The summer of our mega-discontent?

Y'know, I might have been sympathetic to this idea, say, last year. 2007's top grossers were three trequels that were varying degrees of disappointing and the utterly indefensible Transformers.

This year, though? Sure, Indiana Jones and Hancock were forgettable, but Wall-E, Iron Man, and The Dark Knight were all extremely entertaining and surprisingly accomplished pieces of filmmaking. Heck, I was highly anticipating all three films, and yet all three exceeded my expectations.

I'll admit, there've been plenty of summer action flicks that were merely passable, mediocre, or even awful, but were that many people really geared up for Get Smart, or Wanted, or even The Incredible Hulk? None I knew, anyway.

And I'm forced to disagree with the contention that all these trailers in some way look the same. If you (in the generic) can't see a complete dissimilarity in tone and style between movies as theoretically similar but fundamentally different as, say, Iron Man, The Dark Knight, The Incredible Hulk, and Watchmen, even in their trailers... well, then, there's no hope for you.

This summer, I found "Tell No One" as exciting and exhilarating as "The Dark Knight" was boring, tedious, and pointless.

So I certainly hope there might be more summer releases that would substitute hype and pretentious lines about moral dilemmas that are ultimately empty of meaning, for something much more lacking in Hollywood movies today: real intelligence, well-written screenplays, and fast-paced editing that actually helps you become immersed in the movie experience (all the qualities that "The Dark Knight" sorely lacked).

Let's not forget that when adjusted for inflation, TDK is still like #45 on the all-time box-office hits: the lesson is clear - movies used to be watched by a lot more people.

Stephen, Iron Man and The Dark Knight - I haven't seen the other two - have substantial differences in tone, thematic focus, and elements of style, but in terms of technique I would say both fit fairly snugly within the mainstream of action cinema. And that's as complete, two-hour + movies, not when they've been sliced down to three-minute trailers which are cut (like commercials) to fit a gold standard of message delivery.

I think blockbuster fatigue is only natural if you allow it to get to you. Best way around it is to ignore it - go see the films you want to see, ignore the overhyped crap, and when confronted with bomastic, smug advertising copy, comfort yourself with the knowledge that it will be defaced within the week and no one really gives a rat's ass anyway. At the end of the day, shit sinks and nobody will remember the worst of it. Sure, they will have made some money, but considering the ways some people make money these days, it's not the worst thing in the world.

Of course I'm not so Zen about it all the time, and anyway my prescription may be kind of irrelevant if you're a professional critic.

It seems to me that Ms. Zacharek is straw manning this one. She offers no real support for the idea of "blockbuster fatigue" - she just accepts it as fait accompli. For my part, this summer has been energizing - never have there been so many movies at once that I wanted to see, and a few I didn't know about but was surprised to find. Not all of them were as good as I would have wanted, but some where better than I expected. I'll admit, once the credits rolled on The Dark Knight, the summer was over for me - no X-Files or Mummies or stoners for me (though enough time has passed that I'm looking forward to Tropic Thunder, though I don't think of it as part of the same "season" as Iron Man through The Dark Knight.

Obviously, my own anecdotal evidence is no proof that there is no malaise any more than Ms. Z's is proof that there is. But it makes it hard to read her tirade when she starts at an untenable position I don't buy to begin with and goes down from there.

I've always agreed with Robert Altman who said that "a good film always benefits from multiple viewings." It is often not until I've seen a film a couple of times that I feel I've really started to get a the nuances that it may contain. As I look back at the films I've seen this summer I have to admiit that there are more that I desire to see again then usually come out in these blockbuster months, with The Dark Knight and WALL*E being highest on that list.

The problem with this consumer culture we live in as regards film is that the artists get lost in the hype and the general movie going public doesn't care how much time and effort and energy it takes to make these films. We hear it's going into production, see the trailer, go to the film, and forget it without a thought. Instead of realistic expectaions based on the creative talent involved we create expectaions out of thin air or worse, because of the money involved.

A lot of my frustration here comes from the backlash to The Dark Knight. I just don't understand what people want from a film. So often you hear critics asks for summer fair that tries to be more then mindless fodder and then we get that and people still want to cut it down. I wonder how many of these detractors are artists themselves? My guess is not many. If they were they might understand better the reality of trying to create something. It's hard enough when it just a personal work like painting or writing but to create a collaboration that contians a personal vision and satifies the veried public desires, that must be an agonizing journey. A journey that more critics and bloggers and overall smarty-pants a-holes should think about before they make a judgement on a work.

