Are movies really being dumbed down?
Not to praise the movies of past over the new, but even Dark Knight had the Joker posing philosophical questions about human morality, regardless of the movies outcome.
Even now Ex Machina doesn't seem really that deep beyond abuse to women. Is it just SJW bullshit that is dumbing it down or is it just viewership, since movies have ALWAYS been about greed, on the blockbuster level.
What's going on?
You're getting older and more pretentious.
Ya, maybe...
>Even now Ex Machina doesn't seem really that deep beyond abuse to women.
It's you who got dumbed down OP
>Snyder’s thrillingly intelligent use of interior conflict and political antagonism vastly outclasses Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy: Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and The Dark Knight Rises — all noxious — which were bellwethers of our culture’s decline.
>It takes just such dreamlike moral clarity to reprove the Nolan trilogy’s chaos.
>Fanboys prefer the Nolan films for their “darkness,” which emphasized the sophomoric, pseudo-tragic elements of the Batman graphic novels. But Snyder’s more adult treatment finds the material’s emotional core. This displeases the fanboy/hipster whose adolescent embarrassment about feelings was exploited through Nolan’s emotionless violence and post–9/11 nihilism. Snyder counters that cultural crisis and (through the script by Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer) visualizes the millennial moral struggle as pop myth. His essential subject is mankind’s struggle to discover compassion as well as common obligation — or dare I use the non-political term: brotherhood?
>The pain of post–9/11 as reflected in Nolan’s Batman films was a paradigm shift. But fantasy cannot conscientiously be enjoyed Nolan’s way, without any sense of social, historical, or moral consequence. Snyder manipulates this new paradigm so that mankind’s sense of mortality is embodied by Batman, Superman, and their arch-nemesis, Lex Luthor. (All three characterization performances are, well, perfect.)
No, you're just watching flicks instead of films.
BvS is comprable to garbage you learn at sunday school at 6 years old.
>MUH DEEP CAPESHIT
>Adam Sandler’s comedies are not “dumb fun,” maybe that’s why they’re not in critics’ favor. Sandler’s hilarious new film Jack and Jill (in which he portrays both male and female fraternal twins), brings to mind the great line that Ernst Lubitsch’s classic 1946 female plumber comedy Cluny Brown “upset people who didn‘t like to admit they have plumbing.”
In Jack and Jill, Sandler looks at sibling rivalry without that acrid love of dysfunction so popular on TV and Broadway. It’s obvious that Los Angeles ad exec Jack and his hefty, homely, still unmarried sister Jill who visits from New York will mend their rift but the fun is in watching the healing process. The film’s comedy (as in coach potato behavior) shows the depths of kinship–similarities siblings can’t help sharing but learn to accept in themselves. And Sandler’s always protective–as when Jack insults Jill but warns “I can say that because I’m her twin.”
>Jack and Jill reveals that Sandler’s best comedies (Grown Ups, Bedtime Stories, I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry and the great Spanglish) are really love stories. He explores affection without the class and gender guilt Judd Apatow hides behind (the distraction scuttled Apatow’s grandiose Funny People). Sandler’s willingness to appear “dumb” is what makes his films so cathartic. He thrives on being unembarrassed–the key to classic comedy going back to the Greeks.
>Sandler, of course, always goes back to Jewishness. He may be the least ethnically abashed Jewish film comic outside the Borscht Belt which is Jack and Jill’s natural strength. Jack’s self-consciousness about Jill is rooted in Jewish comics’ proverbial self-deprecation (that’s why the twinship premise). Jill’s large features, gaucheness, petulance and unsophisticated ways are not anti-Jewish traits but the qualities that insecure, social-climbing ethnic groups usually evade.
>In Jill drag, Sandler looks like young women you see on the subway; she’s a homely archetype. (Eddie Murphy has mastered this comic pride, especially in The Klumps and Norbit.) Credit Sandler’s subtle feminine caricature–especially in dancing and athleticism–that avoids making Jill clownish like Tyler Perry’s grotesque Madea. Perry’s career is based in parodying ethnic shame then edging into pride. In Jack and Jill Sandler embraces rude, crude and earthy in ways that Tyler Perry wouldn’t dare. Or would he?
>Sandler’s real dare is to defend ethnicity–not piously but through comedy that has social and political effect: When Jack’s WASP assistant (Nick Swardson) boasts that he’s almost Jewish because “I’m an atheist,” Jack looks nonplussed. Yet, Sandler isn’t. His comic introspection has a moral core. Appreciation of roots and background is what gives the film’s overlong but uproarious Al Pacino subplot its basis–it’s both crazily romantic and a professional salute. That’s because Sandler knows how our plumbing works.
Jack and Jill was kino tho
>Joker posing philosophical questions about human morality
>Joker says everyone is evil
>proven wrong
Here you go. I liked TDK but I think you overestimating it in this regard.
Eh, Joker is on about how people will abandon morals quickly if need be, not that they're evil
>not that they're evil
I am pretty sure this was they were going with, but even if you are right, even if one ship blew up the other, he is still wrong because when you corner someone so his only thought is self preservation this still doesn't make a human evil.
>Are movies really being dumbed down?
yes
>Are movies really being dumbed down?
Obviously. All kids are aimed at kids now. Even R-movies seem tame compared to what they used to create.
>All kids are aimed at kids now.
Aw m8 what
I wouldn't even rate them in the order they're rated in, let alone that far up.
Kingsmen and Ant-Man weren't bad for what they were, and Iron Man, Jurassic World and TFA are all equally uninspired follow-ups to a solid original.
AOU and Thor were weak sequels.
The others I haven't seen.
When I was a pretentious college freshman about a decade ago I would have cared but now I only go to the theatres to relax and have """""" fun""""""
Literally to turn my brain off for an hour or so.
>kino in 10 years time
Mainstream blockbusters have been dumbed down because of the Chinese market
But at least the chinks saved us from Disney turning Star Wars queer
>I used to be a pseud, but now I've embraced my stupidity
good for you man. I wish more of your plebs would follow suit.
Watch some real movies you spaz. You're talking about capeshit.
The Dark Knight is shit as well.
I don't know why you included Batman vs Superman as an example of "dumbed down" cinema. With that filename it seems you think that because a theme is commonly used in popular media that all content with that theme is subpar. Childish. You even pose some more "popular" films like Ex Machina and The Dark Knight. I assume you're hopping on the Sup Forums trend of "all capeflicks are shit" in an attempt to appear thoughtful, or maybe diplomatic to invite discussion. Admirable, but mistaken.
Your offensively bad taste aside, you pose a relevant question.
These are the topics that are at the forefront of contemporary culture. With the expansion of the internet, topics like abuse, basic philosophy, and morality are going to come up more often than at any other time in history. With the increase in information and communication this is only natural. As the demand for an exploration of these themes increases, the media surrounding these themes also increases. More complex themes have been explored again and again, and with the rise of blockbuster movies surrounding more "inviting" themes, "deeper" movies with budgets that aren't romancing $250 million likely cannot compete.
And that's why this is happening.
tbqhwy the motion picture has always been a lowbrow medium
after the writers' strike of 2007, people got lazier
also Amerikeks tried to be more PC