AO Scott Ethers Manchildren who Like Shit Like Transformers/Smash Brothers/Etc.

[Billy Rygar]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/movies/09scot.html?_r=1&8dpc

What kind of person constantly demands something new and yet always wants the same thing? A child of course. From toddlerhood we are fluent in the pop-cultural consumerist idiom: Again! More! Another one! (That George Simmons giant-baby comedy is called “Redo.”) Children are ceaselessly demanding, it’s true; but they are also easily satisfied, and this combination of appetite and docility makes the child an ideal moviegoer. But since there are a finite number of literal children out there, with limited disposable income and short attention spans, Hollywood has to make or find new ones. And so the studios have, with increasing vigor and intensity, carried out a program of mass infantilization.

Apply to videogame fans as well with equal ease.

[The Fake Shemp]

Not so fast there, hipster - you might want to look at AO Scott's track record before championing him.

I think he's a tool and not a smart tool, like Roeper.

[The Fake Shemp]

This is nothing but sour grapes over Funny People's box office results.

Funny People wasn't good!

... This is a dumb editorial.  He's complaining that films with pre-existing built in fanbases make more money than original films with mixed (and I say that loosely, since Public Enemies and Funny People lean to negative) reviews?

Uh, duh.

[The Fake Shemp]

No, I didn't miss the point.  It's just a poorly constructed editorial.  His point is that big, dumb movies are being spoonfed to audiences that are being groomed to enjoy big, dumb movies.

The problem is that is a stupid argument (to an extent, because audiences always love spectacles over substance).

Again, films with built-in fanbases do well! This not a shocker! Also, if you throw enough marketing at a tentpole flick, your first weekend will be frontloaded - as is the case with Transformers, Wolverine, etc.

Adjusted for inflation, none of the summer blockbusters make a dent in the charts.  Even without inflation adjustment, they're just frontloaded tentpole numbers.

Funny People sucked.  Public Enemies, from most accounts, was mediocre.  Their box office haul wasn't ruined because they were too intellectual and artistic, but because they were not very good.

All original IPs have an upwards battle, especially when they don't have tentpole marketing bucks behind them.

[The Fake Shemp]

Furthermore, this is a ridiculous, sour grapes argument that gives me no confidence in him taking over At The Movies.  You know what argument I'd like to see a mainstream critic tackle?

The death of genre filmmaking.

In their infinite wisdom, Hollywood has forced tentpole appeal to all demographics, regardless of whether or not that is a good idea.  That is the reason these big, bloated blockbusters that have no legs outside the first weekend (after studios spend approximately the production budget in marketing it everywhere). How many times do you watch a big spectacle flick and are irate over an element (maybe two or three or ten) that doesn't seem like it belongs in the movie whatsoever?

And in light skyrocketing budgets, smaller genre films are axed.  We used to be able to watch something like District 9, which strictly appealed to science-fiction fans or Drag Me to Hell on a semi-regular basis.  It's no secret Hollywood has drastically cut down the films they produce, focusing rather on tentpole films than genre films.

It's gotten worse, though.

Instead, genre films are relegated to pretty much indie status nowadays, where unknown filmmakers are forced to struggle with minuscule budgets.  The only real exemption to this is the romantic-comedy, since they still pull enough money.

Hollywood is high concept or bust nowadays.

[Mandark]

I'm gonna rule against AO Scott on this one.  It's kinda sloppy as social analysis.  Nothing about international markets, compressed theatrical runs due to the DVD market, or competition from cable TV.

It's typical.  Critics are usually more interested in saying something profound about the zeitgeist than they are explaining the mundane economic factors behind a trend.

[The Fake Shemp]

Also, he points to Up at the end of the editorial as a Hollywood flick with mature themes.  But it did well financially.  I don't get what he's trying to say - that the only mainstream films with commercial appeal and mature themes are animated?  Or that its ironic that movies meant for kids are more intelligent than drek like Transformers?

It makes no sense.

[Don Flamenco]

Furthermore, this is a ridiculous, sour grapes argument that gives me no confidence in him taking over At The Movies.  You know what argument I'd like to see a mainstream critic tackle?

