Summer Movies: There IS a difference

[Nick Nunziata]

(reprinted from the main page for your convinience. Feel free to fire salvos.)

For every 'Raiders' we see in the summer slate, there's dozens of 'Another 48 Hours', 'M:I 2', and 'Anaconda' type films to fill the void.

The summer is when the studios release their crowd pleasers geared towards the teen market and families and parents who use the theaters in lieu of daycare or actually spending time with their kids.

Sure, some transcendent films have emerged but the percentages are horribly in favor of the mindless "style over substance" movies. Names like Bay, West, DeBont, and even better class acts like Tony Scott and John McTiernan would not be part of the world of cinema were it not for junk food films.

Which, by the way... I love.

There's been a lot of debate over 'Pearl Harbor', and while the arguments over its quality as a crowd pleaser are certainly valid (Michael Bay is considered by some to be the AntiChrist), the arguments over the film's goals and place in history are a little far fetched. Even if Bay and Bruckheimer had said "This is our bid for an Oscar!", we should know better. Of the popcorn (or some would say, HACK) directors who cut their teeth on films we all hated, only the occasional Curtis Hanson slips through. It's not that Bay isn't capable of making an Oscar™ worthy film, it's just... well... he isn't capable of making an Oscar™ worthy film. The more I think of 'Pearl Harbor' the more I realize it's exactly what I expected. Maybe that's why I don't see the need to bash it with the same energy I would something like 'Dr. T. and the Women', which was a REAL filmmaker taking a giant crap on film and exposing it so we all could take a whiff. 'Pearl Harbor' a music video director whose cinematography is 100% revolved around Cliff's Notes™ larger than life action spectacles filled with one and a half dimensional characters that happen to be personified by A level stars.

Because we're huge film buffs raised on classics from David Lean, Martin Scorsese, and the fun and inventive work of Spielberg, Cameron, and Raimi does it mean we can't find things to enjoy from ALL kinds of films? Why be snobby to the point of being film curmudgeons instead of film fans? That attitude would surely put us in early graves, wouldn't it? That attitude would have kept me from finding little bits of goodness in films like 'Deep Rising', 'Happy Gilmore', and the recent Mummy films.

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

Just because we've been treated to things like 'Raiders of the Lost Ark', 'Jaws', 'Aliens', and 'Blade Runner' in the past does not mean we should expect that from every summer crop. There's a reason we treasure them so much. Because they're rare.

The film industry didn't just become a machine processing crap. It's been there all along. The thing is, as we grow older and become more attuned to what's good or not we often ignore the fact that most of what we liked as kids is dreck. Also, some people think because a film is old, or in black and white it is automatically good.

Not true by a long stretch. While it may make them seem more knowledgeable or lofty because of their connection to what came before, people are fighting a losing battle comparing everything to the "classics". Forget apples and oranges, it's like comparing Apple IIe's to Silicon Graphics Workstations. Both are the products of hard work and while one is smaller and representative of tighter sensibilities and less resources, they each provide a need and are only as good as what the end user (viewer) wants from it...

The summer movie style of filmmaking is only a few decades old and oftentimes when something a little higher on the quality scale is released, it gets shunned (Out of Sight, Fight Club). Also, 8 times out of 10 the highest grosser of the crop is far from the best film (M:I 2, Men in Black), and there really NEEDS to be a summer crop bookended by the customary Disney release, customary Bruckheimer release, and Dreamworks competition on both fronts. It isn't even about leaving your brain at the door anymore, it's about filling that part of your cinematic diet. It baffles me when people cannot enjoy a film like 'Pearl Harbor' AND a film like 'Schindler's List' or 'Paths of Glory'. The warning signs are available in every direction that these films are not the stuff that will change the world.

There's no "Look Closer" campaign focused on critical ravings. The fact that the filmmakers are responsible for 'Armageddon' and 'The Rock' is plastered across the planet's face. It stars Ben Affleck, for God's sake!

There is a difference from summer movies a great deal of the time. It's when the studios try their damndest to make enough money to finance the next year and the personal prestige projects. Sure, a gamble like 'American Beauty' can lead to box office gold, but if we've learned anything from this business it's that Hollywood follows a formula, and even though the profit margins on the 'The Mummy Returns' and 'Pearl Harbor' are sometimes minuscule, the 200 million dollar grosses sure look good on paper.

The summer is a time of relaxation, fun, and looseness.

Give it a shot, people.

[kronos]

That's why Nick is beloved by children Worldwide.

I'm actually looking forward to Tomb Raider...and not because of Angelina Jolie - I cannot stand her but she looks perfect for the part - but because it looks like a fun movie.

And that's the key, FUN MOVIE.

SUMMER=FUN

------------------
-KRONOS AN ARMY OF ONE (http://www.sci-fighter.com)

[Poxy Von Sinister]

Well put, Nick.

It's like reading -- I'm not going to pick up, say, a Dragonlance novel and expect the same level of literary craft I would from Tolkien. I can enjoy it on it's own level, but never would I hail it as a classic. And if the book looks bad, I simply don't read it -- I'm not going to waste my time in some grand crusade to convince everyone else to avoid this literary evil.

One of Nick's comments -- about people who think anything black and white is automatically good -- reminded me of my later reaction to Pearl Harbor. It IS a 1940s war movie, from the innocence to the portrayal of the time. Cast it with John Wayne, Henry Fonda, Robert Young, and Kate Hepburn and you've got practically every WWII picture to ever come out of Hollywood, and maybe if Bay had been a little more concious of this and matched his style to the tone of the material, it would have worked better -- instead of criticizing the script, people may have seen it as a throwback to a simpler time (which would have made the theme of lost innocence work even better).

Of course, this implies that Bay is willing (or able) to change his style....

[kronos]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">...expect the same level of literary craft I would from Tolkien...

Ironically, Tolkien was heavily criticized during his time for not being a very good "craftsman" as in grammar and stucture. His punctuation sucks too.

