When did movies seriously start sucking?

[Dusty Chalk]

I started thinking about this, but I haven't seen enough of the movies to know. When did movies start really sucking? I mean, this current trend of refilming old movies, or making TV shows into movies. Adams Family (1991)? Not the Brady Bunch movie, because there was at least an original concept in that one (transporting them to the -- at the time -- present). Definitely by 1998 (a frame-by-frame remake of Psycho) or 1999 (Star Wars I: The Phantom Menace). 1995 (Mission Impossible)?

I mean, don't get me wrong, there have always been sucky movies. Ishtar anyone? But when did the trend of primarily really sucky movies start? What is the earliest example you can think of, from this recent crop of no-idea-under-the-sun-is-sacred trend?

[GMichael]

I must agree that the originality (is that a word?) isn't there anymore. People seem to be running out of ideas. Maybe it's just a fad that will fade away, but please, no more remakes.
There have however been a few decent movies out there if you like Pixar (which I do). Thanks to them. Serenity was good. But not a lot more than that for me.
Maybe it's just that with so many home theators, we are all seeing more movies than we used to and want more than we are getting.

[Dusty Chalk]

I must agree that the originality (is that a word?) isn't there anymore. People seem to be running out of ideas. Maybe it's just a fad that will fade away, but please, no more remakes.
There have however been a few decent movies out there if you like Pixar (which I do). Thanks to them. Serenity was good. But not a lot more than that for me.
Maybe it's just that with so many home theators, we are all seeing more movies than we used to and want more than we are getting.So...was there an answer to my question in there, or what?

And no -- it's been going on too long for me to believe it's a fad. It's here to stay -- the hunt for non-crap is going to be an ongoing struggle. Yes, Serenity was good. Lucky Number Slevin, The Village -- sure, there are good movies. But c'mon -- Starsky and Hutch, Charlie's Angels, Dukes of Hazard, Mission:Impossible, Lost in Space, My Favourite Martian, etc.?

[icarus]

Well it looks more like it started in the mid 90's but there was crap ever since there have been moives, here is a link of the 100 worste movies of all time

[icarus]

okay so i forgot abou the link my bad so here it is
http://www.imdb.com/chart/bottom

[markw]

okay so i forgot abou the link my bad so here it is
http://www.imdb.com/chart/bottom... but ya just gotta love the name "Anus Macgillicutty". Heck, I'd go see it just based on the name.

Gee, how does one go about changing their moniker here? ;)

[SlumpBuster]

May 2, 1941. Movies began to suck on May 2, 1941. That was the day of the first commercial television broadcast on what would later be named WNBC out of New York. Sixty five years later we would begin to uncover the links between television and a spike in autism. http://www.slate.com/id/2151538/

The sucky-ness of movies would continue in 1956 with the release of Love Me Tender with Elvis Pressley. While previous celebs used movies as a vehicle (Sinatra), the film career of Elvis was the beginning of specific movie tie-in that would culminate with Toy Story Dolls at McDonalds (collect all twelve) and From Justin to Kelly, which starred Kelly Clarkson from American Idol and Sideshow Bob from The Simpsons.

American film suffered another blow in the 1977 with the release of Saturday Night Fever. This otherwise perfect film was tragically marred during production when Tony Manero's hair was hit by his father. Despite Tony having spent a long time on his hair, his father hit it. He hit his hair. With Tony's hair in tatters, the movie experience was ruined for a generation. A small consolation was that Tony's "pu$$y finger" while almost broken, was in fact not.

Despite a mid decade rally with Red Dawn, the 1980s were ruined for film goers by two movies: Howard the Duck and Spies Like Us.

By the time Cool World was released in the 1990, the industry was beyond hope.

[Dusty Chalk]

Many of the instances you cite -- despite their, to you, suckiness -- had at least an iota of creativity. Many current movies do not. They could be written by computers. A computer program could be written to write random gibberish, and then audience tests could be entirely automated.

Of course, if one were to use this system on a spaz and an autistic person, the spaz would be the one making all the decisions. They may not be the right ones, but at least buttons would be being pushed.

[kexodusc]

Many of the instances you cite -- despite their, to you, suckiness -- had at least an iota of creativity. Many current movies do not. They could be written by computers. A computer program could be written to write random gibberish, and then audience tests could be entirely automated..
Yeah, too many predictable, or formulaic films these days. I'd even put The Village on top of the crap pile, but that's just my preference.
Creativity does not absolve a movie from sucking. Waterworld was kind of creative. But licked camel butt.
Seems more and more that the commercialism of Hollywood is determining what movies get funding. Dukes of Hazzard, Van Wilder 2, etc...The goal isn't some young, genius director bringing his movies to market like the old George Lucas, Tarantino (biggest new whore in Hollywood), or even Kevin Smith. More than ever it's just about brand creation, longevity, and potential for profit. (Unless whoever the hell directed VW2 borrowed money from friends and family to bring his dream to the big screen?)

