As Inception slowly approaches, the buzz has become slightly more patronizing than exciting: fans across the world are being told that they might not understand the film. But this really is an absurd sentiment, and is one that I feel has caused big-budget films to -- in general -- get dumber and shallower.
But it’s not your fault -- and don’t let Hollywood tell you otherwise. It’s not your fault that Transformers 2 made $836 million worldwide, while Blade Runner only made $33 million domestically when it was released. It’s just the nature of the Hollywood business.
There are 52 weekends in a year. Across the world, millions seek entertainment for escape and the intrigue of visual stimulation. But when a malnourished public craves something a little more meaty, Hollywood continues to throw bread crumbs. And people eat it up, because often it’s all they have to choose from.
However, the most discerning moviegoers dig for those gems that sit buried beneath the piles of Hollywood coal -- those films that stretch the mind and cure the soul, rather than milk the cow. But it shouldn’t be such an arduous effort; is it really too much to ask Hollywood for $100+ million movies that are not digestible in a single two-hour sitting?
Audiences are a hungry breed. They want to have something to eat every single weekend and studios spend months preparing those meals. Yet, often there is nothing to “digest” at all -- there is no substance to the meal, i.e. nothing for an audience member to contemplate later. It simply is what it is: filler, a snack, empty calories. Yet, as much as we complain about fluff films -- as most summer blockbusters are -- we all flock to the next big blockbuster. Maybe we just don’t know any better?
Personally I don’t believe the fault lies with people who go to see every big action blockbuster. Those films are churned out of filmmaking machines that have little train of thought, yet, our eyes are not bigger than our stomachs. Once we leave the theater, there is an emptiness, we all feel it, even if there is a lingering “wow” factor.
So, when a film like Inception comes around and combines brain with brawn, many viewers are not sure what to do. We are being presented with a film that is not only visually appealing, but might actually cause the brain to do some work. People often say they want these films, but Hollywood just doesn’t quite understand that -- Hollywood forgets about films that have become staples of the industry -- masterpieces like Blade Runner or Shawkshank Redemption. None of those films turned heads at the box office -- but maybe they could have, with the right marketing scheme and intentions behind them. Maybe the would have, if Hollywood valued the “smart blockbuster” as a legitimate blockbuster -- the very strategy Warner Bros. seems to have for Inception.
We live in an age where many executives know only how to fumble around your pocket, with no interest in anything else besides the bottom line. Hollywood has brainwashed the public into thinking they can’t comprehend anything beyond a MacGuffin device that will end the world (see: Knight and Day). That formula has worked for decades (thanks in large part to Alfred Hitchcock, the master of brainy spectacle), but the industry has fallen in love with the formula, while taking audiences for granted.
Hitchcock made big movies with brains
By offering the same tired formulas, Hollywood has helped create the faux perception that people don’t like anything they don’t understand upon first viewing -- that is to say if it doesn’t fit the formula, it simply doesn’t fit. Yet, look at forums on Websites just like ours: the films people talk about the most are ones that sprouted new ideas in their minds upon repeat viewings, continued analysis and extensive discussions -- exactly what smart films do.
It is a valid argument to say that Hollywood simply adjusted to the trends of audiences. If more people went to see a small indie film over a big-budget action romp, then maybe the entertainment world would be following another path. But audiences don’t generally have that option -- there are only a fraction of arthouse offerings that get wide exposure, as opposed to the crowd of popcorn blockbusters that fill every theater at your local multiplex. And because of that disparity, choices are limited (hopefully the increased interest in first-run movies offered on demand will reverse this trend).
Despite what some people think, I don’t necessarily believe the industry would be a better place if the tables were simply turned. I still love the big action epics that utilize CGI and strange humor. But just like everybody else, a huge part of me craves the intellectual possibilities of film. I want to have my knowledge tested -- I want to leave a theater with the idea that I might be wrong. Instead, I am hypnotized by bright lights, big explosions and beautiful people who act in a world that doesn’t require me to think for two hours -- and, ironically enough, in large part those are the same films which will be forgotten (or rebooted) in a decade or less.
I should point out that Leonardo DiCaprio has mentioned that Inception shouldn’t be that difficult to comprehend as they talk about the concepts and the actions at length within the film. The characters are experiencing this newfound journey with the audience in real-time.
My bottom line is: we are smarter than Hollywood often wants treat us. Bring on Inception and give my brain the same workout my eyes and ears will get; I’ll be showing my support with my wallet, and if you too would like your big movies to be more meat than fluff going forward, perhaps you should too.
What do you think about the industry’s focus these days? Do you want more movies that make you think? Share your opinions in the comments section below.
Inception hits theaters on July 16th.
Loading ...
Look Tim I’m sorry if what I said offended you but I’m not attempting act tough behind a keyboard I simply expressed my opinion but you decided to puff up your chest. I apologize for what ever specific comment set you off. We disagree I’m willing to move on if you are no biggie. We should both calm down and accept we disagree. Many of us on this site are a little to passionate that tends to result in major disagreements.
You know I respect you but I notice the trend that anytime there is a fight you only comment on me and never the other person. Every single time they are being just as if not more harsh in tone yet only it’s just me that you go after. If you check the history this started with me simply disagreeing with Tim but me not sharing his thoughts offended him. I’m by no means innocent in this I let my anger and pride get the best of me but i wasn’t in this alone and neither was I the one to start it. He was the the instigator and he was the first to use personal insults as well as the first to snap and lose composure.
Honestly Daniel f it seems you attacked and questioned his profession and caused Tim to split, which in turn seems to denote if there was someone at fault it was you. In regard to this topic, I think we can see what “dumbed down for the audience means”. See the numbers for the latest Twilight movie. Holy Yikes!!!!!
Tacoscat,
Let it go, dude. I’m tired of people going after each other regardless of who they are. It’s unnecessary.
Vic
My bad, Sorry!
Mike and SR writer’s. Dare I suggest a top 10 list of movies for the thinking movie goer?(Yes, I would include myself in that group even “goer” is not a word)
Well taco if you read the posts before that you can see the way he was talking to me and his attitude also not sure if you know but the conversation started on another thread and he sort of forced it over to this one to continue it. I was still aggrivated about the way he acted in the other thread. Green Horrnet thread.
Sorry my bad Daniel . I see what was said, I would not like it if Seth Rogen was Batman either! Bale is the best! Coolness!
Lol yea I wouldn’t like Rogan as Batman either but Evans is Cap so in this world I guess it could happen.
Bale is second best don’t forget Kevin Conroy.
Was Mollholland drive considered a thinking persons movie?
I don’t know. I know for shure i want, acutally Agree with this man.
haha.
Bring on inception, My support is coming from my wallet. Of course I’ll pay a movie for christopher nolan. i read early reviews && that it’s good 3.5/4 from Rollingstones. Ain’t that great?? haha, I am SO GOING to watch this. Hopefull people will go watch this too! I know i am.
HOllywood needs to open there eyes. I say let our generation come in and change hollywood.
Inception seems as though it will follow a plot that isn’t necessarily as challenging as much as it immersive. The point of film (whether Hollywood execs know it or not) isn’t to make money or entertain morons. It’s an artistic endeavor that a writer, director, cast, and crew use primarily to either tell a story, make a statement, or ask a question. To do any of these things successfully, a filmaker and group of actors alike must suck the viewer into the aforementioned story and do it rather seamlessly. I watched The Hurt Locker for the umpteenth time last night and was still amazed (as I was during my initial viewing)at the way the shaky camera work had me believing that I was a few days from being able to head back home after my grueling tour in Iraq. I loved the tight sequences that made the desert seem extremely small, and others that spoke to the truly insane scale of the place. I also loved the lack of the superior officer antagonist cracking down on James’ reckless ways, and the idea of Man vs. Fear as the conflict with other battles within the battle being fought throughout. The truly personal aspect of the film is shown not only in the directive prowess that Bigelow posesses but also the amzing transitions that the characters make from the onset of the story to the conclusion. That was a smart film. It wasn’t hard to understand, it was just cerebral. That is to say it brought real human thought processes into the mix. It simulated sensory perception while leaving the story at hand very clear cut, so instead of trying to figure out the story, you’re left to figure out what that story actually means. I love the fact that Inception is actually about the untapped edges of the mind. Real human thought processes aren’t just in the mix, they are the mix in this case. And I truly hate to say this but the majority of people, especially today’s moviegoers are completely ignorant of what great film is. A friend and I watched The Prestige (Nolan’s best film) the other day. It was his first time seeing it and he was genuinely bewildered after about an hour. The problem wasn’t a lack of understanding for the story, it was his ability to key on things he was seeing that really didn’t matter to the overall effect of the story. It was what he was seeing instead of what he was watching, that innate ability to try and simplify the sequences that were a tad more subtle completely threw him and at that point he was rendered completely uninterested. Is my friend an idiot? No. But he is a consumer grade moviegoer. I’m a film student so the more esoteric pictures are where I stay when I wanna spend some money at the theater. I believe esoteric was the key word there. Yes, the mainstream movie audience (which isn’t anyone that logs on to SR, because mainstream viewers don’t actually care enough to read reviews or watch trailers, so don’t get testy when I say this) but yes, the mainstream audience is too stupid for real movies. Real movies don’t get big box office numbers because people see the trailer for Knight and Day and then they see the trailer for The American and then their minds say “Well I wanna see motorcycle chases and gunfights instead of a chracter study about some morally reformed assasin in hiding” and then they buy the large popcorn because it’s a better value. Did ya get the joke? There is no value in Hollywood and it’s not their fault either, it’s the ever regressing intellect of the public. Sad but True. If you’re a smarter than the average motion picture enthusiast, my film suggestion for the week is “The Proposition”(2005). It’s got Guy Pearce and Ray Winstone (Mr. French from “The Departed”) and it absolutely rocks socks.
