Streaming is just so ephemeral...I mean, I have to admit, until this article I had not even HEARD of Rebel Moon, let alone watched it, and I'm a movie fan. Admittedly I guess I'm more focused on prestige pictures at this time of year, but still, I hate how "blockbusters" on Netflix don't bust any blocks because they're not events in the …
Streaming is just so ephemeral...I mean, I have to admit, until this article I had not even HEARD of Rebel Moon, let alone watched it, and I'm a movie fan. Admittedly I guess I'm more focused on prestige pictures at this time of year, but still, I hate how "blockbusters" on Netflix don't bust any blocks because they're not events in the slightest. They fade into oblivion and make no mark on filmgoing society (let alone pop culture) in the slightest.
Me saw brothers over holidays, and middle brother is luddite who not own computer, and still watch cable, and me reminded when me talk to him that there stark cultural divide between cable-only monsters and streaming-only monsters. He have no idea shows like Severance or Andor exist, and me have no idea about shows where people sell things in pawn shops, or conspiracy theories marketed as History Channel. It just separate worlds.
Along similar lines, my pass Redbox in local supermarket, and it seem like it full of fake movies someone made up for Seinfeld episode. But people who rent those movies probably (inexplicably) not get excited for Korean-language relationship dramas. Me suspect that unfathomable other half know all about Rebel Moon, whereas me saw couple of ads pop up on internet and immediately put it out of mind.
For sure we always have to be mindful that we are not representative, but I'm a teacher in a public high school so I get a sense of what normies (at least, 14-18 year old normies) are watching and I promise you, they are way more aware of Songbirds and Snakes, Mean Girls, and Saltburn than the Extraction and Rebel Moons of the world.
This is so true. My tastes are incredibly middle-to-lowbrow by commenting-on-a-film-critics'-Substack standards---"the low-hanging-fruit cable dramas everyone watches". My sister is into the kind of "because he's MYYYY butler!" network TV that is just downright alien to me.
Mama Cookie is obsessed with Young Sheldon for some reason, and me get that occasional reminder that, oh right, this show me have almost zero awareness of (and its predecessor) is hugely popular with Mr. & Mrs. America and ships at sea.
Side story: when Cookie Jr. was 5 or 6, he kept seeing ads for Big Bang Theory, and said he wanted to watch it, and turned it off after ten minutes because he was angry it not was about actual Big Bang. We ended up binge-watching Cosmos instead.
I've watched a lot of Big Bang Theory, and find it funny 10% of the time, dreary 80% of the time, and morally reprehensible 10% of the time. I mean, it's a Chuck Lorre sitcom. The first couple of seasons have an energy to them and the sitcom-vet cast is sitcom-vet funny. I've watched a little of Young Sheldon and don't find there to be much to it - it's just bland - almost like a Simpsons episode from the '10s. My concern isn't that it's not funny---my concern is that I'm not sure there was anything in there that was *meant* to be funny.
But, yes, the divide is a real thing. My sister recently branched out and tried a new-to-her show that is, by her standards, incredibly postmodern and adventurous: "The Office". And, honestly, I think that's really cool. We only broaden our horizons by broadening them.
> I'm not sure there was anything in there that was *meant* to be funny.
And me think that part of appeal to Mama Cookie. It just heartwarming slice of life with occasional joke. But she more invested in characters than show being funny. And that pretty easy trap for ostensible comedy show to fall into — past two seasons of Bob's Burgers have gone down that road.
And me agree that broadening horizons little by little always good thing. Me worked in bookstore years ago, and there was one very popular title in romance section that was straight-up porn. (Me not can remember actual title) It was hard to keep on shelf, because people bought it and people stole it. So when people ask for it, me would redirect them to romance author that was salacious, but not straight-up porn.
Then when people would ask for romance recommendations, me would steer them towards "chick-lit" type women's fiction. If me had been in that job long enough, me was confident me could get at least one customer from porn up to Toni Morrison given enough upward moves.
And US Office was postmodern and adventurous compared to American sitcoms that came before. That show debuted in Two and Half Men era, and it was very adventurous by comparison. It only seem watered-down and lowest-common-denominator because we all watched high wire act that was UK Office first.
What gets me with streaming is that the size of the audience is inherently smaller. I'm an occasional subscriber to Netflix, but don't have it right now. My sister, mentioned in another comment, doesn't have it. Most of my friends don't have it. Making movies used to be in part about getting famous---James Cameron made Titanic in part for money, in part for passion, and in part because he wanted to be king of the world. A movie on a service most people don't have access to is never going to achieve the cultural ubiquity of a Titanic or an Avatar, and conquering pop culture used to be a big part of the point.
Is that even a thing nowadays in our more fragmented media? Maybe not. But maybe if anyone were still swinging for the fences, someone would hit a home run.
Agreed. We have a critical establishment that wants tiny movies that no one watches (look at the Oscar winners of the last 15 years, or the latest Sight and Sound poll. We have movies made for increasingly smaller segments of the population, as you allude to. And it sucks because film is one of the truly great mainstream arts. Or, at least, it was
I'm of two minds about your first point---is it the critical establishment's fault for liking small movies, or is it the industry's fault for not making those movies into big movies?
One of my all-time favourite movies is Midnight Cowboy. It's insane to me that a movie as out-there as it was enjoyed either critical or box-office success - wouldn't happen today on either front. Now, in terms of gay themes and artistry and pushing the envelope, Moonlight is the Midnight Cowboy of its day. But Moonlight does not have an "I'm walkin' here!" moment. Used to be, Hollywood put out movies with challenging content, and then people watched them. This doesn't happen as much anymore. Losing the monoculture is great in some regards, but it is a loss.
Moonlight has no stars, whereas MC had scorching hot Dustin Hoffman, and it's not as immediately engaging a movie either (though I think they're both very good).
But I'm not looking for "challenging content." It's kind of a weird assumption that film-people make that good movies must CHALLENGE people. I just want more great movies, and preferably ones that a lot of people see
I don't necessarily mean "challenging" in, like, a snooty cineaste way---just in the sense of being out of someone's comfort zone. Like this:
Back in my parents' generation, '60s, '70s, one or two movies a week came to our smallish suburban town, and my parents would go see them, because...those were the movies. Not super-into watching a Jon Voight-Bob Balaban sex scene? You saw that movie anyway, because that's what was playing. Not super-into horror? You saw The Exorcist, because you liked movies and that's what was playing.
With so much more "content" now, most of us self-select out of watching anything that doesn't feel like it was curated carefully for us. There are increasingly movies for you and movies for me, and many, many fewer movies for us.
Yeah, I hear you. Until I saw you did the same, I was also about to put CONTENT in big scare quotes because that's where we're at. The Holdovers is probably the best movie I saw last year and it's noteworthy that it is self-consciously a 1970s movie (ahhhhh what a decade) and, sadly, not noteworthy for the waves it made at the box office .
Streaming is just so ephemeral...I mean, I have to admit, until this article I had not even HEARD of Rebel Moon, let alone watched it, and I'm a movie fan. Admittedly I guess I'm more focused on prestige pictures at this time of year, but still, I hate how "blockbusters" on Netflix don't bust any blocks because they're not events in the slightest. They fade into oblivion and make no mark on filmgoing society (let alone pop culture) in the slightest.
Me saw brothers over holidays, and middle brother is luddite who not own computer, and still watch cable, and me reminded when me talk to him that there stark cultural divide between cable-only monsters and streaming-only monsters. He have no idea shows like Severance or Andor exist, and me have no idea about shows where people sell things in pawn shops, or conspiracy theories marketed as History Channel. It just separate worlds.
Along similar lines, my pass Redbox in local supermarket, and it seem like it full of fake movies someone made up for Seinfeld episode. But people who rent those movies probably (inexplicably) not get excited for Korean-language relationship dramas. Me suspect that unfathomable other half know all about Rebel Moon, whereas me saw couple of ads pop up on internet and immediately put it out of mind.
For sure we always have to be mindful that we are not representative, but I'm a teacher in a public high school so I get a sense of what normies (at least, 14-18 year old normies) are watching and I promise you, they are way more aware of Songbirds and Snakes, Mean Girls, and Saltburn than the Extraction and Rebel Moons of the world.
This is so true. My tastes are incredibly middle-to-lowbrow by commenting-on-a-film-critics'-Substack standards---"the low-hanging-fruit cable dramas everyone watches". My sister is into the kind of "because he's MYYYY butler!" network TV that is just downright alien to me.
Mama Cookie is obsessed with Young Sheldon for some reason, and me get that occasional reminder that, oh right, this show me have almost zero awareness of (and its predecessor) is hugely popular with Mr. & Mrs. America and ships at sea.
Side story: when Cookie Jr. was 5 or 6, he kept seeing ads for Big Bang Theory, and said he wanted to watch it, and turned it off after ten minutes because he was angry it not was about actual Big Bang. We ended up binge-watching Cosmos instead.
Excellent kid.
I've watched a lot of Big Bang Theory, and find it funny 10% of the time, dreary 80% of the time, and morally reprehensible 10% of the time. I mean, it's a Chuck Lorre sitcom. The first couple of seasons have an energy to them and the sitcom-vet cast is sitcom-vet funny. I've watched a little of Young Sheldon and don't find there to be much to it - it's just bland - almost like a Simpsons episode from the '10s. My concern isn't that it's not funny---my concern is that I'm not sure there was anything in there that was *meant* to be funny.
But, yes, the divide is a real thing. My sister recently branched out and tried a new-to-her show that is, by her standards, incredibly postmodern and adventurous: "The Office". And, honestly, I think that's really cool. We only broaden our horizons by broadening them.
> I'm not sure there was anything in there that was *meant* to be funny.
And me think that part of appeal to Mama Cookie. It just heartwarming slice of life with occasional joke. But she more invested in characters than show being funny. And that pretty easy trap for ostensible comedy show to fall into — past two seasons of Bob's Burgers have gone down that road.
And me agree that broadening horizons little by little always good thing. Me worked in bookstore years ago, and there was one very popular title in romance section that was straight-up porn. (Me not can remember actual title) It was hard to keep on shelf, because people bought it and people stole it. So when people ask for it, me would redirect them to romance author that was salacious, but not straight-up porn.
Then when people would ask for romance recommendations, me would steer them towards "chick-lit" type women's fiction. If me had been in that job long enough, me was confident me could get at least one customer from porn up to Toni Morrison given enough upward moves.
And US Office was postmodern and adventurous compared to American sitcoms that came before. That show debuted in Two and Half Men era, and it was very adventurous by comparison. It only seem watered-down and lowest-common-denominator because we all watched high wire act that was UK Office first.
What gets me with streaming is that the size of the audience is inherently smaller. I'm an occasional subscriber to Netflix, but don't have it right now. My sister, mentioned in another comment, doesn't have it. Most of my friends don't have it. Making movies used to be in part about getting famous---James Cameron made Titanic in part for money, in part for passion, and in part because he wanted to be king of the world. A movie on a service most people don't have access to is never going to achieve the cultural ubiquity of a Titanic or an Avatar, and conquering pop culture used to be a big part of the point.
Is that even a thing nowadays in our more fragmented media? Maybe not. But maybe if anyone were still swinging for the fences, someone would hit a home run.
Agreed. We have a critical establishment that wants tiny movies that no one watches (look at the Oscar winners of the last 15 years, or the latest Sight and Sound poll. We have movies made for increasingly smaller segments of the population, as you allude to. And it sucks because film is one of the truly great mainstream arts. Or, at least, it was
I'm of two minds about your first point---is it the critical establishment's fault for liking small movies, or is it the industry's fault for not making those movies into big movies?
One of my all-time favourite movies is Midnight Cowboy. It's insane to me that a movie as out-there as it was enjoyed either critical or box-office success - wouldn't happen today on either front. Now, in terms of gay themes and artistry and pushing the envelope, Moonlight is the Midnight Cowboy of its day. But Moonlight does not have an "I'm walkin' here!" moment. Used to be, Hollywood put out movies with challenging content, and then people watched them. This doesn't happen as much anymore. Losing the monoculture is great in some regards, but it is a loss.
Moonlight has no stars, whereas MC had scorching hot Dustin Hoffman, and it's not as immediately engaging a movie either (though I think they're both very good).
But I'm not looking for "challenging content." It's kind of a weird assumption that film-people make that good movies must CHALLENGE people. I just want more great movies, and preferably ones that a lot of people see
I don't necessarily mean "challenging" in, like, a snooty cineaste way---just in the sense of being out of someone's comfort zone. Like this:
Back in my parents' generation, '60s, '70s, one or two movies a week came to our smallish suburban town, and my parents would go see them, because...those were the movies. Not super-into watching a Jon Voight-Bob Balaban sex scene? You saw that movie anyway, because that's what was playing. Not super-into horror? You saw The Exorcist, because you liked movies and that's what was playing.
With so much more "content" now, most of us self-select out of watching anything that doesn't feel like it was curated carefully for us. There are increasingly movies for you and movies for me, and many, many fewer movies for us.
Yeah, I hear you. Until I saw you did the same, I was also about to put CONTENT in big scare quotes because that's where we're at. The Holdovers is probably the best movie I saw last year and it's noteworthy that it is self-consciously a 1970s movie (ahhhhh what a decade) and, sadly, not noteworthy for the waves it made at the box office .