Movie Trailer For Universal's "The Invisible Man" Will Be a Major Flop

[Hepcat]

Of course they did.  It was usually men meddling in things that should be reserved to god and getting their comeuppance - or some such nonsense.

And which of those movies has been extolled for social commentary? Angry Red Planet? Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein? Attack of the 50 Foot Woman? None I think. Because they just made the movies. They didn't try to explain them. They were content to just count the box office receipts.

[aura of foreboding]

Frankenstein has indeed been extolled for its social commentary, much like how The Twilight Zone has.  Social commentary has always been part of the genre, almost at the heart of it.  You just didn't have people analyzing everything back then.  You just had people accept it for what it was, taking away their own interpretations.  I really think if there were FEWER opinions being broadcast about films and what they mean, MORE people would like them.  I really enjoyed The Invisible Man.  I heard the commentary, but didn't pay much mind to it, and I really enjoyed the film.  The film had commentary, yes, but it wasn't what made or broke the film, much how it wasn't what made or broke Frankenstein.  I bet if we didn't have the Internet, people would really just be happier about things that are meant to make people happy... like movies.   

[Hepcat]

You raise a valid point here. Many of these films contain social commentary and are viewed as pioneering entries in the horror genre. So perhaps I spoke too broadly at first. In these films, the commentary was seamlessly woven into the narrative. So much so that I probably couldn't tell you what the commentary is in most of those movies because I actively try to tune my mind off such concerns. So for those who appreciate social commentary, they get an added layer to their favorite films. For people like me, I can dismiss the commentary for a movie like Night of the Living Dead and enjoy it for what it is, a story about survival during a zombie outbreak.

I'm more concerned with modern filmmaking trends where it seems that the message comes before the story, and for whom subtlety is an unknown art. That's how you end up with movies like the Black Christmas remake where the antagonist is literally toxic masculinity seeping out of a statue in a frat house. The original Black Christmas dealt with feminists themes too, but it never got in the way of the story.

Overall I agree, regardless of one's politics, it is annoying when a filmmaker, especially in the sci-fi and horror genres has an agenda first and foremost, then says "let me come up with some half-ass story to justify this."

I agree. A movie shouldn't be made with a view to making some certain extraneous point. Any point should be ancillary to the making of a good flick.

Clint Eastwood's movies are great examples of the latter. I suppose you can find some sociopolitical point in them if you're absolutely determined to do so. But why bother? They're just good fun flicks for the most part.

I really think if there were FEWER opinions being broadcast about films and what they mean, MORE people would like them.

Movies are just like novels in that way. Novels (including plays) aren't meant to be studied/analyzed. They're meant to be read and enjoyed. Nothing sucks the joy out of reading a book more than that book being dissected as part of the assigned readings of an English Literature class. 

[Monsters For Sale]

... A movie shouldn't be made with a view to making some certain extraneous point. Any point should be ancillary to the making of a good flick....

... Novels (including plays) aren't meant to be studied/analyzed. They're meant to be read and enjoyed. Nothing sucks the joy out of reading a book more than that book being dissected as part of the assigned readings of an English Literature class. 

So, no author, producer, director or performer should have or express any point of reference or opinion  -  or just not have the kind that disagrees with anyone's political or religious bent?

We've had the likes of Will Hays, Joseph Breen and Joseph McCarthy helpfully guiding the "arts" in staying in lock-step with the au courant thinking.  In the long run, they failed.

Creators of such content persist in espousing their own philosophies, even if unintentionally.  Readers, listeners and viewers will continue to study and analyze what they consume.

And people who insist on dictating what the arts "should" contain will forever bemoan content that disagrees with their personal opinions - whatever side they believe they represent.

[Mike Scott]

We've had the likes of Arthur Hays

Will Hays. And you forget the "Catholic League of Decency" (or however that goes). 

[Monsters For Sale]

Will Hays. And you forget the "Catholic League of Decency" (or however that goes). 

I knew that.  How do you suppose  I made that mistake?  My fault for not researching before typing.

