Marvel’s new sequel seems uninterested in anything beyond perpetuating its own brand. Is this the future of cinema? Louis Chilton is terrified it might be

archive | I’m NOT interested in the review, but in the complaint about a generalized movie trend. The author, Louis Chilton, goes on a rant using about what he sees as having gone to far in and overly exemplified by the latest Marvel release:

If we are watching, as some critics have suggested, the death of cinema happen before our eyes, then it’s taken the form of a public execution.

It is a film that is about absolutely nothing – a film with no discernable purpose or artistic ambitions, beyond the perpetuation of its own corporate myth.

He explains a little:

Audiences didn’t love Blade because Snipes just showed up, stood there and barked catchphrases – he was part of a story, with a proper character, and stakes, and intentionality. That Marvel cannot see the difference – or, even worse, if it can see the difference but chooses to ignore it – is surely damning.

We call Deadpool & Wolverine a movie because it is released in cinemas, and is two hours long, but other than these technicalities, it shares almost nothing with a traditional blockbuster, when it comes to intent.

And finally concedes with admonishment:

And of course, people are allowed to enjoy what they like. But freebasing cocaine is surely enjoyable to many people; that doesn’t mean we should all get on board with its production and distribution.

  •  Storksforlegs   ( @storksforlegs@beehaw.org ) English
    4•1 month ago

    This is a successful and enjoyable (and understabdably ludicrous, it is deadpool for craps sake) movie. This guy seems a bit confused about the current problem facing movies, and entertainment production generally.

    Its fair to be worried about what trends are driving what movies get made or not. But that is less to do with creative storytelling choices made in these movies. It is more studios being run by business vultures wanting short term massive returns only, even if it means no longer making anything else but trend chasing mega films.

    However thats a different conversation entirely.

    •  memfree   ( @memfree@beehaw.org ) OPEnglish
      4•1 month ago

      studios being run by business vultures wanting short term massive returns only, even if it means no longer making anything else but trend chasing mega films

      Two things on that:

      • I’ve heard studios now count on international deals so movies must shy away from anything that would get them banned in the major markets
      • the current age of cinema reminds me a bit of the precursor to the great 1970s film revolution where studios weren’t making enough money, so they started letting anyone and everyone take a shot at making movies and lo! the public suddenly had a wide variety of all kinds of things to watch

      I’m not sure we ever lost that variety, but no longer have the constraint of theater-only viewing that gets people to all see the same set of movies at the same time such that ‘different’ movies (like One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest or Star Wars as well as Smokey and the Bandit) were all getting attention and conversation at the same time.

      Now we have streaming from services and we can wait to watch movies until they become available online, so many films miss the box-office and never get the hype they deserve because only the biggest have publicity junkets promoting them online and on chat-TV. So maybe the critic’s actual issue is that – as a paid critic – he’s forced to watch the publicized flicks designed not-to-offend and doesn’t have the time to find all the other movies going under the radar.