The death of genre filmmaking.

In their infinite wisdom, Hollywood has forced tentpole appeal to all demographics, regardless of whether or not that is a good idea.  That is the reason these big, bloated blockbusters that have no legs outside the first weekend (after studios spend approximately the production budget in marketing it everywhere). How many times do you watch a big spectacle flick and are irate over an element (maybe two or three or ten) that doesn't seem like it belongs in the movie whatsoever?

And in light skyrocketing budgets, smaller genre films are axed.  We used to be able to watch something like District 9, which strictly appealed to science-fiction fans or Drag Me to Hell on a semi-regular basis.  It's no secret Hollywood has drastically cut down the films they produce, focusing rather on tentpole films than genre films.

It's gotten worse, though.

Instead, genre films are relegated to pretty much indie status nowadays, where unknown filmmakers are forced to struggle with minuscule budgets.  The only real exemption to this is the romantic-comedy, since they still pull enough money.

Hollywood is high concept or bust nowadays.

"the death of genre filmmaking" is an interesting subject, but this article is more relevant for a major, world-circulated newspaper.  It may be misplaced at the NYT, since that means an audience who probably mostly agrees with him will be the ones reading it.  And arguments like this fall on deaf ears when they're told to the oafish and nerdy types who think they're the world's biggest ________ fan.   But hey, it's something someone should point out at least once every summer and I'd be more worried if film critics were right on board with praising "turn your brain off" flicks, while excusing any criticisms they have.  

At the same time, I'll admit it is a slam dunk piece, practically written from a boilerplate--  "[intelligent, sensitive underdog] is getting completely mowed over by [hulking, extravagant big budget movie.]  Hollywood is going to hell in a handbasket."

[Van Cruncheon]

his broken-ass larger analysis aside, he *is* right about the current manbaby status of american theatre-goers. fucking transformers and harry potter are nothing more than shiny, glittery, colorful baubles in a darkened room, dangled above the crib for the audience to coo and ga-ga over.

[Phoenix Dark]

So basically he's saying "lol manabyte"

[Van Cruncheon]

and willco: transformers is fucking indefensible. its sales success is a humiliation of the intellect. sarah palin only dreams of making anyone with aspirations beyond the trailer park hurt so much.

pd, yeah, but it needs to be said. butts need to hurt.

[The Fake Shemp]

Versus the mature decade of - what - the 70s?  Which includes Jaws 2 and two Roger Moore Bond films in its Top 10 of the decade.

Or the 80s, which is literally manchild nirvana, with stuff like Batman, Back to the Future, etc.

[Van Cruncheon]

we should be refining garbage like this OUT of cinema, not perpetuating it all the while winnowing anything of substance.

[The Fake Shemp]

Who gives a crap about Transformers, Prole?  I didn't even like this latest one.

Saying that Transformers proves that all movie goers are manchildren is stupid.

[The Fake Shemp]

we should be refining garbage like this OUT of cinema, not perpetuating it.

Again, this garbage has existed for decades.  It is not new to the latest generation of filmmakers.

[Van Cruncheon]

i'm not saying "all". i'm saying a credibly large representative amount of all theatre-goers are manbabies.

[The Fake Shemp]

Because they like shallow, spectacle films?  Again, you can point to that throughout Hollywood's history.

The only difference between then and now is that, arguably, the spectacle films have gotten even more shallow in an attempt to appeal to all possible demographics.

Combined with the steady decline of genre filmmaking due to the skyrocketing budgets of these mainstream event films, it feels like the industry is dumber.

In reality, Hollywood just streamlined everything in an effort to make money.

I do feel there will be an inevitable collapse, simply because these tentpole flicks keep becoming more expensive to produce at an alarming rate.  At one point, these films will be too expensive to not have any consequences if they fail.

[Mandark]

Movie audiences, especially in the summer, skew very young, don't they?  The fogies come out for that year's Wild Hogs or Grand Torino but that's it.

The viewing audience's intellectual adolescence is probably just a function of its literal adolescence.

[HyperZoneWasAwesome]

I would say a function of that is just because movies for adults aren't really being made anymore. 

