Why Do Millennials Hate Original Blockbusters? - Captain Marvel (2019) Discussion

[–] Moonglum9 (10702) 5 years ago

Probably because the movie doesn't really matter since they only see about 10% of it anyways, while the rest of the time they are looking down at their phones.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Yet this exalted generation is our future. *sigh*

reply

[–] Titaanzink (44) 5 years ago

Really?

Millennials are born early 80's to mid-90's (the term was originally coined for those who would graduate from high school as class of 2000). They're mostly in their 30s now so I'd say they're very much our present.

Can't say I've seen them hate too much on 80's blockbusters either but perhaps we travel in different circles.

reply

[–] GotWood84 (384) 5 years ago

I'm in my 30s and don't consider myself a "millennial."

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Titaanzink (44) 5 years ago

Gen X is late 60's to early 80's apparently. That sounds about right (I'm Gen X). Don't ask me who decides these things.

I see a lot of people using the term Millennials about kids born at the turn of the century but apparently they're Gen Z. According to wiki anyway.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6676) 5 years ago

Gen-X is the name for people born between 1964 and 1980. Millennials are those born between 1980 and 1996. It's obviously generalizing, and when it comes down to it, someone born in '64 almost certainly had a vastly different upbringing from someone born in '80.

In truth, it's just an easy way for sad old people who can't accept change to blame "kids these days," i.e. the OP.

reply

[–] ccr1633 (1411) 5 years ago

On the other hand, just because every generation of adults complains about the stupidity of youngsters doesn't mean any specific criticisms of the present youth are necessarily invalid. Suppose I was an 18 year old who believed anyone should be able to squat down and take a crap anywhere they like, because the act of defecation is perfectly natural and should be celebrated rather than kept private and sanitary. Would you then accept the reasoning that your objections are entirely due to you being an old fart who just doesn't get the superior values and sensibilities of today's progressive youthes?

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6676) 5 years ago

In the first place, this isn't about anyone squatting and taking a shit in the middle of a room. And why would you bring up the Star Wars prequels on the Captain Marvel board? Jokes aside, you aren't making a valid analogy. Old people finding it impossible to understand modern movies, music, fashion, etc. is nothing new. There were older people who sounded just like the OP, saying the sort of things he's saying about Captain Marvel, about E.T., Ghostbusters, and the rest of the films he cherishes as classics.

This has nothing to do with anyone being "woke" or "progressive." Captain Marvel is not laden with message. It isn't a paean to feminism. It doesn't offer up any politics. It's a fantastic action movie that weaves seamlessly into the tapestry that is the MCU, and if you or anyone else doesn't like it, so be it. Assuming anything about the attitudes, values, politics, or age of those who like it is asinine. I doubt you can glean anything whatsoever about me from the fact that I loved the movie, though I'm sure you think otherwise.

reply

[–] ccr1633 (1411) 5 years ago

Your oversensitivity seems to be clouding your thinking. It's simply a matter of logic. If some whippersnapper criticizes the tastes and habits of an old duffer, the criticism shouldn't be accepted at face value simply because it's a youngster with a presumably fresh, new perspective doing the criticizing. The reverse is also true. And who says it's impossible for older people to "understand" movies like Captain Marvel? You? It's this kind of puerile thinking that leads uncritical morons into taking the likes of AOC and Beto O'Rourke seriously. Many jockers reflexively deflect all criticism of them as the cantankerous grumblings of old farts who are incapable of seeing outside their grumpy old boundaries. Intersectionalism at its worst...

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6676) 5 years ago

I'd like to laugh at my so-called oversensitivity, but that's the norm now. Anyone who points out another person's thin-skinned nature is immediately called thin-skinned. And of course, now it's somehow tied into politics, but in such a nonsensical way. Because uneducated masses have rallied around equally uneducated politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Beto O'Rourke, somehow anyone young is puerile for shaking his head and laughing at a post as ludicrous as the one that began this thread?