Tom….my brotha..you get the approving golf clap on that one dude! RIGHT ON THE MONEY!! And i will add that usually, when a studio is pushing a film REALLY, REALLY hard, it’s probably a turd, and they know it. Films like The Hurt Locker aren’t big tent-pole films, but got a lot of buzz in the festival circuit, like Clooneys film The American. When you make a solid piece of work, it usually speaks for itself and you don’t have to launch a blitzkrieg campaign that includes video games and happy meal toys to get people to see your film. Tom, thank you for bringing up films like The Prestige and The Proposition. They are great examples of thinking films. Music and film aren’t that dissimilar. Most of the so-called “hits” on the radio aren’t so because they are actually good songs, It’s because they ram the song down your throat 40 times in a 24 hour period until it becomes catchy and you find yourself singing along to a dumb-a** song. The same with movies. They shoved Knight and Day down our throats through their marketing campaign and it worked, for the most part just like it did with The Last Airbender, a turd by the way. So I don’t think we are witnessing the decline in American cinematic intellect as we are seeing the effective marketing techniques of the studios. They have a used car salesman mentality. You know the car is a lemon, but you’ll make it sound like a BMW by the time they drive it off the lot.
May I recommend ‘Memento’ as a really good “thinking film”?
I’m not for sure if I’m the only one that does this, but I prefer going to the movies to watch the mindless action flick. For instance, The A-Team, I reveled in every action packed moment, tanks falling from the sky, fifty caliber machine guns rattling my ear drums, my guilty little pleasure. I watch these kind of movies in the theater, because they are loud and over the top. Watching them on my little television at home won’t really do it justice. Now on the other hand, a film like American History X, which I watched again for the fiftieth time last week, isn’t a film that I would consider seeing in a theater, because it does require thought. At home I can pause a film and think on it for awhile. At a theater I don’t have that option, and for me it’s not that I don’t want thought provoking movies, I just prefer action-packed on the big screen and intelligent films at home. Theater blockbusters = guilty pleasures. Intelligent films = DVD purchases.
i agree 100%
Just because all that you like to watch are big dumb movies in a theater doesn’t mean everybody does or should for that matter. There’s a balance and I don’t think we’re getting that.
“My bottom line is: we are smarter than Hollywood often wants treat us.”
Although apparently not smart enough.
You gonna throw bricks, have a house made of stone.
Unfortunately for us fans of smart films Joel your not the only one who does that. Since success is measured by box office by doing what you do you screw us all over. We get less good films because you are only supporting the horrible piece of crap films.
I would really like to see more movies like they made them back in the ol`days, the Godfather(1&2), hell even the Good Shepherd(you may think it sucks…thats not the point) where you have to listen and have a slight interest in life.
Ill bet this movie is good its got my 10$
This article seems less like a complaint that Hollywood doesn’t think “the audience” is very bright and more like plug for Inception claiming that it’s a movie for smart people to watch. You’re smart, right? Well then you better watch it or else you’re probably not very smart. If you do watch it then you’re smart by association. Yay, marketing. (I don’t think the marketing guys think we’re very smart either.)
This might be quite an entertaining film, and I hope it is, but hollywood sci-fi movies about brainwashing and/or visiting the dream worlds of other people aren’t exactly anything new or edgy.
The only thing edgy about this movie in today’s action cinema landscape is that it’s not a remake or a sequel.
