The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

I don't know if calling it a "New Literalism" is helpful. I just don't know that a penchant for literalism ever went away.

Now, what IS relatively new is the "ruined punchline" phenomena that they identify (without naming) on the movie recap podcast Kill James Bond, which is that contemporary movies always ruin jokes by telling one, say... "x" and then having another character chime in with "Did you just say 'x' !?"

I think there's a fear of losing attention because you're asking people to think about something other than the eyewash happening right in front of them by inviting them to have to -think- about a movie.

Anyway, to close: "No one in this world ... has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people..."

- HL Mencken

Can you describe more about the "ruined punchline" thing? Cause that sounds natural to me. Like in Jurassic Park, Alan Grant hears "We clocked the t-rex at 32 mph" and he goes "Did you just say 't-rex'?". Actually they repeat it like 3 times more to really lean into it.

And I guess my point is that Jurassic Park doesn't feel modern or clumsy in this particular execution.

Having never seen Jurassic Park (yeah, right?) I'm guessing the preposterousness to an unaware onlooker is played for effect.

This is a more recent phenomenon. This is literally just repeating a punchline so that it tells the audience - "that was the punchline, you can laugh now."

I've seen plenty but I can't give any specific examples. I mention Kill James Bond [0] because they specifically point it out in the movies they watch. Although they don't watch any Whedon movies, in talking about it in movies where it happens a lot they cite Whedon as particularly guilty of this.

[0] https://killjamesbond.com/

The T-Rex bit is not a joke, the line is said seriously. Also, watch Jurassic Park. Good movie.

I actually have less than zero excuse. I was a 13 year old nerd when it came out - PRIME market.

But I think even then I was allergic to hype. Same reason I've never seen a vast number of well loved movies. Like Titanic. ... just a contrarian LOL.

We didn't have the money to go to movies. So I think the exposure to entire cohort of my fellow nerds having seen it three times over opening weekend, wearing the t-shirt every day, and talking endlessly about it for weeks made it easy for me to just nope out by the time it came out on video. That and I was really hitting the "girls and rock and roll" part of puberty and probably ran as far and as fast as I could from stuff that reminded me of being younger. Enough biography. LOL

I'd say, if you have a core memory at a zoo or a theme park, then you'll probably like it.

> the intelligence of the [..] masses

George Carlin didn't emphasis this enough in retrospect. The idiots in-charge now appear to begging for educational percussive maintenance, albeit in hyperbolic, euphemistic form for legal reasons only.

Like others have said, go and watch it. It holds up exceptionally well. It's just a plain good movie. The tension, acting, the special effects, quotable moments, the dinosaurs, everything.

Do it tonight and report back tomorrow please.

I'm not gonna promise that it'll change your life - don't want to over hype it. But I am genuinely curious what an adult's initial reaction to it would be after watching it for the first time.

One one level I really enjoy Steven Spielberg, but boy is he heavy handed.

One might argue that it is the same thing, but that Jurassic Park comes from an era before that was common. It would be a different, though related, point in favor of the duplicative nature of media today to the one the author mentions.

>No one in this world ... has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people...

I think you're disproving your own point. If you look the major flops in all industries (video-games, movies, ...) the general trend is contempt for the audience. This generally results in some form of uproar from the most involved fans, which is disregarded because of the assumption that the general public won't pick up on it. At the very least, I would say that for this to be true you need to have a very specific definition of intelligence that would exclude a lot of crowd behaviors.

Yeah, maybe the poster-boy even.

Part of it is overexposure. The same thing happened to snappy "Joss Whedon" dialogue. This stuff worked really well in Buffy and Firefly, but Whedon was good at writing dialogue like this and he knew when not to use it. We've now had 15+ years of various writers at Disney doing crappy Whedon impersonations and this style of dialogue has worn out its welcome for many.

The special effects on that movie are superb. On the vast majority of big early 90s blockbusters really. Just enough CGI to make the animatronics feel perfect. Nowadays I can't watch any movie, they all look like I'm watching a bunch of PS2 cutscenes spliced together.

> I would say that for this to be true you need to have a very specific definition of intelligence

That phrase is about conning people...

Well, that's people repeating the line for confirmation in a scenario where communications weren't very reliable and the information was extraordinary.

That's close to the way the conversation would happen in real life.

I've managed to partially short-circuit my allergy to hype by telling myself that if I wait until after something is established, I successfully avoided the downsides of hype (buying into something site-unseen that might not even be that good) and intelligently waited for something to come out and get properly evaluated. Also I'm being unique and independent by getting into things well after everyone else.

