By Ray Pride Pride@moviecitynews.com

“Whatever it is that people are reacting to in these superhero films, it’s not what they say they’re reacting to. They clearly don’t care about consistent characterization, original storytelling, or anything else they say they do, because if they did they’d be a lot more picky. What they really like is what we all like: confidence. Movies boil down to someone – or a group of someones – telling us a story. And telling a story well takes confidence. If a storyteller has a great story packed with interesting characters and exciting developments but they stumble over the order of things and mumble during the important bits, the experience is going to suck. Likewise, if the story is poor but they tell it well it’ll be a good time even if afterwards we realize it didn’t make any sense.”

“Whatever it is that people are reacting to in these superhero films, it’s not what they say they’re reacting to. They clearly don’t care about consistent characterization, original storytelling, or anything else they say they do, because if they did they’d be a lot more picky. What they really like is what we all like: confidence. Movies boil down to someone – or a group of someones – telling us a story. And telling a story well takes confidence. If a storyteller has a great story packed with interesting characters and exciting developments but they stumble over the order of things and mumble during the important bits, the experience is going to suck. Likewise, if the story is poor but they tell it well it’ll be a good time even if afterwards we realize it didn’t make any sense.”

4 Responses to ““Whatever it is that people are reacting to in these superhero films, it’s not what they say they’re reacting to. They clearly don’t care about consistent characterization, original storytelling, or anything else they say they do, because if they did they’d be a lot more picky. What they really like is what we all like: confidence. Movies boil down to someone – or a group of someones – telling us a story. And telling a story well takes confidence. If a storyteller has a great story packed with interesting characters and exciting developments but they stumble over the order of things and mumble during the important bits, the experience is going to suck. Likewise, if the story is poor but they tell it well it’ll be a good time even if afterwards we realize it didn’t make any sense.””

  1. Roy Batty says:

    Look, it must truly suck to either A) watch masses of people prefer these movies over that precious Albanian film about the gay blind goatherd or B) not be able to get back to a place where you can still enjoy these “popcorn” flicks because you can’t ratchet down your brain to ignore all the silly stuff (or both).

    But holy crap is the knee-jerk hipster hate for these films getting beyond old. We get it, they’re dumb and you don’t like them. Fine. But did it ever occur to you that without them, the studios would be doing so much worse and some of the films you adore so much more would still be a script no one can afford to make?

  2. Ray Pride says:

    An Albanian film about a gay blind goatherd would probably be amazing.

  3. Amazing GBG says:

    I think we may have a straw man here. Let’s consider the premise: the superhero film audience (they’re a consistently monolithic entity, apparently) wants in these films the opposite of what they say they do. But really, how many are actually “saying” what they want at all? We seem to be implying someone representing this group holds a weekly press conference touting its every lofty ideal. Yes, everyone’s tweeting, liking and posting all over the place, but I am not confident they a) to a person uphold “consistent characterization and original storytelling” or b) represent the full entirety of that film’s audience.

  4. Warren says:

    Of course it’s a straw man. He doesn’t like these movies and is twisting himself into knots to try to explain why the stupid masses do like them–this is tiresome whining and poorly argued.

Quote Unquotesee all »

“Ten years ago at Telluride, I said on a panel that theatrical distribution was dying. It seemed obvious to me. I was surprised how many in the audience violently objected: ‘People will always want to go to the movies!’ That’s true, but it’s also true that theatrical cinema as we once knew it has died. Theatrical cinema is now Event Cinema, just as theatrical plays and musical performances are Events. No one just goes to a movie. It’s a planned occasion. Four types of Event Cinema remain.
1. Spectacle (IMAX-style blockbusters)
2. Family (cartoon like features)
3. Horror (teen-driven), and
4. Film Club (formerly arthouse but now anything serious).

There are isolated pockets like black cinema, romcom, girl’s-night-out, seniors, teen gross-outs, but it’s primarily those four. Everything else is TV. Now I have to go back to episode five of ‘Looming Tower.'”
~ Paul Schrader

“Because of my relative candor on Twitter regarding why I quit my day job, my DMs have overflowed with similar stories from colleagues around the globe. These peeks behind the curtains of film festivals, venues, distributors and funding bodies weren’t pretty. Certain dismal patterns recurred (and resonated): Boards who don’t engage with or even understand their organization’s artistic mission and are insensitive to the diverse neighborhood in which their organization’s venue is located; incompetent founders and/or presidents who create only obstacles, never solutions; unduly empowered, Trumpian bean counters who chip away at the taste and experiences that make organizations’ cultural offerings special; expensive PR teams that don’t bring to the table a bare-minimum familiarity with the rich subcultural art form they’re half-heartedly peddling as “product”; nonprofit arts organizations for whom art now ranks as a distant-second goal behind profit.”
~ Eric Allen Hatch