Why do I say this? Primarily because we never know what the future of an atrist or work of art might bring. And I see it as interesting that there were critics of Tolkien's work that couldn't look beyond the nuts and bolts to see the beauty of the story.

If you're going to sacrifice one thing for another would you rather see a technically perfect movie or a gripping story?

Ideally we'd want both.

------------------
-KRONOS AN ARMY OF ONE (http://www.sci-fighter.com)

[This message has been edited by kronos (edited 05-28-2001).]

[Eddie5]

I don't think even a 40's movie would have padded its flimsy story on purpose to stretch into a 3 hour running time to disguise itself as something of calibre.

Pearl Harbor, while definitely a Summer movie, aspires to be something more and it is by that definition we will have to judge it and it is also that 'something' that the viewers mind is attuned for. What they get is a somewhat enjoyable 'war' movie for about 2 hours with visual effects that elevate it even a bit further and then culminates in Pearl Harbor : The Revenge during the 2nd act or is that the third?

[kronos]

I wonder if this would have been as controversial if it took place on another planet and were completely different lifeforms.

But exactly the same story.

Hmmm...

------------------
-KRONOS AN ARMY OF ONE (http://www.sci-fighter.com)

[Eddie5]

I think one of the things that put people off is the approach.

"You will win. You will overcome. You know why? Because you have American balls. Good ol' USA testicles. The shiniest and brightest in the universe. There are none better."

This approach is ALWAYS vomitious.

[devilf]

Since the ad campaign wouldn't have been playing off of the Pearl Harbor attack, which is very sensitive to some people, no, it wouldn't have been as controversial.

And nobody would have cared as much.

But Nick, I have got to disagree with your op ed there. It has nothing to do with being snobby, or only liking black and white or old movies. I loved Dude Where's My Car, for Christ's sake. It has everything to do with expecting something.

You give movies a pass just because of the season they're released in, which in and of itself is goofy. Should there be no fun movies released in the winter? No comedies in the spring? When you go see a movie in February, which is around the time studios traditionally dump their turds on the public, do you say to yourself, "Well, sure this film is wretched, but it's a February movie!"

I think what you're doing is taking the old acceptance of low budget B-movies and grafting it on to huge budget A-films. And that's wrong. Sure, we can all give a pass to a movie that cost nothing to make, is technically incompetent, has acting that makes you cringe and no noticeable storyline. But when a movie is the most expensive movie ever made and has all those qualities - well somebody in Hollywood just doesn't care.

The Mummy Returns and Pearl Harbor are not B-movies. They should not be treated as such. Why is it that in any other sector of life, when you drop your money on the table for your goods or services, you expect the best that can be gotten for your dime. But when it comes to movies you will accept obviously sub-par work and then run around making up excuses?

It isn't even a film question anymore - it's a consumer issue. When you buy a food product that comes in a snazzy new package, do you expect that the taste of the product will be diminished in an equal ratio to the improvement of the packaging? Fuck no. You would return it if it tasted like ass. But that is what's happening with movies. We say, "Well that was certainly well packaged. The cream filling was made of rat semen, but hey, it looked fucking great. Excuse me while I get my stomach pumped and then buy this rancid fucking product again."

Don't knock me as a film-snob. Praise me as a good consumer.

[kronos]

...and a good consumer doesn't buy what he or she doesn't need or is not interested in.

Regarding the controversy: Actually, I think if you made a movie with exactly the same storyline of a sneak attack but couched it as a different planet with different lifeforms I believe you'd still have controversy. Someone would see it as allegorical and make a big deal out of it.

I could be wrong - which frequently I am...

------------------
-KRONOS AN ARMY OF ONE (http://www.sci-fighter.com)

[devilf]

Right - I am a good consumer, I have not seen Pearl Harbor.

But we all know that most Americans are NOT good consumers. Americans are some of the WORST consumers on Earth. Isn't it our responsibility to help our fellow people out and not give shitty movies a free ride based on the "summer movie" concept the studio created so they could get away with making bad movies, which are easier to make than good ones?

[Nick Nunziata]

It's NOT a shitty movie, though. It's just a big, loud, and rather entertaining one. Sure, it's sugary and melodramatic at times.

I think we've all been caught in situations in real life that are no less sugary, melodramatic, or vacant.

The SUMMER MOVIE is a genre in and of itself. You can thank JAWS for that. You choose not to embrace it and I do. That's all.

[kronos]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I think we've all been caught in situations in real life that are no less sugary, melodramatic, or vacant.

Every freakin' day! Mostly in traffic.

------------------
-KRONOS AN ARMY OF ONE (http://www.sci-fighter.com)

[Eddie5]

Sugar is fine. But there's good sugar and there's bad sugar. PH isn't particularly bad but definetely is generic especially when it's shooting to be more than that.

You expect chocolaty goodness but get sweetened mayo.

[This message has been edited by Eddie5 (edited 05-28-2001).]

[kronos]

To differ with Nick on one point though: I wouldn't go into Pearl Harbor as a "Summer Fun Movie".

Tomb Raider? Yes.
1941? Yes.(alhough I don't recall if it was summer)


------------------
-KRONOS AN ARMY OF ONE (http://www.sci-fighter.com)

[Xymog]

I'm with Eddie5 and devilf on this one. There are movies that are just plain, good, cheezy fun, and movies that aspire to be something they're not. The latter happens when those helming a film try to go high concept in the film's making and its marketing in an attempt to make us believe there's something more there that we should be in awe over. But I rarely buy into the high concept approach because 90% of the time it's total crap.

Sure, love movies for being cheezy; love 'em for being breezy; love 'em for being mindless entertainment. But don't try to sell them as deep, or meaningful, or patriotic, or any other idealistic crap when they're not.

That's why people can hate movies that are otherwise mindless fun -- because they're being lied to by the director, or the producers, or the marketing arms.

