←back to thread

The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

(www.newyorker.com)
231 points frogulis | 3 comments | 15 Jul 25 03:52 UTC | HN request time: 0.554s | source
Show context
somenameforme ◴[15 Jul 25 04:23 UTC] No.44567805[source]▶
Fun fact: movie sales, in terms of tickets sold, peaked in 2002. [1] All the 'box office records' since then are the result of charging way more to a continually plummeting audience size.

And this is highly relevant for things like this. People often argue that if movies were so bad then people would stop watching them, unaware that people actually have stopped watching them!

Even for individual movies. For all the men-in-spandex movies, the best selling movie (by tickets sold) in modern times is Titanic, 27 years ago.

[1] - https://www.the-numbers.com/market/

replies(25): >>44567864 #>>44567968 #>>44568136 #>>44568154 #>>44570905 #>>44570997 #>>44571105 #>>44571251 #>>44571355 #>>44571403 #>>44571486 #>>44571608 #>>44571759 #>>44571905 #>>44572267 #>>44572485 #>>44572904 #>>44573167 #>>44573177 #>>44573253 #>>44573502 #>>44573585 #>>44574449 #>>44576708 #>>44580563 #
RickJWagner ◴[15 Jul 25 13:34 UTC] No.44570997[source]▶
When movies are made for entertainments sake, they can still do well. ( Top Gun 2, for example ).

I’m really looking forward to the Space Balls sequel. I have hopes that one will be good.

replies(2): >>44571093 #>>44571647 #
1. timeon ◴[15 Jul 25 14:42 UTC] No.44571647[source]▶
If movie needs number to be distinguishable then it is probably not good.
replies(2): >>44571926 #>>44573282 #
2. allturtles ◴[15 Jul 25 15:07 UTC] No.44571926[source]▶
Good thing it was called Top Gun: Maverick, then! No number necessary. :-)
3. BobaFloutist ◴[15 Jul 25 16:56 UTC] No.44573282[source]▶
I don't know that I agree "Does the sequel dramatically change the naming convention" is a particularly powerful marker of quality.