Started By
Message
locked post

Spiderman, get off my lawn!

Posted on 7/19/12 at 7:09 am
Posted by Kafka
I am the moral conscience of TD
Member since Jul 2007
157825 posts
Posted on 7/19/12 at 7:09 am
LINK
quote:

Millennials seem to have little use for old movies

For young people, the focus seems to be on what can be talked about now — new movies serve an immediate social function. Old films are being forgotten.

By Neal Gabler

A lot of folks have wondered whether it is too soon, just 10 years after the release of the original film and five years after the third installment, to relaunch Spider-Man. When questioned, a producer of the new picture snapped that anyone who asked that is "too old." He may have been dismissively arrogant, especially to geriatrics over 30, but he may also have been right.

Obviously, remakes are nothing new, even if the time between the original and the next version has shrunk dramatically. As Amy Pascal, the co-chairman of Sony Pictures, which distributed the new "Spider-Man," said, "Five years is a lifetime in the movie business," by which she really meant it is a lifetime for the young audiences to which the movie business makes its primary appeal.

But the new "Spider-Man" betrays something else — something important about the young audience's relationship to film. Young people, so-called millennials, don't seem to think of movies as art the way so many boomers did. They think of them as fashion, and like fashion, movies have to be new and cool to warrant attention. Living in a world of the here-and-now, obsessed with whatever is current, kids seem no more interested in seeing their parents' movies than they are in wearing their parents' clothes. Indeed, novelty may be the new narcissism. It obliterates the past in the fascination with the present.

quote:


What this points to is that movies may have become a kind of "MacGuffin" — an excuse for communication along with music, social updates, friends' romantic complications and the other things young people use to stoke interaction and provide proof that they are in the loop. A film's intrinsic value may matter less than its ability to be talked about. In any case, old movies clearly cannot serve this community-building function as they once did. More, the immediacy of social networking, a system in which one tweet supplants another every millisecond, militates against anything that is 10 minutes old, much less 10 years.


quote:

All of this makes it tough not only for old movies to survive but for movie history to matter. There is a sense that if you can't tweet about it or post a comment about it on your Facebook wall, it has no value. Once, not so long ago, old and new movies, middle-aged audiences and young audiences, happily coexisted. Movies brought us together. Now a chasm widens between the new and the old, one aesthetic and another, one generation and another. It widens until the past recedes into nothingness, leaving us with an endless stream of the very latest with no regard for what came before. Old movies are now like dinosaurs, and like dinosaurs, they are threatened with extinction.


Posted by Helo
Orlando
Member since Nov 2004
4807 posts
Posted on 7/19/12 at 7:14 am to
quote:

All of this makes it tough not only for old movies to survive but for movie history to matter. There is a sense that if you can't tweet about it or post a comment about it on your Facebook wall, it has no value.


This is so pathetically sad it hurts yet so true. Unfortunately it is not just isolated to Millennials any longer.
Posted by jacks40
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2007
11877 posts
Posted on 7/19/12 at 7:14 am to
The line about movies being more fashion than art for younger people seems spot on.

There is still a place for nostalgia and old movies though. The younger generation isn't exempt from those feelings. It'll just be there feelings about the movies they grew up with. Just like 30 something's have fond memories of movies like Teen Wolf, and other 80s movies.

Ten years from they will be doing I love the Aughts on VH1, and it will be full of "millenials reminiscing about the movies from then
This post was edited on 7/19/12 at 7:29 am
Posted by Sid in Lakeshore
Member since Oct 2008
41956 posts
Posted on 7/19/12 at 7:25 am to
This dude's opinion sounds a lot like every old fart's opinion about the younger generations. Pretty standard stuff, nothing new here.
Posted by Kafka
I am the moral conscience of TD
Member since Jul 2007
157825 posts
Posted on 7/19/12 at 7:29 am to
quote:

This dude's opinion sounds a lot like every old fart's opinion about the younger generations. Pretty standard stuff, nothing new here.

While there is some truth to that, the question of how Tweetbook is changing the culture is an interesting one.
Posted by Jumbeauxlaya
LSU
Member since Jan 2011
18083 posts
Posted on 7/19/12 at 7:34 am to
quote:

Young people, so-called millennials, don't seem to think of movies as art the way so many boomers did. They think of them as fashion


Wrong and Wrong, They (we if 25 counts) think of them as entertainment you dumbfrick author.
Posted by Proximo
Member since Aug 2011
24531 posts
Posted on 7/19/12 at 7:42 am to
Yeah, I don't know where he is getting this from. The whole reboot thing for Spider-Man was fine; it is not that we have forgotten about the Raimi movies. We just want more stories told on the big screen (how they went about that is up for debate).

I don't want to wait 10 years before I see the next Batman on screen. Hell, I could die in a car crash and never get to enjoy it.

His point about communication - that is inherently a part of it, but not the motivating factor to go see a movie I am interested in. Communication about movies has been happening since they started being made. Wasn't that the case when Star Wars came out? Indiana Jones or Terminator? It isn't just isolated to the millennial generation, the mediums through which we communicate are changing.
This post was edited on 7/19/12 at 7:43 am
Posted by Kafka
I am the moral conscience of TD
Member since Jul 2007
157825 posts
Posted on 7/19/12 at 7:46 am to
quote:

The whole reboot thing for Spider-Man was fine

Well I would suggest that whole attitude is new with this generation. '60s audiences didn't want new a James Bond every few years, or demand a rebooting of the Godfather in 1982.
Posted by Proximo
Member since Aug 2011
24531 posts
Posted on 7/19/12 at 7:51 am to
Wait, what?