I for one plan out certain movies that I want to watch on the big screen and some of them are the blockbuster (usually Comic Book Movies or Sci-Fi) and there are Indie movies that I would like to go to see but I live in such a rural community that we only get the big blockbuster films and once in a while cerebral films that play for a couple of weeks, plus with a family I also have to fit in the obligatory Disney or Pixar film for the season; which seems to fill my budget for the year. I personally don’t see the difficulty in understanding the concept of Inception it seems to give most of the information during the trailers. I agree that the marketing department is betting that people will go see it just so they can prove that they can figure it out but Nolan does make some good, intelligent films.
I think it’s refreshing that there’s finally a movie where you have to pay attention and think about the plot. That’s been lacking lately. The special effects look amazing and i can’t wait for this film!
When I go to the movies, I expect a 2 1/2 hour film with a little substance. It doesn’t have to be too much, but it should not be too little. As someone who grew up in the 80s and 90s, I consider myself spoiled by lengthy movies that were made to make you escape reality. Movies are all about having fun, and to experience something that plays on the imagination. “Escape from reality.”
As we fast-forward to the new millennium, the average length of a movie is 1 1/2 hours long. Substance and originality have been substituted for a cheap CGI backdrop, which prevents the actors from digging deep into the psyche. Instead of getting genuine emotional responses, we now have artificial reactions when something happens in the environment.
Millennials (Generation Y: 1985 – Now) have short attention spans, which is the result of futzing around with iPods, cellphones, and other internet (information) technologies. As a result of a generation of people who need to be connected, movies have become shorter and dumber.
Yes, the studios are correct. When it comes to this new generation of movie goers, they would not be able to sit though a 2 1/2 (to 3) hour movie with substance. So, we are left with expensive CGI movies about nothing.
If I had to make a wager, only one handful of movies, between 2000 and 2010, actually had something rational. Everything else is junk.
(When I made the statement above, I was referring to action, thrillers, and science-fiction films.)
Oh great an anti young generation speach Just what we needed.
No one should be taking my comments as an anti-generational attack; however, it is an observation of the attention span Gen-Y does have. Since they are too consumed with information technologies, the quality of shows and movies have suffered due to their lack of interest. So, the studios have dumbed things down, and they shortened the length of movies.
Sorry Marcus but your wrong. The bad films coming out have noting to do with the youth and short attention span. The average movie length is roughly the same as the 80s the majority of films coming out still land on right near 2 hours. Longer movies still make tons of money check Lord of the rings or TDk. There were short movies in the 50s all the way to the 90s and there were crappy films to. Also alot of really crappy films these days are still 2hours long.
Every one always wants to blame the newest youth just like they did with my generation and the gen before that.
http://dailyuw.com/2001/10/4/the-attention-span/
“I’ve modified my teaching methods,” another teacher confided in Healy, “because of their lack of attention span and their impatience.”
Yes because kids not paying attention to teachers at a very young age is such a crazy new concept. Gen Y was the first time that ever happened.
One crappy little article is meaningless considering every few years there is a new editorial or study out saying kids these days sheesh. Even better this article blames television and film the very thing we support on this site. When things are not perfect older adults love to blame one of three things technology, kids, or of course good ol TV. You managed to blame all three. I’m guess you missed the geration Y cut off by a year or two so you decided to blame Gen Y. I make this assumption because you grew up in the 80 s and 90s so your either gen Y or just barely gen X which gives you the ability to blame another generation other than yours.
I notice you of coursed ignored the fact that the average movie length is not actually shorter than the 80s and the fact that there of been bad films since decades before Gen Y was even thought of. Of course it’s much easier to blame the genetics than actually think about things critically and come up with a real conclusion. Try looking up articles from the 80s they did articles and studies back then where they said kids were out of control and had a much lower attention span they also did it in the 70s and the 60s. Every one acts like their generation was the good ol days just like it’s easy to say that the 50s were perfect and we lived the good ol American way .
@ Daniel f
Another great article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574348493483201758.html
—–
“Yes because kids not paying attention to teachers at a very young age is such a crazy new concept. Gen Y was the first time that ever happened.” ~ Daniel f
—–
When it comes to all generations, what they do at a young age does reflect the future. If we push forward the clock, you will notice psychologists, employers, and many-many other professionals have also noticed the short attention span of Generation Y. Technology starts to affect everyone at a young age, and then it transcends throughout a person’s lifetime.
What does this have to do with movies, and them being dumbed down for consumption? Everything. Who do you think is the demographic of movies such as “Star Trek”, “Stargate”, “X-Men”, and “Star Wars” is trying to capture?
Second, I am a psychologist who studies, researches, and tests adolescence for different behavioral anomalies. It is my job to notice certain behavior patterns, and how they manifest themselves over a period of time.