Each year, there are fewer and fewer wide release movies being made that aren't aimed at a teenage demographic, the mass appeal R-rated film is practically an endangered species.  Sure, there are lots of smaller (indie and semi-indie) films made for mature, thoughtful audiences, but for most of the country those really don't exist on their radar unless they win a bucket of awards.  Unless you're a cinema fan (people who aren't us, lets say) you're not going to be exposed to anything outside your bubble of what's playing at the local multiplex (shitload of PG-13 blockbusters), and what you can rent at your local Blockbuster/grocery store/Redbox (same shit).

I can't really talk about movies with my parents anymore, simply because they haven't seen hardly any movies that come out anymore.  They used to rent/go see movies several times a month, now its down to several times a year. 

"Yeah, Gran Torino and Public Enemies were awesome, seen anything else lately?"
"No, not really."

[dammitmattt]

The best "adult" movie this summer was Up.  Nothing else was remotely close.

It's kind of sad how far movies have fallen.  At least we have an abundance of great TV now!

[Don Flamenco]

It's kind of sad how far movies have fallen.  At least we have an abundance of great TV now!

This. 

An abundance of TV and a lifetime's worth of lesser known and foreign flicks to go through. 

[Himu]

The best "adult" movie this summer was Up.  Nothing else was remotely close.

It's kind of sad how far movies have fallen.  At least we have an abundance of great TV now!

Great tv is excellent and even tv's being heavily catered to the teen demo these days. Look at the popularity of reality tv!

[recursivelyenumerable]

Yeah, I'm sympathetic to his basic point here, but that wasn't a very well written article.

[Great Rumbler]

Big-budget, low-intellect films succeed the way they do because everyone and their dog, AND intellectuals, will go see at least one or two during the summer even if they KNOW that those movies will probably be mediocre, at best, in terms of actual quality.

[Mr. Gundam]

Unless you're a cinema fan (people who aren't us, lets say) you're not going to be exposed to anything outside your bubble of what's playing at the local multiplex (shitload of PG-13 blockbusters), and what you can rent at your local Blockbuster/grocery store/Redbox (same shit).

The idea of not living in a large city with thriving independent theaters frightens me. I don't know how people in the suburbs survive.

[Himu]

Unless you're a cinema fan (people who aren't us, lets say) you're not going to be exposed to anything outside your bubble of what's playing at the local multiplex (shitload of PG-13 blockbusters), and what you can rent at your local Blockbuster/grocery store/Redbox (same shit).

The idea of not living in a large city with thriving independent theaters frightens me. I don't know how people in the suburbs survive.

Dunno what it's like in cities that aren't in Houston, but driving to the independent flick place from where I live to Houston isn't really that hard.

[Mr. Gundam]

Unless you're a cinema fan (people who aren't us, lets say) you're not going to be exposed to anything outside your bubble of what's playing at the local multiplex (shitload of PG-13 blockbusters), and what you can rent at your local Blockbuster/grocery store/Redbox (same shit).

The idea of not living in a large city with thriving independent theaters frightens me. I don't know how people in the suburbs survive.

Dunno what it's like in cities that aren't in Houston, but driving to the independent flick place from where I live to Houston isn't really that hard.

Yeah, but Houston is a large market and has good theaters. It must suck for people who live in the middle of nowhere and love films.

[The Fake Shemp]

If they really love films, they'd runaway from home.

[Great Rumbler]

I have to drive about 80 miles to see an independent movie in a theater.

[Mr. Gundam]

I have to drive about 80 miles to see an independent movie in a theater.

That's what I'm talking about. I've got 10 different indep. theaters within 10 miles of me, along 5 or 6 large multiplexes. I'd die if I were as far away as Rumbler.

[Great Rumbler]

I have to drive about 80 miles to see an independent movie in a theater.

That's what I'm talking about. I've got 10 different indep. theaters within 10 miles of me, along 5 or 6 large multiplexes. I'd die if I were as far away as Rumbler.

It's pretty painful when awesome stuff like The Hurt Locker and Codl Souls are showing down there at the Angelika and I don't have the money for that long a drive.  :'(