Ironic, some of the biggest money makers are often the most unlikely movies - the original Star Wars for example. But Hollywood is controlled by corporations with fiduciary duties to stakeholders and investors, so risk management is paramount - hence, no risks are taken. This brings us to lame, predictable movies like sequels, comic book or video game scripts, and re-makes of yesterday's success stories.

And the audience is to blame somewhat. More tastes and choices than ever these days. Donnie Darko is a good example of a great movie that flopped in theater (Sept. 11 didn't help though). I know when I go to a movie now, I don't want to risk $25-$50 (if my wife comes) on a movie I've never heard about, by a writer and director I've never heard about, in the smallest, most poorly maintained theater in the back corner of the complex. I want lasers or dragons in SOTA. At least there's some value, and less chance of wasting $50. Maybe if movies were cheaper, I'd risk going to Donnie Darkos a bit more, and demand for them will go up. Until that happens, we're stuck with Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer blowing the snot out of all things created by mold or CGI....

[GMichael]

So...was there an answer to my question in there, or what?

And no -- it's been going on too long for me to believe it's a fad. It's here to stay -- the hunt for non-crap is going to be an ongoing struggle. Yes, Serenity was good. Lucky Number Slevin, The Village -- sure, there are good movies. But c'mon -- Starsky and Hutch, Charlie's Angels, Dukes of Hazard, Mission:Impossible, Lost in Space, My Favourite Martian, etc.?

Answer? You wanted ME to answer?

I've got to hope it's a fad. There's gotta be hope for the future.

[noddin0ff]

The number of plots in the universe is finite.

[Worf101]

Hollywood's always been a land of derivation, "metooism" and lowest common denomenator. There are litterallly THOUSANDS of stupid, derivative, and downright bad films out there from the 30's and 40's and 50's. But these had a place, these "B" pictures kept kids entertained in matinees and movie houses full. T.V. killed the need for "B" pictures but not the "B" picture makers who continue to put out low level chit to this very day.

Da Worfster

[ForeverAutumn]

When I was a kid, movies would play in the theatre for months at a time. I remember looking through the newspaper and seeing movie ads claiming "now in it's ninth spectacular month!". Of course that was long before the days of Video and DVD players. These days it seems that if a move lasts more than two weekends, that's a big accomplishment.

I think that the advances in electronics and home theatre systems in the last 25 years has placed a much higher demand for movie selection. Gone are the days of going to the theatre to see a movie. Replaced by the days of renting three movies for your entire family for the same cost as one theatre ticket. But if I'm gonna watch three movies in an evening instead of just one, then I need three times more movies to select.

As a result of increased demand, the standards for making movies have had to suffer. Quantity over quality. I'm not trying to suggest that there weren't crappy movies made in the past, but I think that the ratio of crappy to good movies has certainly increased. When did this happen? If I had to pinpoint a place in time, I would say that the movie industry definately changed for the worse when VCRs became a popular media for home viewing and video rental stores started popping up on every street corner.

[Kam]

while having done a lil bit of research on this from working (oh-so-peripherally) in the industry, this is kind of my own hypothesis.
movies started sucking once the studio system changed. combine that with the ruthless free agent market and the strength of the unions and you have what we currently have.
This was always a business, but a business of artists. Not that hollywood of old wasn't aas ruthless as hollywood of now, but if a filmmaker had a problem and went to Jack Warner, he could make an informed business AND artistic decision taking both into account (the guy had casablanca made fer cryin' out loud). The old studio heads had their feet planted firmly in both sides. So if someone *****ed about needing to get xyz shot, Warner could look at it and say, yes or no based on the money AND if the shot really was needed. They worked their way up through the industry themselves, they helped found it, they helped create it.
Flash forward and we now have Barry Meyer as the current chief at Warners. Barry, as perhaps a great business mind, has never made a movie. He made his way through the industry as a lawyer, rising up on the legal and business sides of this giant media conglomerate that WB had become. Merge in with Time and create the very massively, publicly owned Time Warner. You have numerous shareholders. Most of those shareholders spread out all over the vary same country that WB movies will play. The huge corp now has a huge base to appease, the bottom line is more than ever the bottom line. The bigger WB got, the more shareholders they got and the less control they have. They are run just like GM or GE or RJR or any other giant is run. Their products test at the lowest common denomenator because they have to appease their shareholders who are also their consumers.
Curiously, within that conglomerate, where do you think is the lone (i think) filmmaker/executive? At new line cinemas, Robert Shaye (former filmmaker turned exec) is the guy responsible for taking a rather monumental risk with Peter Jackson. of course the whole Time Warner family benefits from those billions the movie has raked in.
So yeah, movies suck. But its a product industry. "Sucky" movies make money. So it's a chicken or the egg argument.

