Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 gorgon wrote:
Yeah, it's unfortunate how studios and audiences have conspired to drive things to this state of affairs. Certainly the studios have greatly refined the 'blockbuster' formula since the mid-'70s with Jaws and Star Wars. But audiences have also fed it through increasingly rigid and narrow expectations to the point of simply becoming blockbuster consumers. When they go to the multiplex, they tend to want to see certain things for their $15, and get POed when they don't. This co-dependent spiral is what leaves the industry with a glut of ultraexpensive superhero and franchise films, and little funding for or interest in those mid-level films.

And remakes. There's some economics work that models how once you reach a certain level of product saturation the level of variation across the whole market starts to diminish. This is because with so many products consumers get information overload and it becomes harder for any product to stand out.

I think this is happening in film. There's so many $100m plus movies coming out constantly that knowing a meaningful amount about any of them becomes impossible. So having any film in that category that would take more than a little explanation in order to make it appeal to the audience becomes a bad bet. So instead studios limit their products to stuff they know can be sold very quickly, comic book movies, franchises and remakes.

The one exception I can think of is Inception, which was an original work, with a huge budget and a complex story and meaning. But of course, the studios sold it with 'new film from Christopher Nolan' and a trailer showing some of the most amazing bits of the effects. So even there they found a way to sell a fairly complex film with some very direct messages.

Audiences even partake in box office horse racing, which is a really weird phenomenon when you think about it. Martin Scorsese recently had this to say about Aronofsky's mother!, box office and filmmaking, and I think he's on point:

That's a really good point. I've thought this kind of thing strange, not just in terms of box office, but also budgets. While it can be fun to talk about whether a film was a bad investment or had a poor result at the box office, why does that impact whether people go and see a film or not? It's very odd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yodhrin wrote:
In the latter case, families and individuals with limited disposable income want to know with a high degree of certainty that they're going to enjoy the product they spend money on *before* they spend the money, and that does lead to a kind of "consumption conservatism" where people will spend money on media with enough similarities to their existing preferences in order to ensure they don't end up with buyer's remorse - an experience that you know going in will be reasonably entertaining to you, if a bit safe and samey, is better than going to see something "risky" that might be incredible or might be total garbage to your taste. And frankly that's an entirely rational mindset.

It is rational for audiences to limit their choices to safe options, but what is then irrational is for those very same consumers to complain that the only films released are those same, safe options. Films like Blade Runner 2049 and the latest Mad Max were still remakes, but they at least pushed the boundaries, and were attempting to do somet interesting things. But Mad Max underperformed, and Blade Runner looks set to underperform as well.

 sebster wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
In the latter case, families and individuals with limited disposable income want to know with a high degree of certainty that they're going to enjoy the product they spend money on *before* they spend the money, and that does lead to a kind of "consumption conservatism" where people will spend money on media with enough similarities to their existing preferences in order to ensure they don't end up with buyer's remorse - an experience that you know going in will be reasonably entertaining to you, if a bit safe and samey, is better than going to see something "risky" that might be incredible or might be total garbage to your taste. And frankly that's an entirely rational mindset.

It is rational for audiences to limit their choices to safe options, but what is then irrational is for those very same consumers to complain that the only films released are those same, safe options. Films like Blade Runner 2049 and the latest Mad Max were still remakes, but they at least pushed the boundaries, and were attempting to do somet interesting things. But Mad Max underperformed, and Blade Runner looks set to underperform as well.

Well, no, it's not irrational at all. There is no downside as a consumer to complaining and asking for more or better, so there's no reason not to do it - either they listen to you and you get to have your cake and eat it, or they don't and you're no worse off than you already were.

But you've rather missed the point - it doesn't matter if Hollywood start churning out experimental avant garde psychological thrillers(or whatever) by the dozen, low income consumers aren't going to go and see them unless they know they already like experimental avant garde psychological thrillers(or whatever). Hence why the movie companies, trapped as they are in the logic of late-stage capitalism, aren't actually going to start churning out said experimental films.

Basically there are only two ways you fix the present problem - you make the average mass market moviegoer wealthier so they're more able to take risks in their consumption, or we get a new economic system(or, at least, a less mental conception of how corporations should be run).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There's a thing that always bothers me is bomb countdown clocks. One of two things happens:

1. They just stop it with a few seconds to go. Stop it with 18 seconds to go, or 23 seconds to go. Now just 2 or 1. It's stupid.

2. Countdown clocks that suddenly get faster when you fail to disarm a bomb by cutting the wrong wire. That's not how timers work!!!

That and the zoom/enhance nonsense, and 'typing fast = hacking' thing.

