The Epidemic of Passable Movies
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 12. 2016
- MY BOOK OF ESSAYS IS OUT NOW!
AMAZON: amzn.to/3dk14yu
EVERYWHERE ELSE: bit.ly/3qJEbHT
. Get 10% any purchase here: squarespace.com/nerdwriter
HELP ME MAKE MORE VIDEOS: / nerdwriter
Kevin Macleod, "Fairy Tale Waltz"
incompetech.com/music/royalty-...
Kevin Macleod, "Marty Gots A Plan"
incompetech.com/wordpress/201...
Yuki Ame, "Blew Ya Head"
/ blew-ya-head-demo2014
Joey Pecoraro, "Toy Houses"
/ toy-houses - Zábava
this channel is a passable film critique channel
no.
Bruce Wayne then why are you still watching?
BURN
Bruce Wayne shots fired. I disagree though.
The Imitation Game felt like it was there more because the line fit the theme as oppose to the movie followed the trend, if you catch what I'm getting at
I think that movies are too big, quite honestly. I think when you have SO MUCH MONEY riding on every single movie, essentially turning every movie into what used to be called a "tentpole" movie (to hold the other, smaller-scale movies up) or else the movies are so small and unnoticed by the studios and the public that they don't get any development time.
So these big movies, being so expensive and time-consuming and having such huge stakes, have to be homogenized into completely easy-to-digest beats that not only work for their primary audiences (let's say, an American film from an American perspective), but also for the overseas market, which means we need a whole ton of cultural touchpoints to be hit within a two-hour (or less or a little more) run time. That, plus the fact that studios now really want series instead of standalone films, means we get a lot of things that can hold your attention for the time you have your eyes glued to the screen, but not much else.
The best movies right now, I think, are incredibly small and incredibly niche. "Moonlight" was one of the best movies I've seen in a decade, and it's very, very small in terms of demographics. Same with my favorite film of last year, "Tangerine," which was shot for basically no money on iPhones.
It's sad that big studios won't make small films and support them anymore, because it would open up a lot more opportunity for expression. Not much more opportunity to make billions of dollars from a known franchise, though.
There are small films Moonlight. That one with Russel Crowe and Ryan Gosling. Nobody goes to see them. Besides the giant movies are cannibalizing themselves. It's a trend. Like found footage theatricl moives were a thing a few years ago. The trend will go back to middle budget and small films before long.
Tim Terrell I hope so. I know there are tons of factors in the movie business right now, and a lot of the small movies are now becoming decent television series, so I hope the trend will reverse at some point.
"Coherence" is another great low budget sci-fi movie ($50,000) which plot made more sense than Interstellar even though it had no special effects whatsoever. Really worth a watch if you like mind bending movies. It is still on Amazon video I believe.
Z In Chains Ooh, I have something to watch tonight! Thanks!
This is partially why people say the book is better than the movie.
An author is the ultimate "auteur". He makes every decision. He doesn't have cinematographers, composers and editors trying to match his vision. Everything in the book is the result of the author putting it there. Thus, books are very personal and generally have one streamlined vision. Whereas a movie has hundreds, if not thousands, of cooks in the kitchen.
So often, when you read a book, you get that author's clear vision, but when you watch the movie version, it's muddled. There are only a very few cases where the movie was on par or equal to the book. (Example: The Lord of the Rings is equal to the book. It wasn't better, but it was equal)
For everyone that didn’t get his point, here is my take.
He’s saying that one of the reasons for passable movies being only passable is that instead of the film being a reflection of our lives, of real people and real experiences, these are only distorted reflections of other movies. They speak only the language of a world that isn’t real. They are therefore without humanity.
A very interesting view. Not all video essays need to spoon feed their points. A stream of consciousness is also valid.
Yeah try writing an essay like this for a college class, then explain to the professor why the "subtlety" (read vagueness) is so smart when he inevitably fails you because you couldn't support anything.
David Johnson David Johnson I agree that it wouldn’t work in that setting, and this is one of his more messy essays for sure. It’s more of a “creative text”.
However, a lot of the texts that we are encouraged to read in college are unclear in their views. We must therefore be independent enough to be able to interpret the works and find the meaning ourselves.
@@elrored Again that's where the difference between subtle and vague comes in. There is a difference between show don't tell, and just not having a point and telling people it's up to them. Subtle is clever, vague is lazy
David Johnson Yes I agree. I just didn’t find it as vague as a lot of other people did. I just think it was less structured compared to his other videos.
@@elrored I think most people in the comments here are just irritated that this video has a general problem with a lot of movies that they like, or maybe love. If someone doesn't already share the annoyed mentality of passable movies, it's probably hard to identify with a short video on said POV regardless of how it's presented and argued-even harder to not be biased against it (e.g. many comments can't get over the fact that Interstellar was used as an example, and countless people out there will always show up to defend the MCU if it is criticized in any way, directly or indirectly).
I have another term for these movies. I call them "movies that could have been written by an AI". If you fed a big bulk of movies that belong to the same genre and/or share the same archetypical story to an advanced AI, it could come up with such scripts. They use the tropes, they recreate the recipe, they go through the motions, and sometimes they don't even feel completely fake, sometimes there's even some real emotion in them, BUT every single second of them is something we've all seen before. Netflix seems to produce a lot of those these days (hm maybe they do have an advanced AI churning them all out, who knows :P )
AI is already writing music, experimentally but it will only be a generation for it to become accepted. Look at what passes for music/ songs now. Artists may become redundant.
I love it, yes! That’s the perfect way to describe this.
Your comment is genuine gold! Actually - it tells a lot more that video essay itself. Got same feeling, when listening to "new" music, watching "new" movies, reading "new" books. It is like ant farm - there are tropes, and everybody is so comfortable in it - so nobody wants to do new one. And that is why I really admire something brand new. The only one musical band, for example, that really impresses me - is Royal Blood. And not "because" of genius bass player, made bass sound like a overdriven guitar (now new technique, but used really amazing, by the way), but delivery of ideas, that was sat in the front-man's mind! Musical, lyrical, technical, sound, rhythmical ideas!
The same is about movies, series (I really fall for netflix's Maniac series).
I guess this problems exist the same amount of time, that the Art itself. Some kind of "
SECONDarism" always feels everywhere =))))
If I'm not wrong, Netflix indeed uses algorithm to determine what type or genre of content is in demand or lacking in the market and then produces those content
There is a newspaper article on that too
This was a passable video. Almost like it didn't really know what it wanted to be and ended up actually saying nothing much. How ironic.
And yours was a passable comment. How appropriate! XD
Cristian Villavicencio W
Passableception!
^Irony!
^Irony!
^Irony!
Ironyception!!
I see a passable response!
The difference between this and many other nerdwriter videos (for example the Westworld one) is that this one doesn't justify its claims as well. The ideas may be useful, but he doesn't utilize his example clips other than to say "something is wrong in this". There's a point there - it's not a disingenuous video - but I don't think it's the audience's fault that it doesn't necessarily connect.
One thing I noticed too was the way in which all the 'passable' movies (especially the scene with Kevin Hart) spell out what the characters are feeling through blunt dialogue rather than showing it. done badly, characters talking rather than showing can make a movie boring, and when so many movies do it so artlessly, they all begin to feel monotonous, especially when used with endless cliches.
Rebecca C Agree absolutely!
Rebecca C - So true. Sometimes explicit dialogue is appropriate but in real life people most often communicate their thoughts and feelings obliquely with a few words, facial expressions, body language, actions or omissions, etc.. The best filmmakers working with competent actors utilizing the latter are able to communicate volumes with a minimal accompaniment of declarative statements.
It's also pretty annoying how many unnecessary cuts they used. Instead of letting the actors actually act and use the camera and mise-en-scene to set the tone, they cut almost every second for little to no reason and make the scene look as boring and forgettable as possible.
The video started with me being curious and ended with me being confused and never finding the resolution. Maybe remake a video of this and citing better samples and maybe having a better conclusion?
bent on disapproving thats the point of the video. Its just a passable video like a passable movie evrything goes into a complete fusion of cycle that in the end would make no sense.
maybe remake a comment of this citing better point of view and maybe having a better constructive criticism?
That's the joke
you can also think for youself
Nerdwriter is known for going around in circles and initiating an interesting topic, stating quotes, "take a look at this" examples and then not pffering a conclusion.
I mean this video is kind of a walk around. You brought up a problem with no suggestions for resolution, solid naming of films or scenes that actually fit your definition of great movies, or even a firm example of something people do in films that isn't realistic. You tried with the whole "people straightforwardly confronting someone with disregard for their emotions" (or at least that's what I took from those clips), but I know a couple of people who I KNOW have acted similarly a number of times.
Not hating, but this video is pretty vague and it sort of falls victim to its own point. So many video essays don't actually promote potential solutions to their issues or have very biased evidence, and they're just passable. Videos that are more suited for having as background noise.
It doesn't lack specific examples, he uses the conventions of a video essay by giving visual compilations to illustrate his point. It'd be different if it was written, but it isn't.
I also feel like it doesn't need a solution as it teaches us something, but he actually does kind of provide a solution by suggesting the problem, and why exactly it is a problem in the first place. It comes down to a lack of control among film creators, and ultimately to not fall victim to the mediocrity he talks about, something needs to be created that looks to real human experience and not the false idea that has accumulated through cliches. Its literally his main point.
You have a good point, but if you believe it reflects a reason for this video falling victim to its own point, that makes it seem like you don't really understand what he's saying.
+Ben Bowker you are wrong
g.swell Oh, okay
I have never got the "offer us a solution then" mentality. It's ridiculous to think single essays could change the world just by pointing at solutions and sometimes there even aren't any. This video is clearly meant to spread ideas, thoughts and information and I think it does that regardless of the solutions it offers.
Ben Bowker What you outline in your response is just your own interpretation. Fact is the video leaves as much of wanting more from somerhing mediocre as the films he seeks to critique. It abrubtly ends, for one, without a clear and concise thesis. Sure you can piece together his point eventually, but its not as defined as it should be.
Also he does not elaborate on WHY he believes these mostly cliche character arcs are a problem. He implies they are because they are unrealistic, but in truth the example he gave is very much realistic. There are business relationships that become more all the time. Partners become good friends or lovers and long time employees or customers begin to soften you up with their unyielding loyalty. Sure the examples he gives are poorly executed, but that is not his argument; his argument is that it's unrealistic. In other words, as I interpret it, it does not resonate with him and therefore dismissed as something that does not happen.
The real issue with mediocrity in cinema today is that tonal problem he kind of just drops in favor of the non-realism angle. You have films trying to be everything at once: an action romp, a comedy, a bro-mance, an ad for future films (see where I'm going here?) and a poor satire or homage to what came before it. Obviously, the biggest sub-genre that perpetrates this is the super hero one. In a single scene you can have all these genres meshing together and forming some grotesque and indescribable pool of slime. One second you are hyped, the next you are laughing, and finally the scene is also asking you to empathize. Its the equivalent of throw everything and the kitchen sink at the audience so eventually they find something they like.
Of course super hero movies arent the only issue. Jurassic World, Star Wars, etc. are all a part of the problem. There was a time when movies, however simple they may have been, had real focus. Action thrillers were real action thrillers. Comedies were pure hilarity (maybe a hesrtwarming but lite scene or two), dramas were emotionally satisfying, and homages subtly paid tribute while also doing their own thing. Of course even in movies with consistency you'll get only passable examples. But they'll at least have understanding of tone to fall back on when compared to the modern blockbuster.
Passable movies exist because not everyone is an appreciator of good storytelling or good art or originality. I'm not saying that to try and sound pretentious, but people have different priorities, and whilst ours might be great movies, others might be more interested in music or business or social lives. But these people still watch movies, and they have a very low bar of expectation, and unfortunately, they also amount to the majority. So hollywood caters to them first and foremost.
Why is that?
Mike Jack well most people's lives are not focused on art, they need a distraction for some hours.
Tipsylou True, I just dislike how these passable films start getting really high review scores and start diminishing the industry. Guardian's of the galaxy was so praised that even though I hardly watch Marvel films I went to see it and it was so mediocre. Same thing with The force awakens.
KAP I agree, and these people that enjoy passable movies have an engrained checklist of everything the want out of a movie that has grown out of fear of change and out of seeing movies merely as 'that thing you do on the occasional saturday night'. They want a rollercoaster ride, where every emotion gets hit. They want a few jokes, a few action moments, a few jump-scares, a few catchy songs and maybe a tearjerker moment. But they don't want to be challenged or to THINK or to be introduced to something different (god forbid). They want easy, cookie-cutter entertainment.
It's the difference between commercial and fine art. Commercial art sells so much easier.
Mike Jack why? I like good movies but I have to be realistic that people want to be entertained. Insulting people just because they perceive it in a different way is not very mature.
I was with you until you showed a clip from Interstellar, Interstellar is not a passable movie. It's a movie unlike anything else and which are very rare and from an auteur not from a studio with too many cooks its the opposite of passable.
MovieAce I would agree with you in many respects, but about the story or the dialogue. The story reminded me so much of 60's paperback sci fi(Arthur C. Clarke for one) so that the premise of the movie was already familiar to me. And Anne Hathaway's speach about love being a force. Never known a scientist talk like that and it felt shoe horned in to provide a reason for events later in the story. That being said, Intersellar is a beautiful film and surprisingly stands up to multiple viewing, but I wouldn't say it was flawless.
James Estrada I'm not saying it's flawless. But if we as society start to think a movie like Interstellar is passable we are doomed. (Film wise :P) To me movies that clearly is made by committee or just to make money and not taking any risks in the story is the worst kind of film making.
It's a good movie it just got shitty dialogue
Also it's very clear why Casey Affleck is in the movie. To show what humanity has become, brainwashed farmers. The opposite of Murph. The school system is rigged so that no one can aspire to be something other than farmers etc.
They're the two sides of the coin, that's the entire point about him being a forgettable character.
Finally, somebody brought up this weird parallel universe that only exist in the movies, where people don't talk and act like real people do.
Verisimilitude. A script with realistic dialogue would make everyone sound like idiots just from the verbal pauses.
Arrival will forever remain as one of my all time favorite movies. It was a work that truly took advantage of its medium. Largely due to the Director, Denis Villenueve, I was enthralled seeing how every frame served a larger purpose. There was never any wasted time. Villenueve knew exactly how to manipulate what we knew at any given point, and how to take advantage of what we knew at any given point, in order to maximize the emotional punches and twists. It is the closest thing to an interactive movie, that I will ever experience. I wish I could watch it in the theater for the first time all over again.
Truly one of the best directors working today.
Thankfully the Emoji movie will save everything
shoaib heesam oh really.
Finally someone coherent
shoaib heesam July 28th
Yeah, I doubt it will be just a pale imitation of other movie genre tropes all bundled into one movie ;)
It didnt
This video is all over the place and didn't have a clear point
I think his point was - "wah! movies aimed at the masses are cliché ridden and not particularly original."
This is the main problem, yes. Everyone seems to defend their favorite movies, but main problem of this piece is that there seems to be no real structure. Definitely the worst Nerdwriter videos I've seen so far.
OldNerdTV
Chad Hotelling Sometimes you have to read between the lines. ;)
Well, I have to agree.
Interstellar is definitely flawed but to put it in the same category as paul blart is just..... kind of ridiculous
It was like Nolan's category of passable which is a category many filmakers don't even come close
He wasn't putting it in the same category as Paul Blart. He put Interstellar in the category of passable movies, and he put Paul Blart in the category of egregiously bad movies. He makes the distinction between these kinds of movies clear at the very beginning of the video.
@@GermansLikeBeer Really? The problem is I couldn't really tell toward the middle onward if the movie I was watching a clip of was his idea of "passable" or "good", could be me but I'm not the only one left a little confused and felt the critique just.... ended abruptly. I liked his points, I just feel this video is... passable?
