films by and large don't attract folks these days like they did in the Godfather days. And as for television, most shows are casting adults as adorable (or overbearing or abusive) fools while their "evolved" and "wise" children set them straight. It's an entire break-down of humanity. And the proof is in every corner of society. Parents have to parent by committee (lest they have the authorities called on them for daring to set down rules) and parents - particularly single parents - are walking on egg shells. Or they've given up. Whether we like it or disagree about it, art often steers the ship of society. And, where it's hamstrung, so goes society. We've seen changes in every decade. Art is part and parcel of changes. Perhaps even in a Wag the Dog sense.
Anyway, there is also the "taste" factor. Some may enjoy nothing but super heroes and CGI. My point is, many don't. I know I don't. I dislike the thinly-shrouded propaganda-esque shows of today with their PC garbage. So much so, I cut the cable cord years ago. Other than British TV, there are precious few shows I'll watch on, say, Prime or Netflix of HBO. In fact, I routinely get rid of the former two because there's nothing there. I tend to buy movies and series I enjoy on Prime, then watch them over again. I don't want to be preached to, or shamed, or scolded for an "unapproved" way of thinking. And to the extent this practice has gone on for decades (which I agree it has), it's so much more blatant these days. It's a turn off.
It harkens back to the show you did with Jason Cheng. I like all the angst-y stuff that lets ME feel and work out in my head how I process it...sadness, longing, morality-wrestling, etc. Entertainment today doesn't leave the viewer/reader/listener many options. And it shows. Just as we see the decline of movie-going in general, or book stores, etc. The humanity is being leeched out of the stories. The foibles. The failures. The heart. It's all eye candy, to me.
I can't imagine, for example, anyone ever turning my saga into a series (TV or movies). There's the diversity quota that I apparently lack, for one. Second, there would have to be actual actors and actual salaries for those actors (another reason CGI is so popular these days, which they've admitted, is the bonus of not having to pay many actors when then can get away with it). All manner of reasons. But that's one reason I write what I write. I write what I want to read. I'd love to see someone do something similar to mine on the big screen. Fat chance.