I think it would be great if for once cutting the wrong wire resulted in being blasted to bits

But I think I can count the number of times that's actually happened on one hand...

 LordofHats wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There's a thing that always bothers me is bomb countdown clocks. One of two things happens:

1. They just stop it with a few seconds to go. Stop it with 18 seconds to go, or 23 seconds to go. Now just 2 or 1. It's stupid.

2. Countdown clocks that suddenly get faster when you fail to disarm a bomb by cutting the wrong wire. That's not how timers work!!!

That and the zoom/enhance nonsense, and 'typing fast = hacking' thing.

I think it would be great if for once cutting the wrong wire resulted in being blasted to bits

But I think I can count the number of times that's actually happened on one hand...

Is that because the other was lost during an explosion from cutting the wrong wire?

 Yodhrin wrote:
Well, no, it's not irrational at all. There is no downside as a consumer to complaining and asking for more or better, so there's no reason not to do it - either they listen to you and you get to have your cake and eat it, or they don't and you're no worse off than you already were.

Irrationality isn't measured in purely utilitarian terms. What an odd argument. It's like if someone was walking down the street shouting 'leaves are made of potato', and it was observed that was quite irrational, by your argument it would be logical to reply that there's no downside to doing it.

But you've rather missed the point - it doesn't matter if Hollywood start churning out experimental avant garde psychological thrillers(or whatever) by the dozen, low income consumers aren't going to go and see them unless they know they already like experimental avant garde psychological thrillers(or whatever). Hence why the movie companies, trapped as they are in the logic of late-stage capitalism, aren't actually going to start churning out said experimental films.

No, you've missed the point because you're trying to jam this in to some pseudo-marxist thing. You are right that Hollywood is following the bulk of demand, but calling that situation fixed and requiring total economic system change to resolve it is more than a bit fanciful.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Scenes with police where the writers clearly don't understand a damned thing about the police, how they work, or how they behave. The first episode of The Gifted really offends in this regard.

This reminds me of the time someone in my animation class tried to point out to the teacher that Hades is not "the devil" in greek mythology and is in fact just an overseer of the underworld (which isn't hell), unlike how the movie Hercules portrayed it. My teacher worked on Hercules (and we all knew it).

I have never seen an old lady use such a wide range of profanities and emotionally devastating words. Apparently Disney paid them to go to greece to study it's mythology and she really didn't appreciate it that people constantly point out that they got it wrong.

People often wonder why I never criticize that movie. I tell them it's because I prefer not to be verbally (and potentially physically) eviscerated.

Apparently she didn't do her job then, because Hades is not the devil nor is his realm hell. There is no direct Christian comparison to Hades, though there is a Jewish one (Sheol).
Hades is just the guy who makes sure the dead stay in the land of the dead. He isn't evil nor is he good. He's more of a tired bureaucrat who has no time for bs than a lord of all evil. to use DnD terms he's more lawful neutral than chaotic evil.
Its like, all over the internet, there's multiple articles about it everywhere. Like, I get that she worked on it and that its a big part of her career, but its still wrong.

Speaking of things fiction gets wrong - conflating science with magic to the point that it becomes an obvious deus ex machina. Yes, I know the old Clarke quote, but that still doesn't allow one to handwave impossible acts with "but science tho". to use an example, the sonic screwdriver in doctor who can somehow hack computers and open electrical doors with soundwaves.
How does that work? If it were a mechanical system then I could see the sound waves vibrating the parts in such a way that they'll do something, but how does that work with electricity? I mean, the author is just pulling things about his ass in order to make the plot work at that point, isn't he?

I don't really mind 'for dramatic effect' stuff, unless it's really, really overused (for instance, if I was an evildoer, my bombs would have all black wires. Because black is cool, and it'll also mess with the protagonist).

I just get wound up when plot stuff makes absolutely no sense - like La Magra not being summoned.

If I were a villain, I would put a timer on the bomb, but make sure the timer is wrong. So it may say 5 minutes left, but there's really a minute until detonation.

I'd just not have a visible timer....

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I'd just not have a visible timer....

My idea is more devious
Making all the wires the same is a good idea too. One could use tape to color the wires when building the bomb to avoid accidents, then just remove the tape. The usual rational for color coded wires is that its so the bomb maker knows which wire is which.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There's a thing that always bothers me is bomb countdown clocks. One of two things happens:

1. They just stop it with a few seconds to go. Stop it with 18 seconds to go, or 23 seconds to go. Now just 2 or 1. It's stupid.

Well, in Goldfinger, Bond did stop the bomb with 007 seconds to go.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
If I were a villain, I would put a timer on the bomb, but make sure the timer is wrong. So it may say 5 minutes left, but there's really a minute until detonation.