In the case of "Pearl Harbor," everything about its marketing was aimed at stirring up old WW2 patriotism (or propaganda, depending on your degree of cynicism) and spared no expense to wave an American flag under everyone's nose.

Now, personally I believe that the only time you should see flag-waving in an advertisement is when it's an ad for selling flags. But no matter; everyone gets primed for a war movie about a tragic and catalytic day in US history. The suits tell us it's historical, full of meaning, plumbs the depths of the human condition, yadda yadda. Fine. Then -- whoa! Hold up! Love triangle! With unlikeable characters who have little screen chemistry! For three hours! For this I paid eight bucks?

It's like having your mouth set for steak and you get tuna surprise. That's being lied to and is ultimately going to color your appreciation for the movie. If they'd said we were going to get steak (or tuna surprise) up front, and delivered steak (or tuna surprise), there wouldn't be as much howling.

Plus I suppose we could compare and contrast "Pearl Harbor" with "Saving Private Ryan" or "Titanic" to see how to do it right and how to do it wrong, but I'm not feeling academic right now. I'll leave that for other threads.

--Xymog

[Coyote]

Black & White....everything seems to be extremes.
Nick isn't saying that you're a film snob if you don't like summer flicks. He's simply asking (well, I am, anyways...maybe I'm just reading my own view into his article) why people have to bash the hell out of every blockbuster in the summer that's not Raiders.
The amount of vitriol & negativity on these boards has actually gone down some, compared to last year, but the positive aspects aren't as strong, either...we're running out of things to actually discuss...and when something seems interesting, knowledge sharing-wise, it only gets a few replies and sinks to the bottom.
CHUD boards appear, to me, to be turning into a release valve, where people come to blow off steam and bitch rather than go postal out in the Real World. Not the whole thing, not everyone...but the amount of discussion seems to have largely decreased in favour of arguing over a film's quality. That was ALWAYS there, but now it seems to be the main focus.

[kronos]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The suits tell us it's historical, full of meaning, plumbs the depths of the human condition, yadda yadda. Fine. Then -- whoa! Hold up! Love triangle! With unlikeable characters who have little screen chemistry! For three hours! For this I paid eight bucks?

But this isn't exclusive to Pearl Harbor, mind you. Midway told a historical tale about the United States vs Japan over the South Pacific that featured - guess what - a Love Story!

------------------
-KRONOS AN ARMY OF ONE (http://www.sci-fighter.com)

[Kevin A. Ranson]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by kronos:
But this isn't exclusive to Pearl Harbor, mind you. Midway told a historical tale about the United States vs Japan over the South Pacific that featured - guess what - a Love Story!

Fool us once, phooey on us.
Fool us twice, well, you know... make a sequel or something.

So, what you're really saying is that the love-triangle thingie wasn't original, either? Color us unsurprised.

------------------
The Undead have spoken. (http://www.moviecrypt.com)

[This message has been edited by The Crystal Lich (edited 05-28-2001).]

[Eddie5]

There's no problem about having a love story in there. Stories need characters and human involvement and romance is a good way to transplant the audience into the events but it needn't have been a love triangle and it didn't need to be padded to three hours so as to achieve that misguided notion that it'll lend them some dramatic credibility. They were probably under the impression that 3 hours would convince people that they actually had a real story to tell.

I don't expect Summer movies to be Raiders. Never have. I've always been tolerant of how I view movies. If its a summer movie that's fun and cheesy, I'll adjust accordingly and I'll view it as such.

My quibble is with PH. It painted itself to be above the regular Summer Fun fare. It wants respect. Why should I give it the consideration that I would give the other summer releases when it clearly wants to be judged otherwise?

This movie was a calculatively and manipulatively assembled product that was designed to hit all the right and popular marks. They had a formula for this and they followed it religiously. These kinds of movies need heart not mathematics.

And like Xy said, they lied.

[Ludwig]

I am sorta with Nick on this one...while I don't often go see SUMMER or EVENT movies, the proceeds of these flicks give the studios the money that need to take risks with better material. I sort of like the fact that the masses who see this movie will be giving me a great film later on in life because the studios will have the money to afford making said great film.

Its kinda like cinematic class-ism. The poor and middle-class "tastes" in movies will fuel creation of the upper class films which I am coming to love and cherish. 2001 may not have been a great year for cinema thus far, but the money generated from the big flicks this year will make 2003 a GREAT year for cinema.

For some, this is enough of a motivator to go and see lots of films no matter how good or bad, just so the industry will still produce the odd gem here and there. For me, I simply can't justify spending money going to a first-run theatre to see Pearl Harbour. I am not a snob. I do not think badly of others who will go see it. I just want the few dollars I have for cinema to be spent on films I am genuinely interested in. I talked Will out of going to see this movie so that we could instead watch some of the John Carpenter DVD's he bought. I am very glad that I did, as I finally got to see The Thing for the first time.

Memento is still playing here too...God bless Los Angeles.

------------------
Mike Arsenault - http://www.homeownersrights.com - Would You Like to Know More?
"Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam."

[Patrick Sauriol]

As much as it's Nick's right to express his opinion, it's as much anyone else's right to express theirs. And if I don't want to see PEARL HARBOR because I don't think I'd enjoy the product, there's not one damn thing wrong with it.

I think what Nick's missing from his editorial is one important piece of the puzzle, and that is everyone has different tastes. Just because Mr. Nunziata is telling people to ease up their expectations on the summer blockbuster season doesn't mean we all have to sit down and enjoy every summer blockbuster thrown at us.

One of the other points I think you missed Nick is when you compared great films like RAIDERS to MI:2 or such. Of course there will only be a few films like RAIDERS or STAR WARS or AMERICAN BEAUTY that come along and are cinematic gold as well as hugely popular. However, there's just as many movies that come by that *aren't* as popular that I really like, like the aforementioned OUT OF SIGHT. Similarly, I also don't enjoy some flicks that the mainstream public dig (I think there hasn't been a really good TREK film since the 6th movie, but hey, that's just me.)