This has given me a license to come back and check out beloved works whenever I realize I was just being contrarian and stubborn, which is a delight. Also still lets me say "I knew it!" when super popular things become less than beloved in retrospect.

Plus old stuff is often cheaper. It's often a fun adventure to go "Ok, let's see what all the fuss is about," even if it doesn't become an instant new favorite. Example: Twilight, while I wouldn't call it "good", is very funny and very fun to watch, especially if you get a mixed crowd of people that loved it at the time but recognize it's dumb, people that were allergic at the time but have since watched it and can acknowledge the fun, and new watchers.

That's all really insightful! I agree. I'm also much better now - not willfully disregarding things because just they're popular. I was a punk and indie rocker in the early 00's, so I was able to get that out of my system. (and boy did we) Now, my tastes are just generally extremely non-mainstream. So I avoid it by default.

It's pretty straightforward really - for example I saw Fruitvale Station as a movie fan. I thought it was great and so Coogler was on my radar. I thought the Rocky franchise was ripe for a reboot, so when I heard he was doing it I was in. And the movie was fine. As was Black Panther (considering Marvel flicks for what they are, no judgment either way). So OF COURSE I was downright excited for Sinners. With no assumption that it had to be the best thing ever - and I had a blast.

Another good example is that I'm currently watching the John Wick series for the first time. I didn't know anything about them, but had heard them positively referenced on Kill James Bond. Well, if you meet it where it is and realize it's just "what if you made a comic book into a movie?" and don't expect more of it, you can appreciate it for whether it does that well or not.

I would suggest some shades of meaning on the Mencken quote. You're absolutely right that showing contempt for your audience will -absolutely- pave the road to losing money. In contrast if you -pander- to the lowest common denominator of intelligence required for engagement? Money printer go brrrrr.

Sure! I would humbly suggest that we don't go to movies to see -real- real life situations re-presented back to us.

I mean, unless you have two comedic geniuses who can really sell yelling down the stairs to ask the partner what they want for dinner, getting met with "HUH???" inching a little closer, and having repeat this three times until you finally just go down and ask in a normal voice. In the right hands that could be comedy gold on screen.

But by in large, we don't consume media because it represents the banal reality of everyday life.

That's not a punch line, it is Dr Grant babbling in disbelief that they actually created a T-rex

Jurassic Park is 2h7min.

9min of animatronic dinosaurs

6min of CGI dinosaurs.

That does not mean some amount of banal reality is an infraction or something bad. It makes movie feel less artificial. The weird thing is when people are so used to artificial, that they reject banal reality as "overdone joke" rather then "scene where people talk normally move on".

I constantly wonder why no one's talking about the fact that almost every movie with cgi visual effects looks awful these days? I was on a plane recently. One person in front of me had Wicked on, another the live-action Snow White, another some recent Marvel movie. Each slid completely into the uncanny valley in their own way. It was really eye opening.

The era you're talking about the balance was spot on. I'd say there was a golden age of effects from Star Wars through to Terminator 2. You're already suspending your disbelief and letting the filmmaker take you on a ride. Who cares if it's hyper-realistic? (or, in the case of contemporary movies, trying to be hyper-realistic and failing to the point that it makes it even more obvious.)

My mid 30s brother in law is obsessed with graphics and framerates in video games. He optimises his games and gaming hardware selections primarily based on graphics fidelity.

He used to get the latest version of the fifa game every year, because the "graphics were so much better in this one", he went into debt for an xbox series X because of the better graphics that it offered, now he's recently built a custom gaming PC, primarily because he could eke better (you guessed it) graphics out of the games he plays.

Every single time I would tell him IDGAF about graphics, and I'll probably keep my XSX until the proverbial wheels come off before I upgrade. For me all I need is acceptable smoothness, decent-ish performance, but most importantly an enjoyable gameplay experience and (primarily for me) a very strong narrative focus.

I stopped trying to dunk on his enthusiasm (I was like that when I was 15), and now I'm just happy he's happy. Although he probably won't be happy, because the next-gen gpus are already just over the horizon, and by the time he's built his next gaming PC the next-next-gen GPUs will be just over the horizon...

Maybe some people are like that with movies? Maybe they select based on flashiness and special effects, and when the effects are obviously visible then it's bad by default? Maybe comments like "wow, this movie is certainly visually striking" in a focus group is seen as a Good Thing which makes the producers optimise for that when they make movies?

The use of color is atrocious in new movies. It's the era of high contrast and contrasting colors. They depend on it to make something look 'expensive' and 'premium' even though to me it looks really bad. And played out. Give me washed out greens like My Neighbor Totoro or yes, Jurassic Park, anyday.

It's a self-reinforcing thing. New movies want to look 'new', no matter if 'new' is bad.