I was thinking of actors who are only there because of their fame, not talent, like Elvis.
But there’s a whole spectrum, for sure, depending on why you want to see that actor. If it’s because they give realistic, subtle performances, that’s high class, you care about quality. If it’s because of their physical prowess, that seems to be so-so. If it’s because of their physical beauty, low class, bad movie viewer, you don’t care about quality. Which amuses me, because being aesthetically pleasing is a huge part of high class quality in other things.
Your actor/media production example is not reflective of my reality. There are actors that convey a higher “class” movie, and there are actors that convey a lower “class” movie, and they are constantly in flux.
If Elvis isn’t a good actor, or someone like Dwayne Johnson or Vin Diesel keeps making movies with the type of acting that is considered lower “class”, then they set that expectation.
But you put Meryl Streep or Robert DeNiro or Denzel Washington etc in a movie, and people will judge it is a higher “class” movie.
People get confused because quality is multi-dimensional and most people only see the dimension they care about.
X always buys BMWs because he thinks their design and driving dynamics are unmatched. They can’t understand why people settle for less.
Y buys Toyotas because they’re reliable. They think X is crazy for buying something that’s going to cost so much to maintain and repair.
They’re both high quality products, but in different ways. X prioritizing design and driving feel over reliability doesn’t mean they don’t care about quality, same for Y. They just care about different things.
The Netflix thing is a perfect example. We see those guidelines and think, this is a recipe for low-quality trash. And if you’re looking for something to devote your full attention to for an hour, you’re probably right. But it’s plainly not meant for that. In the context of its purpose, it can be high quality. If it’s meant to be on in the background while you do stuff, it should be judged on that basis. And if you’re looking for something else, go find it.
It gets mixed up in social signaling too. Judging a movie’s quality by acting skill and subtle, meaningful scripts is seen as high class. Judging it by special effects or having famous actors is low class. That gets interpreted as the latter not caring about quality, but nothing makes those qualities inherently less worthy.
It’s funny, judging food by its ingredients is seen as high class. “The cream was sourced from grass-fed cows on our partner farm in Wherever.” High quality! But don’t try it with a movie. “This movie has Elvis in it.” Low class, you don’t care about quality!
Most people care about quality. They may not agree with your specific, personal idea of exactly which dimensions of quality are important.
Such a dire outlook. There is a huge chasm between Domino's and great pizza, and between great movies and Netflix assembly-line productions. A lot of people care enough to land somewhere in between, not at the lowest common denominator. There is room for both pop culture and art.
The comment on the photography is also clearly misguided: people might not be able to explain why, but the vast majority will feel that the more professional picture is pleasing/better in some way.
My take: people "don't care about the details" when it's beyond understanding, but the outcomes are still materially different and meaningful at a subconscious level. Ask anyone on the street to name a movie Elvis was in... meanwhile [insert your favorite movies here] still show up in popular vote even decades after going out of fashion. Selling mediocre products might be more lucrative, but not everything is about money.
It's not necessarily movies that make people move. My dad met a guy whose dad moved to the US from Germany. Why? During Elvis Presley's Army stint, he was deployed to Germany. This man was also in military service and ended up serving next to Elvis; this sparked a desire in him to move to the US.
Like I'm sure that some relative of Elvis Presley was paid for the Elvis movie that was recently released, but is anyone going to get paid for those new Napoleon movie/miniseries?
Not the OP but I could not watch the recent Elvis biopic by Baz Luhrman because it was the most frenetic, ADHD fast-cut movie I have ever seen. It was beautiful looking but felt like it was made for a generation of people that couldn't stand still.
I disagree. No way in hell Dune Part 2 is going to make more than Guardians of the Galaxy 3 this year. Not that I think this is a good thing but I think the public has voted with their dollars and Hollywood is stepping in producing what is selling. I saw around 10-12 films in theaters in 2022 and the only films besides Super Hero/Children's/Video Game related movies I saw were Elvis and Top Gun: Maverick.
Disappointed with the AI deepfake video featuring Elvis. The result falls short in terms of realism and takes us to the uncanny valley. This reliance on CGI takes away from the true focus of the movie - the story
One big thing people don't talk about enough is the curation/marketing pipeline we used to have with movies.
You'd see some glimpses of a new project via live televisionm which was the only way to stay connected to everyone.
Then you'd maybe watch it in the theater.
and here's the important part, there was a 9+ month delay from a release in a theater to being able to watch it free of charge on television. So you'd go to blockbuster and you'd open the door and look above the employees.
And there'd be a marquee with all the new movie titles you'd probably recognize from the movie theater advertising onslaught you watched.
