I felt that Sucker Punch fits this. They had some cool dreamy sequences, which looked good in the trailer, but then you watched the movie and those were kinda it. I think they tried to get a little bit of depth in there by making a sad story to tie the dreams together, but to me at least it felt shallowly deep đ
Well he did basically make the same film over and over again with no distinguishing characteristics other than "a film by Michael Bay", so I guess it's kinda true.
All of Star Wars imho, they have little to no story, especially the first three made, they added space decision to an average western, dulled down the story & characters/ships to make the merch available at the same time as the movie (which was like the main goal with the first movie).
They are a cool space opera, but they all have short/"small" stories bcs that is probably what focus groups predicted will be the most successful for the business.
Iâd argue visuals are a pretty major part of a what makes a movie a movie, so you could argue this is a case where style is substance. Youâre not watching Tron for the story.
That said, post-300 Snyder went up his own arse and the slow-mo action, music choices, composition from renaissance paintings - none of it informs characterisation, story beats, themes, or anything beyond âlook how cool this is bruhâ.
Run of the mill?? The pacing of Drive alone sets it apart. Lots of moments of calm, violence on the extreme side but skillfully kept to very short instances to drive home the impact but not overly linger on any of it to the point of gratuity.
I guess this could all be counted as style, but there feels like substance behind it.
It's been a while since I've seen it, but Crank. All I can remember from the movie is just fast-paced action and stressful panic of doing everything to stay alive (Speed also comes to mind here), but not much in the way of drama or character development.
I could understand that if you're coming at it as a younger person who's not impressed with the franchise and/or feels that it hasn't aged well. But, man-- that thing was a tonne of fun back in the day, even if it wasn't some kind of cinematic classic.
I'd argue that it was also seriously innovative, coming up with a bunch of novel tech, storytelling and plot points for that genre of movie. Lots of good acting, memorable scenes, and a truly inventive comedy adventure made for plenty of substance IMO.
Sin City (2005)
I'll agree with that one. They did a very good job literally recreating scenes from the GN, but there was a surprising flatness to the film that really brought down the interest level for me. 2D characters might work perfectly well for comics, but when you bring in real human actors, it's kind of a step backwards to play them the same way, I think.
I mean, Dan Aykroyd was one of the writers, and he actually has a background in paranormal investigation, so even though the entire concept is lampooning paranormal investigators, like, for the time it was groundbreaking, it's still entertaining.
I can't understand why somebody would say there's no substance to the movie.
Aykroyd being able to accurately lampoon his own interest isn't substance.
What's the movie saying about people, life & death, NYC politics even? What's the message or meaning of the movie? That's what substance is. Ghostbusters is great! Classic cinema, no question. But it absolutely has no meaningful statements, or questions about anything. It's pure fun, for it's own sake.
No it isn't. It's entirely subjective whether a movie has substance.
You're arguing that other people who found substance in their viewing of a movie are wrong because for you it had no substance for you. What's the point? What drives you to be validated here at the cost of invalidating others?
My larger point is that people often insist substance is good, style is bad. I disagree with endowing a value judgment on either. A movie with great substance can still be a terrible movie. Movies nothing going for them but style can be fantastic. And most try to balance the two, to wonderful or horrible effect.
I'm not saying people finding substance in a movie are wrong in their opinion. They're wrong in their definitions. I chose my list specifically to spark discussion about what does it even mean to say a movie has substance. What is style?
Movies aren't substantive because people like them. For the word "Substance" to be useful, it must mean something else.
One of the writers knowing the subject on which they're writing isn't substance. What is Aykroid saying about real paranormal investigations? That would be substance.
You can enjoy Ghostbusters without answering that question. I certainly do. I can't count how many times I've enjoyed watching it. Our enjoyment isn't trivialized or wrong if it's not a substantive movie.
Ghostbusters are probably like Beetlejuice back in the day. I did watch Ghostbusters when I was young, but only this year watched Beetlejuice. Beetlejuice is weird movie with a simple premise that somehow got a traction with children. Same as Ghostbusters I guess. They both have this weird charm that grabs your attention while having "no message"
I'm 45, and a massive Ghostbusters fan. But all it is, is a super fun zany romp. There's nothing else of any meaningful substance. No major character arch's or touching moments of humanity. Nobody reflecting on the nature of "living" vs "dead" if it's all just different states of being. And the movie is certainly no worse off for the lack of it. In fact adding more meaningful scenes or concepts to it would probably make it worse.
A lot of people seem to believe a "low substance" movie is synonymous with being a bad movie. It's not.
In my mind "Style" is entertaining and "Substance" is meaning. Ghostbusters and the rest of the movies I listed are all about only being some form of interesting entertainment. They're lacking in any other real message, meaning, or point. (Or making it so unintelligible as to be meaningless) Some of them are very popular movies. Movies people don't realize have no actual meaningful substance. Others are not. I would argue they're all good at being the movies they want to be, and recognizing that sometimes substance isn't actually worth anything.
So yes indeed, coming at it as a younger person? đ You would have been like 3yo when it came out, right?
No major character archâs or touching moments of humanity.
In terms of the former, you'd be looking for something that's rarely there in that genre of film, so... of course not? As for the latter, I think there were some memorable humanistic moments, primarily driven by Bill Murray, and really, all the better for the movie avoiding dipping in to maudlin sentimentality and whatnot, the way other comedy-type films have done, past and since.
In my mind âStyleâ is entertaining and âSubstanceâ is meaning.
Yeah, I see what you're saying with that. GB was certainly not about meaning, per se. But where I depart from you is that I take substance as being other things as well, such as the innovation I mentioned above. The film did fall in to a certain, fairly shallow type of entertainment, yet was still outrageously novel, interesting and even ground-breaking. That's certainly "substance" to me.
See what I mean?
The Lighthouse is an amazing movie. Easily my favorite Eggers movie. It's fantastic at painting our minds with emotions. But what's the meaning of it? Who the fuck knows? Could be almost anything.
II legitimately stand by those as meanings, so I donât really see what you mean, sorry. Iâd find it hard to get âoriginalityâ or âthe value of hard workâ out of it, but killing seagulls is specifically condemned and the seagull death sets off the action, while alcohol abuse contributed to most of the bad things that happened.
I am very bad at interpreting movies though, so Iâm legitimately interested in what other meanings you can see.
I see too many possible meanings. And I've no confidence any of them are correct or even valid. I can't even say the sea gulls were real and not imagined.
Don't kill gulls or Alcohol bad are such small trivial ideas, they can't be the real meaning in such a grand complex movie.
Substance to me doesn't mean it has a message or meaning, but contains a lot more story than run and gun. It's got backstory, great characters (pro and antagonists), funny and/or hidden jokes, great writing, relatable maybe. It's not a run of the mill boring shoot em up or racing movie. Actual effort was put into it.
In short, it sounds like you use substance to mean it's a good movie.
That seems a poor use for a word, to simply replace another perfectly good word with no additional context or nuance.
Now it seems like you're assuming a good movie simply means a movie you like.
Which also isn't great. I know there are lots of good movies that just aren't for me, and I don't enjoy all the much. But I'll absolutely defend their quality.
But if I'm totally off base here, I'd appreciate more clarification.
77 Comments
makyo@lemmy.world · 42 pts · 169d
Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets
Absolutely stunning visually with writing that, even if it had been good would never have succeeded because its stars had exactly zero chemistry.
Ghostie@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 169d
Underwaterbob@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 169d
I haven't even seen it and this was the movie I thought of when I saw the question.
deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz · 35 pts · 169d
Avatar, all of them.
The first one existed purely to show off 3d film technology and push the limits of CGI.
The sequels false started under the premise that the first one had anything past colourful lights and sounds.
Also, Tron: Legacy, which I am very fond of because it's essentially a Daft Punk music video.
imetators@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 169d
I barely remember anything about Tron: Legacy besides short Daft Punk cameo that started Derezzed track.
Edit: also that they've used 3d model of CLU and that I have only noticed it was 3d model late in the movie.
psycotica0@lemmy.ca · 28 pts · 169d
I felt that Sucker Punch fits this. They had some cool dreamy sequences, which looked good in the trailer, but then you watched the movie and those were kinda it. I think they tried to get a little bit of depth in there by making a sad story to tie the dreams together, but to me at least it felt shallowly deep đ
davidgro@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 169d
Life of Pi
I call it Cinematography: The Movie
And yet I didn't remember the plot at all until reading that page. I just remembered the two main characters and the main setting.
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 169d
I read the book ages ago ... wasn't it just a kid in a boat?
davidgro@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 169d
Yup. With an animal.
worhui@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 169d
Speed Racer. It was a blast. Sometimes Style is all you need.
masta_chief@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 169d
Speed racer has tons of substance and heart. Watched it for the first time last year in a theater. Awesome movie
deHaga@feddit.uk · 17 pts · 169d
Michael Bay. Although The Rock is hilarious.
itsathursday@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 169d
Tim Burton⌠most recently
MrQuallzin@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 169d
Didn't realize that Michael Bay is a movie
Ilandar@lemmy.today · 7 pts · 169d
Well he did basically make the same film over and over again with no distinguishing characteristics other than "a film by Michael Bay", so I guess it's kinda true.
mech@feddit.org · 4 pts · 169d
It's a genre.
rotkehle@feddit.org · 13 pts · 169d
Hardcore Henry
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 7 pts · 169d
But its style is so good, the lack of substance does not even matter.
hactar42@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 169d
The Expendables franchise
JakenVeina@midwest.social · 12 pts · 169d
The Star Wars Sequel Trilogy (7-9). There's lots of cool-looking shit going on, but taken as a whole, it's completely incoherent.
Evil_Shrubbery@thelemmy.club · 4 pts · 169d
All of Star Wars imho, they have little to no story, especially the first three made, they added space decision to an average western, dulled down the story & characters/ships to make the merch available at the same time as the movie (which was like the main goal with the first movie).
They are a cool space opera, but they all have short/"small" stories bcs that is probably what focus groups predicted will be the most successful for the business.
apotheotic@beehaw.org · 12 pts · 169d
Avatar, most marvel and dc films, most nolan films
Nihilore@quokk.au · 9 pts · 169d
Neon Demon but in a good way, the style becomes the substance. Love that movie
anticonnor@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 169d
I think you could add most movies by Nicolas Winding Refn here.
Lets_Disco@retrolemmy.com · 2 pts · 169d
His film Only God Forgives has to be the most style over substance film of his, hands down
fake_meows@sopuli.xyz · 8 pts · 169d
One of the best "all style" movies has to be:
"The Good, The Bad and the Ugly."
zalgotext@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 168d
The Fast and Furious movies literally started as an excuse for Paul Walker to drive his cool car collection, so I nominate those
baguettefish@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 168d
and for some reason part of the plot of many of them is that a hot woman is the prize for winning the final race
Blackmist@feddit.uk · 7 pts · 169d
Equilibrium.
More recently, Tron Ares.
qwestjest78@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 169d
The Tree of Life from 2011. I felt like half the movie was just shots of the universe with music. It was pretty nonsensical.
JeSuisUnHombre@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 169d
Saltburn
sobchak@programming.dev · 3 pts · 169d
Enter The Void is pretty good.
gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 169d
Nah, it's not
NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone · 3 pts · 168d
Iâd argue visuals are a pretty major part of a what makes a movie a movie, so you could argue this is a case where style is substance. Youâre not watching Tron for the story.
NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 168d
That said, post-300 Snyder went up his own arse and the slow-mo action, music choices, composition from renaissance paintings - none of it informs characterisation, story beats, themes, or anything beyond âlook how cool this is bruhâ.
anticonnor@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 169d
Just about anything from directing team HĂŠlène Cattet and Bruno Forzani (Let The Copses Tan and The Strange Color of Your Bodyâs Tears)
thermal_shock@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 169d
Drive. I LOVR the movie, and LOVE the soundtrack, but it's a run of the mill movie.
Zozano@aussie.zone · 4 pts · 169d
I'm a real human bean, and a real hero
thermal_shock@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 169d
College and electric youth, fuck yeah.
Also Kavinsky, got me into synth wave and darksynth
noxypaws@pawb.social · 2 pts · 169d
Run of the mill?? The pacing of Drive alone sets it apart. Lots of moments of calm, violence on the extreme side but skillfully kept to very short instances to drive home the impact but not overly linger on any of it to the point of gratuity.
I guess this could all be counted as style, but there feels like substance behind it.
thermal_shock@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 169d
Style to me. I love the movie, but the story to me is very basic.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 169d
Every Tarantino film.
thlibos@thelemmy.club · 1 pts · 169d
Came here to say the same.
gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 169d
Enter the Void is pretty bad
Redvenom@retrolemmy.com · 1 pts · 168d
Speedracer
Fizz@lemmy.nz · 1 pts · 169d
Angels egg. I get the idea but dam that was an empty movie. Whole thing could have been 12 frames.
HakunaHafada@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 168d
It's been a while since I've seen it, but Crank. All I can remember from the movie is just fast-paced action and stressful panic of doing everything to stay alive (Speed also comes to mind here), but not much in the way of drama or character development.
Steve@communick.news · -24 pts · 169d
Ghostbusters (1984)
Ultraviolet (2006)
Torque (2004)
Sin City (2005)
Drive (2011)
The Lighthouse (2019)
I'll probably come back to add more.
JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social · 15 pts · 169d
I could understand that if you're coming at it as a younger person who's not impressed with the franchise and/or feels that it hasn't aged well. But, man-- that thing was a tonne of fun back in the day, even if it wasn't some kind of cinematic classic.
I'd argue that it was also seriously innovative, coming up with a bunch of novel tech, storytelling and plot points for that genre of movie. Lots of good acting, memorable scenes, and a truly inventive comedy adventure made for plenty of substance IMO.
I'll agree with that one. They did a very good job literally recreating scenes from the GN, but there was a surprising flatness to the film that really brought down the interest level for me. 2D characters might work perfectly well for comics, but when you bring in real human actors, it's kind of a step backwards to play them the same way, I think.
bizarroland@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 169d
Ghostbusters 1984 had a lot of substance to it.
I mean, Dan Aykroyd was one of the writers, and he actually has a background in paranormal investigation, so even though the entire concept is lampooning paranormal investigators, like, for the time it was groundbreaking, it's still entertaining.
I can't understand why somebody would say there's no substance to the movie.
Steve@communick.news · -12 pts · 169d
Aykroyd being able to accurately lampoon his own interest isn't substance.
What's the movie saying about people, life & death, NYC politics even? What's the message or meaning of the movie? That's what substance is. Ghostbusters is great! Classic cinema, no question. But it absolutely has no meaningful statements, or questions about anything. It's pure fun, for it's own sake.
Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 11 pts · 169d
No it isn't. It's entirely subjective whether a movie has substance.
You're arguing that other people who found substance in their viewing of a movie are wrong because for you it had no substance for you. What's the point? What drives you to be validated here at the cost of invalidating others?
Steve@communick.news · -4 pts · 169d
My larger point is that people often insist substance is good, style is bad. I disagree with endowing a value judgment on either. A movie with great substance can still be a terrible movie. Movies nothing going for them but style can be fantastic. And most try to balance the two, to wonderful or horrible effect.
I'm not saying people finding substance in a movie are wrong in their opinion. They're wrong in their definitions. I chose my list specifically to spark discussion about what does it even mean to say a movie has substance. What is style?
Movies aren't substantive because people like them. For the word "Substance" to be useful, it must mean something else.
One of the writers knowing the subject on which they're writing isn't substance. What is Aykroid saying about real paranormal investigations? That would be substance.
You can enjoy Ghostbusters without answering that question. I certainly do. I can't count how many times I've enjoyed watching it. Our enjoyment isn't trivialized or wrong if it's not a substantive movie.
ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 169d
I think you should have led with this. Just saying controversial things to start a conversation is cringe.
imetators@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 169d
Ghostbusters are probably like Beetlejuice back in the day. I did watch Ghostbusters when I was young, but only this year watched Beetlejuice. Beetlejuice is weird movie with a simple premise that somehow got a traction with children. Same as Ghostbusters I guess. They both have this weird charm that grabs your attention while having "no message"
Steve@communick.news · -2 pts · 169d
I'm 45, and a massive Ghostbusters fan. But all it is, is a super fun zany romp. There's nothing else of any meaningful substance. No major character arch's or touching moments of humanity. Nobody reflecting on the nature of "living" vs "dead" if it's all just different states of being. And the movie is certainly no worse off for the lack of it. In fact adding more meaningful scenes or concepts to it would probably make it worse.
A lot of people seem to believe a "low substance" movie is synonymous with being a bad movie. It's not.
In my mind "Style" is entertaining and "Substance" is meaning. Ghostbusters and the rest of the movies I listed are all about only being some form of interesting entertainment. They're lacking in any other real message, meaning, or point. (Or making it so unintelligible as to be meaningless) Some of them are very popular movies. Movies people don't realize have no actual meaningful substance. Others are not. I would argue they're all good at being the movies they want to be, and recognizing that sometimes substance isn't actually worth anything.
JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social · 9 pts · 169d
So yes indeed, coming at it as a younger person? đ You would have been like 3yo when it came out, right?
In terms of the former, you'd be looking for something that's rarely there in that genre of film, so... of course not? As for the latter, I think there were some memorable humanistic moments, primarily driven by Bill Murray, and really, all the better for the movie avoiding dipping in to maudlin sentimentality and whatnot, the way other comedy-type films have done, past and since.
Yeah, I see what you're saying with that. GB was certainly not about meaning, per se. But where I depart from you is that I take substance as being other things as well, such as the innovation I mentioned above. The film did fall in to a certain, fairly shallow type of entertainment, yet was still outrageously novel, interesting and even ground-breaking. That's certainly "substance" to me.
Steve@communick.news · -2 pts · 169d
What are your thoughts on the Avatar movies?
Are they substantive?
JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social · 0 pts · 169d
No idea. I'm much more of bandes dessinĂŠes reader than film-watcher, in general.
That said, I'm with you in terms of films that contain meaning. I do appreciate it, and tend to rate such films higher.
Pat_Riot@lemmy.today · 6 pts · 169d
It's true, your honor, âď¸ this man has no dick.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 13 pts · 169d
Incredibly strong disagree
Steve@communick.news · -7 pts · 169d
What's the substance of The Lighthouse?
What's the meaning? The message? What's the point of it?
idiomaddict@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 169d
Alcohol doesnât solve anything
Donât kill seagulls
Steve@communick.news · -5 pts · 169d
See what I mean?
The Lighthouse is an amazing movie. Easily my favorite Eggers movie. It's fantastic at painting our minds with emotions. But what's the meaning of it? Who the fuck knows? Could be almost anything.
idiomaddict@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 169d
II legitimately stand by those as meanings, so I donât really see what you mean, sorry. Iâd find it hard to get âoriginalityâ or âthe value of hard workâ out of it, but killing seagulls is specifically condemned and the seagull death sets off the action, while alcohol abuse contributed to most of the bad things that happened.
I am very bad at interpreting movies though, so Iâm legitimately interested in what other meanings you can see.
Steve@communick.news · -4 pts · 169d
I see too many possible meanings. And I've no confidence any of them are correct or even valid. I can't even say the sea gulls were real and not imagined.
Don't kill gulls or Alcohol bad are such small trivial ideas, they can't be the real meaning in such a grand complex movie.
idiomaddict@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 169d
Could you (and anyone else) list any of your possible meanings? Correct doesnât exist, imo, so no worries if they feel incomplete.
thermal_shock@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 169d
Agree fully on Drive even though I love everything about it.
But ghostbusters? Shit was a pretty unique movie when it came out, and still holds up, plenty of substance. Weird item on that list.
Steve@communick.news · -4 pts · 169d
Exactly what substance?
It's fun. It's entertaining. It's a fantastic movie. But what the point of it? What's it's message? What's it's meaning?
thermal_shock@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 169d
Substance to me doesn't mean it has a message or meaning, but contains a lot more story than run and gun. It's got backstory, great characters (pro and antagonists), funny and/or hidden jokes, great writing, relatable maybe. It's not a run of the mill boring shoot em up or racing movie. Actual effort was put into it.
Steve@communick.news · -9 pts · 169d
In short, it sounds like you use substance to mean it's a good movie.
That seems a poor use for a word, to simply replace another perfectly good word with no additional context or nuance.
thermal_shock@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 169d
That's not remotely what I said. There are very deep movies with substance that I just don't care about or can't get into.
Steve@communick.news · -2 pts · 169d
Now it seems like you're assuming a good movie simply means a movie you like.
Which also isn't great. I know there are lots of good movies that just aren't for me, and I don't enjoy all the much. But I'll absolutely defend their quality.
But if I'm totally off base here, I'd appreciate more clarification.
thermal_shock@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 169d
Lmao ok man, I guess we're done here.