Let me clarify-- age is immaterial, and anyone young or old can understand and enjoy Captain Marvel, or any other work of art. Meanwhile, those who come along and say "kids of this generation are so stupid, and can't appreciate true art, and anyone who likes Captain Marvel must be **fill-in-the-blank-with-whatever-political-stance-you-hate** are the insensitive ones who can't accept that opinions other than their own may be equally valid, especially when it comes to an opinion on art.

reply

[–] Interlepos (1783) 5 years ago

>>Probably because the movie doesn't really matter since they only see about 10% of it anyways, while the rest of the time they are looking down at their phones.

The fact that this is not an exaggeration is extremely sad for the human race, and for everyone involved with the moron youth of today.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I knew someone in his teenage years whose younger sister was given the choice of watching "E.T." in the cinema in the early 2000s as part of a group, or to watch something crap like "Honey" instead. Guess which one they picked? Yep, some people have no taste.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Absolute idiots.

Saying that, I don't care for what Spielberg did to how own masterpiece when he re-released it in 2002 with all those dumbass CGI effects. Plus maybe the younger sister had already seen E.T., and to be fair, Honey isn't that bad (although that might only be because I was pretty young when it came out and Jessica Alba was as sexy as ****).

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I heard that Spielberg had decided to reverse his changes to his movies (the shotguns for walkie-talkies in E.T. and the CGI cliff in Raiders of the Lost Ark) in favour of original special effects, and he only left those changes that improved the scenes, like the removal of the glass reflection between Indy and the snake in the Well of Souls. This is of course, not like George Lucas who left his Star Wars Special Edition CGI as it was, except when it needed updating, like ANH's Jabba the Hutt.

So don't worry, at least Spielberg saw sense.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I heard that too.

And it's a shame that Lucas couldn't leave the original SW films alone, especially seeing how dated late 90s CGI has become.

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Look for some despecialized edition. I got a 1080p one and it's just great. Much better than the official blurays.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmy%27s_Despecialized_Edition

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 5 years ago

What about the dated late 70s to early 80s practical effects?

Why do the imperfections of practical effects get a pass from every CGI basher?

The only answer I ever found was "because hipsters."

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Because there's a texture to even the worst practical effect. You're looking at something that exists outside of a computer screen.

And as far as I'm concerned, that opening shot of A New Hope (1977) still looks incredible (as do the effects for Alien, The Empire Strikes Back, Raiders of the Lost Ark, An American Werewolf in London, Blade Runner, The Thing, and E.T., all from the period you deride).

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 5 years ago

Because there's a texture to even the worst practical effect. You're looking at something that exists outside of a computer screen.

Texture is irrelevant, it can still look fake and dated.

The problem here is that you're inverted from your claim: "to even the worst practical effect."

Nope, you will only compare CGI against the absolute BEST practical effects.

The comparison isn't even fair because practical effects go back for over a century, the amount of work put into that craft is huge.

Comparing the best examples of THAT against any random example of early CGI is misguided and smacks of entitlement.

You realize that a technology will stall without experimentation, right?

What if all the "live-theater fans" complained constantly and shouted down movies + special effects as "fake" back in the 1920's and got it all so unpopular that it was halted?

They would have destroyed all the fake effects-heavy movies you referenced.

Oh, and the Alien effects are extremely dated. They also show their budget. Go see an amazing print of Alien on a huge movie screen like I did a few years ago.... I was shocked at how OBVIOUS the practical effects looked. Even the Nostromo going through space looked exactly like nothing more than a toy. I don't think the right lenses were used for shooting it. The chest buster skittering across the floor attached to an obvious rod is quite fake looking. The cut from Ripley setting down Ash's super-fake head, to her standing in front of Ian Holm neck-deep in a table, is a jarring cut with two different scenes.

There were actually laughs in the theater on that cut. These were Alien fans who paid money for this screening.

reply

[–] TandyMan (10338) 5 years ago

CGI Cliff? what'd he do, i've not seen any updated versions of the movie.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I found this in a few seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIH46G9_3SU

For someone raised on the original, the CGI cliff is extremely jarring and unnecessary.

reply

[–] ccr1633 (1411) 5 years ago

I agree with the spirit of what you're pointing out, but I wish you wouldn't use E.T. as the example. I liked E.T. was I first saw it as a 10 year old, but now I can't stand certain aspects of it's cloying, cutesy characterizations of American suburbia. Drew Barrymore's darling little kiddiepoo scenes prominently come to mind. This cloying tendency of Spielberg to tug at the heartstrings was at its worst in this film, although it infected earlier movies like Close Encounters and even Jaws to a lesser degree. If I had to introduce 9 year olds, say, to the greatness of 70s/80s fantasy/sci-fi cinema, I'd start with Star Wars (ep. IV, the best by far) and Raiders of the Lost Ark. Yes, despite some of the scary violence. For young teens I'd go with movies like The Terminator, The Road Warrior, and Star Trek II. If it's a psycho kid with a thirst for violence I'd consider Conan the Barbarian (1982) and Escape From New York.

Full disclosure: I'm still hostile to E.T. for ruining John Carpenter's career just as he was peaking.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I have to agree. Given the choice between Close Encounters and E.T. as a favourite movie of Spielberg's, I have to pick Close Encounters as it has a unique atmosphere to it, and it engages me and fires my imagination to this day. And even Barry is a UFO abductee and his mother is simply trying to get him back. E.T. by comparison is simply a kid's movie and I don't like the way it has reduced me to tears many times (Drew Barrymore reacting to E.T. being defibrillated always gets me), not to mention the schmaltzy sentimentality of the ending.

I agree about Star Wars IV, and saw the grandeur of Raiders of the Lost Ark myself at a young age, and even though several points terrified me, I would still recommend it to children. I also agree about The Terminator and Star Trek II, but I don't really know or like the others.

reply

[–] ccr1633 (1411) 5 years ago

"I also agree about The Terminator and Star Trek II, but I don't really know or like the others."

I'll admit to having a perhaps unhealthy taste for the macho anti-hero (but heroic) vibe that was prevalent in the films of John Carpenter, Walter Hill, Clint Eastwood, and others during the 70s and 80s. No doubt this was the product of a very different generation that grew up feasting on Westerns and who were groomed by old school guys toughened by direct or indirect experiences from WWII and the Korean War. That characters like, say, Kurt Russell's RJ MacReady from The Thing, are pretty much absent in today's cinema is something I consider a minor tragedy for young teenage boys. Characters who are heroic and somewhat antisocial (but not too antisocial, i.e. very skeptical), tough, smart, capable in what they do, not whiny, and above all different from women in ways consistent with reality. So far as Conan the Barbarian (1982) goes, I appreciated as a youngster (and in retrospect) that John Milius didn't shy away from violence and an R rating. It gave a certain authenticity to a fantasy film. These days, filmmakers seem to shy away from elements that might lose them a PG-13 rating.

reply

[–] BrunoAntony (1198) 5 years ago

It’s comfort food and it’s part of a big brand.

People don’t like being surprised. People like attaching themselves to brands.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Good point!

reply

[–] bozo_500 (12174) 5 years ago

if we talking about kids who were born in the 90s don't think they that bothered about stuff that came out before they were born? I guess its the same with any generation..although the 80s do seem to be popular now esp with all the Legacy sequels (TFA, Halloween, GB3 etc) and 80s stuff like Ready Player 1 but then its probably mostly 80s kids who are now adults digging all that stuff

reply

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7393) 5 years ago

As has been said millennials are actually people who would be people who became adults in the year 2000. What you are thinking of is Genration X. Those who would've grown up or been born in the early 2000s. Frankly I was born in 1986 and watched movies like Ghostbusters 1 and 2, Indiana Jones 1 and 3 (never cared for Temple of Doom), and Star Wars the Original Trilogy as a kid. I also watched the old Universal Monsters movies from the 30s and 40s as a kid. So I'm not the kind of person you're talking about. Plus a lot of people who grew up at a certain time will only watch movies from their time. For instance there probably are people my age who wouldn't want to watch a black and white movie. They'd rather watch color movies cause that's how almost every movie was in the 80s and 90s. My Grandparents on my mom's side are similar. They don't like any movies that have cussing in them cause those kinds of movies weren't around when they were kids. So I can't even watch most of my favorite movies with them.

reply

[–] Bosdog6777 (817) 5 years ago

They decry the 20th Century but deep down want to be as cool as 20th Century Teenagers but they never can

reply

[–] Bosdog6777 (817) 5 years ago

They don't really care about going to the movies to see the movies anymore, they just want to get out of the house and feel like they are doing something when they are really just paying to play with their phone on another chair instead of their chair at home so they just go with whatever has the most brand recognition

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

To be fair, if they're paying to see movies at theaters, more power to them. I'd rather they were doing that than sitting at home watching Netflix.

reply

[–] Bosdog6777 (817) 5 years ago

I'd rather them get a job mining some coal

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Those jobs don't exist anymore. The irony is that it is the left that once staunchly fought against blue-collar job cuts and losses (see the miners' strikes of the 1980s).

Unfortunately the rich, overly-educated but under-intelligent, neolib identity-politics obsessed mob took over the mainstream political left, squeezing out the unions (one of the few institutions that stand up for the poor), and there's nothing that lot hate more than the working-class (see Chukka 'working-class people don't vote for POC' Umanna).

reply

[–] Bosdog6777 (817) 5 years ago

People saying mining isn't a job of the future but just wait until we get to Mars

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10212) 5 years ago

Its not like teens and young adults who saw the original Star Wars were openly praising King Kong. Its a simple fact that old movies just tend to get the old treatment from young people.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Okay, but what about this charge "but everything they like is based on fifty-year-old comic-books or derivative Young Adult book serieses, or amount to reboots of more original filmmakers' work"?

Where's the originality today?

reply

[–] ccr1633 (1411) 5 years ago

I knew it was possible to agree with you Malkovich...

I think the root of the problem is data and the streamlined methods we now have for analyzing it. Perhaps like the new breed of baseball analysts who use Sabermetrics and other data-driven tools to evaluate a player's worth, producers probably have similar means for projecting a film's profit using variables encompassing familiar moviemaking tropes (elaborate special effects, romantic subplots, etc). I would expect this encourages studios to take less chances, even if they would otherwise have been inclined to do so. This will never change until the audience's tastes produce a mismatch with these forecasts, as presumably happened when Easy Rider was released, for example.

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10212) 5 years ago

Everything is derivative because it has to be. All the ideas have been used up. But you were specifically talking about old movies and not derivatives of old movies. So what we're really talking about here are labels. If movies or music are labeled as old then it gets the old treatment from the younger crowd. Its just not hip to like the things your parents liked.

I can't help but be reminded of the episode of South Park where Stan is playing Carry on my Wayward Son on Guitar Hero. His dad sees him playing and brings out his guitar to play the real thing only to find out Stan is completely disinterested. The real thing should be better shouldn't it? Its not. Its too old. But the game is new.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

But I think a lot of the best popular music, and best music period, was recorded before I was born. I don't get this new = better idea at all.

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10212) 5 years ago

As I said all the ideas have been used up. That goes especially for music which has a lot to do with chord patterns and beats. Musicians have been reusing the same chords and beats for decades because there's not much else to do other than change the lyrics and the sound of the instruments. But you change the sound of the instruments and give it the label of new and suddenly its hip to younger people. I don't really get it either but it is the way it is.

reply