←back to thread

The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

(www.newyorker.com)
231 points frogulis | 5 comments | 15 Jul 25 03:52 UTC | HN request time: 0.03s | source
Show context
Duanemclemore ◴[15 Jul 25 04:32 UTC] No.44567845[source]▶
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

replies(3): >>44567959 #>>44568695 #>>44571341 #
justanotherjoe ◴[15 Jul 25 05:02 UTC] No.44567959[source]▶
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.

replies(6): >>44568020 #>>44570966 #>>44571181 #>>44572110 #>>44573126 #>>44574165 #
Duanemclemore ◴[15 Jul 25 05:14 UTC] No.44568020[source]▶
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/

replies(1): >>44568128 #
emsy ◴[15 Jul 25 05:36 UTC] No.44568128[source]▶
The T-Rex bit is not a joke, the line is said seriously. Also, watch Jurassic Park. Good movie.
replies(1): >>44568278 #
Duanemclemore ◴[15 Jul 25 06:05 UTC] No.44568278[source]▶
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

replies(3): >>44568526 #>>44569841 #>>44573580 #
beAbU ◴[15 Jul 25 10:53 UTC] No.44569841[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>44572439 #
1. kikokikokiko ◴[15 Jul 25 15:52 UTC] No.44572439[source]▶
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.
replies(2): >>44575744 #>>44576218 #
2. lupire ◴[15 Jul 25 20:58 UTC] No.44575744[source]▶
Jurassic Park is 2h7min.

9min of animatronic dinosaurs

6min of CGI dinosaurs.

3. Duanemclemore ◴[15 Jul 25 21:55 UTC] No.44576218[source]▶
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.)

replies(2): >>44579620 #>>44579621 #
4. beAbU ◴[16 Jul 25 07:27 UTC] No.44579620[source]▶
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?

5. justanotherjoe ◴[16 Jul 25 07:27 UTC] No.44579621[source]▶
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.