Now there is no live television. everyone pays for streamers so we don't watch movie commercials anymore.
And I don't go to blockbuster and there's no list of new releases.
Now a huge star will be in a film that no ones ever heard of, that used to never happen.
When I was younger, I practically couldn't avoid knowing what movies were coming.
Now I have no idea.
But I have been hearing about Top Gun and Elvis. So that's a good start.
But after all that, I have to say the Fugitive is one of my favorite movies.
Please... A 10 second search on the internet will tell you where to get those guns.
I guess action movies don't make any profit from promoting violent behavior. I forgot that movie studios are non profits who donate their money to charity.
Do you also think that Doom and other video games are making kids violent and making them shoot up schools?
Do you think rap music will turn everybody into a violent gang member?
Will watching Elvis shake his hips on TV turn you into a sexual deviant?
I think what it comes down to is, you don't like cars because it's trendy these days to say cars are evil. But you like action movies, and video games, so it's all good.
I'm honestly surprised at the reactions here about the MCU. Are they pop movies that mostly adhere to a formula and tend to go for mass appeal over daring auteurship? Absolutely. These are big-budget tentpole films from Disney, they serve a corporate purpose, too.
But where they are not necessarily daring, they are at least challenging the genres they take on. Kevin Feige and co. have found a way in the 2010's to make blockbuster movies that have real heart, story, and messages. They don't hire the Michael Bays of the industry, but the James Gunns, Ryan Cooglers, and Taikas (and whoever is directing Captain Marvel, they're so under the radar that I don't remember their names). Infinity War was truly a spectacle; a roller coaster from beginning to end that gave its fans a new experience and a real punch to the gut. That takes guts. There has never been a movie of that scope & scale, with such a collection of actors, with such an enormous budget -- and it almost entirely focused on the story and character development, and let the big action grow from those two things.
Marvel's made the biggest movie franchise ever, and it's not from tricking audiences. This is what puts people in theater seats. Those of us who like "film" are staying at home to watch, more and more. What they've done sounds really hard to me. It's not apples-to-apples, but would anyone argue that, although strictly pop and mass appeal, the likes of Elvis, MJ, Madonna, and even Lady Gaga don't have their moments of real musicianship?
Hacker Cinema
13 comments on Hacker News
I was thinking of actors who are only there because of their fame, not talent, like Elvis.
But there’s a whole spectrum, for sure, depending on why you want to see that actor. If it’s because they give realistic, subtle performances, that’s high class, you care about quality. If it’s because of their physical prowess, that seems to be so-so. If it’s because of their physical beauty, low class, bad movie viewer, you don’t care about quality. Which amuses me, because being aesthetically pleasing is a huge part of high class quality in other things.
Your actor/media production example is not reflective of my reality. There are actors that convey a higher “class” movie, and there are actors that convey a lower “class” movie, and they are constantly in flux.
If Elvis isn’t a good actor, or someone like Dwayne Johnson or Vin Diesel keeps making movies with the type of acting that is considered lower “class”, then they set that expectation.
But you put Meryl Streep or Robert DeNiro or Denzel Washington etc in a movie, and people will judge it is a higher “class” movie.
People get confused because quality is multi-dimensional and most people only see the dimension they care about.
X always buys BMWs because he thinks their design and driving dynamics are unmatched. They can’t understand why people settle for less.
Y buys Toyotas because they’re reliable. They think X is crazy for buying something that’s going to cost so much to maintain and repair.
They’re both high quality products, but in different ways. X prioritizing design and driving feel over reliability doesn’t mean they don’t care about quality, same for Y. They just care about different things.
The Netflix thing is a perfect example. We see those guidelines and think, this is a recipe for low-quality trash. And if you’re looking for something to devote your full attention to for an hour, you’re probably right. But it’s plainly not meant for that. In the context of its purpose, it can be high quality. If it’s meant to be on in the background while you do stuff, it should be judged on that basis. And if you’re looking for something else, go find it.
It gets mixed up in social signaling too. Judging a movie’s quality by acting skill and subtle, meaningful scripts is seen as high class. Judging it by special effects or having famous actors is low class. That gets interpreted as the latter not caring about quality, but nothing makes those qualities inherently less worthy.
It’s funny, judging food by its ingredients is seen as high class. “The cream was sourced from grass-fed cows on our partner farm in Wherever.” High quality! But don’t try it with a movie. “This movie has Elvis in it.” Low class, you don’t care about quality!
Most people care about quality. They may not agree with your specific, personal idea of exactly which dimensions of quality are important.
Such a dire outlook. There is a huge chasm between Domino's and great pizza, and between great movies and Netflix assembly-line productions. A lot of people care enough to land somewhere in between, not at the lowest common denominator. There is room for both pop culture and art.