Generation Y is suffering greatly from being exposed to a higher than usual set of advancing technologies. As a result of being too consumed with new ways to stay connected, this new generation has formed a short attention span for offline reality. It is the first of many generations that will lack an understanding of normal face to face communication, and how human body language can give insight into a person’s attitude.
As a result of being too consumed with being consumed with staying connected, they are losing the ability to pay attention in boardrooms, movie theaters, and school for long hours. It has been documented.
I don’t envy this next generation. Even though I do participate in the new technological world, I do not envy what this next generation will be sacrificing.
There were bad movies before, and there’s no shortage now. The only difference I sense is the amount movies cost to make and what they charge to watch. Other than that, Im coming up short trying make a list of differences that are meaningful.
I guess we could debate if each generation is “less intelligent” than the one before it, but Im not sure any result would correlate well to the “hollywood machine’s” latest batch of movies.
Good food for thought, I’d like to see some studies on it.
Great post, but perhaps Blade Runner isn’t the best example of a film that could have made a lot of money even with the right marketing. Every person I’ve shown the movie to has walked away with mixed reactions – myself included. Whether it was the complex plot, depressing mood, or misplaced expectations, bigger movie-buffs than me were left cold from the experience.
I came to love Blade Runner with several replays, but it’s definitely not a crowd pleaser that it needed to be for success.
Is that because they “see” Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer and think “action” not taking them time to watch/read the movie?
Possibly. I think looking at the name “Blade Runner” on it’s own, it could be hard for an outsider to picture anything other than an action movie.
I don’t know. Dumbed down movies do ssem to make more money. James Cameron’s movies are a good example. His movies have gotten progressively dumber but they’ve been making more money. Terminator had an interesting story, a cool paradox, and ended rather ambiguously. Aliens was still very interesting even though the story was more straightforward. Abyss had a more complicated plot but didn’t do very well at the box office. While Terminator 2 was a good movie, it was really dumbed down compared to the first Terminator. They pretty much explained everything to the audience and the ending was more obvious. Then there was Titanic and Avatar which were basically completely special effects driven and the stories were just bland and cliche.
So rather than ackknowledge any of my many points you just keep repeating the same post over and over?
1. The argument your making was also said about Gen x and the gen before it. It’s a wash rise repeat cycle as soon as your generation isn’t the newest you start blaming the last generation. It’s nothing new it’s a cycle that’s gone on for decades. People did it to your generation and gen y will do it to the next. People always want to act like the new generation is the problem so they don’t have to take responsibility.
2. Movies are not any worse now than they were in the 80s or 70s but it’s nice to hang on to your fond memories of the past. Let’s please not act like they never made a bad movie before 99 it’s insulting.
3. Movie length on average not any shorter than they were before. Check the lengths most movies are at least 2hours. Not all but most. In fact there are times in history that films were on average a lil shorter than they on now.
4. Despite there so called in ability to pay attention Gen Y seems to flock to long films. TDK was 2 1/2 hours and Lotr was 3 hours each. All were hugly successful. In fact take the highest grossing films from the last 9 years and see how many of them are short you may be surprised.
Honestly from the younger gen I’ve found a majority of people who are movie nuts and very smart. Remember Gen Y goes all the way back to 83 and I best most of those 25 and 26 year olds have better attention spans than you. I can promise you most of them prefer smart films. Maybe the 13 year olds don’t but I know if we went in to your past we could find you watching crap movies that were short. At 12 most people don’t know much about what makes a film good or bad and we just watch anything. They havnt even developed their taste yet. Much like you though when they grow up they will claim their movies were better than the current ones.
Hollywoodies are a bunch of pretentious, elitist, narcissistic, blowhards. If they are so smart, how come they keep making anti-military films: all of which have been financial failures. Aren’t they supposed to make films that make money? Aren’t they supposed to understand their audiences and produce films their audiences want to see?
the movies are expensive to go to, plus i have kids. for 3 people to see that silly twilight movie cost me 80$. now i have no problem paying for a movie like transformers, im not following the plot super close but the effects are best experienced in the theater. now a movie that im going to think about, to sit and watch and really follow and enjoy for its plot (even a movie like valhalla rising, very good). i dont want to be ingterupted, i dont want chatter, i want to relax, and really follow it. same thing with most comedies, i hate when i miss a joke because people are still laughing at the last one. the theater is for event movies, every thing else i can wait for on demand or dvd (or the dirty lil anti hollywood secret).
And by doing that sikwon you hurt the rest of us. The success of a movie is judged by BO not DVD sales or rentals.