It almost seems that what you're trying to say, Nick, is that the online crowd *should* lower their expectations when it comes to the summer season. Sorry, but that doesn't wash with me. If that were the case there wouldn't have been a DIE HARD that redefined the action genre; or ARLINGTON ROAD, which chose to take a smart route in telling a story we've seen before. I like entertainment as much as the next fellow, but I don't like it when I go to a movie and I feel the filmmakers manipulating the strings around me. For myself, Michael Bay is that kind of filmmaker. ARMAGEDDON felt like a kick to my nuts and no amount of debating is gonna change my opinion, so why would I give him $12.75 of my money this time around?

If you change the topic of discussion to food, what you're trying to sell me on sounds even sillier. Say you're trying to convince me that everyone should like pasta because it's simply food, and everyone needs food to survive. Does that mean if I don't like the taste of lasanga I'm wrong for doing so? Of course not. Taste is subjective, and I know that what I groove to isn't always the same thing as what others enjoy.

Bottom line: I won't be seeing PEARL HARBOR, and I roll my eyes when I see the commercials for it. It also won't bother me one bit that you or Carl or anyone else enjoys the picture. Hell, my wife liked THE MUMMY and we're still together as a couple!

[Poxy Von Sinister]

Sure, maybe Pearl Harbor sets it sights high and fails. Does that invalidate anything else the film does well? Should a film be judged only on what the filmmakers may have said they set out to do or on what the film actually does do?

[Eddie5]

Both.

You may expect something else but can still be pleasantly surprised. But that's not usually the case.

And you still won't buy a car that is being passed off as having a V6 engine when it's only a 1600 cc. So now, do you judge it as a V6er or as a 1600? It lacks as a V6er but its pretty ok as 1600. Which route do you take?

There are undeniable good parts in the movie but the sum of it is manipulative. If they REALLY did a movie that they REALLY wanted to do instead of just claiming they did....

These type of movies doesn't need strategic movie-making, it needs inspiration.

[Poxy Von Sinister]

The problem is, this may actually be what the BB Boys think is the kind of movie they said they were making.

[devilf]

Ludwig, I would agree with you if I thought that the studios were using the money they rake in on big pictures to make smaller, more interesting fare. But they don't. Ask the small filmmaker the last time Sony wanted to put money up for them to make an artistic film.

They use the money to make other big movies to make more money to make more big movies and theme parks to make more money to...

Well, you get the point.

[Ludwig]

Well, yes and no. I haven't seen a single big studio release absolutely nothing but shit in a two-year cycle. Sure maybe you do have to wait for good film, but they do come...

But you are right that they aren't spending huge bucks on bringing lots of good movies out.

------------------
"Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam."

[Coyote]

"I think what Nick's missing from his editorial is one important piece of the puzzle, and that is everyone has different tastes. Just because Mr. Nunziata is telling people to ease up their expectations on the summer blockbuster season doesn't mean we all have to sit down and enjoy every summer blockbuster thrown at us."

I don't think that's what he's saying. I sure as hell know he doesn't think everyine should have thier own opinion, either.
What I believe he's saying is that we're becoming jaded. Everything should be great, and if it isn't, we're going to tear it a new asshole. (Or the reverse...we think EVERYTHING is (or will be) complete and utter shit and then we roll around in it and hold it up to prove that it's shit.)
To which I believe I mostly agree. I just watched a movie Friday that I didn't see in the theaters because it was pretty much boo'ed on the boards. Up until a a few months ago, I used the boards as a guide.
This film was actually pretty good. It had a few plot holes, but it contained an awful lot of thought in the areas of morality (and didn't paint paint sides in black & white, the bad guys had what they thought were good reasons) and possible scientific advances, and the effects of those advances when they interact with the world. It wasn't a masterpiece by any means, but it wasn't the 2dimensional drek it was implied to be.
So these days, if the boards LOVE a flick, I'll take that as a strong reccomendation. If they hate it, there's a good chance I may check it out anyways. Which, ironically, is how I used to view movie reviewers back before the web. We've come full circle...and I think it's because a little bit of that little green rock from the East is scaling over our eyes.

[Poxy Von Sinister]

Hey Coyote, that movie wouldn't have happened to have been The Sixth Day would it?

[devilf]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Coyote:
I think it's because a little bit of that little green rock from the East is scaling over our eyes.


Is that some kind of drug reference?

[Nick Nunziata]

I think a lot of people find the glass half empty before they ever step in a movie theater.

[Coyote]

Jade: green rock often associated with scultures from China
"And the scales fell from thier eyes": Classical reference.
The benefits of a classical education. Too bad I didn't have one.

And Poxy gets a cigar.

[devilf]

I thought you were referencing Chinese Rock.

No, I didn't. Just making a ha ha.

And hey, if you guys appreciate and enjoy poop, good for you. I AM jaded - I have seen too many GOOD movies to settle for the kind of crap that is foisted upon us regularly. And no, I don't just mean Truffaut or Kurosawa. I mean Romero and Carpenter.

[D_B_Cooper]

Some people just don't like a lot of the crap being released right now. I hated "Pearl Harbor" when I saw it last night. I hated it with a passion. I thought it was an overblown waste of time. Some people agree with me, some people don't. Just about everybody in the theatre I saw it with agreed with me. All 35 of us. There's a difference between "entertaining" and "dumb". "The Mummy Returns" annoyed me. Oh god, I didn't get it. It was just a dumb entertaining flick, why can't I see it for that? Because it wasn't entertaining. It was just dumb. The same goes for "Pearl Harbor". Good special effects aside, not much there. People have different opinions, and no amount of posturing on a soapbox will make people change their minds.

------------------
http://maxpages.com/entertheabyss

[devilf]

I'm willing to make a bet that most of the people who are defending Pearl Harbor and/or bad "fun" summer movies scoff at cheap and cheezy pop music.