Dr. No 1962 Sean Connery
From Russia with Love 1963
Goldfinger 1964
Thunderball 1965
You Only Live Twice 1967

The Godfather is totally different, it's a drama; his example was about comic book characters, which have endless amounts of stories to be told. Many just want to see them told on screen.

"Universes" that include a prominent character with rich history (like the Bond films) will be made forever because people enjoy those stories.

Posted by Kafka
I am the moral conscience of TD
Member since Jul 2007
157825 posts
Posted on 7/19/12 at 7:55 am to
quote:

Wait, what?

Dr. No 1962 Sean Connery
From Russia with Love 1963
Goldfinger 1964
Thunderball 1965
You Only Live Twice 1967


Those aren't reboots -- there have been sequels (although the Bond films are technically more like "series episodes") since Hollywood began
Posted by Proximo
Member since Aug 2011
24531 posts
Posted on 7/19/12 at 8:03 am to
Ah, I misunderstood your use of "new James Bond" (was thinking new bond movie).

Connery's last was in 71, though, and Moore started in 73 so there you go.

The format that the Bond films is fine; the origin doesn't need to be told every 5 years, of course. I just want more movies about characters I'm interested in.
Posted by TH03
Mogadishu
Member since Dec 2008
172004 posts
Posted on 7/19/12 at 8:09 am to
Hulk 2003
The Incredible Hulk 2008

Superman Returns 2006
Man of Steel 2013



Seems like a pattern with comic book movies. Not sure about any other reboots we've gotten.
Posted by Kafka
I am the moral conscience of TD
Member since Jul 2007
157825 posts
Posted on 7/19/12 at 8:12 am to
Supposedly there is an axiom in marketing circles that a new popular audience comes into existence every 7 years.

So for a 14 year old of today Tobey McGuire is just so much ancient history.
Posted by jacks40
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2007
11877 posts
Posted on 7/19/12 at 8:15 am to
quote:

Young people, so-called millennials, don't seem to think of movies as art the way so many boomers did. They think of them as fashion Wrong and Wrong, They (we if 25 counts) think of them as entertainment you dumbfrick author.


Fashion and entertainment aren't mutually exclusive.

Women who live for shopping or buy those fashion magazines to see what's going to be the hot styles are being entertained as well.

The reference to fashion though is just exploring the concept that they are more interested in what's new.

It's true to a point. I know a few guys who at this point are just as excited to see the trailers attached to TDKR as they are to see the movie.
This post was edited on 7/19/12 at 8:16 am
Posted by TH03
Mogadishu
Member since Dec 2008
172004 posts
Posted on 7/19/12 at 8:19 am to
Well frick, attention spans these days are a couple seconds. What are they supposed to do, lose money? We may think the reboots are stupid and all, but the people who make them are raking in the cash.
Posted by jacks40
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2007
11877 posts
Posted on 7/19/12 at 8:20 am to
quote:

Seems like a pattern with comic book movies. Not sure about any other reboots we've gotten.


Not sure what is considered a reboot but Arthur with Russel Brand, they want to reboot the Vacation movies with Andy from The Office, planet of the Apes has been rebooted twice recently.

Total Recall is coming out, I believe a reboot of Robocop is also on the way.
Posted by Flair Chops
to the west, my soul is bound
Member since Nov 2010
35651 posts
Posted on 7/19/12 at 8:21 am to
the same thing will be done with the batman franchise, but i'd be surprised if they wait that long to do it.

i understand that at the essence of every business is to make money and these movies generally accomplish that, but i wish there were more risk takers in the industry. i know that there is nothing new, but at least try to tell it in a different way. i think that is why nolan's batmans are so well received. (disclaimer: i've never been into the batman comics. disclaimer #2: i haven't seen burton's batman in 7-10 years, so i'm comparing off a foggy memory.) with burton's batman, we see wayne's parents get murdered and see that this image must ultimately lead to bruce becoming batman. with nolan's version, you get to see the transformation, the training, etc.

the point of that was that if hollywood wants to recycle shite, find a different way to present it. if you're going to remake casablanca, show it to me from sam's perspective. (that's clearly an example, i don't want them fricking up that classic)
Posted by jacks40
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2007
11877 posts
Posted on 7/19/12 at 8:22 am to
quote:

Well frick, attention spans these days are a couple seconds. What are they supposed to do, lose money? We may think the reboots are stupid and all, but the people who make them are raking in the cash.


Well that's where the authors premise falls apart IMO, you can't take 1 movie and say this defines a generation.

Plenty of reboots have not done nearly as well as Amazing Spiderman.
Posted by Proximo
Member since Aug 2011
24531 posts
Posted on 7/19/12 at 8:22 am to
Godzilla is coming from Legendary/WB...not that it was done well in the first place or anything.

People want to see these movies so they are going to continue to rehash stories that have been told in other mediums/previously in film/etc.
Posted by Kafka
I am the moral conscience of TD
Member since Jul 2007
157825 posts
Posted on 7/19/12 at 8:23 am to
The point is this is a relatively new phenomenon -- something has changed -- and the OP was examining the ramifications
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram