this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2023
179 points (92.0% liked)

Movies and TV Shows

1 readers
2 users here now

General discussion about movies and TV shows.

Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.

Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title's subject matter.

Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown as follows:

::: your spoiler warning
the crazy movie ending that no one saw coming!
:::

Your mods are here to help if you need any clarification!

Subcommunities: The Bear (FX) - [!thebear@lemmy.film](/c/thebear @lemmy.film)

Related communities: !entertainment@beehaw.org !moviesuggestions@lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
admin@lemmy.film
179
Shazam’ Star Zachary Levi Calls Out Hollywood For Output Of “Garbage” Content (deadline.com)
submitted 2 years ago by nieceandtows@programming.dev to c/moviesandtv@lemmy.film
40 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 61 points 2 years ago (4 children)

He's not wrong, but there a couple of problems:

A) Your average movie goer isn't capable of telling from a trailer if a movie is going to be garbage or not. Heck, your average movie goer can't tell from watching THE MOVIE if it's garbage or not.

B) Levi's last flick, while not exactly a hot mess, wasn't exactly great either. The Skittles product placement was 110% un-necessary and backpedaling to go "no, no, it's a family movie, see?" lowers the bar for family movies.

Just looking at this year, Cocaine Bear and The Machine probably didn't need to happen.

[–] coyootje@kbin.social 29 points 2 years ago (5 children)

I feel like you can't really watch trailers anymore nowadays, they tend to give away a lot of the story already. For example, I watched the trailer for the Meg 2 and it already gave away most of the twists and who would die. I know that they have to try and hype you up but it sucks when they basically spoil the movie.

[–] kingmongoose7877@lemmy.film 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Your opinion on trailers is nothing new and you're not wrong. But then you went and chose MEG 2 as your example??? 🤔 Like that movie was an Agatha Christie mystery or something?! 🤣

!moviesnob@lemmy.film

[–] coyootje@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It was just an example, I could've used most other modern movies as an example as well. It's just the most recent movie I saw and it happens to be a guilty pleasure of my GF to watch shark movies (besides sharknado, that's just way too bad), before that I saw Oppenheimer and MI 7 so I'd like to think that my taste in movies is pretty varied.

[–] kingmongoose7877@lemmy.film 8 points 2 years ago

No, no, my apologies! I didn't intend to imply anything. I just found the example you chose amusing!

[–] Default_Defect@midwest.social 9 points 2 years ago

This comment reminds me of right as I was about to watch The Meg, someone told me they were blown away by the twist. "Bro, wait for it, holy shit" and "the twist" was the most predictable thing that could have happened. The fucking shark died with most of the movie left to go, how is ANOTHER SHARK a fucking crazy twist??

[–] awkpen@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

Just to note, this is so not new that the original trailers for the original release of Planet of the Apes spoiled the ending way back in 1968. And here we are today......

[–] Chariotwheel@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I think it's more an American thing.

Look at the Arrietty Trailer:

UK version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQXi1bKfiTM

US version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlMe7PavaRQ

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 4 points 2 years ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=sQXi1bKfiTM

https://piped.video/watch?v=sQXi1bKfiTM

https://piped.video/watch?v=VlMe7PavaRQ

https://piped.video/watch?v=VlMe7PavaRQ

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

[–] soupspoon@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

On the opposite end, from watching the trailer I could not understand how Barbie was going to be as good as people said, it seemed so one note! I'm so glad it wasn't all shown to me ahead of time

[–] coyootje@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago

I haven't seen the Barbie movie but I've heard more people say that the trailer is nothing like the movie. Interesting, maybe this will make film companies reconsider their trailer strategies.

[–] CeleryFC@beehaw.org 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Cocaine Bear was freaking awesome! Sometimes people don’t need an amazingly deep experience and just want to relax and enjoy themselves and have a good time.

[–] kingmongoose7877@lemmy.film 2 points 2 years ago

I don't know about Cocaine Bear but you're absolutely right about the "amazingly deep experience".

On the other hand, I don't need a movie to treat me like a drooling idiot either. Which is more or less the topic at hand.

[–] pjhenry1216@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I would argue your second statement in A) assumes that a movie can objectively be rated good or bad. Plus it also seems to claim to know exactly what people want to see from a movie. Never s fan when someone seems to say, "I know better than you do what you like."

I'll agree a trailer doesn't always do a good job. But to claim a person can't tell if what they watched is good is hardly a statement a same person would make. Possibly a narcissist would say it. Or someone else full of themselves.

There is obviously technique that can be graded, but that doesn't make a movie.

[–] coyootje@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I agree, movies are art and art is (mostly) subjective. Not everyone likes going to the Fast and Furious movies for example but the audience that's there for it tends to love it. Same with things like Star Wars or Top Gun. All you can objectively say is whether the movie was technically shot well and for that you need knowledge of making movies.

