Quality of Films..

It may just be me, but does anyone think that the quality of films has gone up drastically these past couple of years?

I know there have been alot of stinkers, but i really felt that during 2008 the quality of most blockbusters was fantastic compared to what it was just one year earlier. Also, 2009 seems to be carrying that trend as well.

Are people picking up on this? Or did i just watch too much crap in th previous years?

I'd say it's gone down. Sure the IMDb ratings are grossly inflated (recent examples: Punisher: War Zone, My Bloody Valentine, most fanboy driven films) but that doesn't mean high-quality. I mean why are they doing sequels and remake to anything and everything? Sure we've had good films but audiences are still choosing to see shit over good films.

Just look at this lineups of bad 2008/2009 releases that managed to be hits:

One Missed Call
Meet The Spartans
Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus: Best Of Both Worlds Concert Tour
Fool's Gold
Jumper
Step Up 2 The Streets
Vantage Point
10,000 B.C.
College Road Trip
Prom Night
Baby Mama
Made Of Honor
What Happens In Vegas
The Happening
Hancock
The Sisterhood Of The Traveling Pants 2
The House Bunny
Fireproof
Eagle Eye
Beverly Hills Chihuahua
Max Payne
High School Musical 3: Senior Year
Saw V
Four Christmases
The Day The Earth Stood Still (though a box office disappointment it still did decent box office and big international numbers)
My Bloody Valentine

I rest my case.

Note: I feel that Cloverfield (which only became a hit due to the fanboy effect) and Vicky Cristina Barcelona (which only became a hit due to its mismarketing and critics kissing Woody's ass) should be included but people somehow liked them.

I would hardly call a lot of those films "hits." You do make a fine point but I would leave off:
One Missed Call (99th for 2008)
Meet the Spartans (74th)
College Road Trip (62nd)
Prom Night (65th)
Made of Honor (61st)
The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2 (63rd)
Fireproof (83rd)

None of those movies even cracked the top 60 of the year. and I was being generous, as a few more didn't crack the top 50, and only 2, Count em' 2, films cracked the top 20, 4 Christmases (at number 20) and Hancock. They are the only true blockbusters of that entire group which you have presented. The only 2 to reach over 100 million. The rest were middling hits at best. They may have made a profit, but I don't think that is what Barca meant here. I think he was talking about the movies at the top of the spectrum. Where we have real hits like:

The Dark Knight
Iron Man
Wall-E
Kung Fu Panda
Madagascar 2
The Incredible Hulk
Wanted
Get Smart
Gran Torino
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Bolt
Tropic Thunder

And those all made at least 110 million dollars. I know you may not agree that all of them were good, but none of them were terrible either. Of the ones that I saw, I loved all of them.

Now Compare that to 2007 where out of the top 22 films I can name:
Transformers (which I know you hate, but that would help my argument not yours)
Harry Potter (which I don't know about, I'm just assuming it was good)
The Bourne Ultimatum
300 (another controversial pick)
Ratatouille
Juno (same thing as Transformers)
Live Free or Die Hard
American Gangster
Superbad

But when you look at the films most people thought were bad:
Spider-Man 3
Shrek 3
Pirates 3
I Am Legend
National Treaure 2
Alvin and the Chipmunks (all in the top 10)
Wild Hogs
Rush Hour 3
Fantastic 4 Rise of the Silver Surfer

All of these are in the top 20. So in conclusion, I think Barca has a very good point. The blockbuster films are getting better, and I hope that continues. I haven't really seen where this applies to 2009 though, with the possible exception of Taken. The top film is Paul Blart, and is surrounded by Hotel for Dogs, He's Just Not That Into You, Bride Wars, My Bloody Valentine, Underworld 3 and The Unborn, but it is obviously WAY to early to tell.

I liked Harry Potter and The Order Of The Phoenix but I hated Live Free Or Die Hard. It was basically Die Hard With A Vengeance but without the fun of that film (in fact, this one didn't have any of the series' trademarks). If McTiernan had not been in jail during production, he could have returned to direct and not only would have made a worthy installment but in the process he could have resurrected his career.

And I mentioned Fireproof because the film made over 60 times its budget back and it played forever in some places (for example: it ran for two months in first run around here).

As for the "bad" films of 2007, I would agree on Spider-Man 3, Wild Hogs, National Treasure 2 and Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer while I Am Legend was hampered by a bad ending, At World's End, Alvin and The Chipmunks and Rush Hour 3 weren't too bad and I thought Shrek The Third was better than Shrek 2 (but also I was pissed off at how Shrek 2 ended).