Movieman--

Really? I think their technical aspects are nearly as different as their tone and style. In terms of editing, The Dark Knight uses quick cuts and angles to create a sense of sudden, swift violence and almost battlefield-chaos, while Iron Man is much more content to sit back from a distance and watch a scene play out, or do sustained close-ups that draw you into the characters and their situations. It is a vastly different experience, to me, to watch an action sequence in one film or the other--almost as different as watching, say, Children of Men versus watching Indiana Jones.

And I'm definitely thinking in terms of trailers here as well, I'm afraid. Have you seen the trailer yet for Watchmen? It's a pretty brilliant music video (and I hate that people use the term "music video" as a derogatory, as if every music video looks the same, as opposed to just the *bad* ones...) in of itself, and a total night and day difference from the trailer to The Dark Knight, which is also very different from the trailer to Iron Man... (Despite the comic book superhero origins of all three films)

I'll admit--there is a seeming "formula" for action movie trailers. They tend to have the same basic rhythm--slow build, then huge action, then end on a joke, whatever--but there's also a formula for writing a hit song (verse chorus verse chorus bridge verse chorus, or similar variations, like cvcbvc, vcvcbc, etc.) but that doesn't mean that "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and "Enter Sandman" were indistinguishable back in 1991.

As far as I can see, when you're dealing with movies with different kinds of scripts, different themes, different tones, different techniques, different structures, different kinds of performances, etc. etc. and people lump them together simply because they're "action" movies that'll make a lot of money, that's little different than when people lump together indie dramas that are totally different. based on the trailers.

I understand some frustration from things being everywhere and overexposed, but personally I'm glad to see *good* blockbusters make money and get exposure. In my dreams, this summer lets studios know to make more movies like Iron Man and The Dark Knight and fewer like Transformers, but that's not likely any time soon...

The one genre that suffere from "hype-fatigue" would be the tent pole comedies; PINEAPPLE & THUNDER. Both films really underperformed considering the accolades being handed out by mainstream critics. It seems comedies of late have fallen into this realm of man-children who are constantly influx between reality and the absurd. Its difficult to discern if the joke is on the us the audience for buying a ticket or the studio for promoting the film. Take for instance, PINEAPPLE in the first half the drug dealer and police officer play the roles straight; then out of left field towards the end they mug and laugh on camera. Dont even get me started on McBride. Same for THUNDER except this happens within the first twenty minutes. It begins earnest enough with the fake trailers, filming on set, actors quarrels and then Stiller decided to scap the idea for essentially ZOOLANDER 2.

But back to hype fatigue, I place blame on the critics. This recent review style soely based on laughs and disregarding the context as a whole is what keeps independent films at bay from the multiplex. Peter Travers, should be close to death or suffer brain damage from laughing and falling out of his seat if you go by his reviews on both films. But really this summer as in past have been victims of Hollywood inability to produce quality films. We're never going to have another STARWARS or JAWS, but marketing teams can make us believe its coming soon. Hollywood's always been about catching up; you never want to be first. So when something succeeds they bleed it dry til the next big thing rolls along. Why ? Because the public will settle for mediocre products that satisfy our cravings of the first time; but always leave us with a belly ache the next day.

Personally, hype never gets to me. When I wacth a movie, I'm all about whatever connection I make with the story. They hype and its larger effect on the pop culture landscape are another matter.

With regards to trailers, one thing I don't understand is that people get just as excited about that as they do about the movie itself. A few conversations I had about the Dark Knight started off with "Did you see the T4 and Watchmen trailers?" Yes I did, but Dark Knight is here now. Those two movies are a year away. Furthermore, people (i.e fanboys) often make up their mind about a movie from a trailer. Trailers can be misleading; the bottom line is that you don't know squat until you see the final product. I've only noticed this trailer madness over the past few years. I blame the anticipation for the first Phantom Menace trailer.

Y'know, it occurs to me that movies have simply become... fashionable. Sure, there has always been an element of this; in the "old days," people wanted to see what everyone is talking about (i.e., word of mouth marketing in practice). It was fashionable to be in on the latest craze, even if the craze was a movie. Nowadays, that "everyone" is more likely to consist of a large number of marketing pieces rather than voices of individuals. The industry itself is telling the audience (well, more so then it ever did 20 years ago anyway) what is in fashion at the movies.

