Who wants to watch softcore nonsense involving people doing things that are not how sex actually works? Gen Z is first gen to come of age when porn is prolific. Mainstream film can’t compete with step siblings getting stuck on the interwebs.
I’ve also found that gen z aren’t as sex crazed as we were, I felt like I had a monkey on my back and had to screw everything. Gen z is more aware of the consequences, and they have other shit to keep them occupied, we were bored a lot.
As an elder millennial, porn has been prolific longer than you think. Late 90s and early 2000s LAN parties were half playing video games and half copying vast amounts of porn from each other.
Those were the Nerds, the weirdos that spent halft their free time on a computer and talking about how to get faster internet. For the “cool kids” i think a lot were the magazines or someone stealing a VCR from their dads private collection.
Every town and city I ever went in the early 2000s to had multiple crowded LAN centers. It was definitely mainstream, and definitely wasn’t just geeks. Pretending file sharing was not mainstream by 2000 is like pretending Star Wars is only for nerds.
Eeh, swede here but a majority of men in my generation (90s) were probably at dreamhack at one point or another during their teens. Not to mention homeparties. Girls is less obviously but many of those went too
I’m 36 and had internet porn since before I got puberty.
But yeah, I agree. I skip sex scenes now. I don’t feel like they add anything. Like you can just cut out all the nude backs and moaning and nothing of value would be lost. We get it, they had sex, move on.
Most of us had it, but most were on things like family computers trying to be covert about it. Capacitive touch screen phones changed everything for access. No one was getting imaginative with the snake game on a Nokia 3310 back in the day.
I kinda thought the writers made her character meh on purpose to show young girls that while stereotypical Barbie is a cool toy, she’s not really someone they should aspire to be
Millennial here. I’ve always found random sex scenes obnoxious. It completely kills the pacing and pulls me out of the story. If you need sex for character development, you can much more easily allude to it and move on. The only time I can think of when it actually made sense for the story was in the movie Her and it was such a mild scene that didn’t have any visuals.
She gave consent in the book, although she was still only like 14 because George RR Martin is a creeper. So not really consent, but not quite like the show.
I mean we all know what about clickbait and titles. The headline here is a perfect example. Because it makes it seem like Gary oldman wasn’t getting offers potentially for movies or didn’t have opportunities for movies. And he was worried about going under or not being able to support himself etc etc. But if you read the actual article, it’s made very clear that he wasn’t sparse for opportunity as an actor, but rather these movies gave him an opportunity to be with his children more while they were all going through a very rough time and still earn an income presumably to support their lifestyle and this is what he feels saved him personally.
Gary oldman is a good dad. And it seems like he wanted to put that first and foremost. Which I think is wonderful. I was raised by a father who was given soul custody of his kids during a very messy divorce. And now that I’m older i can see how much sacrifice he made for me and my sister. Cool that gary oldman seems willing to do the same for his kids.
The title does not need to be a quote to give you information about the article. They use the quote out of context specifically to twist it slightly and get more clicks.
Asking a question as a separated dad which I think I know the answer to. I get my kids every other week. Outside of that I also take them one on one (I have 3 of which 2 are special needs) when it isn’t my week. I have no idea why my ex doesn’t do the same. She comments I never have alone time because I’m using my week off from them, but I love my kids and they deserve one on one time. They also never leave my house early when the week is up but they’re always eager to come to my house even when it’s not time to show up yet.
I’ve always assumed it will pay off in the long run and they’re aware.
As a kid who survived through this maybe not special needs. But a kid who’s arrived through this. The best you can do is just show them how much you love and care for them no matter what. That will mean the world to them. Also, just hope your ex-whaterver e isn’t a bitch who warps and twists your kid’s minds. Cuz I don’t say this lightly. My dad with the way the court systems are was not awarded full custody lightly. The court system in America very much prefers the mother. And my mother was a crazy psychotic bitch who made me go to a fucking two week inpatient facility because she fucked up my head so bad. But my dad is the greatest thing I’ve ever had and he is caring and he has sacrificed more than I think anyone will ever know. And for all of that I said the best you can do is just put love first. Because love is what ultimately prevailed for my father despite my mother’s twisted fucked up words
There is no Marvel fatigue. There is no superhero saturation. What there is, is simply trash. Make a shit superhero movie and the movie will just be shit. It has nothing to do with there being superheroes.
Hollywood doesn’t get it. People don’t seem to get it either. But these phases are just repeating itself. It used to be cowboys. It used to be cops. Then pirates. It used to be sword and sandals.
