"Hollywood only makes superhero movies"

[Toyboy like a hole in the head Find all posts View Profile Close Toyboy]

They might do it as long as there's modern "upgrades". The elder Thayers would be a mixed-race couple now and their grandson would probably be gay. No real thematic issues, either and the accidentally-hooking-a-loon-while-fishing scene would have to go.

I guess what I'm wondering is how is it that this film, which is a collection of elements that even in 1981 would be considered box office poison, managed to outperform a big budget superhero sequel. It's technically an '82 release so really it's competition was E.T., RAIDERS and ROCKY III, which made up the top 3, more so than SUPERMAN II. 1982 also saw PORKY'S, ARTHUR, STAR TREK II, AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN, BEST LITTLE WHOREHOUSE IN TEXAS and POLTERGEIST in the top ten (ON GOLDEN POND came in 4th in that calendar year).

ON GOLDEN POND stayed on screens for over a year and made almost $120M. It had a huge bump after the Oscars and maintained heavy ticket sales through the summer in spite of going up against popcorn blockbusters. It's not at all likely that it would perform that way in the modern age and I think a big part of that would be that someone who might be enticed by the subject matter is more likely to stay home and binge a show like This is Us and wait for streaming than feel the need to see it on the big screen.

[Matt H. Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Matt H.]

Would you say that the notion of blockbusters was still a relatively new concept in '81? This was a time when a superhero movie was still considered an event movie, not just business as usual. Perhaps audiences were still accustomed to the Hollywood films of the '70s, so those were preferred? It's a good question, although I would argue that blockbusters were still in their infancy and hadn't become the norm yet. Are we considering JAWS to be the first true blockbuster? Or THE EXORCIST?

[Toyboy like a hole in the head Find all posts View Profile Close Toyboy]

Would you say that the notion of blockbusters was still a relatively new concept in '81? This was a time when a superhero movie was still considered an event movie, not just business as usual. Perhaps audiences were still accustomed to the Hollywood films of the '70s, so those were preferred? It's a good question, although I would argue that blockbusters were still in their infancy and hadn't become the norm yet. Are we considering JAWS to be the first true blockbuster? Or THE EXORCIST?

I would say JAWS, only because it was more family-friendly, then the nuclear blast of STAR WARS just completely changed every expectation of what box office success meant, not to mention it's fallout in the general pop culture (toys, comic book tie-ins, fan fic, novels, cosplay, etc...)

[Dom D Spoon! Find all posts View Profile Close Dom D]

The type of audience that would come out for On Golden Pond haven't been to the cinema in years and so wouldn't even know it was on.

[Dick Ringeisen Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Dick Ringeisen]

I think things will eventually cycle. Things change. Just look at cinema. Most places I go nowadays, they went for a slightly higher ticket price, to install better food options, better seating, and maybe a bar. Some people like movie theatres, as it gets them out of the house. I think that is why I deal less with bullshit in theatres as years go on. Not the average, "riff-raff" in there, they're too happy with free shit on their PC or phone streaming TV, whatever. I see cinema more being for certain people who purposely go out for it, and families, nowadays. it seems to have lost some of that, "Casual" movie-goer.

I will be curious to see how cinemas continue to evolve. So far, the biggest thing I notice, and with life in general, is most folks, especially below a certain age don't like casual chit-chat with random folks. i did have a bit of a conversation with a guy after seeing, "The Northman". A decent film, shows some harsh scenes, such as when places were taken over, the young men being slaughtered, others sent into slavery. I liked how they didn't feel the need to fill the cast with Oscar quota stuff, as, "The Green Knight" did. The fella seated next to me agreed on that, and that Northman was the better film compared to Green Knight. He had never heard of, "Sword of the Valiant", though. So, I gave him something new to look for, as I much prefer that to, "The Green Knight".

So, I still have some fun with cinema. I like the spontaneity, sometimes people chat, and overall, I still find it decent. I just understand, that as long as certain things become the big money makers, that is how it will be for now with the content there. When the superhero films stop raking in all that $, those will slim down a bit.

The big thing is, some people still like to get out of the house, less distractions. Also, many people like to mingle with the public. Overall, I'm OK if certain folks are staying home with their streaming and not going to the cinema. I think the folks I used to run into, throwing popcorn and stuff, were more the casual film goers just doing something while out. Probably didn't have cable at home.

[Dom D Spoon! Find all posts View Profile Close Dom D]

I find the amount of "must-see" TV has become completely intimidating. You almost have to choose between watching series or watching movies. Except for a few shows, I've given up on trying to keep up with TV.

This is true. It's a full time job keeping up with it.