Do audiences want sucky movies and that's what the studio's greenlight time after time?
OR
Do studios force feed sucky movies to audiences and convince them its good to watch?

just my ramblings.
k2

[kexodusc]

Do audiences want sucky movies and that's what the studio's greenlight time after time?
OR
Do studios force feed sucky movies to audiences and convince them its good to watch?

just my ramblings.
k2

It's a healthy mix of both. A lot of people love Scary Movie, Van Wilder 2, etc...not my cup of tea, but some people want to go to the theater and turn into a vegetable for 2 hours.
Personally, I prefer renting this type of film for the same reason I avoid small budge unknown films at first, less risk to my own discretionary, disposable income.
But then Michael Bay steps in and blows stuff up, or Tarantino makes another "root for the bad guy" or "weird for the sake of weird" flick, and my ass is in the seat like a southern baptist on Sunday morning. So I'm really no better than these folks.

Sure, some movies are made that nobody would miss - I don't think they're forced upon us - that's a weak excuse, non-existant phenomenon - I've never been forced to pay $15 for any movie by anyone except my wife! Anyone who says they have is either lying, or has grounds for a civil suit. Consumers should fess up to their own bad decisions. Stop going to see crap movies, the studios will lose money, and stop making them. I recognize studios do play it safe when they decide to make American Pie 6 because they know it will make money, but that's only because consumes predictably will pay to see it. If you told me I could make money selling an easy to produce, 2nd rate product, I'd ask where I could sign up. Maybe we're all just bitter at being taken for suckers from time to tmie.

I use to go the movies and pick a show out of the blue - sometimes even the movie poster would sell it for me. Now I do a significant amount of research before hand to arrive at my decision...Word of mouth from people I trust, a healthy gestation period in theater, and of course previews and reviews. Consumers are getting smarter...maybe this bodes well for the future.

[Kam]

It's a healthy mix of both. A lot of people love Scary Movie, Van Wilder 2, etc...not my cup of tea, but some people want to go to the theater and turn into a vegetable for 2 hours.
Personally, I prefer renting this type of film for the same reason I avoid small budge unknown films at first, less risk to my own discretionary, disposable income.
But then Michael Bay steps in and blows stuff up, or Tarantino makes another "root for the bad guy" or "weird for the sake of weird" flick, and my ass is in the seat like a southern baptist on Sunday morning. So I'm really no better than these folks.



same here, i'm part of the problem as well. but i try and balance it out and "vote" with the allmight dollar. i've gone to see more indies in the theater lately (lil miss sunshine, half nelson) than i have the bigger movies. Casino Royale being the only bigbudget movie ive paid to go see lately (i saw a screening of the Fountain too, which is an indie movie wrapped in a studio package).
As much as i hate it, i will probably plunk down and watch Transformers when it hits the screens. I will not go opening weekend specifically so that my "vote" doesnt add to its opening gross, which it will need to be monumental to make its money back. I'll wait till i hear from friend's i trust before seeing it. Although, i think with the success of the "smart" comic movies that Spiderman really brought about, was a direct influence on how Xmen, Batman Begins was made, and even Superman Returns. They really dropped the ball with X3 though, which doesn't bode well in that once they establish the franchise, they figure any old tripe will do.
it's very similar to Sci-Fi/Fantasy readers (of which i am one) Take the "Xanth" series. If anyone has read it. The first few (as in 2-3) books are quite clever and a fun read. However i continued to buy into that series about 12 books in before finally realizing the last 10 i read were total crappy retreads of the first 3. whose fault is that? my own, absolutely for not jumping off that train waaaaaay before i knew it was heading straight for a tunnel-less mountain.

[bobsticks]

I But when did the trend of primarily really sucky movies start? What is the earliest example you can think of, from this recent crop of no-idea-under-the-sun-is-sacred trend?

By your criteria, 1996 with the release of Poison Ivy 2 could be a frontrunner in the argument. Like there were so many unresolved questions from the first installment...

[GMichael]

1984 with the release of Bolero. I mean, really. A movie about Bo Derek as a virgin not being able to find a guy willing to "help her out." It was called "The Hottest Erotic Film Of The Century." I called it trash.

[dean_martin]

1984 with the release of Bolero. I mean, really. A movie about Bo Derek as a virgin not being able to find a guy willing to "help her out." It was called "The Hottest Erotic Film Of The Century." I called it trash.

hmmm...I picked 1984 too, but my choice is Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo.

