Quote:
Originally Posted by cinemaphile
There are plenty of "soulless" blockbusters out there, but there are plenty of great, fun ones, too.
Just like there are good smaller or independent films out there, but there are plenty of them that are complete crap as well.
It's nothing new. There has always been good and bad. We just tend to remember past eras as better because the good stays in our memories while the bad fade away.
|
I partially agree with what you're saying, but when I start to think of this I always end up saying it's not true. of course it's my opinion but if I take last year's "blockbusters" there's only a few that I really liked (Avangers was a lot better than I expected, Batman 3 was a bit of a dissapointment, but it still was a lot better than the contenders and Spider-man was a nice surprise), but the thing is there was plenty of them made.
on the other hand, if I start to think of let's say summer of 1996 there's barely one I could mention that was supposed to be a major hit and didn't really achieve or was a bad movie (like Battleship, Total recall remake, Bourne legacy from last year): The rock, Mission: Impossible, Independence day, Twister, Executive decision, Eraser. I mean, of course not all of them became classics, but do I think any of today's blockbusters will be remembered in ten years time as these movies are remembered at?
definitely not!
so yes, blockbusters these days are made to show us the newest digital effects disguised as films, while a few years back there were films made with digital effects in them...