That's Rule 15.

http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html

 privateer4hire wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
If I were a villain, I would put a timer on the bomb, but make sure the timer is wrong. So it may say 5 minutes left, but there's really a minute until detonation.

That's Rule 15.

http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html

This is a good list. 10/10, would take over the world with it.

The one thing that irks me is forced in love stories.


Especially with actors that have no chemistry.

And especially when they fall in love for seemingly no reason. Especially when that film is attack of the clones.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I'd just not have a visible timer....

What nonsense is this? Next you'll be saying that bombs, tracking devices and bugs won't have flashing red lights or go "beep beep".

Things that bug me: action scenes shot at night, with far too many cuts so I can't follow the action. You used to get fight scenes and car chases shot from a distance, so you could watch the scene. now it's all close-ups and rapid cuts so you're supposed to feel like you're in the action. I'm not sure it works for me.

Mind you, shooting your action scenes in daylight means you need to think more about how the costumes look; the Asgardian sidekicks in Thor looked a little ... low-budget hanging out in New Mexico.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I'd just not have a visible timer....

You justy don't get it do you?

 welshhoppo wrote:
The one thing that irks me is forced in love stories.


Especially with actors that have no chemistry.

And especially when they fall in love for seemingly no reason. Especially when that film is attack of the clones.

I like how I knew exactly where this was headed once I read the first line.

 feeder wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
The one thing that irks me is forced in love stories.


Especially with actors that have no chemistry.

And especially when they fall in love for seemingly no reason. Especially when that film is attack of the clones.

I like how I knew exactly where this was headed once I read the first line.

No reason? Please. She clearly became overwhelmed by her attraction to genocidal tendencies

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I'd just not have a visible timer....

What nonsense is this? Next you'll be saying that bombs, tracking devices and bugs won't have flashing red lights or go "beep beep".

Things that bug me: action scenes shot at night, with far too many cuts so I can't follow the action. You used to get fight scenes and car chases shot from a distance, so you could watch the scene. now it's all close-ups and rapid cuts so you're supposed to feel like you're in the action. I'm not sure it works for me.

Mind you, shooting your action scenes in daylight means you need to think more about how the costumes look; the Asgardian sidekicks in Thor looked a little ... low-budget hanging out in New Mexico.

See, I find that largely contextual.

A mass Pagga, such as Pelennor fields I find the close ups help put one in the fight, with longer shots good for important duels.

But in Transformers? No. I want to see who's hitting who and with what. Sadly, Mr Bay wants close ups so we can't follow the action. Now, that could be a limitation of the CGI, but somehow I doubt it.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Speaking of things fiction gets wrong - conflating science with magic to the point that it becomes an obvious deus ex machina. Yes, I know the old Clarke quote, but that still doesn't allow one to handwave impossible acts with "but science tho". to use an example, the sonic screwdriver in doctor who can somehow hack computers and open electrical doors with soundwaves.
How does that work? If it were a mechanical system then I could see the sound waves vibrating the parts in such a way that they'll do something, but how does that work with electricity? I mean, the author is just pulling things about his ass in order to make the plot work at that point, isn't he?

It's a fair enough complaint, but just to be pedantic something like the sonic screwdriver isn't necessarily lazy script writing. Now admittedly I haven't seen Doctor Who in about a decade so I can't speak to every use of it, but having an impossibly handy device isn't there just to solve the character's problems when the writer can't think of something. Afterall, if the writer couldn't think of another way to get past a door lock, he just would have not put our hero in front of a locked door in the first place*.

Nah, the reason the sonic screwdriver is there is the same reason the TARDIS is there - they're fun. You may not like the fun of amazingly powerful futuretech that is completely unexplained and makes little sense with what we know of physics and engineering, but that kind of thing is a fun background element for a lot of people.

This is different to shows that ask their audience to engage a little more seriously in the background science. The transporters in Star Trek that are used in one episode to extend a life by holding a person's pattern for a while, and then forgotten about, that's an issue because Star Trek writes often about the uses and perils of transporters, so having transporters massively increase their abilities in an episode with no impact on the setting after that is an example of the problem you're getting at.


*And honestly, if a script writer can't think of a way that a timelord might get around a locked door without using the sonic screwdriver they should probably give up and find a new career..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
See, I find that largely contextual.

A mass Pagga, such as Pelennor fields I find the close ups help put one in the fight, with longer shots good for important duels.

But in Transformers? No. I want to see who's hitting who and with what. Sadly, Mr Bay wants close ups so we can't follow the action. Now, that could be a limitation of the CGI, but somehow I doubt it.