I don't think that's what he did... paul blart was pretty clearly in the 'bad' category.
Passable movies aren't totally good or bad - they may have ambition, they may have a lot of strong, even original ideas. But the main definition he uses is that passable movies lack _tonal focus._ So they have all those great elements, but those elements can never really come together to create a "Good" movie because they lack the artistic discipline, focus, tightness of writing, etc. to actually achieve that.
That's why Interstellar is only 'passable'. It's too ambitious and original to be considered Bad, but it's far too flawed, messy, incoherent and narratively and thematically loose to be considered Great.
It's all Celebrity Sparkle Trash to get our money.
“Passable movies express human experience not through the lens of real life, but through other movies” I’m obsessed with this line. So so true and explains why so many movies feel so bland.
Sadly, I think that for a large portion of the film watching audience films only need to be "passable". Most people only watch films for escapism and there are plenty of passable or even substandard films that generate that. The type of narrative and tonal coherence you're talking about in this vid is only relevant to people who are expecting films to be dramatically impactful. That's what I'm looking for but I'm not sure about most people.
I don't think it is just conditioning though, I think a lot of people are just wired in a way where they are satisfied with cheap escapism. I agree though that there are way too many films being made right now. I mean there's going to be a new Star Wars film coming out every year for the foreseeable future for God's sake.
Movies aren't meant to change our lives in the way that he is describing. Movies are simply a form of entertainment. I don't understand why he's trying to give films more powerful roles in the lives of the public.
DeCipher that's because most Americans have miserable lives without realizing. That's why they watch reality TV or go to amusement parks. Those things aren't fun but they are fun enough compared to 99% of their lives so it's fun enough.
Alot of people don't know how to be happy mostly due to how they were conditioned socially. Therefore they learn to value objects rather than other people. Also people are pretty dumb.
*Movies aren't meant to change our lives in the way that he is describing. Movies are simply a form of entertainment.*
I actually feel really really bad for people who see culture this way. What a small existence it is that the greatest cultural works of our time should be of such minimal utility.
Did anyone else laugh at the moment of Doctor Strange where he doubts the existence of special abilities in a world half-wrecked by superheroes?
Because superheroes= "science" in the MCU. Magic would be ridiculous... if they never analyzed Loki in New York and Germany.
Wasn't Loki in Switzerland?
+mergele Stuttgart is in Germany, but I think it was shot in Cleveland lol.
tinaUNDAcova That was Stuttgart? For some reason I thought Genf.
+Rolf Hartmann Correction, a world half-wrecked by super-VILLAINS! The superheroes are the reason it isn't completely wrecked.
Thank you! I keep having these moments when watching TV/movies and a character does something, like making a certain face or saying some specific, oddly refined line that feels like it's more of a movie trope and less something real people actually do. Some examples include characters in thrillers constantly hanging up the phone without saying anything, people sacrificing themselves for someone they met an hour ago, and the way the same three or four people always end up together every hour of every day at their workplace/school. Not to mention physically impossible things that people learn to believe because of TV tropes (.com) such as standing safely a few feet above flowing lava, jumping down waterfalls and out of speeding cars, and heroes somehow being able to survive for days in blistering cold or intense heat just by being "determined" enough.
The video got suggested in my CZcams feed, it caught my attention and once I got to the part where you compare the different storylines I was hooked!
I loved the perspective you brought up in the analysis. You got yourself a new subscriber!
You can't just flash up clips of films you believe to be passable and then not give us a proper analysis or explanation.
but he did
bob polo Yes. But he shouldn't- it's lazy. Those films are not universally considered bad or 'passable'. Thanks for your pointless comment anyway!
look up the word subjective
+bob polo It's fine to have a subjective opinion, not so to not properly explain your opinion to your subscribers. It makes for a sub par video.
Actually this was a well written essay. The thesis is about how movies that imitate movies can only echo actual human experience without giving the audience any new insights about our collective existence. The film references combined with his succinct commentary really brought the point home imo
This video is passable- I came away from this with no new info or thoughts.
"There are movies that lack effort or originality."
Astounding observation! Remarkable!!
Kinda felt that way too- this particular vid didn't offer anything tangible to stop the flood of passable movies, just a vague suggestion of what sorta *might* be causing them
Yeah but he's the nerd writer , he's just here to present his observations through a dope, dramatically written narration with thematic background music just to make you think a little, not here to solve your fucking problems.
P14Media Some movies are too long. That's an observation. If Nerd did a video essay on this topic; dressed it up with music and fleshed out the writing for this, it still wouldn't take away from the fact that it's simply an observation. Pose a question, make the audience think.
Nerd has done some great work but a lot of his videos are just dressed up observations.
Who says Ctrl H has any 'fucking problems' that need solving?
++
I know I'm in the minority, but almost everything the Marvel Cinematic Universe does falls right in this category- passable at best.
Magicman205 they are supposed to be easy to consume
Sam Smigla just because something is "easy to consume" does not excuse it for being bland and forgettable. I mean, Marvel had a falling out with Edgar Wright just because the movie he made was too different and unique compared to the visionless, uninspired, safe and boring garbage we keep getting.
Adelaide McMillan I swear, we will never again see something so completely bland and awful be so revered and idiolized like the MCU. They're designed to sell action figures to 5 year olds and yet people sincerely defend them as works of art.
Yep, and I feel like it's just getting worse. I really feel like these films are just getting less and less personality.
Magicman205 nothing is a citizen Cain but I think they're pretty fun. I don't go to movies to see art. I just want to have a good time and for the most part modern movies do that for me, even the ones people universally hate like BVS, Justice League, Solo. The thing is everyone has different tastes. Most people hate Jessi Eisenberg as Lex Luther but I like his new take on the character. There's so much stuff out there that honestly you're bound to find something you like and maybe marvel movies aren't for you.
good jesus what you said right about minute 4:00 is exactly what I look for in any type of cinematic production (be it a tv series, movie, or whatever). It is why I like shows like The Sopranos, Breaking Bad, Better Call Saul and Fargo so much. People and their relationship to each other are relatably real, and it gives (at least) me a feeling of relief that what the actors are going through is a credible occurrence, given what we've been told they've gone through.
This is not a new phenomenon and it is not unique to film.
"Four-fifths of everybody's work must be bad. But the remnant is worth the trouble for its own sake."
- Rudyard Kipling 1890
"90% of everything is crud"
- Theodore Sturgeon 1958.
Absolutely agree, but it's still interesting to analyse why and how this is the case.
tmage23 d
I disagree. Why must they be bad? Why must we make good art only by chance and not through knowledge of how to create true art? You would not like bakers who say that 4/5th of their bread must be bad so that the other 1/5 is good. Rather, you criticize them for not knowing how to make good bread.
Perhaps the formula for art is being original and inspired. What I was getting was based on the assumption that 4/5 of these passable movies must be made so that 1/5th could be good. I was saying that this is not the case
No, four-fifths of Shakespeare's work isn't bad.
I had hoped you would elaborate more on that scene you showed in full, yes it felt offbeat and a bit uncomfortable even, but could you explain why? I don't feel like I learnt much from this.
I won't speak for Nerdwriter, but it think what he's getting at is the lines in the scene aren't lines that actual people would say. Instead, it's the type of back and forth that you see between characters in other "passable" movies, so it feels familiar because we've heard it (or something like it) before, but at the same time it's off-putting because it's recycled from a reality that exists only in movies. It creates a strange and annoying dissonance.
+jay dubya Cripes, that was a good response. Thank you for that, I appreciate it.
also: the fucking cuts.. almost gave me an epileptic shock
Explain? But that would take away from "clever" editing and make him lose the dimwitted viewers.
It was really just him telling us which movie scenes or full movies he didn't like.
This video didn’t go anywhere.. it had potential but it all felt vague.
I honestly don't know if this is intentional and genious or ironic and sad.
@@annieshaffer6939 So basically what the movie did.