The comment on the photography is also clearly misguided: people might not be able to explain why, but the vast majority will feel that the more professional picture is pleasing/better in some way.
My take: people "don't care about the details" when it's beyond understanding, but the outcomes are still materially different and meaningful at a subconscious level. Ask anyone on the street to name a movie Elvis was in... meanwhile [insert your favorite movies here] still show up in popular vote even decades after going out of fashion. Selling mediocre products might be more lucrative, but not everything is about money.
It's not necessarily movies that make people move. My dad met a guy whose dad moved to the US from Germany. Why? During Elvis Presley's Army stint, he was deployed to Germany. This man was also in military service and ended up serving next to Elvis; this sparked a desire in him to move to the US.
What's the timeline on that sort of thing?
Like I'm sure that some relative of Elvis Presley was paid for the Elvis movie that was recently released, but is anyone going to get paid for those new Napoleon movie/miniseries?
Not the OP but I could not watch the recent Elvis biopic by Baz Luhrman because it was the most frenetic, ADHD fast-cut movie I have ever seen. It was beautiful looking but felt like it was made for a generation of people that couldn't stand still.
I disagree. No way in hell Dune Part 2 is going to make more than Guardians of the Galaxy 3 this year. Not that I think this is a good thing but I think the public has voted with their dollars and Hollywood is stepping in producing what is selling. I saw around 10-12 films in theaters in 2022 and the only films besides Super Hero/Children's/Video Game related movies I saw were Elvis and Top Gun: Maverick.
Disappointed with the AI deepfake video featuring Elvis. The result falls short in terms of realism and takes us to the uncanny valley. This reliance on CGI takes away from the true focus of the movie - the story
I recently watched "Elvis" in cinema, and was constantly reminded of this music video.
That movie has a lot of unnecessary swipes and camera fly-arounds, picture in picture and mosaics, and somehow is a better movie for it.
One big thing people don't talk about enough is the curation/marketing pipeline we used to have with movies.
You'd see some glimpses of a new project via live televisionm which was the only way to stay connected to everyone.
Then you'd maybe watch it in the theater.
and here's the important part, there was a 9+ month delay from a release in a theater to being able to watch it free of charge on television. So you'd go to blockbuster and you'd open the door and look above the employees.
And there'd be a marquee with all the new movie titles you'd probably recognize from the movie theater advertising onslaught you watched.
Now there is no live television. everyone pays for streamers so we don't watch movie commercials anymore.
And I don't go to blockbuster and there's no list of new releases.
Now a huge star will be in a film that no ones ever heard of, that used to never happen.
When I was younger, I practically couldn't avoid knowing what movies were coming.
Now I have no idea.
But I have been hearing about Top Gun and Elvis. So that's a good start.
But after all that, I have to say the Fugitive is one of my favorite movies.
Tommy Lee Jones is the VIP of the film.
Please... A 10 second search on the internet will tell you where to get those guns.
I guess action movies don't make any profit from promoting violent behavior. I forgot that movie studios are non profits who donate their money to charity.
Do you also think that Doom and other video games are making kids violent and making them shoot up schools?
Do you think rap music will turn everybody into a violent gang member?
Will watching Elvis shake his hips on TV turn you into a sexual deviant?
I think what it comes down to is, you don't like cars because it's trendy these days to say cars are evil. But you like action movies, and video games, so it's all good.
I'm honestly surprised at the reactions here about the MCU. Are they pop movies that mostly adhere to a formula and tend to go for mass appeal over daring auteurship? Absolutely. These are big-budget tentpole films from Disney, they serve a corporate purpose, too.
But where they are not necessarily daring, they are at least challenging the genres they take on. Kevin Feige and co. have found a way in the 2010's to make blockbuster movies that have real heart, story, and messages. They don't hire the Michael Bays of the industry, but the James Gunns, Ryan Cooglers, and Taikas (and whoever is directing Captain Marvel, they're so under the radar that I don't remember their names). Infinity War was truly a spectacle; a roller coaster from beginning to end that gave its fans a new experience and a real punch to the gut. That takes guts. There has never been a movie of that scope & scale, with such a collection of actors, with such an enormous budget -- and it almost entirely focused on the story and character development, and let the big action grow from those two things.
Marvel's made the biggest movie franchise ever, and it's not from tricking audiences. This is what puts people in theater seats. Those of us who like "film" are staying at home to watch, more and more. What they've done sounds really hard to me. It's not apples-to-apples, but would anyone argue that, although strictly pop and mass appeal, the likes of Elvis, MJ, Madonna, and even Lady Gaga don't have their moments of real musicianship?