Cowboy movies are fun. So are pirate movies and superhero movies. If they’re made well!
The moment some execs look at a bunch of numbers and think “Oh, people will pay money to see X”, THAT is when things go wrong. No, people pay to see good movies. And Marvel used to be hype when they made good movies.
Youre mostly right but personally there is definitely superhero fatigue. I used to watch most marvel movies but nowadays the formula is sort of played out.
For me it isn’t superhero fatigue as much as “oh, I’ve seen the same story a dozen times now” and “I don’t even know this superhero, why does he need a Netflix show?” fatigue. The writers seem to run out of ideas and just milk the same formula again and again.
And at the same time you get something like the new animated Spiderman movies which are a dope, super fresh new take that is oozing creativity out of every frame.
they also do some of the shenanigans that made people annoyed back in my comic book days. My brother saw the iron man movies but not the avengers. So he was lost at what was going on with stark in the movie after the avengers. So because he had not seen another movie it made that one bad for him.
Not to mention every tv show thus far has basically been 10 episodes of padding, and 1 or 2 important plot points for future experiences. I won’t watch Echo, but I’ll look at the wiki afterwards to see what I missed. I watched episode 1 of Loki s2 and I’m considering doing the same now that the finale has aired. They’re all unimportant drivel, coasting off the brand name.
That’s what I’ve been telling people. My friends and I would religiously go the theatre nearly every Friday as adults. Pandemic hit and we obviously stopped, but once stuff started opening again, we went to see a couple movies but the quality has drastically dropped. We assumed it’s because we were coming out of the pandemic and stuff had been put on hold. In 2023, that excuse shouldn’t still hold up. Good writing didn’t stop during the pandemic, just production.
“ I could do the least amount of work for the most amount of money and then be home with the kids.” Gary Oldman and I share the same philosophy about work.
Actually, he won it for playing Churchill in The Darkest Hour.
Although I do believe Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy should have won all kinds of awards. And that includes Oldman for doing the nearly impossible as George Smiley: reprising a truly iconic Alec Guinness role and actually making it his own.
EDIT: well it took me a minute to catch your real meaning.
Well, least amount of work for him. He always brings his A-game from what I’ve seen, but a nice payday for a fraction of the number of days worked is nice!
The thing about these ones is that he is a side character for multiple movies. Both series had large casts and he was a key component to small sections of each. Large pay for little work is ideal. It’s not that he didn’t go all in. Just went all in for less time.
Definitely agree, but then I want to see a movie where he went all in for a bigger part of it. I have gotten some good suggestions, that I will ad to the list.
I’ve never thought about about it but I don’t think Gordon is in the first movie all that much. They’re just little scenes here and there, really.
He’s at his desk with a stapler. He’s at the docks for ten seconds. He takes out the trash once. The batmobile scene. And the end when he plays with the batmobiles rockets. Aren’t those the major scenes with him? I’m curious now.
Either way he even says he worked for less than a month on it. That’s pretty cool.
That and Bram Stokers Dracula were my introductions to him and some of my favorite characters to this day. He just completely owns the roles and defines the characters in ways nobody else can. He can be completely over the top and at the same time be completely believable. Gary Oldman is a great fuckin actor and any movie he's in automatically gets chance from me.
Our current strategy is making us worth a ton of money, so let’s change strategies to what all the companies that are losing are doing instead, so we can make money?
Shawshank Redemption was a book. The Godfather was a book. Lord of the Rings, Forrest Gump, Fight Club, Goodfellas, Silence of the Lambs… That’s just from the first 25 of IMDB’S top 250.
The Thing is a remake. The Fly was a remake. Scarface, The Departed, The Mummy… all remakes.
The problem isn’t remakes or adaptations, the problem is they’re shit remakes and adaptations. Nobody cares that The Batman was the 75th adaptation of Batman, because it was good.
It’s a different medium entirely. Not to mention the book version is normally quite different.
Plus I never said my opinion or presented anything as fact. Just said I’ve never heard this idea. It probably strikes me as odd because perhaps the majority of movies ever made are based on books.
You’re not wrong that many of our favs are remakes, but OP does have a point that disproportionately more big box office movies are reboots or sequels than 30 years ago.
Is that actually true or is everyone in this conversation just forgetting about the new IP’s being released?
Perhaps it’s a matter of where the marketing budgets are going rather than just what’s been produced? Or how remakes and sequels tend to stay in memory longer than a flash-in-the-pan one-off IP? It allows the owners of that IP to invest in more than just movies: all sorts of media and merchandise that keeps the IP in the minds of consumers for longer.
Heck, the two big summer blockbusters this year were Barbie and Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer was definitely original. Does Barbie count? I actually haven’t seen it and I’m not that interested, but i don’t think it’s the same cannon as the direct-to-vhs movies my sister had back in the 90’s.
Shawshank Redemption was a book. The Godfather was a book. Lord of the Rings, Forrest Gump, Fight Club, Goodfellas, Silence of the Lambs… That’s just from the first 25 of IMDB’S top 250.
From the top 10, only Pulp Fiction is original and not a sequel. If you go to the top 20, you can add Inception, The Matrix and Se7en. That’s 4 out of 20 (or 1 out of 10). There’s a lot more original material beyond the top 25 though, but your point that every great movie is a “ripoff” very much stands.
I’m guessing the fact that no one could even talk about the movie until like 5 minutes ago didn’t help. I had no idea it was even coming out until a couple of days ago because the SAG strike kept everyone from doing press.
There was an absolute fuckton of marketing for it at the start of the year, like every other Twitch and YouTube ad I got was about that movie.
Then, nothing, so I thought it had been released and people weren't talking about it because it's just a massive snooze (Like with the Eternals movie).
I had little affinity for the movie to begin with, so seeing there was little public response after all the marketing just had me go "seems this is one to skip"
And now it suddenly comes out with barely any marketing going on in the past few weeks?
Which still makes me feel it must be a snooze, both because it wasn't marketed for release and because of the residual feeling the initial marketing caused.
Besides that, even before the pandemic neither me or my wife were big fans of going to the cinema, the noise, the seating and the gauging with drinks and food is just meh.
During the pandemic, we invested in an 75" TV, 200" projector screen and 8K projector and setup 7.1 audio in the living room.
We got as much popcorn as we want, can drink whatever we want, including alcohol and the only person that can annoy us is us.
And with most movies being available from a streaming service within a few months of cinema release, there's not much of any FOMO either.
I don’t feel like it’s awkward or uncomfortable, but I do hate it when it’s completely unnecessary. I don’t even care if the sex is unrealistic as long as it’s necessary for the plot. Just Chekhov’s gun that shit.
Especially with many audiences. On your own or with a romantic partner it’s not nearly as bad, but watching a sex scene with pretty much anyone else feels so awkward, which pulls you out of the scene.
Amen , I am millenial and I too find it very uncomfortable. When I was young I was eagerly waiting for some hot scenes when porn was scarce but now anything remotely sexual iRRitates me.
Yup, especially as a gay, sex scenes in movies have always been “I’m fine with straight people existing, but I don’t want them rubbing my face in it” at best … and it’s rarely at best, with all the chemistry of a jar of nitrogen.
I’m honestly a bit conflicted about discovering this is a thing. My gut reaction is that highlander the series does not need a reboot. Leave it be.
But Henry Cavill? I could actually see that work. The immortal characters will need much more fleshed out back stories for today’s standards, but damn, I can’t believe I’m actually curious about a highlander reboot.
Edit - ugh. Just realized this was a reboot for the movie. Meh. Not enough time to develop and interesting world with intertwined immortal histories with complex alliances.
I think that’s the real problem, they often shove tragic, supposedly heavy backstories on us with no time devoted to actually developing it and giving them weight- we are TOLD to care, instead of given actual reason to. If the movie can’t invest in their backstory, why should I?
Yeah, over time, I’ve come to care a lot less for movies. For most things, I’d rather have a TV show so that there’s more time to get invested in characters and do world building. Plus more bite sized viewing sessions.
Modern TV has such high production values that movies have lost their biggest competitive edge. Plus showrunners have more options for how to perform the show. No longer do shows need to be bloated with far too many episodes. Public opinion has also changed, so they don’t even try to get away with bullshit like clip episodes anymore (mind you, those were mostly for sitcoms in the first place). Streaming has also made shows more accessible than ever.
I don’t understand why today’s standards require background for everything. We don’t get Ripley’s backstory in Alien and it’s not needed. Even in Aliens, we only get her backstory (her having/outliving a daughter) in service of the plot and themes.
I hate being forced to sympathize with characters because of their tragic backstory. Why not write a compelling character through their actions? Tight plots with no filler are where it’s at for action movies.
movies
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.