I think a lot of the problem comes when the actual events of the fight aren't actually plotted out all that well. With a fight like Pelennor Fields the exterior shots felt consistent with the close ups and helped provide an overall feel of how the various parts of the battle fit together, because the director had planned out how the whole battle happened and made each shot consistent with that. But with Transformers it feels more like a string of flashy images, both long shots and close ups, and I have no idea how any of it fits together because the director doesn't care how any of it fits together. If he wants a shot of Optimus punching a Decepticon, then there will be a Decepticon standing there for Optimus to punch, with no thought for how the Decepticon got there, or where he went after he got punched.

 sebster wrote:


This is different to shows that ask their audience to engage a little more seriously in the background science. The transporters in Star Trek that are used in one episode to extend a life by holding a person's pattern for a while, and then forgotten about, that's an issue because Star Trek writes often about the uses and perils of transporters, so having transporters massively increase their abilities in an episode with no impact on the setting after that is an example of the problem you're getting at.

I'd like us all to think back and remember that one episode of TNG where the solution to the weekly crisis was turning the computer off and turning it back on, a solution that was delivered with great enthusiasm by the chief engineer who clearly thought it a brilliant and novel idea... which was never ever (literally, I can't think of any time trouble shooting 101 was ever invoked again) used again to solve any future technical problems faced by Federation personnel


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 privateer4hire wrote:


Is that because the other was lost during an explosion from cutting the wrong wire?

Oh you

*somehow I missed this*

 LordofHats wrote:
I'd like us all to think back and remember that one episode of TNG where the solution to the weekly crisis was turning the computer off and turning it back on, a solution that was delivered with great enthusiasm by the chief engineer who clearly thought it a brilliant and novel idea... which was never ever (literally, I can't think of any time trouble shooting 101 was ever invoked again) used again to solve any future technical problems faced by Federation personnel

How many times did they figure out some clever way to detect a cloaked ship, and then just never even try that way ever again?

 Frazzled wrote:
Would be fun if the chosen one is prophesied to bring a dark age or something.

Like, "he will bring balance to the Force" or something?

 sebster wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I'd like us all to think back and remember that one episode of TNG where the solution to the weekly crisis was turning the computer off and turning it back on, a solution that was delivered with great enthusiasm by the chief engineer who clearly thought it a brilliant and novel idea... which was never ever (literally, I can't think of any time trouble shooting 101 was ever invoked again) used again to solve any future technical problems faced by Federation personnel

How many times did they figure out some clever way to detect a cloaked ship, and then just never even try that way ever again?

Or that ship sensors didn't include Infra-red, despite the fact that space is really cold, but space ships are really hot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
The one thing that irks me is forced in love stories.


Especially with actors that have no chemistry.

And especially when they fall in love for seemingly no reason. Especially when that film is attack of the clones.

I like how I knew exactly where this was headed once I read the first line.

No reason? Please. She clearly became overwhelmed by her attraction to genocidal tendencies

It's just awful. He calls her fat the first time they meet and it goes downhill from there.


It would have been much better if she rejected him for whatever reason and refused to get into a relationship. Eventually he turns sour and Palpatine can be like .You're evil now, use your powers and take what you want!

Anakin can then try again, get rejected again but this time he flips and then rapes her. It's a much better fall to darkness than the silliness we get.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I'd like us all to think back and remember that one episode of TNG where the solution to the weekly crisis was turning the computer off and turning it back on, a solution that was delivered with great enthusiasm by the chief engineer who clearly thought it a brilliant and novel idea... which was never ever (literally, I can't think of any time trouble shooting 101 was ever invoked again) used again to solve any future technical problems faced by Federation personnel

How many times did they figure out some clever way to detect a cloaked ship, and then just never even try that way ever again?

Or that ship sensors didn't include Infra-red, despite the fact that space is really cold, but space ships are really hot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
The one thing that irks me is forced in love stories.


Especially with actors that have no chemistry.

And especially when they fall in love for seemingly no reason. Especially when that film is attack of the clones.

I like how I knew exactly where this was headed once I read the first line.

No reason? Please. She clearly became overwhelmed by her attraction to genocidal tendencies

It's just awful. He calls her fat the first time they meet and it goes downhill from there.


It would have been much better if she rejected him for whatever reason and refused to get into a relationship. Eventually he turns sour and Palpatine can be like .You're evil now, use your powers and take what you want!

Anakin can then try again, get rejected again but this time he flips and then rapes her. It's a much better fall to darkness than the silliness we get.

That's far too dark for a vehicle designed to sell Happy Meals and action figures.