[–] RyanHeffronPhoto@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago

Movies are made for different reasons. Some are made for the 'art', but some are made simply for entertainment. Shitty B-movies are a whole genere about being so 'bad' they're fun, and that's they're purpose. Fast and Furious movies aren't being made for the art.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Movies can absolutely be objectively rated good or bad, all the component pieces can be good or bad, writing, acting, directing, pacing, hell, even lighting, editing and special effects.

The problem is your average movie goer can't tell the difference. Sure, if something is ESPECIALLY bad like the visual effects in the Flash, they'll pick up on that.

Quite more often something can be entirely awful and the reaction is "Well, I had fun..." That doesn't make it "good".

[–] pjhenry1216@kbin.social 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You can have a good movie with poor elements and a poor movie with great elements. I'd even argue you can have a good movie with bad acting. Plus, it's all about the intent of the movie, as with any piece of art. Cocaine Bear had an intent. It fulfilled that intent. Claiming that art can objectively be rated is naive.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Plan 9 From Outer Space is a terrible movie.

Ed Wood is amazing.

I'm sure you can tell the difference.

[–] pjhenry1216@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I don't know what you expect to accomplish with this. If you want to make an argument by example, be prepared to make it exhaustive, otherwise it's simply anecdotal. Anecdotes does not an argument make.

My point is that this is a very subjective realm. You can know all you want about technique and still make a bad movie. And someone who knows nothing can still make a good movie. The odds don't work in their favor, sure, but it's possible. Technique just helps, but it's neither a requirement nor a guarantee. And part of determining whether a film is done well is knowing the film's purpose and theme. Cult classics exist for a reason. They aren't "bad." They're just not popular with folks who didn't get it. You will always be colored by your biases. You can not like a film but that doesn't mean it was unnecessary. You aren't an authority as much as you want to pretend to the throne.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

It's not at all subjective and, again, if you doubt that, sit down and watch Plan 9 and Ed Wood back to back.

One is generally accepted to be the worst film ever made, the other won two Academy Awards.

If you legit can't tell why which film falls into which category, you're precisely the problem I outlined in A)

[–] pjhenry1216@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I feel like you just like hearing yourself talk because you clearly ignored almost everything I said. If you're going to act like a brick wall, there's no point in discussion until you even come close to remotely acknowledging any of my points let alone refuting them. I get you took a film class. It doesn't make you an auteur.

[–] cre0@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago

it’s entirely subjective after you clear some very basic benchmarks.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] wrath-sedan@kbin.social 44 points 2 years ago (1 children)

How self-aware of him.

[–] HellAwaits@lemm.ee 29 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Maybe we just need to let Hollywood do the AI thing for a while so people can see how creatively bankrupt the execs are.

The problem with that though, lots of studios are already creatively bankrupt and most people don't seem to care. IMO the recent Mario movie could've been a hell of a lot better and instead, it's like a really tasty candy that loses it's flavor fast. 90% of Hollywood's releases today fall under that same category of quality and it's still making studio lots of money.

Obviously I fully support the writer's strike, but I'm afraid it might just mean fuck all in the end because the population just doesn't seem to care about good story structure and character chemistry and such. I realize Mario may just be a kids movie, but so was The Incredibles and that movie had way better story structure.

[–] RonJonGuaido@hexbear.net 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

yes, mario didn't even say "here we go" or "wahoo" or "mama mia".

[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 3 points 2 years ago

Sad tired-sounding "let's a-go" intensifies mario

[–] CraigeryTheKid@beehaw.org 1 points 2 years ago

Sorry but Mario was awesome. I'm in my 40s.

Otherwise agree on post, just odf example.

[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 14 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Oh the irony.

[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Actors didn't write or direct or produce the movie. They just act in whatever is written, directed, and produced.

[–] altair222@beehaw.org 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The same guy who likes joe rogan and jordan peterson

[–] Sl00k@programming.dev 16 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Comments like this contribute nothing. Sure it's true but it has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation at hand and is unnecessary.

Instead let's have a discussion, do you think Hollywood has had a stream of Garbage content lately?

[–] PunchingBag@kbin.social 29 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Yes, streams of piss-soaked garbage content such as Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson. They and their fans are braindead morons that are driving the dumbing-down effect that they themselves want to complain about.

EDIT: Also given Levi's controversial opinions, which he readily claims he has lifted directly from aforementioned podcasters, we should probably be concerned as to what he considers "garbage."

[–] altair222@beehaw.org 10 points 2 years ago

Precisely. Giving fascists or conforming liberals a platform and authority does nothing good for cinema

[–] altair222@beehaw.org 13 points 2 years ago

Sure, lets hear about integrity of art from someone who associates himself with people who are epitome of dissociated academic inauthenticity.

[–] Dankry@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

Agreed, Shazam 2 was garbo.

[–] mojo@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (3 children)

who?

[–] spectre@hexbear.net 3 points 2 years ago

You didn't watch Chuck back in the mid 2000s?

[–] YaaAsantewaa@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 years ago

Yeah idk either