Why would that be any different? Why is crummy pop music any more despicable than crummy pop movies? What's the difference between the Mummy Returns and LFO or Britney or 98 Degrees?

[nelson1971]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by D_B_Cooper:
Just about everybody in the theatre I saw it with agreed with me. All 35 of us.


No, disrespect, but where did you watch this? At an art house theater or at a 2am showing? 35 people?

I saw it with 1000 other people at a 3pm showing, and there were these people from the exit poll company asking people as they came out if they like the film. Out of curiosity I asked one of the girls what were the results for the previous show, and she said that between 85-92% liked it.

[Coyote]

Ok, evidently we're stuck on "Nick says we have to like the movies in the summer because that's when they come out" idea, when that's not what he's saying.

I'd invoke Hitler, but I'm not sure how many people would know what I meant. I'd probably be accused of saying that anybody who's not blond is bad.

[Beautiful Mike]

Great article. While I disagree about pearl harbor I agree with your sentiments. The summer is a time of films that just are fun and not too deep.

By the way, I love the links you put throughout the article. The story on the pepsi girl had me and my flatmate in stitches.

[Poxy Von Sinister]

I thought that was it, Coyote. I watched it myself today and had the very same thoughts you did. And I bet you anything if the star had been anybody but Schwarzenegger (who wasn't that bad in this, by the way), the film would have been looked on a lot more kindly.

[Innocent X]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by devilf:
I'm willing to make a bet that most of the people who are defending Pearl Harbor and/or bad "fun" summer movies scoff at cheap and cheezy pop music.

Bingo.

But good luck getting any of those people to realize that.

[Ludwig]

Coyote, I know exactly what you mean. This thread is starting to go nowhere. Time to wrap it up, Ludwig-style:

http://www.homeownersrights.com/test/severance.jpg

------------------
"Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam."

[generalzod]

So, just because this is a summer movie we are supposed to give it a pass?

I asked this question on "The Mummy Returns" thread a few weeks back and didn't get a reasonable answer so I will ask it again...

If "Pearl Harbor" and "TMR" are to be given a pass, why then was "The Phantom Menace" pretty much dismissed and hated by some who are now giving "passes" to far inferior films from this summer. TPM was accused of the very same things that the above films suffer from, but it's apparently ok for them and not TPM.

Just sounds strange to me and a tad hypocritical.

Am I off base here or what?

[Nick Nunziata]

If you're referring to me, Zod...

Re-read my review for it. I gave the latest Star Wars flick a great review, and only upon the 2nd viewing did I see all the things that lessened the films in my eyes.

The 'Star Wars' films are among the RARE films I mentioned in the piece that transcend the trappings of the usual summer fare. Instead of being a nice, greasy, and ultimately forgettable meal they usually stick with you and demand repeat viewings.

The Mummy films, PH, and stuff like 'Con Air' are fun if you let them be and the kind of films you see again only to share the cool FX with friends or to check out on DVD.

If an 'Indy' film came out tomorrow that was EXACTLY as good as 'The Mummy Returns' you'd see folks REALLY getting vocal because they're so passionate about the series. You could release an Indy film in January, March, July, or November and it'd work.

'Pearl Harbor' is a foolish proposition any other time than Memorial Day simply because it's not of the same quality on any other grounds than technical.

Keep in mind folks, I'm not being an apologist for these two recent films. It's just that setting a mindset for the season allows you to ENJOY movies...

Something I think a lot of peopl ehave forgotten about.

[Nick Nunziata]

Peopl: (noun) Excellent swordsman and original creator of Silly Putty, but was consumed by Mt. Vesuvius in Pompeii.

Ehave: (verb) To possess something, but only on the web.

In a sentence: Well I'm a virgin, but every weeknight I Ehave a lot of sex.

[D_B_Cooper]

This damn movie isn't very popular in Wichita, it seems. At least not where I saw it. Only 35 people in the theatre on a Sunday afternoon. And I think two people loved it enough to say anything about it. When I went to the damn bathroom about halfway into the movie, I checked one of the "Shrek" theatres: PACKED. They're not buying the bullshit here.

------------------
http://maxpages.com/entertheabyss

[generalzod]

That was not aimed directly at just you, Nick, but thanks for explaining yourself..... http://www.chud.com/board/ubbhtml/smile.gif

[Eddie5]

That's good, D.B.

I support Nick's sentiments on Summer movies and how we should temper our expectations when watching specific movies.

Conversely, we shouldn't let our expectations diminish to the point where ANY movie released during the summer or otherwise should be embraced no matter what.

And btw, PH is not a summer movie despite it being released during the season.

It has far too many flaws for me to just like it. It, however, also has enough redeeming qualities for me not to hate it. See, I've tempered my expectations to the movie. I just don't like being openly manipulated by it.

[Forklift81]

Ludwig is abusing his power.

I won't go see Pearl Harbor. I get mad when movies that aren't very good make more money than great films just because of the way they are marketed, and any money I give to these event movies would just help perpetuate the cycle. We vote with our dollars and from what I've heard of Pearl Harbor and from what I suffered through in Armageddon its not the kind of movie I want to tell Hollywood to make more of. Unfortunately, just like anything we vote for(Nader!), I always lose. The nice thing about movies is that I can vote more than once.

This is why I plan to see LOTR at least 20 times.

About the 6th Day, I liked it and I'm pretty sure I mentioned it here on the boards, but I saw it on video so I was probably way behind any major discussions about it. Plus nobody listens to me anyway. Have not a Forklift feelings?

[Carl Cunningham]

I assume, generalzod, that your TPM vs PH comments were directed towards me.

If so, I'll also echo Nick's comments. There is no comparison.

EPISODE I is a "Star Wars" film and as such I hold it to a higher standard. Maybe that's unfair, but so be it. My criteria for reviewing EP1 is simple: I compare it to the original "Star Wars" films, nothing else. And with that comparison, it fails in my mind. But I don't think it's the colossal dud that some folks make it out to be. To me, "Star Wars" films begin as 9's on a scale of 1 to 10. Problem is, JEDI is a 10, SW:ANH and ESB are 20's, and EP1 never achieved escalation. http://www.chud.com/board/ubbhtml/smile.gif

As far as PEARL HARBOR... I admit to defending the film from unnecessary over-criticism. I find that the true hyprocrisy here lies in the hands of those who bash PEARL HARBOR, but love TITANIC which has some of the very elements people are hating PH for (cheesy, contrived love story, long running time, "slow" character development, historical inaccuracies, etc). This isn't a knock on TITANIC. I like it. But I just think some people can't see the forest through the trees here. All they see are the names "Bay & Bruckheimer" and the hype and they're judging the final film on that.

`Carl

[Eddie5]

"The film played fantastically well with all age groups and we're selling out in every region," remarked Manuel "Rod" Rodriguez, vice-president of distribution for Buena Vista.

I just love that quote.

[Bud the C.H.U.D]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nick Nunziata:
Re-read my review for it. I gave the latest Star Wars flick a great review, and only upon the 2nd viewing did I see all the things that lessened the films in my eyes.

Is that Chudspeak for jumping on the bandwagon?

[Nick Nunziata]

No, it's called not letting your love for a franchise blind you.

[Diva]

My take on the whole standards thing is this. The majority of movies will always be status quo. I liken movie quality to the bell curve my teachers used when grading. 10-15% will be utter garbage, 10-15% will be brilliant, and the 50-60% remaining will be AVERAGE.

If from now on, every movie was brilliantly made the way Chewers aspire all movies to be, the same people who are whining now would just hold movies to an even higher standard and would still complain. All that would result is that what is considered brilliant now will become the new status quo.

I watch movies because I enjoy the whole experience of moviegoing -- the huge screen, the dark theater, the stadium seating, the crowds of people, the popcorn, etc. But the main reason is that I love being entertained. That's what movies are made for. If you get more than that out of a movie, that's even better. But I don't ruin my love for the movies by holding them to some standard that I manufactured.

They're just movies. Enjoy them for what they are.


[This message has been edited by Diva (edited 05-29-2001).]

[devilf]

They're just books.

They're just paintings.

They're just notes played in sequence.

They're just dancing.

Is it ART or not?

[Diva]

No.

[nelson1971]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by devilf:
They're just books.

They're just paintings.

They're just notes played in sequence.

They're just dancing.

Is it ART or not?

You know, the last artist of our time died a couple of years ago, Stanly Kubrick was his name. Other than that, the only REAL artists has been Picasso & Dali.

Most people working today in the arts are not artist themselves. What we have now in the arts is a bunch of ILLUSTRATORS with huge egos. And some of these illustrators are extremelt good, but they're still not artist.



[This message has been edited by nelson1971 (edited 05-29-2001).]

[devilf]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Diva:
No.

So you're saying movies are not art?

There are movies that don't star Jim Carrey, you know.

[Nick Nunziata]

Behave, Devin...

[devilf]

Hey, I think this is a really valid point and what this discussion all comes down to.

There's some belief that something can't be fun and artistic at the same time. I think this is indicative of the stage of development that cinema is experiencing.

Every art form has that point, where it adapts or dies, where it accepts the low art along with the high.

It's when "outsider" art first hung in galleries, when Maus was accepted as literature, when people realized that pop music like Bob Dylan could be great music.

We are in the middle of a great, newer than new wave of cinema. It's an unbearably exciting time to love movies. We have an art form that is one hundred years old, relatively young. We have new creators, who are influenced by the people who first melded art and pop, like Spielberg, who was influenced by people who strained art from the pop, like the French New Wave and Orson Welles (who influenced the New Wave, but let's not quibble).

But what I see happening now is something like China's Cultural Revolution - a rampant anti-intellectualism that says that things that are thoughtfully made are masturbatory, and that a movie theater is a place where you leave your brain at the door.

Fuck that! The two are not mutually exclusive, and never should be. We shouldn't have movies that are all about thinking, but we also shouldn't just have movies that are all about the thrill.

What I really don't understand about the discussion on these boards from the last few days is why everyone is so willing to settle? We wouldn't settle if this was all about music - I made a point in another thread that no one responded to, which was the fact that most of the posters - and editors - who post here in defense of mindless moron movies would rail against mindless moron music. What's the difference? How is Marilyn Manson, one of the nation's punched (and incidentally an artist I actually think is good) different from Michael Bay, who is apparently a working class hero? They both pander to their audiences. You know every note you're getting in advance. They pretend to be what they are not (patriotic, Satanic) to sell. It can be argued that neither has a truthful, personal bit to their work.

Why is Marilyn Manson so terrible? And Michael Bay is accepted?

[This message has been edited by devilf (edited 05-30-2001).]

[Prankster]

I agree with Devilf (well, not about Marilyn Manson).

The argument "lower your expectations" or "check your brain at the door" is not a good one. We've seen plenty of movies in the last few years that thrilled and entertained us without us needing to lower our standards.

The campaign behind a movie like Pearl Harbour is as close to cramming people into the theaters with cattle prods as the studios can get away with. And then we're expected to work hard at ignoring the movie's flaws? The filmmakers are the ones getting paid. Let's have THEM work at it, for crying out loud.

Unfortunately things don't exist in a vacuum. If PH was modestly priced and marketed like the average movie, then it might be possible to take Nick's advice (which is, in fact, good advice, SOME of the time). But we have this huge company resorting to some extremely suspect methods to draw cash out of people's pockets...and succeeding. I think we're justified in having high expectations for this film.

It's also hard not to notice the little catch-22 that's developed: if you don't like it, why did you go to see it? If you haven't seen it, how can you criticize it?