No, I didn't forget the Catholic lists of movies/books, etc. that didn't pass their approval.  I was going for broader social condemnation.  For all its influence, the Vatican spoke for a single religion.

Besides, being on their list guaranteed a bigger audience - even containing of many of their members.

[Mike Scott]

No, I didn't forget the Catholic lists of movies/books, etc.

"Forget" was the wrong word. Should have been "didn't include".

[geezer butler]

So, no author, producer, director or performer should have or express any point of reference or opinion  -  or just not have the kind that disagrees with anyone's political or religious bent?

We've had the likes of Will Hays, Joseph Breen and Joseph McCarthy helpfully guiding the "arts" in staying in lock-step with the au courant thinking.  In the long run, they failed.

Creators of such content persist in espousing their own philosophies, even if unintentionally.  Readers, listeners and viewers will continue to study and analyze what they consume.

And people who insist on dictating what the arts "should" contain will forever bemoan content that disagrees with their personal opinions - whatever side they believe they represent.

Excellent reply MFS! Great points my good sir.

[Hepcat]

So, no author, producer, director or performer should have or express any point of reference or opinion  -  or just not have the kind that disagrees with anyone's political or religious bent?

Well of course these performers can express some point of view. I'm not recommending government censorship. Heaven forbid. (I'm a Libertarian. I think governments should do as little as possible.) But political points of view shouldn't be intrusive since such intrusiveness is detrimental to the entertainment value of the flick. And entertainment is what movies are all about.

Moreover if the underlying message is too pointed/ham fisted, the director/artist is going to annoy/alienate a large section of potential paying customers. This is simply not smart since there's a good correlation between broad market appeal and box office receipts.

And people who insist on dictating what the arts "should" contain will forever bemoan content that disagrees with their personal opinions - whatever side they believe they represent.

Yeah but I'm not interested in dictating. I just don't like being dictated to/preached at when my interest is in being entertained. Yeah, yeah, I know, I don't have to go. That just goes to prove my previous point though, doesn't it?

Excellent reply MFS! Great points my good sir.

I disagree. I think it was lousy because it doesn't address whether a point of view adds to or detracts from the entertainment value of a movie.

And the name dropping of the three was simple obfuscation. Like I say, the only dictating I do is telling movie makers to provide me with entertainment value for my buck, and that they better not annoy me or they can kiss my bucks goodbye. That as always is the bottom line.

(And my injunction against non-annoyance absolutely applies to advertising as well. Annoy me with a commercial and I'll remember for decades, e.g. Crest toothpaste, Michelin tires, etc.)

[Monsters For Sale]

I'm a Libertarian.

I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Hepcat]

Libertarians believe that every individual should be free to do as he alone sees fit so long as he refrains from initiating force against any other individual. Libertarians therefore believe that the only proper function of governments is to protect individuals from the initiation of force. Ergo "that government governs best that governs least."

[Monsters For Sale]

Libertarians believe that every individual should be free to do as he alone sees fit so long as he refrains from initiating force against any other individual. Libertarians therefore believe that the only proper function of governments is to protect individuals from the initiation of force. Ergo "that government governs best that governs least." 

I do not think you believe what you think you believe.

[Hepcat]

Well since we're not allowed political discourse anyway, we don't need to discuss the virtues versus the shortcomings of gradualism. It's easy enough to apply libertarian principles to almost any issue though. Admittedly there are a few really thorny ones, e.g. abortion and capital punishment, which we're absolutely not going to discuss though.

With respect to social commentary in films though, all I mean when I say directors should steer clear is that it's not a wise strategy when it comes to inducing as many people as possible to part with their dollars.

[Mike Scott]

With respect to social commentary in films though, all I mean when I say directors should steer clear is that it's not a wise strategy when it comes to inducing as many people as possible to part with their dollars.

You know what they say, money isn't everything!

[Mord]

You know what they say, money isn't everything!

To libertarians, it usually is. Wallets above everything.