That's another thing that grinds me. When a movie can't pick a bloody genre and can't meld them half a damn.


For instance, the 2nd and 3rd Star Wars movies are stuck between action and violence and fun for kids and it ruins both of them.

Wait did you just impugn ESB? I keelz you slow!

 sebster wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I'd like us all to think back and remember that one episode of TNG where the solution to the weekly crisis was turning the computer off and turning it back on, a solution that was delivered with great enthusiasm by the chief engineer who clearly thought it a brilliant and novel idea... which was never ever (literally, I can't think of any time trouble shooting 101 was ever invoked again) used again to solve any future technical problems faced by Federation personnel

How many times did they figure out some clever way to detect a cloaked ship, and then just never even try that way ever again?

My personal favorite was that on episode on DS9, where the Jem'Hadar apparently developed a new scan beam that could detect cloaked ships... which was never used brought up, or referenced ever again. Literally. The plot needed some extra tension so they threw it in and then proceeded to pretend it never happened XD

Oh and speaking of Star Trek; Time travel plots. I don't hate them, but I don't like them in anyway because they always become stupid (EDIT: okay, exception for DBZA which lampooned the feth of this by recognizing that Dragon Ball's universe runs on "multiverse" theory).

Case and point; Star Trek First Contact. Okay the Borg have somehow apparently gained the ability to travel back in time, and are now planning to assimilate all of Earth a bold move that could effectively hand them complete control of the known Star Trek universe. Well Picard foiled that plan. Gee. Guess we'll never try again- Wait a minute. We invented TIME TRAVEL. Screw that bs now that we know every move Picard is going to make we can foil is foiling of our plans. Better yet, why settle for sabotage the Flight of the Phoenix? Bugger all lets just warp on in to 1512. Humanity won't be able to even remotely oppose us. Better yet just scratch all that noise. What were we thinking? Just travel back in time to the beginning of the galaxy, and well have this whole thing assimilated before the stone age is over! <- talk about fridge logic.

Now Enterprise and Voyager tried to fix this, adding in their own runs that the Borg (for some unclear reason) respect the integrity of the timeline, and that they only traveled back in time in the first place because it was a causality loop that may well have allowed the Borg to exist in the first place, but that's just takes the stupidity of the basic premise of Star Trek First Contact and turns it from just stupid into a stupid gimmick.

 Frazzled wrote:
Wait did you just impugn ESB? I keelz you slow!

No no no, episode 2 and 3.


I dare not utter their names more than I have too!

 LordofHats wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I'd like us all to think back and remember that one episode of TNG where the solution to the weekly crisis was turning the computer off and turning it back on, a solution that was delivered with great enthusiasm by the chief engineer who clearly thought it a brilliant and novel idea... which was never ever (literally, I can't think of any time trouble shooting 101 was ever invoked again) used again to solve any future technical problems faced by Federation personnel

How many times did they figure out some clever way to detect a cloaked ship, and then just never even try that way ever again?

My personal favorite was that on episode on DS9, where the Jem'Hadar apparently developed a new scan beam that could detect cloaked ships... which was never used brought up, or referenced ever again. Literally. The plot needed some extra tension so they threw it in and then proceeded to pretend it never happened XD

Oh and speaking of Star Trek; Time travel plots. I don't hate them, but I don't like them in anyway because they always become stupid (EDIT: okay, exception for DBZA which lampooned the feth of this by recognizing that Dragon Ball's universe runs on "multiverse" theory).

Case and point; Star Trek First Contact. Okay the Borg have somehow apparently gained the ability to travel back in time, and are now planning to assimilate all of Earth a bold move that could effectively hand them complete control of the known Star Trek universe. Well Picard foiled that plan. Gee. Guess we'll never try again- Wait a minute. We invented TIME TRAVEL. Screw that bs now that we know every move Picard is going to make we can foil is foiling of our plans. Better yet, why settle for sabotage the Flight of the Phoenix? Bugger all lets just warp on in to 1512. Humanity won't be able to even remotely oppose us. Better yet just scratch all that noise. What were we thinking? Just travel back in time to the beginning of the galaxy, and well have this whole thing assimilated before the stone age is over! <- talk about fridge logic.

Now Enterprise and Voyager tried to fix this, adding in their own runs that the Borg (for some unclear reason) respect the integrity of the timeline, and that they only traveled back in time in the first place because it was a causality loop that may well have allowed the Borg to exist in the first place, but that's just takes the stupidity of the basic premise of Star Trek First Contact and turns it from just stupid into a stupid gimmick.

Isn't that the whole Dalek/Gallifreyan Time War?