@@annieshaffer6939 the passable movie
@@annieshaffer6939 A lack of thematic coherence. Vagueness of themes. Unintended contradictions between the message and the way it's presented. Undisciplined use of narrative tools particularly when it comes to attention to detail; Most commonly failing to create and stick to consistent leitmotifs. (Incidentally if you want to see an example of how discipline and care can elevate the medium check out the making of Breaking Bad)
In critic speak a really good movie is tight, every element seems to compliment every other, no decision seems to have been made at random. A passable movie is a movie that isn't horrid, but fails this standard.
@@annieshaffer6939 No I am sorry you are just way off the mark. I don't need more and I can't use more than three sentences to make this point. You have to be able to distinguish between a movie made up of bad elements and ideas and a movie where ideas that could work don't add up to a transformative experience. Either because there isn't enough thought or effort put into how they come together as a whole or because they lack vision altogether. If you can't grasp the concept at the abstract an analysis won't help you.
This video leaves me with the exact feeling I get when I finish watching a passable movie.
😂😂
This vid felt a bit like you never really finished the thought. Like you kept nearly articulating your point then stepping round it instead of actually saying it. Idk maybe its just me but this whole video felt very unclear.
Like it's passable
Alexander Supertramp I’m sorry to say mate but I think you’re the one who missed the joke.
its a passable video
I felt it too..
It's just another passable video essay without a true insight. He just goes around nit-picking stuff without developing something.
This video will teach you :
1. some movies are bad.
2. new videos every wednesday.
you might want to rewatch it...
The main point actually has nothing to do with bad movies. It's about movies that are just good enough to pass. What prevents these movies from excelling, oftentimes, is that rather than tap into some authentic perspective about the human experience, they draw from motifs that are popular in other works of art, separating them from any truly meaningful or nuanced portrayal of human emotion or development.
basically yeah
If I understand Nerdwriter correctly, he thinks that bad movies are kind of a good thing, in that they mean the director was willing to take a risk.
On the other hand, a passable movie takes no risks, simply cobbling elements that worked in other movies together.
Of course, it's fine to pay homage to a movie and fine to borrow cinematic language if it works for your story. What NW is saying, I think, is that a passable movie prioritizes re-using things that have worked before over using what works for their own story. This will produce a movie most people can live with, but that few people will love for any great length of time.
To make a great movie, you have to prioritize what works for your story, even if you end up using elements that are untried. The risk there of course is that you might mess it up and make a piece of shit. High risk/high reward vs low risk/low reward.
Lol, yes definitely.
Great post. I couldn't agree more.
In his essay "The Frontiers of Poetry", Maritain says
"Art does not draw from itself alone what it gives to things; it spreads over them a secret which it has first seized by surprise in them, in their invisible substance or in their endless exchanges and correspondences...it transforms, it moves about, it brings together, it transfigures; it does not create. It is by the way in which he transforms the universe passing into his mind, in order to make a form divined in things shine on a matter, that the artist imprints his mark on his work. For each work, he recomposes, such as into itself, at last poetry changes it, a world more real than the real offered to the sense."
This is what's meant by "finding truth in the world" and discovering that truth to the world. It is finding a "secret seized by surprise" ; this is the substantive reality that art must perceive, draw out, and hold up to human sense (hence art), that which is hidden otherwise to the senses but not to the deep human experience. This is why when real art happens it touches us. We are seeing with ours eyes, hearing, tasting what is often within us and hidden from our selves. This is why it frees our minds to ponder reality since it has brought reality up from the deep and presented it to our senses and cognition.
I really, really enjoy your videos. They help me reflect on and put into words why I don't or do like certain movies, which really makes watching movies a much more rewarding experience.
No problem. Writers just need to come up with novel ideas, studios need to produce them, and the public needs to buy them! Piece of cake.
Novel ideas is kinda impossible at this point, since most of the things have already been told in the past. And certain themes will repeat themselves. Right now what will work is either a different perception of said idea or make a very good storytelling/characters even if you have to use the cliches (which i see them as tools).
The public I doubt that most of them will want something novel, it all depends on the novelty and if it's something they really want to see.
assholemon Correct: I was being sarcastic.
Well fuck me then.
The T
4:20 Im sure that this time stamp and the fact that you show Big Lebowski is not a coincidence :)
Don't you mean "That's what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?"
Shut the fuck up Donny
Francisco Leite Or when you feed a stoner scrambled eggs
?
yeah? well, you know, that's just like, your opinion man...
Have thought about this phenomena and believe it's related to the fact film-making is today an old and established craft. Let's compare it to the car industry. In the early days we saw some great designs and inventions, but also lots and lots of catastrophic failures and mistakes. Today even a bad car is a rather passable one. The same applies to the movie industry. The professionals in charge know how to deal with script, lightning, editing, acting etc. So it's not so much the fact we have more passable movies today, it's more related to what 20-30 years ago would have been a bad movie is nowadays a passable one because major mistakes are most of the time avoided. While making a great movie is still really hard since it demands all those tiny pieces to fall in place.
thank you a million times for saying this! you've put into perfect words the thoughts I couldn't rationally say, but subconsciously felt
when people consume media like fast food, cinema can't trust themselves to invest in genuine art.
Camille Nicole exactly what I was trying to put into words
Nobody Lurker watch a Stanley Kubrick movie...
I consume a lot of media however I want it to be competent lol
People don't choose the media, the industry does. They get the people addicted to mediocrity and repetition, by letting people think these things will fulfill their needs, but not actually doing so. You can compare this to your body and nutrition. Your body wants food, and because sugar is so addicting, you'll grab a cookie. But the body doesn't get what it actually needs, which is nutritious, energizing food. After half an hour you'll be hungry again.
What's been happening lately, is the industry getting worse at convincing people that they need these movies. At least that's my experience. Going to the cinema is so unsatisfactory, that I don't even feel the need to do so anymore.
I'd advise you read some of Theodor Adorno's philosophy if you find this topic interesting, he has made some incredibly useful insights in the culture industry and its effect on society, even before cinema became a thing. Sorry for the long comment and wobbly English, I'm not a native speaker(Also not a great speaker in general). 😜
Nobody Lurker You must have some really weird definition of art
I love your videos because they allow me to take interest in and become informed about topics that I otherwise might not have explored. Thank you so much for creating this channel; it's easily one of my favorites!
Typical tool behavior. Name calling rather than providing a well-constructed counter point. If you don't like his shit, then get the fuck off his channel, no one's asking you to be here =]
***** Little hypocritical of you to accuse me of name calling when you called me a "tool"?
Aaron Schnoebelen You're missing the point entirely.
100% I watch the video regardless of my interest in the topic. There is so much thought and effort put into every video that it's worth my 5 to 10mins.
Aaron Schnoebelen You seem so bitter and I'm not sure why. And the other person commenting here is right, ad hominem attacks don't help the discussion or prove your point. Everyone is free to have their opinion, but what's the point of just personally attacking someone with no constructive feedback?
Nerdwriter1: Uses The Social Network in a video about passable movies
Me: Oof
only to point out that there is a common language of elements that we see in movies that don't actually happen in real life. Eduardo writes on the window not because it makes any sense or because it really happened, but because it looks better on film than if he wrote it on a piece of paper.
The Social Network isn't that bad. Have you seen this, more informative, video essay on it by chance?...czcams.com/video/8IAGH6k17nw/video.html
@@Vandicoup You completely missed the point of the OP's comment didn't you?
I've seen this video a long time ago but felt the urge to comment. I can't thank you enough for making it because it made understand why I couldn't bear watching so many movies. You're awesome.
You made a lot of criticisms, but you never really explained what the real solution is besides regurgitating the notion that studios need to take risks and be more creative. The question is how can they go about doing this when movies are based on a business model.
"Studios need to take risks and be more creative" yup that's basically what they should do instead of regurgitating shit movies
Do the opposite?
What?
Mark G he actually did say it, the tonal focus
There was a very clear solution explained in this video.
I think this sort of weirdness is just what happens when a culture and its tropes have been around for a long time. There's so much past stuff to feed on and cite from (and it's much easier to _access_ these days, too) that it all becomes self-referential. I'm seeing the same thing in design and fashion, 90% of what's trending these days seems to be "retro" in some capacity.
My theory is that any sufficiently well-established culture will tend to disappear up its own arse and become completely incomprehensible to outsiders in the process.
And those outsiders might repeat the same trends that the previous culture have. Lets be honest, repeating trends will be a thing that will keep on going for a long as humans still exists.
Thus why we have the cycle of the golden age and the dark age. The golden age will breed the dark age because a life of prosperity will weaken the population and eventually ruin their lifestyle and have a big problem that will ruin them, then that problem will escalate into the dark age that will lead to people who are strong enough to fix the problem, and thanks to their power they make a prosperous city and the cycle goes on.
it never ends, none of it.
90% of culture is borrowed. Anthropologists figured this out a long time ago. It's always been thus and humanity is doing alright. Anyway, culture IS human society, so it becomes impossible to discern the difference between life and art, and it doesn't matter as long as people are happy.
That's a passable - actually no, that's a flawed interpretation of history. For 500 years things have been improving fairly steadily - nothing like that has happened before.
+valar Improving in how we get knowledge and how technology improves.
But guess what? Human conduct has been almost the same, even if you try to fool yourself that humanity as a society has progressed from the previous times of the past it does actually repeat some of the same mistakes, like thinking wars are a good idea, repeating certain cycles of economic collapses, racism still being a thing for a quite amount of people, believing in religions even if they're demonstrated to be false, being pressured by the public even if there's evidence that is against the popular claim, etc.
So there is progress in some areas, but not in human interaction and our behavior is the same as it was centuries ago.
Thank you for articulating something that I've noticed but haven't been able to put into words.
Great video, thanks for making your arguments. I’d also like to add the element of personal resonance. While well written movies offer a new angle or take or refreshing observation on human condition, people will also always flock to a movie that resonated with them personally. The easiest and cheapest way for Hollywood to achieve that is nostalgia in my opinion. Main target audience now probably grew up in the 80s/90s - out come the strain of 80s throwback movies and tv shows. We’re reminded of our childhood where everything was easier, more fun and sadly long gone. Boom, you get a warm cosy feeling watching an 80s throwback movie. It might not be tonally focused, particularly well written or simply a mess, but they give us a nostalgic grin on our faces. Easier than creating a well-crafted script.
Another example is tropes that will definitely resonate with a large part of an audience at any time. Take Guardians of the galaxy. Here the trope is a bunch of lost misfits start working together and find an alternative family and sense of belonging that way. It totally resonated with me, even though many would perceive it to be a merely passable movie.
My guess is that this is why Hollywood gets away with producing passable movies. You just need to find a thing that resonates, triggers our emotions in the simplest, cheapest way, and it will make many (probably enough) people go watch the sequel.
I don't think having an abundance of "passable" movies is anything new. But nobody remembers them for long. GREAT movies and TERRIBLE movies resonate with us (understandably) while average movies are quickly forgotten. I think you'll find that there were A LOT of passable movies in 1997, 1977, and 1947.
Also, I'm not sure about the selection of clips. There were some very good movies in there so I ended up slightly confused.
It is the same with songs, books, TV shows and other things. So much of it is forgettable. The classics live on and get remembered fondly.
I think he's talking about the tendency people have to oversell and remember passable movies but shun anything great. it's always been there but it's gone worse in the past 10 years
I don't think it HAS gotten worse; at least, it MAY have in relation to the last X years. But if you go onto Amazon Prime and look at how many passable movies it has from the 30s - 60s. There is a slew of crime/ gangster movies from the 30s, murder mysteries (40s, 50s), noir-style detective stories (50s) and the campy alien sci-fi stuff (60s). Then there's all the slasher movies of the 80s - sure, many were less than 'passable' but ask yourself this: 'is the Nightmare on Elm Street or Friday 13th franchise actually GOOD?'.
I also disagree with Nerd Writer's point that all great movies teach us something about the human condition or show us Truth; this is far too subjective and just because we may feel moved by a scene does not necessarily make it 'Truth'. 'It's a Wonderful Life' is often considered a great film but it doesn't deal in fundamental truths, but in romantic fantasy. In various ways, 'Wonderful Life' COULD be considered a 'passable' film. The same can be said about 'Love Story' ("love means never having to say you're sorry"... yeah, but does it!). And what about Donner's 'Superman'? In many ways, THAT can be seen to make the trappings of a so-called 'passable' movie.
I just think that the term 'passable' is ultimately projecting one's own frustrations onto the movie rather than admitting that the movie just didn't click with you. For some, Love Story IS 'passable' but for others it does reflect their experiences and so resonates with them on a personal level.
Oh really.
No because the age of hollywood making a movie to tell a story in a meaningful way is history. Might be a few minor splashes in the pond here and there but its all sequels prequels rehashes reboots and remakes from here on out.
I was honestly having a little trouble deciphering which movies were supposed to be considered Passable during some of these cut-aways. Some of them are my favorite movies.
that's just bad, editing, you don't confuse your audience to make them think; you do so if you don't know how to edit. if you wanna teach an audience something you don´t ramble, you make everything as clear as possible. Of course, you don´t wanna make things too obvious, you wanna challenge your audience but not by giving them an incomprehensible piece of shit.
Forgive me for replying to an old comment, but this is exactly right. I feel like the message and editing had an interesting idea behind them but they were both delivered awfully.
I´m not angry, im giving criticism, the video certainly has a potential good point to make but the delivery is poor
Same here for me.
John Wick, Arrival, A beautiful Mind, the first Jurassic park film - they're about the only films here that aren't meant to be either passable or total shit.
I think Bicycle Thieves definitely captures those nuances of emotion. It's such a great resource for filmmakers to see how to capture that.
You have hit the nail on the head! I have been considering this point for a few years myself now and couldn't put it into words until I stumbled upon your channel. You produce very insightful critiques.
Stories should reflect reality, but stories have started to reflect other stories, therefore their inspiration is getting shallower and shallower.
Love ur vids but this video talks a lot without really saying anything lol
What? There was a very clear message in this video. What wasn't clear?
Hello ! To me it says everything, like if I knew it already but didn't really realised.
Lol no ^^
+
Viwe Mbava or maybe you just zoned out because you didn't understand ?
Did you just call Interstellar passable? Get ready for a fight!
In comparison to Nolan's other masterpieces, Interstellar is a little all over the place tonally and not all the plot points really connect/make sense in the end
Charles Kuhn yeah!
taste is totally subjective, but from an analytical perspective, interstellar is a complete mess. it feels like three separate films, the tone is all over the place, and what was clearly a fantastic concept is swept up in incoherent emotional nonsense.
i fucking love interstellar, but can totally see where he is coming from. I watched it twice, once at home and once at the cinema. In the cinema, I was completely immersed and connected with the film easily. At home? Not so much
That ending. That FUCKING ending though. Nolan, I love ya', but why?
I would love a list of all ur recommended movies that are beyond passable! Really enjoy ur vids!
I’ve been looking for a video like this for quite some time. Thank you for the insight!!!
In summary: the problem with passable movies is the extensive use of clichés
Gustavo Santos Except the only specific cliche he references is unrealistic expository dialogue, which he for some reason talks about as though it constitutes some sort of reference to another film. I was seriously confused as to whether he was mismatching his clips with his audio in that sequence.
Gustavo Santos I agree with Troy. I wasn't entirely sure of what he was trying to convey. I love the summary that you collected but the presentation didn't come together cohesively and was described with (imo) irrelevant adjectives. Maybe that's my reaction listening and driving at the same time...
No, the problem is that passable movies should not exist. Especially because there is so many of them. To many of us these passable movies are "bad movies" but for the majority of people those are good movies which means we will only get more of them.
Steven A. I recently watched Nerdwriter’s intertextuality video; so I was able to anticipated his conclusion here.
In both videos he argues that intertextual references, or general Hollywood cliches tend to be used by filmmakers as a pointless decoration or lazy substitute for scenes which would serve a story’s central ideas.