[JoeE SP9]

Peter, the real question is, when did you finally notice. Maybe being an old fart includes a large dose of cynicism but I noticed that a lot of movies sucked as long as 20 years ago. I gave credit to the non-existent taste of the general audience. I think in general that is still the reason. However, it is gratifying to hear others complain about the lack of any quality in the majority of "Hollywood's" productions. Sadly, you, I and others who feel this way are in the minority. What needs to be done is to raise the expectations of the average movie audience. The problem is that taste class and manners are qualities that seem to have disappeared from the general public.:ciappa:

[GMichael]

What needs to be done is to raise the expectations of the average movie audience. :

If we were to do this, who would buy all those Bose cubes left out in the market?

[Dusty Chalk]

Kam et al, thanks for your input. Now we're really getting somewhere (Kam especially with your lengthy and well thought-out post).

Joe -- I noticed, but since it sort of creeped up on me, there wasn't that one moment that I suddenly realized that most movies sucked until just now. Specifically, somewhere along the line, we crossed the 50% mark. I really think Kam is onto something with the business/artistry model.

Others: 1984 also produced Terminator, Dune, Blood Simple, and Amadeus. You really want to pick 1984? Although Bolero is a really crappy movie. Pretty much worthless except as a skin flick. No, let me rephrase that -- pretty much worthless. But c'mon, I'm not asking for the first really crappy movie (or did I? If so, that's not what I meant) -- I'm asking when the trend "went south", as it were. When did studios really start "firing blanks" with zest? I mean, what executive producer is going to write a check for Deuce Bigelow 2? When did they lose their shame?

Oh, and here's the problem, from the studios' perspective: if "brave" movies are made, not everyone is going to like them. It's just like the music industry. They want to make "hits". And the studios have figured out how to break even with movies that are mostly trash, as long as they have one or two scenes/lines that will make for a killer trailer. They need to stop being lazy -- take chances, fall flat on their faces once in a while, target "niche" audiences instead of the entire movie-watching population. But that won't make them as much money, hence why they don't do that. They're primarily businessmen, not artists.

[PeruvianSkies]

Anyone remember this small little film that only cost $70million? Of course it made back about 1/4 of that, which is amazing consider how worthless this so-called action flick is. I site this as one of the more recent entries that has caused the current state of movies. The reason is simple: Kaos.

Kaos is the name of the director of this film...you may also know him as Wych Kaosayananda. He was given the directing reigns on this $70million dollar film after his 1998 Thailand film FAH, which was the largest budget film in Thailands history. Sure...that's reason enough to give someone a big budget Hollywood film right? Right. But no worries because writing the story would be no less than HALLOWEEN 4: The Return of Michael Myers craftsman Alan B. McElroy. Throw in two action stars like Antonio Banderas and Lucy Liu and you have the formula for success. Oh wait...one more vital part. A clever title: How about ECKS VS. SEVER? No, that's too obvious...what about BALLISTIC? No that's too simple. How about BALLISTIC: ECKS VS. SEVER? Kinda like a video game....you know like Player One VS. Computer? YES...that's the ticket!

LET THE GAMES BEGIN....

Movies have indeed sucked prior to this film and since. There will always be bad movies and good movies, but it would seem that the frequency and ratio or good to bad is steadily decreasing. We are getting fewer and fewer good ones and even fewer great ones. We are so used to bad ones that we even think that good ones are great sometimes just because we are so desperate.

The use of remakers, reworkings, sequels, and such are just another example of the lack of creativity in Hollywood and it's idiotic mistakes like BALLISTIC: ECKS VS. SEVER that prove this theory that BIG MONEY is being thrown at useless films and starving artists out there that actually have creative genius ideas are being left out in the cold. Will things ever change???????????

[Dusty Chalk]

Yes, I remember that movie, though I haven't seen it. I remember the trailer and being excited to see it. But when you phrase it like this:
...Throw in two action stars like Antonio Banderas and Lucy Liu and you have the formula for success......it's probably a good thing that I didn't.

[Smokey]

When I was a kid, movies would play in the theatre for months at a time. I remember looking through the newspaper and seeing movie ads claiming "now in it's ninth spectacular month!".

That was back in the early 50s, wasn't it?

Oops! :devil:

[dean_martin]

You really want to pick 1984?

No. I just like saying, "Breakin' 2 - Electric Boogaloo."

[Dusty Chalk]

Alright then. :cornut:

[GMichael]

The trend began long ago. I'd say the 50's. First it was just a trickle, but kept growing. Then it grew to a steady flow in the 90's. Around 2000 it became raging river of crap, and this year the flood gates broke open and we're all drowning. Anyone got a dingy?

Kam has the best detail in his explanation. Wish I could do the same, but all I have are generalities. I put forth that his explanation is only one of many similar stories that have slowly eaten away at the "art vs. profit" percentages. As the years have gone by it keeps slipping farther and farther into the abyss. As FA said, VCR's began to eat into their profits. (was that the 50's?) As HT has grown, good movies have grown few and far between. But at least we still have reality TV! :prrr: