Is art in movies dying and did Netflix kill it?

[Omega10]

If anything is killing movies it would be the competition from very good television series. On the other hand, movies aren't really dieing. There always have been the mass appeal movies, like the top 10 grossing movies shown earlier in this thread, action films, artsy fartsy movies, romantic comedies and the like, slapstick comedy movies, so on and so forth. There are markets for all of the above. There were 20 years ago, 40 years ago, and there will be years from now as well.

The debates here in this thread could have been written 20 years ago, with the only difference being the exact titles of the movies, and also could have been written 40 years ago. Entertainment is a huge part of our culture, and also it is a profitable way for corporations to influence the masses (like, for example, having all the most popular characters conspicuously smoking). So Movies and TV Series will continue to be written, and people will continue to watch them. People will continue to complain about the genres of movies that they do not like.

[Drutt]

Isn't Rotten Tomatoes user reviews ?

Critic reviews and user reviews are aggregated separately. See here:

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/bright/

Critics: 27%. Users: 87%. Huge disparity.

[Deleted]

Can’t you get a proxy (maybe vpn) or something to change the region in Netflix? I know different ones get different movies. Like, I remember my husband got way better movies in SKorea than I did in the states.

I did once, around 90% of the movies that interested me I already owned

[Deleted]

Rising ticket prices and the likes of Disney using there enormous clout to force cinemas to screen the likes of Star Wars constantly for 2-3 months is killing arthouse films.

Quentin Tarantino is an excellent director, but most of his opinions about the film industry are wrong, and have always been wrong.

[Queen of Hamsters]

Uh, no.

And no.

[Planetdune]

I don't have or want netflix so who knows...

[Gaaz]

Well there we go, Bright is good because this guy likes WW2 History. That's how we figure out if movies are good. Bright and Dunkirk were both different levels of crap by the way.

You have some logic problem there mate... Not because, but despite. And all I am saying is that critic reviews are not the "end all" final point. For example Bright and Dunkirk are on the opposite spectrum of critic and user reviews. Dunkirk for me personally was an average time killer. Not complete shit, but nothing to wow about either. Sort of a background radiation in terms of impact. Bright was actually more interesting to watch despite its flaws.

[chazus]

Isn't Rotten Tomatoes user reviews ?

It's both, and if you look up bright, it shows how out of touch Critics are with actual viewers. Complete night and day. I watched a bunch of critic stuff, and they said it was an awful movie because it doesn't go into history enough and explain why X or Y thing is the case... Instead of just watching the damn movie.

Literally everyone I know that has watched it enjoyed it. The biggest complaint I've heard was that they feel it should have been a series, not a movie, but if it was a series, it wouldn't have had Will Smith. While he didn't make or break the movie, he had a roll and did play a part in making the whole.

[Deleted]

It's both, and if you look up bright, it shows how out of touch Critics are with actual viewers. Complete night and day. I watched a bunch of critic stuff, and they said it was an awful movie because it doesn't go into history enough and explain why X or Y thing is the case... Instead of just watching the damn movie.

Literally everyone I know that has watched it enjoyed it. The biggest complaint I've heard was that they feel it should have been a series, not a movie, but if it was a series, it wouldn't have had Will Smith. While he didn't make or break the movie, he had a roll and did play a part in making the whole.

I wanted more focus on the fantasy elements and not pointless action

[chazus]

Well there we go, Bright is good because this guy likes WW2 History. That's how we figure out if movies are good. Bright and Dunkirk were both different levels of crap by the way.

What... does Bright have to do with WW2 History...? I'm not even sure what you're talking about with 'figuring out if movies are good'

Also, the majority of movie watchers disagree with you. You can have your opinions but your opinion doesn't make truth.

[Deleted]

I was checking this out a bit earlier and thought it was interesting and have to agree. People don’t make investments with their time when it comes to movies.

Back in the 80’s and 90’s along with late fees I remember going to get whatever latest releases then a recommended and then a “let’s give it a chance horrible, but funny film.”

So my question especially if we have any film makers or students what do you think is it a dying part of art?


Also what’s your favorite memory of films you kind of found that you liked at the video store what was you experience?


Follow up: I’m being silly a bit about Netflix but what’s your take how do you pick films now?

Oh fuck off Tarantino you fucking plagiarizing twat.

Netflix takes risks, unlike the vast majority of the rest of the shitty industry. Yet he decides to pick on Netflix and not the horrendous Hollywood machine at large that keeps remaking shit and just making movies to sell toys? Fuck right fucking off Tarantino.

It's the fucking opposite. Netflix is making sure there's some damned variation by taking risks and trying new things.

[Zelk]

What... does Bright have to do with WW2 History...? I'm not even sure what you're talking about with 'figuring out if movies are good'

Also, the majority of movie watchers disagree with you. You can have your opinions but your opinion doesn't make truth.

The guy I quoted qualified his liking of Bright and dislike of Dunkirk by saying ww2 history is a hobby of his. Your second sentence was basically my point lmao. Also everyone I know who's seen bright said it was boring thanks.

[Witchblade77]

The guy I quoted qualified his liking of Bright and dislike of Dunkirk by saying ww2 history is a hobby of his. Your second sentence was basically my point lmao. Also everyone I know who's seen bright said it was boring thanks.

how are you people keep missing the point? maybe its why you didn't like bright, becasue you keep missing the point.

WW2 history interest has nothing to do with Bright and everything to do with Dunkirk. when you are predisposed to like something becasue of preexisting interest (so as a fan of WW@ history, Dunkirk is already ahead by being a movie about subject matter he is actively interested) and he STILL liked it less then Bright. the point is that even preexisting interest was not enough to increase his enjoyment.

in any case, the biggest problem with Bright IMO is that Ayers is a horrible HORRIBLE editor (or works with a horrible editor). there are fantastic bones to that movie, a good world setup and a good if simple story coupled with some decent character development. but the way its edited together is incredibly jagged and abrupt and scattered. and I still enjoyed it very much. as did my SO, as did most people I know and he knows that watched it. like I said, its not without issues, but its not a bad movie by far.

[Mistame]

Bright actully got terrible reviews. It was lambasted by critics. You must be thinking of something else.

The "critics" are generally terrible at their jobs.

It's both, and if you look up bright, it shows how out of touch Critics are with actual viewers. Complete night and day. I watched a bunch of critic stuff, and they said it was an awful movie because it doesn't go into history enough and explain why X or Y thing is the case... Instead of just watching the damn movie.

Pretty much. Critics anymore are too analytical and tend to focus on shit that people who actually watch the movies don't even care about. It's the equivalent of letting fan boys judge super hero movies. "That's not canon! FAIL!" /facepalm

Literally everyone I know that has watched it enjoyed it. The biggest complaint I've heard was that they feel it should have been a series, not a movie, but if it was a series, it wouldn't have had Will Smith. While he didn't make or break the movie, he had a roll and did play a part in making the whole.

I'll admit, the movie did have its issues. It jumped around, didn't give any insight into the premise and lacked substance in a lot of places but overall, it was entertaining. I'd agree it would have been better as a series as then it could have expanded on its base premise, drawing viewers into the world better. They should have done what was done with Lethal Weapon, which actually turn out to be an amazing show.

[oxymoronic]

TL: DR he is part of the old boys club and dont like that the new kids are taking over. Netflix have a lot of non mainstream crap maybe its not all art films but there is enough quality programming that isent simply blockbuster movies to prove Tarantino wrong here.

did you even listen to what he said? its about the commitment to watch a movie, even if that movie is not the best. to appreciate it for what it is. and hes right, when i watch netflix i give a movie a few minutes to keep me entertained or i turn it off. but mainly cause low budget movies these days suck.

[Endus]

in any case, the biggest problem with Bright IMO is that Ayers is a horrible HORRIBLE editor (or works with a horrible editor). there are fantastic bones to that movie, a good world setup and a good if simple story coupled with some decent character development. but the way its edited together is incredibly jagged and abrupt and scattered. and I still enjoyed it very much. as did my SO, as did most people I know and he knows that watched it. like I said, its not without issues, but its not a bad movie by far.

I think that's the core issue.

Nobody's arguing that Bright was the bestest film made this year/decade. It's got problems. But it's a solid 6/10, at worst, realistically. People like pointing at the Critic scores on RT, which currently sit at 27%, but the audience scores are at 87%. Now, audiences can be dumb, but the critic scores seem WAY off, on any rational comparison. To avoid too many externalities, let's look at urban fantasy genre films from the last little while, the B-movie types that were always dumb popcorn flicks.

First, for ease of comparison, here's Bright;
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/bright/ Critics 27%, Audience 87%.

Now, consider the pattern that you can see emerging;
Resident Evil: C 34%, A 67% https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/resident_evil
Underworld: C 31%, A 79% https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/underworld/
The Last Witch Hunter: C 17% A 43% https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_last_witch_hunter
Lara Croft: Tomb Raider: C 20% A 47% https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/lar...t_tomb_raider/

There's a decent argument to be made that critics just flat-out don't like urban fantasy. Resident Evil and Underworld were both popular enough to kick off major franchises, but didn't crack 35% with the critics. Even in the latter two, while they're not "good movies" really, the critic scores are REALLY low.

I mean, come on. Tommy Wiseau's The Room, a film considered such a disaster that they made a film about how awful it was this year, has comparable critical acclaim, at 26%; https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_room_1998

I don't think Bright was great. Like I said, I'd probably flag it around 6 or 7 out of 10. I enjoyed it, but there were rough spots. But I don't think it was nearly as bad as the critics laid it out to be, via RT.

[RobertoCarlos]

more and more lower budget movies are popping up so im gonna go with a no

[Deleted]

as a fellow grumpy old grump I can see QT's point but blaming Netflix is a little unfair.

I recall getting engrumpled when my local Blockbuster went from having a wide range from big movies to weird indie films to stocking just dozens of the 'top twenty' or so, then thankfully died

The internet makes it easy to find niche films and usually at reasonable prices

Also doesnt the lack of film knowledge help QT as less people are aware of his 'borrowing' hijinx

[Soulwind]

Video killed the radio star.

New media has always offered more convenient entertainment for less commitment.

And while we could go back and forth speculating about how immediacy shortens attention span and how society could be better if people spent more time doing something worthwhile with their time, it's about way more than Netflix or YouTube.

[Squid771]

No, if anything Netflix is creating a medium for more lessor known movies and tv shows to get an audience.

I love Tarantino, but I disagree with him here. Maybe we don't have to commit to video rental anymore, but it's still 2 hours of our time to sit down and watch a movie.