Thus many of the films he referenced appear to be made up of cliches and/or parts from other films rather than essential scenes which would serve the central idea of their story.
Those kind of films are definitely “passable” as a complete movie, but do not make for a great story.
is this like half the video? coz it feels like it
Same impression here.
It's a very passable video
I guess that's the point.
I love how Arrival and John Wick were on the background while you were talking about good movies. Two of my favorite movies ever 💕
There's also that thing they do in recent comedy movies where they know they have a funny cast, so they just ask them to improvise pretty much the whole thing, so you end up not with characters in a movie, but with comedians taken out of their environment and inserted in a movie. It's what went wrong with the most recent Ghostbusters, that cast could have done great, if they'd actually had a script and it wasn't a just collection of improvised lines lightly cobbled together into a sketch show pretending to be a movie. There's that scene where the characters are talking about some gadgets, I believe, where you have Hemsworth just wander into camera and just be there, no lines, no in-character reactions, just him hovering there as if nobody told the actor the cameras where rolling and he thought it was a rehearsal, it's such a weird scene and it encapsulates one of the things that's wrong with current comedies, just because they're comedies the makers seem to think it's fine if they're aimless as long as there are jokes in them.
You hit the nail on the head. I think this is why i tend towards independent films or even documentaries because the stories feel so much more genuine and real, instead of trying to mimic what a big block buster movie is supposed to be like.
Ingrid Jansson oh really.
Ingrid Jansson Well, excuse me for liking fireworks!!! And the degradation of culture!!!!
After a fire, life finds a way
Give me blockbusters! Before and after the FIRE 🔥
I agree. But what makes me sad is that the problem is not industry. Is the people who watches the movies. Industry only wants money. If the really good ones aren't making as much as the crappy ones, why should they make great things instead of money?
Your comment suggests that Black or White should be a movie you’ll enjoy
My biggest problem with nowdays art is that a lot of people tries so hard to be good and acclaimed that at the end they don't focus on pure emotions and more of what oscars they're going to collect
"The best stories make such acute observations about humanity that they can show us things about ourselves that we didn't know or teach us how to articulate those things against a vast unintelligible anxiety"
Leonardo Ochoa Ruiz oh really.
Great observation but why the quotations
+Young MC oh shit it's from this video I'm stupid
Time to bust a move.
The most worthy quote of this video
@4:44 this sequence of edits is tooooo good. nerdwriterrrrrrrrr you are toooo fierce.
I love that as soon as you start talking about good movies, you show clips from Arrival and John Wick. While entirely different genres and directors (and intentions), they are truly tonally focused, totally coherent stories, without a frame wasted. I love how you analyse - and appreciate - films.
INTERSTELLAR IS NOT A PASSABLE FILM
no. It isn't.
It is, but that's not the point.
I HAVE AN OPINION. ALSO MY CAPSLOCK KEY BROKE
Adam Frisk not as traumatised as your victims
Interstellar is mediocre at worst.
Movies that will come out on TV the next year with a three star rating in the TV guide
Woah
What the fu-
I'm in love with your channel, BUT INTERSTELLAR, MISTER?!
calling interstellar "passable" is generous
Interstellar is pretensions trash with no narrative structure, a completely muddled aesthetic and terrible writing with unmemorable characters and the tendency to say with it's text what it should imply with it's subtext.
@@willnash7907 yeah, man, "pretensions trash" is my least favorite kind of trash. Nonetheless, sir, I find your criticisms, whilst on 99% consisting of vague buzz words, to be unremarkably contradictory, because you're first calling it out for not having a narrative, and then proceed to call it out for having too much text and not enough subtext. Which is a pretty stupid criticism for someone to make in one sentence. Narrative is the objective form in which the movie tells its story - the one you comprehend on a surface level. And not having any narrative is what usually applies to movies where the subtext prevails above every other aspect of storytelling. A common example of movie with a vaguely defined narrative driven by underlying subtext would be Under The Skin, a movie most people remember for having butt naked Scarlett Johansson, but in actuality is about an alien disguising as a human.
But more obscure example of cinema with vague narrative would be the Dardanne Duo movies, which are so outside the narrative, most of those movies lie on improvisation. So I don't see how exactly Interstellar can be free of narrative yet have completely comprehensible surface-level details about its story to you. And also, what the heck you mean by "aesthetic"? It's a space movie. Does it look like a space movie? Well, judging by the amount of recognition its art design and S&VFX effects received, it looks good for its premise.
@@antona.8659
Alright, if there is anything a writer just has to live up to it's making sure his "buzz words" carry meaning so here goes:
Let's tackle the buzz words in order of appearance:
First and probably most objective is "No narrative structure" (read: very poor narrative structure, but communicated through an impossible exaggeration for emphasis). What this means is that the story is told in an undisciplined way that undermines itself and ultimately fails to build up what is compelling and capture the viewers attention. There is no sense of building momentum, investment doesn't slowly develop through a connection to the characters and the world they live in through well engineered scenes of rising intensity and tension doesn't properly rise and fall slowly upwards for the third act climax.
Second is "a completely muddled aesthetic". Considering that this is one of the few areas where big budget releases maintain their steep quality standard I find this particularly unforgivable. The movies can look good and even stunning in a few of it's scenes but it has no sense of style. The color pallet seems to be chosen at random for each scene, characters don't have aesthetic leitmotifs, very distinct locations are not instantly recognizable by the way they are shot and their architectural style. Beyond that quite a few scenes are so poorly directed that they just look ugly, or like they belong in a different film, especially during the first part of the movie which clearly got less attention. I think if I was given a day to go through the movie a few times I could present a good objective dissertation on how it fails objectively but thats not what I am going for here. Generally aesthetics are particularly subjective so I would not find dissent here surprising.
Third, "Terrible writing and unmemorable characters". I don't think there is anything to uncover here. Writing is the one part of movies that I can dissect from a professional perspective and feel confident about it. What part of the dialogue can you remember of this film? What idea did it communicate that was so good or so elegantly put that it stuck in your memory? I would be surprised if you could quote from memory. The characters, being mostly comprised of their words and actions are the same. I could not tell you two things about them after I walked off the theater and I think the same would apply to someone who thought he just watched a masterpiece. As simple as that, bad writing, bad characters.
Fourth, "The tendency to say with it's text what it should imply with it's subtext". This is a pet peeve of mine. In the climax of the film, in a mess of impressive but meaningless visuals and in the emotional climax that whimpers like a balloon off it's string (who are these people again and why is this guy crying? There was something about his kid but you seem to be more interested in making up physics and showing me a space themed amusement park) we hear a voice over explain to us the main message of the film in terms of metaphysical nonsense. If you wanna know what "pretensions trash" is then take note because this is about as obvious as they get)
(Yes, It's "pretentious". I normally don't mind making fun of spelling errors but this is a pretty clear dyslexia case so if it's a joke it's in poor taste)
Generally all the problems of the film seem to reflect not a lack of effort but of focus. Naturalistic acting and dialogue at times clash with it's attempts to be poetic and lyrical later. Drab presentation clashes with the big spectacles planned for later and creates an overall confused aesthetic. The story doesn't know where it's going, beginning spread out among many characters at a long low intensity boil in it's future vision of earth setting the viewr up for a contemplative sociological story not the dramatic relationship between two characters it forgot to characterize. Overall a movie that really wants you to listen to it's saying nothing and wants to impress more than it wants to tell a good story.
Just to think that "Man from earth" absorbed me a million times more with five characters chatting in a room and a budged 1/800th of this.
Such a fanboy
2:27 is my dude really calling interstellar passable
Yeah for me that movie has very little fluff. And Murph’s arc was really good I thought
*Exactly!* And everything is nothing and nothing is everywhere.
Yeah he said a lot without saying anything.
Did he refer to interstellar as passable?
Interstellar is passable.
Jean the Second you just didn't understand it
Alan, I personally understand the physics of what it was trying to do. The fact is that it didn't actually match up to the science.