Of course there's such a thing as having expectations too high, but where do you draw the line? I still love plenty of films and often enjoy myself at blockbuster/action flicks (I saw "A Kinght's Tale" instead of PH and was pleasantly surprised.) I haven't become some sort of film Grinch. So surely I have a right to complain that this megahyped, expensive movie just plain isn't that good? And surely not all of the many, many people who disliked it are simply jumping on the bandwagon? Is it that hard to fathom that a bunch of people who went to see explosions and action and ended up seeing a cliched 3 hour love story might have been disappointed, yes, even on a "thrill ride" level?

[generalzod]

No "blind Love", Nick. I just happened to enjoy the movie, no big mystery there.

[Carl Cunningham]

generalzod, no one is questioning those who love THE PHANTOM MENACE. If you really like it and feel it has a worthy place amongst the other "Star Wars" films, great!

But what Nick and I are tired of doing is defending OUR opinions that the film just doesn't cut the mustard when it comes down to it.

To each his own. Again, if you like it, wonderful. And I'm not going to begrudge you that. But I just happen to see problems with it (both aesthetic & technical) that are not common in the original trilogy.

`Carl

[Neil Bung]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by devilf:

But what I see happening now is something like China's Cultural Revolution - a rampant anti-intellectualism that says that things that are thoughtfully made are masturbatory, and that a movie theater is a place where you leave your brain at the door.

Fuck that! The two are not mutually exclusive, and never should be. We shouldn't have movies that are all about thinking, but we also shouldn't just have movies that are all about the thrill.

[This message has been edited by devilf (edited 05-30-2001).]

Pearl Harbor is pretty simplistic, I'll give you that. But the fact is that throughout history, there have always been examples of enjoyable fluff that came out alongside genuine literature, music, etc.

Even Shakespeare did some fluff. Titus Andronicus is basically gore and violence fluff that was saved by his knack for dialogue. The same arguments could even be made for his more esteemed plays, some of which don't have plots that are much more complex than that of Pearl Harbor.

People want to be entertained and always WILL want to be entertained. When an artist comes along who can combine that entertainment with true art (define it as you will), then you have something special. I don't think it's anything new that the majority of artists in a given medium barely scratch the surface, while only the pioneers (Kubrick, Spielberg, Scorsese, Gilliam) stick out.

Was Bay really more commercial-minded than any other mainstream artist in making Pearl Harbor? I don't think so. It's a big romantic adventure story told with the backdrop of historical events, which makes it not too different from Casablanca, Braveheart, Titanic, and plenty more.

And, despite some innaccuracies, I can think of at least one thing they got right that ALWAYS bugs me in films like this: the Japanese actually SPEAK Japanese. Now let's go back and list all the movies where foreigners speak to each other in broken English and slam those for historical innaccuracy...

[Jacob Singer]

Quick question: Everyone keeps saying that the marketing behind PH made it out to be something 'above' the usual summer action fare, a prestige film.

When did this happen? All the marketing I saw, and there was plenty of it, just made it look like a big WWII action/romance with lots of special effects. I never saw anyone hyping it as the next SPR. I certainly wasn't expecting anything more than what I got.

And D_B, The Mummy Returns has made close to 200 million bucks, so I think we can safely say it IS in fact entertaining. It may not be a good movie, but it IS entertaining a lot of moviegoers.

[devilf]

I feel like people aren't getting my point.

Sure, Shakespeare did fluff. I said that there should be fun movies. I just don't think we should accept movies that are nothing BUT fun. Even Shakespeare's fluffiest stuff, like you point out, at least has beautiful and poetic dialouge. Someone here may try to compare CGI effects to poetry - if so, I'm real curious to hear your argument.

[Poxy Von Sinister]

What's wrong with accepting movies that are "just fun"? There are plenty of films that can't even manage that. If a film sets out to be something -- be it high art or simply an entertaining ride -- and succeeds, why should we criticize it for not being something it never intended to be? Sure it's great to have a film that challenges you and makes you think, but a steady diet of that would get pretty boring after a while.

And I would argue that there is just as much poetry in Luke staring at those twin suns as there is anything Shakespeare wrote.

[LowShot]

I understand what you are saying Devin. And sure enough I agree with you. I think it's becoming ridiculous when people say stuff like "Well, the story is pretty stupid, but man, the effects are worth it!" The whole leave your brain at the door doesn't appeal to me. I want more films with substance, not just mindless intertainment.

As far as Pearl Harbor is concerned, I think it's a fairly good movie, but I'll never sing praises about it because I'm personally pretty lukewarm about the film.

[devilf]

OK OK, while that isn't a CGI effect, I will give you that, but how many movies use fx to create beauty?

If you were to read my insightful review of Close Encounters at DVD.IGN.com, you would see that I address just that issue!

And Dan, thanks for being smart!

[Innocent X]

They should have made the romance more complicated like between a G.I. and a Japanese-American, or maybe a G.I. and a monkey, I don't know.

[Poxy Von Sinister]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by devilf:
OK OK, while that isn't a CGI effect, I will give you that, but how many movies use fx to create beauty?

I hate to be cliche, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I haven't seen anything since that has filled me with the same sense of joy as the first shot of the brachiosaur in Jurassic Park. That whole scene in fact, up to the big reveal of the dinosaurs around the lake. I think there's beauty in some of the T1000 scenes in T2. It all depends on your tastes -- hell, there are people who find beauty in a Giger painting.

[Neil Bung]

Shakespeare's fluff had substance, but he had plenty of contemporaries who did pure fluff. We don't know them now for that reason, but they probably weren't going for posterity. Hell, Shakespeare probably wasn't going for posterity. It just so happened he was really good. Bay is like one of his peers. He just wants to entertain, and perhaps he'll be forgotten in 100 years. Nothing wrong with that.

I'm not making excuses for Pearl Harbor, but I don't think it needs excuses made on its behalf. It is what it is.

As Jacob said a few posts up, I don't think it's playing for the ages. It's not trying to be Schindler's List or even Platoon or Saving Private Ryan. It's a romance with a historical backdrop. It's grand in scope because that sort of grandeur can sometimes give weight to a simple personal story.

There are some goofy things in it, but I can't criticize it for being any dumber or more shallow than lots of classic movies.

Let's compare it to Star Wars. I'd say Affleck comes across better in Pearl Harbor than Mark Hammill did in Star Wars. The dialogue is no better or worse in Pearl Harbor than Star Wars. The effects sometimes tend to overshadow the plot in both. In fact, theoretically speaking, the main thing that separates the two is that Pearl Harbor's plot is less well-constructed. Sure, you can read into the Campbellian and Kurosowian influences in Star Wars, but it depends on your frame of reference. If Japanese films and mythology are your thing, then you'll find what you're looking for in Star Wars. If WWII military weaponry is what you're looking for, you'll find it in Pearl Harbor.



[This message has been edited by Neil Bung (edited 05-30-2001).]

[Eddie5]

Now Pearl Harbor is closer to Star Wars? Sorry, man...but I don't think so. Despite what everyone may think, it was marketed to be something more; something of essence and with credibility. It was not marketed as fun, thrilling romantic movie. It has a real historical backdrop that we were told they took pains to make it as true as possible. This was marketed as a dramatic recreation of the Pearl Harbor attack with the romance as a story implement to tie the whole together much like Titanic. If it really was just a fun entertainment oriented movie, why 3 hours?

They wanted everyone to know they were serious. They wanted this to be a tribute to the veterans. They had a premiere on a battleship in Pearl Harbor which I personally feel is quite distasteful. Nope, this isn't a fantasy. They wanted respectability and acceptance.

It's not a bad movie. But for what it wants to be, it severely lacks and therein is how you have to judge it. We are not supposed to squeeze an approriate genre for it to enable us to enjoy it. They gave us the criteria and we have to judge it by that.

[countdookula]

In years to come when we get prequels to films like Gladiator or Lost Boys or even Preditor I'm gonna sit back and enjoy the fact that these kind of genre films are even being made. I remember a time when we waited years between any good fantasy picture of any kind. If hollywood is finally getting a clue as to what we really want to see they can make two or three bad sequels to my beloved films as long as I get my steady fix of sci-fi, horror, fantasy and gonzo drug crime flicks on the big screen. I want a prequel to Conan. I will go see the next Alien film even if Micheal Bay directs. I am in line for Planet of the Apes 2. I am so there for "Gladiator:the Begining" starring Freddie Prinze Jr. and Sarah Michelle Geller.
I actually want a sequal to Tron! I'll be first in line with the rest of the comic geeks and pocket book intellectuals. God bless American cinema!

[Neil Bung]

I guess you established a different criteria in your head than I did, then.

Call me cynical, but I see a trailer full of big explosions, costly special effects, a potentially cheesy love story, AND Michael Bay's name attached, and I'm automatically NOT thinking historical authenticity and deep character studies. I went in expecting a crappy romance adventure (though not necessarily "fun" - more "melodramatic" than "fun") thing, and I got a pretty decent one. Not a classic, but I'm satisfied.

And, okay, if Star Wars doesn't work, how about Gone with the Wind? It's a tragic romance set in a historical context, and didn't it strive to capture the horrors of war amidst the main story?

I guess I just don't see the point in arguing end product vs. expectations. Lots of folks thought Thin Red Line was going to be a war epic based on the advertising, and were disappointed that it was a meditation on mortality. Personally, I could give a shit what it was "supposed" to be, since it turned out to be a GREAT meditation on mortality.

[Eddie5]

I agree, Neil.

I went in expecting exactly what you expected but yet I still felt cheated. By your own admission, it is decent and it is but that doesn't elevate it to good for me. Not by how it made feel and worse still, not by the standards they've set for themselves.

I don't think we should pat their backs for just being decent when they promised more. I don't think anyone stives to be just ok and I don't want to feel relieved because it is just OK.

But hey, it's me and I could be monstrously wrong.

[Diva]

It was stated earlier that this whole discussion comes down to whether movies can be fun and artistic at the same time. Of course they can. No one is saying that they can't. But the point that some of us are trying to make is that every movie doesn't have to be artistic.

Movies are a business -- the entertainment business. And if you attach any higher standards than that, then it's your fault that you think every movie sucks. If a movie strives to be artistic and works, great! More power to the people who made the film. But I don't demand every movie to do that. It's not fair to the filmmakers and it's not fair to myself.

I said it earlier and I'll say it again. They're are just movies. Enjoy them for what they are -- a source for entertainment. No strings attached.


[This message has been edited by Diva (edited 05-30-2001).]

[Forklift81]

I don't think the same arguements used to defend the Mummy Returns apply to Pearl Harbor. Too long, too pretentious, too arrogant, too manipulative. This movie was not meant to be pure entertainment, it tried to be something more ambitious and failed.

I hate Ben Affleck.

Even the people who supposedly like this movie admit it isn't very good, so it shouldn't be surprising that most people on Chud, people who have seen a lot of really good movies, don't like it. It may not be deserving of this amount of venom, but it is even less deserving of praise.

[RyanC]

Nick's statements in this little piece hit home with me. I think that I am a little snobbish about films sometimes. But I would say that 90% of the other Chewers have got me beat in that dept. by a long-shot.

My film criticism was at an all-time high when I went into the premiere of "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" expecting "Raiders" - mistake. I was disappointed after the movie. I got over it a wek later when I saw it again. I have been kicking myself in the ass ever since.

[generalzod]

Carl, I was not bitching about you not liking The Phantom Menace, thats your thing..I'm not that petty, really....

I was merely pointing out that it smelled of hypocracy when movies like "The Mummy Returns" & "Pearl Harbor" were given a slide, but TPM was vilified, thats all.

Nick already pointed out what he was really saying so I will now shut up and not speak of it ever agin...thanks and no hard feelings.

[countdookula]

EP1 TPM was the best film to be released that year. I certainly spent an imporportionate amount of money seeing it.Well...to tell the truth I would like to see the no-Jar-Jar edit still....