Word of mouth can still work, as it did for March of the Penguins; the only time I saw its trailer was in my local art house theater (and you're right about art house theaters showing "Now Playing" trailers, it's still showing the one for Son of Rambow). And I don't think I ever saw the trailer for Brokeback Mountain in a theater.

Too many points to make...some not incredibly thought out yet but:
1) Movies aren't sold like they used to be, and aren't seen like they used to be. They're not even made like they used to be. There's an evolution to cinema - the product, the spectator, the physical building... they all change and adapt. There are trends that come, like the current superhero blockbuster fixation (and Indiana Jones is as much a superhero as Hancock and Batman and Hellboy and Hulk), which will last only so long before fatigue sets in and something else replaces it.

2) This is the first summer, though, where blockbuster season has actually given us a plethora of *digestible* films. If you look at most of the big releases each week, Ebert's given them 3-stars or better, and that I think is unprecedented. Now, superheroic feats can be brought to the screen with some semblance of tangible realism (and not just cartoonish CGI effects, but a greater mix of practical within the digital to create something that breathes rather than just looks cool), and with that you can tell stories with some semblance of realism, you can give superheroes to talented writers and directors and let them play in the comic book playground with less studio interference, and it comes across on screen which the audience is going to enjoy and that even some which the cinephiles literati will appreciate (although some just can't relax enough to enjoy a good, cathartic explosion). I enjoy small dramas and documentaries etc. often as much if not more than spectacle, but I do love a good spectacle. It's often just as easy to let a film pass by, but this year there are, for the spectacle lover, way too many good ones to pass up.

3) in comics (yep, I'm a fan of those too), each year for the past 22 years the major publishers Marvel and DC (think Warner Brothers and Fox) roll out a massive "crossover"... wherein all the various characters (Batman, Superman, Green Lantern, Wonder Woman etc) come together for some big to do, which then impacts on all their titles for, say a six month duration. They've taken to calling these "Event Comics" which are essentially the Summer blockbusters of the comic world, and for about two or three years now the term "event fatigue" has been bandied about comic book critics/watchdog land. I find it ironic that "blockbuster fatigue" is being coined in the summer where superheroes play the biggest part. Coincidence?

4) On the cycle of movies (also referring back to my first point), films are only meant to last for a few weeks now. All that basically matters in trumpeting a film-as-success is getting the #1 spot on opening weekend. If it holds for a second week, gravy (and if word-of-mouth carries it further, bonus). I imagine Pineapple Express might be a failure since it couldn't dethrone the Dark Knight and then gets overshadowed by Tropic Thunder this week. But all hope is not lost, for in 3 months time, the hype machine starts up all over again as the DVDs get released, and these days, it seems like that's where the real money is for the studios/distributors. The fact that posters languish around like an afterthought will play into sales pitch for the film's second release come "new release Tuesday".

5) Speaking of, people have bought into cycles, which includes "new release Tuesday" for DVDs and music, new movie Fridays, and new comic book Wednesdays. The system has given us a schedule on when we can expect our new consumer goods and trained us to buy into these cycles. Once you get into the habit, it's hard to break (trust me, I've been trying). Plus, our consumerist nature makes us want more, and we're an easy mark, hence DVDs marketed not for the movie but deleted scenes and special features. "If you liked it in the theatres, you'll love it on DVD". How many films are worth watching twice? How many of us will watch a film twice (never mind commentary tracks and production featurettes)? And how many of us buy a DVD of a movie we've already seen only to have it languish on our shelves in their cellophane, undisturbed?

6) And finally, there won't be as many people suffering from blockbuster fatigue as one might think. People who write about movies for a living and the people who read their work are a subset of the masses, and I don't think the masses spend nearly as much time watching trailers or reading articles/reviews on-line as reviewers and cinephiles do. Most people don't care to think so much about movies. We're just special that way.

My version of summer blockbuster fatigue goes something like this: I anticipate four or five of the "big" movies to be worth waiting for, and catch them in the first week of their run. I then decide to catch up on all the other films I missed during the remaining months, but wait - they're already out of the theaters??!!! It's getting worse every year, and like an idiot I forget that those smaller movies will get pushed aside. I shuffle morosely to the video store months later, resigned to the fact that I may as well watch on my little TV, even though every media outlet in the universe has spoiled all the good parts. "Oh no, that's okay," I'll say, "I know how it ends, but I'll pretend I never saw it coming."

I blame my age for this - I grew up in a time when movies would play all summer long and, if they were doing well, right up till Christmas. I'm a working man - summer holidays mean getting away when I can. The blockbusters are designed to make you got to the theater every weekend. Great when your a student on a two-month break, but lousy when you have to plan which weekend you're going out three weeks in advance.

So far Wall-E was the film that lived up to the hype, and the feeling I got when I left the theater was a sense of relief for seeing it without knowing the plot in advance, and catching a marvelous big-screen digital projection of it. It brought back the sense of movie magic, that ephemeral childhood memory of being taken to a magical place. Just the name "Pixar" is the hype I need.

The best time to see movies is just after Christmas when Hollywood hastily re-releases all those movies that smell like Oscar. The sense of desperation for attention is only slightly less frantic than summer and the movies are less likely to disappoint. But best of all, there's that little independent film that may have played for a week and was promptly forgotten, suddenly back in the theaters for a major run.
The way it should have been released in the first place.

My problem isn't the barrage of "blockbuster" films, it's more the absence of other things. The Oscars and summer vacation have completely destroyed movie scheduling. I'll grant that there are exceptions (Harry Potter in the fall), but a calendar year looks like this. (Jan-Apr) Generally a sort of hollywood landfill. Studio heads didn't think the movie would work, or aren't sure what the target audience is. During this time we are allowed no blockbuster films or films that studios might deem oscar-worthy. However, during this time period there sometimes sneaks a good film without a marketing blitz to tell you so (Zodiac, Breach). (Mar-Aug) Blockbusters. That's it. Some good, some bad, but if it ain't BIG, then it's not at a theater near you. (Sept-Mid Oct.) Another dumping period. This seems to be the wasteland of Qasi-blockbusters. (Mid October-Years End) Oscar time. Every "important" movie comes out now. And even if it's not important, studios will try to trick you into thinking it is. This seems to be the best period for me. The problem lies in what to see and when to see it. Usually I don't have the time to see all the movies I want to see during this period.

Can hollywood please forget about summer vacation and Oscars? Could we spread things out a bit? That's what tires me out.

I agree with the article. It's one blockbuster after another, week after week.

I'm a big pro wrestling fan and MMA fan. The movies are starting to remind me of WWE and UFC pay-per-views. Every couple of weeks there is another ppv to see either at your local bar or at $40-50 a pop at home.

It gets old an boring after a while, not to mention expensive.

I wanted to see Wall-E and Wanted at my local MJR but I didn't get there in time. Both were bumped after a couple of weeks for the newest superhero blockbuster.

I'd love to see American Teen or one of the seemingly endless Ben Kingsley movies out now as a change of pace. But it's all about the summer blockbusters in my area.

If my area is any indication, it seems like The Incredible Hulk movie bombed among all the competition. It only lasted around here for 2-weeks before it was off to the $1 show.

Yes, we seem to live in the era of the forgettable blockbuster.

This the best way to describe movies which are mechanical money-makers. They have a great cast, top-notch specials efects & fantastic marketing campaigns. The stars are on the cover of every magazine and talk show leading up to the spectucular, box office opening weekend!

The second weeks dips 60%, then another 70% and the mega-hit has left the building!

Movies that follow this formula are films such as Night at the Museum, Pirates of the Caribbean sequels, Spiderman 3, Mission Impossible 3, Independence Day, Transformers, Wanted, Armageddon & Pearl Harbour.

They seem like movies designed to sell, not to actually watch. They do their job at the box office, make the investors and studios happy and then disappear onto DVD four months later.

They contain no breakout stars, no quotable dialogue and don't break any new ground with exception in the areas of CGI effects.

I still remeber as a kid when Raiders of the Lost Ark opened in 1981 on two screens in Greater Vancouver (pop. about 3 million) and it played for two years straight with line-ups around the block for every showing.
Crystal Skull played on probably 20-25 screens and diappeared in five weeks.

It's an obsolete business model but I still miss that formula where the movies couldn't just rely on slick promotion but really had to earn their audience with a good film.

In modern economics, why wait two years to generate 300 million when you can do it in 18 days?

Ken Moffatt--

While I agree with you about the relative worthlessness (on an artistic or entertainment, if not monetary, level) of most of those films, I have to just point out that, in my opinion, Mission Impossible 3 was a pretty neat little movie, and I thought it deserved better than Tom Cruise's terrible publicity got it (domestic box office only 130 million--less than its budget). If you're looking for a disposable money-maker with little to recommend it beyond the air conditioning in whatever theater you're watching it in--see Mission Impossible 2. And I say this as someone who often admires John Woo.