Dino Saur I wasn't specifically talking about the science and the physics of the movie, I don't even understand that. But I'm talking about the story as a whole.
That movie has SCIENCE! NO WAY ITS PASSABLE!!!
No that movie was trash.
You really hit the nail on the head, and could have gone even deeper. The trend you're discussing overlaps perfectly with the era of remakes, pre-planned franchises, and cinematic universes, where films reference other films instead of an individual filmmaker's INTEREST in other films. References can be amazing in the hands of a Tarantino, Carpenter, Wes Anderson, or even in cheap genre work. But when cinema history becomes emotional shorthand instead of intentional world-building, we're obviously left feeling emotionally shorthanded. One of your most astute videos, thank you!
I love this. I'm writing a film wireframe now and the reminder of what makes a film great was encouraging. thanks!
Ok it is official. I have watched all of your video's. My favorites: Sienfeld, Holocene, Private Ryan and The economy. Loved them all, but those stuck out. Keep up the great work.
seinfeld had a movie?
It's wrong to suggest that tonal-inconsistency is to blame for passable movies. Some of the best and most beloved movies of all time are tonally-inconsistent; from the screwball comedy scenes in Hitchcock's suspense movies, to Pulp Fiction and it's constant veering between witty dialogue, kitsch pastiche and suspense. Tonally-inconsistent movies can still feel like part of someone's singular vision, if they're done right.
I suspect what you really mean is that movies are prone to hedge their bets now; they try to get as many butts on seats as possible by making movies that are essentially just stitched-together bits of other movies that people liked. These films try to please everyone, and end up pleasing no-one. But really, it's timid film execs who are the problem.
neonatalpenguin What you are talking about, my sir, is not tonal inconsistency but an uneven rhythm.
Nena, I think you've articulated what I was trying to say a little better than I did. There isn’t always an easy dividing line between movies that shoehorn tonally-disparate scenes together to cynically maximise the potential audience (as with the Tomorrowland clip used here), and movies that succeed at doing several different things because the creative talent behind those movies is knowledgeable and enthusiastic enough to pull it off.
Theoretically, it's possible to make a fun action-adventure movie about Batman villains teaming up to take on some even worse villain. I feel like Suicide Squad was watered down by multiple voices demanding that the film appeal to as many different demographics as possible, that it imitate Guardians Of The Galaxy, and that it appeal to Will Smith's ego by adding a mawkish “proper acting” subplot.
Nerdwriter’s “passable movies” criteria wouldn’t allow for a movie that includes a dance sequence, a five-minute social-realist conversation about burgers, and a scene in which a woman draws a cartoon square with her fingers. But Pulp Fiction does all those things, and stands out from the crowd (even as it takes inspiration from several other movies). Cross-breeding genres can really push cinema forward (Heck, the original Star Wars was a mash-up of 1930s Flash Gordon serials, Kurosawa’s Sumurai movies and John Ford’s The Searchers). I’d hate for that kind of thing to end as a reaction against lazy Hollywood screenwriters.
I guess what I'm saying is; I'm not convinced that tonal-inconsistency is always a bad thing. And I'd hate for people to stop making films that attempt to mash together different tones, genres and techniques (the way that Pulp Fiction and Star Wars, among many other classics, do) because they believe that what's most important is to make "a movie that succeeds at what it sets out to do". I think that play-it-safe attitude ultimately leads to more "passable movies".
Thank you. I was trying to piece together what nerdwriter1 was trying to say in his video, and it just didn't click together for me. I think I get it now.
I think that's a good point, that it seems like some writers are learning about human nature not from observing real life humans, but from observing characters in other stories. Sometimes you come across a character that feels more like a collection of the author's favorite tropes than a person.
OH! I love that choice for the final clip!!! "The Imitation Game..." Nice! Love your videos!
I think everyone in the comments is just angry that he didn't like Suicide Squad. Sorry people but that movie was definitely more than just passable, it was awful.
less*
Aw, I liked it. I went in with such low expectations, and I see this duct-taped together ball of shit and sprinkles, and it's trying it's little retarded heart out and I ended up rooting for it.
It's great to like it! Enjoying things is great! But the way people were rooting against anyone that hated it makes it seem like people don't care if a movie is bad.
What do you mean "everyone"? Most people agree Suicide Squad is shit.
Please. It was most certainly a passable film. If you think it was awful, you've probably seen a total of three films and have no idea what the word means cinematically.
OMG so much to talk about that!
First: Brazilians always think our movies suck and American (or French, or whatever) movies are great. But that's because we have access to almost a 100% of Brazilians movies, while we only get the top movies from abroad (or at least the average ones).
Second: I firmly believe we are in a "did you get it?" moment in human history. I can pinpoint Tarantino as the ultimate god of this Zeitgeist, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't the first one to do it in movies. Nerd culture as a whole is strongly based in references to obscure media, so... being this the "time of the nerds", it's logical that we trail that path. It's so often to leave a press screening and hear the movie critics saying "Did you get that reference about Star Trek?" or "Did you see the reference to Godard?" -- eager to show off other how much they know. This is brought to movies by, guess who, writers themselves! Once they see people appreciate that, they may tend to insert more of those things just to please the current "did you get it?" trend.
Last (and kind of related to the first one, ironically using what I criticised in 2): Maybe aren't we just nostalgic? Feeling the same thing that Owen Wilson's character felt in Midnight in Paris? When we watch old movies, they seem great not only because they're classics, but also because they *survived* time. Someone might have already done the math about it, but I would guess it's always 1 or 2% of movies that outlive their generation. The only thing different is that we are living in THIS one, so we see almost a 100% of movies made.
I honestly hate long comments, but your channel is simply food for the brain! It always makes me think, so I had to type this. Thank you for talking about this, I was feeling like I was the only one not amused by today's "classics". And congratulations on your videos, they're great!
+
Great post!
I wish your channel videos were in English so I wouldn't have to learn a new language.
Thanks! I have some in English, because I did some interviews with actors and directors, like Tom Hanks, Felicity Jones, Ron Howard and Chloe Grace Moretz. Maybe I should create a playlist of those...
Do you have any suggestions for Brazilian movies besides City of God? I have Brazilian friends but they hate their movies, go figure. City of God is good but it is always the number one when people suggest Brazilian movies.
Totally get your point! I see most movies that come out on theaters, and I review a good chunk of them. While reviewing a movie one tends to analyze it with a little more care and focus, which in turn should make one remember a movie pretty well most of the time. However, in a couple of weeks, months or years, the movies that will stick with me are only the best and the worst, probably because they resulted in a bigger emotional response, one way or another. Furthermore, it is very difficult for me to determine when a movie ascends to the level of a "classic".I would consider Jurrassic Park and Pulp Fiction classics, but I would not consider Titanic a classic, even though those films are only 3 years apart. I don't know, maybe it is because the first two were more influential inside their genres, even though they are in a similar or even lower level of quality when compared to Titanic.
Think about this:
Twenty years ago TV shows usually had a 1 minute long(If not longer) intro sequence.
Some of those had an iconic theme music to them, one that if you heard it you knew immediately "This is from that show".
That's no longer the case, most shows are told by the people in charge to have a 5 to 10 second opening card at most. They want more time for more commercials.
You put Interstellar and The Imitation Game in the same category with Jurassic World and Kevin Hart movies? Bullshit.
I love the fact that you put Interstellar as an example of a passable movie and Arrival as an example of a good one.
Especially since Arrival hasn't come out yet...
+Cal6009 lol it definitely has!!! I saw it few weeks back ;)
And I wholly agree Arrival is the better film by far.
I'd call these movies "watchable," not really passable.
I'd call them Popcorn flicks.
have you seen a kevin hart movie?
I'm confident that many people would tell you that "watchable" and "passable" are synonymous.
Django Cribbs This doesn't even get into movies that are acceptable, adequate, inoffensive, or permissible!
BardicLiving
I dunno, I think "adequate" would be suitable only if an agenda had been previously settled on and the film barely met said agenda.