Observation: It's an odd thing but on this board we by and large bemoan the dominance of big explosion movies and highlight and celebrate the weird and wonderful flicks. However, when it comes to tv you're really not going to be able to generate a conversation in the tv subforum unless the show is a remake, sequel or comic book adaptation.

[Randy G Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Randy G]

The type of audience that would come out for On Golden Pond haven't been to the cinema in years and so wouldn't even know it was on.

The older crowd is what is sustaining the few remaining arthouses. They still go to movies.

[Randy G Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Randy G]

To each their own and all but I think you'd be a definite outlier in holding that opinion. The sheer mass of great content is almost impossible to keep up with at the moment. There seems to be something new and brilliant every other week right now.

Not sure how to measure such a thing but I'd say I'm not alone in that view at all, been encountering it more and more. It is a minority opinion at the moment but any challenge to hype and zeigeist usually is.

I actually started to come around to this view when a friend said they had stopped watching more dramatic series because they could get a richer experience watching a movie which also took up far less of their time. And if you see a mediocre film you didn't just waste 8-13 hours of your life doing so.

Outside of Succession I'm not seeing many shows get that combo critical and audience response these days. A lot of mid-good shows but they either get cancelled or write themselves into corners and crater creatively. Most of the best shows I've seen recently are limited series, like We Own this City, The Staircase and Fleabag. I find most longer running series almost never stick the landing.

I like The Boys and Stranger Things but they're full of clumsy and janky writing, often the quality of the actors helps smooth things out but only so far. I don't consider crap like Euphoria or almost everything on Netflix a good use of my viewing time.

[Oily Maniac Member Find all posts View Profile Close Oily Maniac]

Here's another crazy thing - looking at 1979, BUCK ROGERS IN THE 25th CENTURY was on almost 1,000 screens and was the 23rd biggest box office hit for that year. If that doesn't go a long way in explaining how we got to where we are now, I don't know what else will. People so desperately wanted another STAR WARS movie they spent $22M to see a fucking TV pilot on the big screen because it had robots and space battles in it. The general public has always wanted to see schlocky genre fare, even when it was a derivative, TV-grade reboot.

Growing up & working blue collar jobs, nearly all the guys just a few years older than me had no tolerance for any type of fantastical fiction. It had to be reality based, preferably on real events. Buck Rodgers and On Golden Pond signaled the moment a demographic shifted. There was always an audience for schlocky genre fare, but in the '70s it exploded into the mainstream, was co-opted and 40+ years later it's dominating the market. The roles have been reversed. I've never seen On Golden Pond, but looking at the cast and subject matter, it seems like a cultural zeitgeist film for the Greatest Generation & Baby Boomers which contributed to the huge box office. BUCK ROGERS being #23 at the box office was Gen X spending their allowance & paper route money. Media, culture & the fight for the customer's attention has changed so much in the past 10 years, it's no surprise Marty is irate, yelling at clouds & the mainstream kids are mocking him.

Maybe Toyboy and Mr Scorsese could take in a viewing of Planet of the Vampires to try and bridge this generation gap.

[Dick Ringeisen Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Dick Ringeisen]

...

Maybe Toyboy and Mr Scorsese could take in a viewing of Planet of the Vampires to try and bridge this generation gap.

Toyboy is 100?


Anyway.

Big thing is, some places still play revivals, re-runs, and there is still enough other content out there for me to NOT have to go see family or superhero movies. Shit, before the lockdown, I saw... Uncut Gems, The Hunt, some decent stuff. Vote with your wallet.

Also, unless being inside all the time is what you want and you never see it, yeah, people still go out to movie theatres. I fucking love it. But I need CONTENT! Something I want to sit through. Also, other factors come to play - Time it is playing, booze/food available, seating, video quality, etc. I make an outing of it, and something I notice since the 90s, is more and more if it ain't family type stuff, the people there, make an outing of it. And the re-run stuff, tend to either be straight-laced nerds, or loose with their mouth a bit boozed up nerds, or a combination.

Myself, I love to dump myself in with the puddle of people going to a certain film. Enjoy the scene, event, interruptions, or quiet that occurs, and insert myself into it on occasion.

The big thing. I dislike structure, and the big-name places give me that, "Hope you enjoy the movie! We don't give too much of a fuck how things go in there!"

People for a while were talking about how they wish they had 42nd street to go to, etc, etc, then they go to Alamo... Fuck that noise, go play with the general public!

[Toyboy like a hole in the head Find all posts View Profile Close Toyboy]

Something else Scorsese said in one of his responses was that it bothers him that people will spend time watching 2 hours' worth of short YouTube clips on their phones but won't go see a 2-hour art film, or something to that effect.

Fair enough, but this observation ignores what cinema is when you break it down to its base elements: a series of visual and auditory emotional triggers. What you're seeing and hearing is sending signals to your brain that evoke specific responses. A nuanced facial expression from an actor, expertly lit and shot by a top-notch DP, with a swelling orchestral score behind it can make a viewer feel any number of emotions, especially in the context of a larger piece. Similarly, an amateur documenting their rescue of a stray kitten from a dumpster with their cell phone can do the exact same thing. If someone watched 20 cat rescue videos, followed by their favorite 80's music video, followed by a guy slipping on the ice followed by clips from a talk show, they can experience the same emotional responses they get from a well-made movie. I completely understand why a person who has spent most of their life watching and making movies would be upset by that but one doesn't negate the other.

I recently rewatched COME AND SEE and was very effected by it, still. It's masterful filmmaking. Last night I spent two hours watching Norm MacDonald clips followed by a handful of videos showing how Paul Stanley lip syncs now and then a comparison of all three KI77 drummers and then watched a bunch of trailers on Tubi then went to bed. The night before I watched THE MEATCLEAVER MASSACRE. I enjoyed all of it.

[Matt H. Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Matt H.]

Something else Scorsese said in one of his responses was that it bothers him that people will spend time watching 2 hours' worth of short YouTube clips on their phones but won't go see a 2-hour art film, or something to that effect.

Fair enough, but this observation ignores what cinema is when you break it down to its base elements: a series of visual and auditory emotional triggers. What you're seeing and hearing is sending signals to your brain that evoke specific responses. A nuanced facial expression from an actor, expertly lit and shot by a top-notch DP, with a swelling orchestral score behind it can make a viewer feel any number of emotions, especially in the context of a larger piece. Similarly, an amateur documenting their rescue of a stray kitten from a dumpster with their cell phone can do the exact same thing. If someone watched 20 cat rescue videos, followed by their favorite 80's music video, followed by a guy slipping on the ice followed by clips from a talk show, they can experience the same emotional responses they get from a well-made movie. I completely understand why a person who has spent most of their life watching and making movies would be upset by that but one doesn't negate the other.

I recently rewatched COME AND SEE and was very effected by it, still. It's masterful filmmaking. Last night I spent two hours watching Norm MacDonald clips followed by a handful of videos showing how Paul Stanley lip syncs now and then a comparison of all three KI77 drummers and then watched a bunch of trailers on Tubi then went to bed. The night before I watched THE MEATCLEAVER MASSACRE. I enjoyed all of it.

We're all going to be fine, because we've already established a wonderful balance between high art and low trash and, more importantly, we've had a great film education that allows us to appreciate so much.

I sometimes worry that we're not educating the next generation enough; they're going to settle for crap because it's all they know. I think my parents did a fantastic job showing me all different types of films while I was growing up and I hope today's parents haven't just given up.

[Dom D Spoon! Find all posts View Profile Close Dom D]

Just recently I've plunged down the rabbit hole of large budgeted Indian cinema. $15 to $70 million movies. Money obviously goes a bit further over there because you are definitely not getting these movies made for that money in Hollywood.

Watching these has been a bit of a reminder of what we're missing from the likes of Marvel. Epicness, myth making, emotion. I wouldn't mind all the Hollywood movies being big if they wanted to operate on more than one level.

Check out this clip from the one I was watching this morning. For all their pyrotechnics no Marvel film goes this big (Context for the scene: Our hero is the rightful king of the land but doesn't know it. He's been hidden at the bottom of some insurmountable mountains to keep him safe. While trying to climb the mountains before he's always failed, until....:

[Matt H. Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Matt H.]

Came across this great article as I was trying to discern how, why and when modern blockbusters became so obnoxiously self-aware:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/jgmj...self-aware-now

[JonesyTheCat Member Find all posts View Profile Close JonesyTheCat]

Just recently I've plunged down the rabbit hole of large budgeted Indian cinema. $15 to $70 million movies. Money obviously goes a bit further over there because you are definitely not getting these movies made for that money in Hollywood.

Watching these has been a bit of a reminder of what we're missing from the likes of Marvel. Epicness, myth making, emotion. I wouldn't mind all the Hollywood movies being big if they wanted to operate on more than one level.

Check out this clip from the one I was watching this morning. For all their pyrotechnics no Marvel film goes this big (Context for the scene: Our hero is the rightful king of the land but doesn't know it. He's been hidden at the bottom of some insurmountable mountains to keep him safe. While trying to climb the mountains before he's always failed, until....:

SS Rajamouli FTW!