Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

yes, and I'm from America

sort of/maybe, and I'm from America

no, and I'm from America

yes, and I'm not from America

sort of/maybe, and I'm not from America

no, and I'm not from America

[a1s]

I was in an argument recently about Intellectuality of American cinema (the middle 80% of it, if you take away the dumbest 10% and the smartest 10%), and what locals think of it. So now I want to conduct a small statistical research. and you have the privilege of helping me.

[McDoomhammer]

I'm afraid I don't feel qualified to comment.  Except... um... to say that.

[Kagus]

Ha ha, um, well...   I've been watching movies at a rate of roughly one per night for the last few years... 

And I would have to say no.  I've seen lots of very intelligent films, and a staggering number of utterly idiotic ones.  This is, of course, not counting the bottom 10%.

Not to say that American cinema is dumb, it's just that it has hosted a very large number of very poor movies that have tipped the average.  There are some very talented and creative filmmakers, it's just that they take longer to actually make something, taking up time that the less talented spend using the same slightly moldy script over and over again.


However, all this pales in comparison with the juggernaut of bad taste that is Indian cinema.  The region around Andhra Pradesh alone makes roughly three movies a day, and they all share the same "plot", acted out by people that not even a soap opera would hire.

In India, a film's success is determined by how impressive of a song they manage to pull together for it.  Regardless of the film's setting, plot, actors or funding, every Indian movie will have time for at least one scene where everybody starts singing and dancing.  And they always dub movies.  Not into a different language, they just dub it.  From Telugu to Telugu, from Hindi to Hindi.  Why they do it is beyond my comprehension.


*Ahem*...  So, anyways...  No, I would have to say that the middle 80% of American cinema is not intellectually stimulating.  However, I also think that that is a very large percentage, and that it does cover some intellectually stimulating films.  It's not just the upper 10%.

[Reasonableman]

I should like to point out that yes, the staggering majority of American films (I find myself lacking in the ability to comment on those of other nations,) are painfully stupid. HOWEVER, many of them have some redeeming point of intelligence inserted in them.

[Lord Dullard]

Most movies are stupid.

Occasionally you stagger across one that makes you really think - Donnie Darko, Fight Club, Cube, et cetera. These are diamonds in the rough, though.

Most movies try to be 'clever' by inserting one or two plot twists into an otherwise completely formulaic script.

[Kagus]

And of course, "intelligence" is relative.  There are people who think that "Saw" was a brilliantly executed film.

And then come the works of Quentin Tarantino, which most people seem to think are staggeringly intelligent works of art.  I don't particularly agree.  In fact, I vehemently disagree.

[Cthulhu]

I've never seen a Quentin Tarantino movie, and I never will.

Most popular movies nowadays seem to be two-hour torture films and legal snuff, I saw The Strangers a few weeks ago, and laughed out loud it was so hideously bad.

Don't worry though, we don't have it as bad as some peoplehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pskmUb_duUY.

[Kagus]

Bwahahaha!  That RPG was priceless...

[Cthulhu]

I liked how the subtitles were in Turkish.

[umiman]

This is quite unfair, the way you pose your question. 80% of anything is usually mediocre, bordering crap. Unless of course, it's such a thing that it can't be graded. You even stated that you're not considering the 10% which are good. So what on earth are we left with?

Your question would have gotten the same answers if you took away the "American" part.

[McDoomhammer]

This is quite unfair, the way you pose your question. 80% of anything is usually mediocre, bordering crap. Unless of course, it's such a thing that it can't be graded. You even stated that you're not considering the 10% which are good. So what on earth are we left with?

Your question would have gotten the same answers if you took away the "American" part.

You are right that things tend to follow a Normal distribution or 'bell curve' sort of arrangement (in this case being a graph of perceived quality against frequency).  That is, most around 50% and with the highest frequency in the middle, with few very good and few very bad.  Hence removing those few to focus on more applicable generalisation. 

But, the statment that 80% of anything is bordering crap is a subjective viewpoint, and as I understand it it's that subjectivity which is under examination here.  Is the middle, the average American film crap?  Or is it fair to say that the general standard of cinema is to solid, well-put-together things, with some really outstanding and some less so?

So yes, if you removed "American", you would still expect a normal distribution.  But you can still meaningfully compare the shape of the bell curves, how whether one set is better or worse than another.

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

I don't watch films much, if at all.
As far as I can see though, the majority of American films advertised over here are hardly food for thought, unless you particularly like thinking about tired scripts and toilet jokes.

[umiman]

McDoomhammer: Really? But we don't even know what constitutes "American cinema". Do we account only what Hollywood makes? No? Then what about home videos? What about  Youtube videos? What will we compare it with? Not every country has a huge enough filming industry. Not every country has the same standards as American filmmaking but would you fault them for that?

How would someone compare "crapness" bell curves between Hollywood and Bollywood? It wouldn't make any sense, they'd be producing for completely different audiences. It's like comparing statistical averages of people having fun in hell compared to people having fun in heaven.

Unless the OP states the question in such a way that answering it leaves no doubt in our minds, this question is statistically null. In other words, define the subject and explain what we are comparing it with. Of course, we could just ignore the fact that this is a serious question and just have fun with it. Then, I'd say 80% of American cinema is worse than sitting next to a person with loose bowel syndrome on an 8-hour flight in economy class. Heck, I'd go for the gusto and say 99% of it is.

[a1s]

well I guess we can define a "film" as being anything that a movie theater will show for money, excluding serialized work originally aired on TV, and pornography. (so indie films are in, but home videos and corporate training films are out)
and "American Cinema" as all films in which no less then 30% of the staff are Americans, and no less than 30% of the budget is spent within America.
how does that sound?

"smart" can be defined as whatever made you think, and you presume would make others think too. (so if some scene in the movie made you think about you life, because it reminds you of it, that doesn't count)

[Tylui]

I didn't read every word in this thread; so sue me.

You're going to get a biased answer, here on the DF forums.  We're a group of people who aren't afraid to think; who like the ability to imagine; etc.  We're going to judge a lot more movies as crappy and unintelligent than other people are going to.

Also:  A lot of American comedies are filled with this type of humor:

HA!  IF YOU ABBREVIATE YOUR THREAD TOPIC IT SPELLS "iSac".  LIKE AN iPod LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL SAC!

>.> *cough*