"Inoffensive" just means it hasn't got any nasty triggering words in it, doesn't speak for it's actual merit as a film.
And a "permissible" movie is just a film planned for release in Islamic countries that doesn't contain any characters called Mohammed.
I'll give you "acceptable" though.
5:01 Tropes. You're talking about tropes.
A person with this level of editing skill making a comedically-toned video feels like watching a piece of art made for you as a gift.
"I find this video passable. I'm a fucking GENIUS!"
- Redditors
thats funny
This video is totally passable.
This comment said it.
Oh the irony!
I could feel the anxiety behind it, maybe because I empathize/agree or maybe it’s just projection on my part.
That was good. Wasn’t expecting such a good analysis. I’ve observed the same but you explained it really well. Thanks
Well.. as a professor once said to my class, it is already a huge accomplishment just getting a movie to the end line and into theaters.
thing is nowadays it isn't... we live in an age in which good movies struggle to get into theaters, and to have your film in a theater means one (or maybe two) of three things: you're an already renowned director, your film is an adaptation of whatever source material you have or you're making mediocre franchise films. independent filmmaking doesn't have spots in theaters nowadays... if boogie nights were to come out this year it wouldn't make it to theaters, same thing applies to reservoir dogs and many other great films made by independent filmmakers at the time. this day and age of cinema is killing the pta, tarantino, scorsese, tarkovsky, kubrick, bergman, hitchcock, welles, etc. of the future... so n, getting a movie into theaters isn't an achievement right now, id say the real achievement is making a movie because you have a vision you want to accomplish, not because you want to get it into theaters and make money.
hey thanks for existing
hey thanks
@@thomasyu3842 He wasn't talking about you.
Triggered at 90% of the movies he calls passable.
Rating movies, as with any other art form, is subjective. But I'm sure you could make your own list of "passable" movies.
Tom Leonard Yes, I know it's subjective I'm still just voicing my thoughts.
I think it's a bit unfair to rate Interstellar as "passable". Lyk it's not perfect, and even tho it was one of my favorites of 2014, some decisions of Nolan made me go "uhhh what?? OK". But the sheer ambition of the film alone wins it points far from "passable". This is a film about everyday science we take for granted. It no surprise then that the movie led to the publishing of ACTUAL scientific papers. This is something that will ACTUALLY make the world a better place beyond just a great time at the cinemas.
same here. but they sell.
I think he placed that film poorly, I believe he meant to say it wasn't focused, not that it was passable. Interstellar was a good movie, but being honest, it wasn't focused at all, it was all over the place.
As someone who does math all the time, I can assure you... I've never EVER done math on a window.
You don't entertain an audience that wants to watch a pretty face and could care less about the math.
@@pabloapostar7275 I could certainly do it better than some of these movies.
I believe this is the same problem that also distinguishes good writers from mediocre/bad ones. You only have a chance of becoming a really good writer if you're able to draw sincerely from your own experience and not just from other books and forms of media. That's not to say that a good writer cannot use tropes or other conventions but they always have to really put their heart in it and/or put some personal spin on it, otherwise it just doesn't ring true and doesn't make you feel any real emotions, it's like pre-cooked food - it fills you up but also leaves you kind of empty. This is why teenage writers are very rarely publishable - not because they have no talent or skill, but because they tend to rely on copying other people's stories, and it takes a while for them to really develop their personal truth, and therefore their personal style. I suppose it's exactly the same with movies, and it's a reason why I can rarely connect with characters anymore - it's like they're just cardboard cutouts, they are "products" based on a tried-and-tested formula rather than "creations", let alone "people." Doctor Strange is the most striking example of that for me, ugh, that film was so depressingly empty. I really hope people will eventually get tired of that and more genuine, internally consistent stories will make a come-back.
I can spend my entire life mildly entertained watching "passable" movies, which is exactly why I don't. They are in such surplus and by definition provide absolutely no lasting impact. Where a great film will change and shape your opinions as an individual, and a bad film can at least garner strong reactions from you if not teach you about its mistakes, a mediocre film is just by definition a waste of time.
Passable films upset me because they can so easily evoke emotions but in the most generic ways. Unless a movie is new levels of terrible, most people will always be repulsed at a scene of kid being abused. So it's doubly upsetting when I've set through a mediocre film that was generically emotional. It's the uneasy sensation of being made to feel while at the same time, gaining no enrichment from it whatsoever.
They upset me because they leave me with my imagination in overdrive considering what it could have been.
We live in a sea of mediocrity
There seems to be an epidemic of people being critics. I don't want to watch an art film every time I go to the cinema, sometimes I want Dino's fighting! >:D
plenty of critics love Shlock
Yeh exactly, if every movie was an groundbreaking art film then they would become the cliché.
PaperProjectFilms But movies about dinos fighting can and should still be good though. It's not just arthouse films that are "great". Popcorn movies can be too. See: Pixar films
But when do you ever see an art film in the theater?
That is a good point, they did raise the bar.
That’s so amazing in every levels. Thank you so much for your deep analysis
“Passable movies” are prevalent for two reasons:
It is extremely arduous to make even a fair movie, much less a great one.
Most people are entertained by those fair movies, in fact don’t want exceptional ones, so why spend the money and time on quality when it’s more profitable to not.
Exactly. They just put in the gory action, highly paid actor, and hit woman. Think about it. Most of these crap movies use those as a base and build a crap story revolving around that. They r just made to entertain the average person who’s there just to see the gore, women, and famous actor.
@@markp9366 Most popular movies don't have much gore, gore leads to an R rating and R rating can be box office poison
Wait, are you telling me that Interstellar is passable?
I think Interstellar is shit. Passable is a compliment.
oooooooft strong words but you're display picture is from the greatest Sci-Fi of all time (and my favourite film), so understandable. i think you just opened the pod bay doors to some mad youtube comment section hate
Neo-Mad Dog I thought it was boring. To me, films have to do one or both of two things: (1) Make me care or (2) impress me, make me appreciate the craft. I didn't care at all about the film and the while the visuals were nice, it was nothing mind blowing.
interstellar is in my opinion just alright.. watched it once, won't ever watch again.
Interstellar's big problem is that it's rather unfocused - the stuff that happens on Earth with the son and daughter is not very interesting but it takes up too much of the running time. The film also has a habit of introducing unnecessary problems and implausibilities into its own plot, and I don't mean the space physics stuff. Things like: the reason people need to leave Earth didn't need to be so complicated; the main character didn't need the test-flight crash backstory; the bit about the moon landings being "faked" so that people would stop thinking about space science; NASA being an underground defunded organisation that can still muster the resources for a space mission; NASA just happening to be on Coop's doorstep... But all the stuff in space makes it worthwhile for me. Plus the astonishing visuals and score.
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
planesrift He ain't wrong though 😂
Yeah, well, this was on, you know, his channel, dude.
If I could like this comment twice, I would.
LOL Good one!
Am I missing something...I didn't enjoy the Big Lebowski that much :/
passable movie is like a normal conversation, it has its focus in the first couple of minutes but gets a bit to nothingness little by little the longer the conversation holds, into an abdrupt ending because one of them need something to do.
it feels like the writer write the story in a discussion, and in the next discussion instead of focusing on fixing the thing they already add, they focus on what could they add to the table or to replace to.
it's like a constant conversation
I’d love to see nerdwriters top 50 Films list
Bad and passable movies are important. So good movies can stick out more.
Lam Ham when everyone's super...no one will be
Gamehaccer5 did you just quote the incredibles?
Gamehaccer5 art nowdays
Alia Cutting he did, and it applies perfectly to so many things. Just replace the word super and presto.
But nowadays people give more positive attention to bad and passable movies then they do good films
This felt more like a personal way to list recent movies that you didnt enjoy
Ada Le true))
Did you not listen to his words?
This video is passable
I think it's really funny how this video talks about passable movies is in itself honestly only a passable video
Was so happy to see Tarkovsky movie here in a huge contrast of not being a passable movie, but a masterpiece. And he did it in a best movie-making manner - show, don't tell. One of my favorites scenes