Kind of. but i dont think the films have completely went to shit just yet. geez and Buscemi do make points but out of those "bad films" i think about 30% of them are actually bad.

I think there are alot of good movies coming out these days, but they're not necessarily the blockbusters. Yeah, some of the big ones were good (Dark Knight, Iron Man, Gran Torino, Get Smart, etc.), but many were outlandishly horrible (Wanted), or pathos drenched emotionally manipulative fluff (Ben Button). By comparison, off of Busc's list (which is full of very successful films, btw, to all who are saying otherwise), the only ones I thought were decent were Bloody Valentine and Four Christmases. The rest all were shitty. Putting together the two lists, alot more bad movies were hits then good...

On the other hand Repo: The Genetic Opera was one of the most inventive movies I've ever seen, Revolutionary Road had some real emotion in a complex setting, How To Lose Friends and Alienate People was funny as hell, and Defiance was one of the better action-oriented films in recent years. So many good films did come out, however, the majority of "hits" were pretty damn awful.

this is one of those conversations having to do with opinions again, just hidden.

for example, I loved Ben Buttons, and thought Wanted was good, but I thought Repo was ridiculous and didnt even finish.

aslo with buscemis list, i lthought 4 christmases was fun and as well as eagle eye and vantage point were quite good

undeadmonkey wrote:this is one of those conversations having to do with opinions again, just hidden.

aslo with buscemis list, i lthought 4 christmases was fun and as well as eagle eye and vantage point were quite good

I just watched Eagle Eye on Sunday, and the only thought going through my head was, "How did this movie get made?"

I thought Eagle Eye had a chance to be good, but the ending ruined it...if they had ended it (SPOILER ALERT NOW) with Shia being shot after shooting the gun in the air, as a tragic hero type role, it would've been pretty cool. As it stands, it's mediocre Hollywood dreck, at best.

It got made because Spielberg came up with the idea and commissioned two billion screenwriters to write it. Sadly, it was a mess that only could have worked if Spielberg had directed the thing instead of produced.

mfrendo wrote:I thought Eagle Eye had a chance to be good, but the ending ruined it...if they had ended it (SPOILER ALERT NOW) with Shia being shot after shooting the gun in the air, as a tragic hero type role, it would've been pretty cool. As it stands, it's mediocre Hollywood dreck, at best.

You didn't think it went bad until that scene? This movie drove over the cliff about 20 minutes into it. I'm pretty sure 2001 did the rogue computer gone bad bit so much better 40 years ago. It had plot holes you could drive a truck through, and dialogue that sounds like it was written by a high school film class. Nothing about it was believable, and they gave away what was going to happen about half way through the movie. Let's see, you've got a person that can't even drive a stick eluding 200 police cars and the FBI, you've got the same two people who have never handled a frirearm in their life taking out two security guards. Need I go on?

Well, yeah, but that's kind of the problem I have with every action movie made these days. With that given, I thought it could've been decent with the ending change. It kind of sucks, but I just don't expect much realism from action flicks these days...

OK.. first of all.. most people seemed to have missed my point.. I don't know why money-making became involved, i was only talking about the quality of films (EVEN blockbusters, not ONLY blockbusters) as a whole.

Second point is that while there were bad films (obviously), what i was saying is that they were better than the genre counter-parts of earlier years.

For example, horror remakes of 2006 included The Omen, When a Stranger Calls, The Wicker Man, and House of Wax.. Sequels included The Grudge 2.. Can you see where i'm going with this?

What i meant is that the quality is slowly improving, this of course is in MY opinion, just because there are still bad films doesn't mean it's not true. It just means i believe that the 2008+ ones are the lesser of the two evils.

Well, you might be right on that Barca. It does seem there were more quality films than usual, thinking back. Of course, using the horror analogy, 2009 is off to a bad start with the Unborn and Uninvited...though Bloody Valentine and Fri the 13 were both decent, if not good...

i'd say the differences from one particular year to the next don't quite qualify as a "trend"--but it'd be interesting to do a little research on Rotten Tomatoes and see if there appears to be any long-term changes going on (for better or worse)

I think the bad films are getting worse and the good films are getting better, if that makes any sense.

And as far as stupid vs smart blockbusters go, as a wise man once said: "It's called show business, not show art."

That sounds like Louis B. Mayer talking.