Where are the true 'films for everyone' these days?

I really don't thinks that Hollywood considers "Everyone" to be a viable economic demographic anymore.  Parents seem to have given up trying to show any discerning taste and take their kids to whatever child-oriented movie is opening in a given weekend (Mars Needs Mom's, not withstanding).  I'd grudgingly consider the Harry Potter series to have broad appeal as well as the Pixar films.

Family-oriented movies have shifted considerably towards being overly safe and syrupy and can imagine a lot of parents would find something like City Slickers as being too edgy.

True Grit connected with several generations. And didn't have Billy Crystal in it.

It's a shame the Billy Crystal demographic isn't profitable any more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil 

True Grit connected with several generations. And didn't have Billy Crystal in it.

Maybe, but a typical kid would probably have found it dull, so I dunno if it fits Rain Dog's description. I'd say Pixar movies come a lot closer to being successful for all audiences, but it can seem like those kinds of films are few and far between these days. I blame the continued splintering and Balkanization of our media (in which everyone can find news/entertainment specifically aimed at their narrow interests).

Either that, or "movies for everyone" are still out there and this thread is just the sort of thought people have as they get older.

I'm with RD!  My old thread expressing my love for the movie!

I think what people have already pointed out several good reasons as to why we don't see as many good 'films for everyone' anymore.  I think you're all right. 

Conventional storytelling that is executed well is something we just don't see as much anymore.  Conventional is such a dirty word.  Something that tries to be all things for the most amount of people is a dirty concept.  And to a degree, I feel the same way.  There was a time when those concepts were the 'mean' of the film industry.  They were pushed at the expense of being creatively daring.  In that context, everything gets homogenized down to something acceptable for everyone. 

What I think we're seeing now is an industry that has bought into the other extreme.  The sheer amount of remakes, sequels, reboots, and non-original properties suggests otherwise, but I'm not talking about the ideas here.  I'm talking about the execution.  The filmmakers who actually know their shit and mess with the conventions of cinema successfully have brought forth a creative environment where everyone tries to break the rules and do something new.  That includes those who don't know shit about what they're dealing with.  But with so much selection out there, films have to stand out or risk being invisible.  Conventional doesn't stand out.  Shooting for everyone is resulting in hitting no one.  So movies opt to click with a specific type of audience instead. 

And now it feels like a well told conventional story is the outlier.  The Coens' True Grit is a good example of this. 

EDIT:  I know you didn't like the fact that The King's Speech won best picture, RD... but I thought it was a great example of a "movie for everyone."  (psst... both movies star a buncha white people!  Brought to you by the Hollywood Whitewashing clique!)

It's harder to market those types of films, and usually they need more time to play in the marketplace to connect with "everyone," which is why the concept of "word of mouth" has shrank to "opening weekend impressions by teenagers on Twitter" and "the elderly."

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 

So I'm watching TV tonight and City Slickers happens to be on. It's been quite a few years since I've seen it and I happen to catch it from the start so before I know it, I've watched the whole movie. I've laughed, I've cried, I've been completely moved, engaged and utterly entertained. By it's end I've been taken on a really enjoyable filmic journey and it's left me thinking "where are the City Slickers of today?" Where are those movies everyone can really enjoy, character based stories that people can go on an emotional journey with and really feel like they can enjoy with their kids and their parents at the same time? Comedies with drama or dramas with comedy if you will?

 

Does Hollywood just not work that way anymore? Does the business model not allow for mid-range budgeted films that are able to do this? Is it too busy looking for sequels, prequels and adaptations to bother backing a film like this anymore?

 

Anyway, I miss movies like this that can really make me laugh and cry and be completely onboard its story on its own terms.

 

 

 

 

(For what it's worth, if you haven't seen City Slickers yet, do yourself a favor.)

Pirates of The Carribean fits this pretty well. The first at least. I wonder if Super 8 will?

I have heard not one bad thing said about Who Framed Roger Rabbit?. NOT ONE.

Movie geeks get something out of it. Soccer Moms get something out of it. My racist grandfather gets something out of it.

Everyone loves Who Framed Roger Rabbit?.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherman Davies 

Maybe, but a typical kid would probably have found it dull, so I dunno if it fits Rain Dog's description.

City Slickers always bored me a lot as a kid, so I'd say it fits his description perfectly.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walker 

I have heard not one bad thing said about Who Framed Roger Rabbit?. NOT ONE.

 

Movie geeks get something out of it. Soccer Moms get something out of it. My racist grandfather gets something out of it.

 

Everyone loves Who Framed Roger Rabbit?.

I dislike Who Framed Roger Rabbit?. Hated it in the theatre as kid in '88, hated it on video as a teen in the 90s, & still don't care for it. I can certainly appreciate it on an artistic level but, to me, it's just a dizzying swirl of action & zaniness with little emotional or intellectual pull. It's kinda like 1941 in that respect.

Flabbergasted, and I can't fathom why you hate it.

You addressed how much of a technical achievement it is(that's how I intrepreted "I can certainly appreciate it on an artistic level"), but either I'm a shallow person or your're underscoring it's lack of emotional and intellectual pull. Hopefully I can make my case for the latter, and not come off silly by defending a damn live action/cartoon hybrid.

The lack of emotional pull I'll give you, but you can't deny that the film tries to draw that with Roger Rabbitt worrying about his wife; and as well as Valiant's back story of his brother being murdered and the prejudice he has against toons because of it. It's surface, but the attempt is made all the same.

The element of intellect I think is something I think that can be gained from the film noir troupes it's trying to send up/pay homage too. So, if I had a kid and wanted to drop knowledge on that sort of thing Who Framed Roger Rabbit would most definitely be the gateway to geekery I would choose to get him/her started.

Also: I love that WFRR was originally going to reveal that Judge Doom was the murderer that killed Bambi's Mom. That's pretty sick and clever, I think.

I used think that there wasn't a person alive that disliked A Christmas Story, but they apparently exist, but not in droves. With that in mind, they should all be rounded up in orderly fashion and sent to the nearest appropriate camps to be processed.

That said, there is no such thing as a film for everyone. Mcnooj made a joke up above about movies filled with white people, but films for everyone are indeed films that are largely cited to have "universal appeal". Everything under the sun casts a shadow, and I think that's the very intentional (and poor) byproduct of a crafting a film for "everyone".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walker 

Flabbergasted, and I can't fathom why you hate it.

It's a mystery for the ages. At least I didn't say The Princess Bride . Now that's a movie liked by just about everyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny 

That said, there is no such thing as a film for everyone.

 

Too true.

Raiders. 

Robocop

One could say that it doesn't count 'cause it's too much for kids but then I'm pretty sure most of us on these boards saw it when we were tykes.

I feel that Iron Man succeeded partially because it was a film 'made for everyone.'  It had that Pirates of the Caribbean-ish quality and tone to it... most of it coming from RDJ.  Heheh.

Terminator 2.  Because Cameron has made a career of making films for everyone.  Hahahaha

I'm convinced that Robocop, which was not intended for kids, became a relatively easy pitch because of the almost complete lack of sexuality in the film. Sure, characters - including the hero - are turned into taco meat every ten to fiteen minutes, but dammit, the kids sure love that Robo. All of the ridiculous commercialism lampooned in that film has nothing on reality.

That's always been funny to me, maybe not as funny as H. R. Giger's big, black, phallic rapemonster becoming a thing sold at your local Toys R' Us, but still pretty funny.

Maybe not today's grandmothers but that ratio's gonna kick up like crazy in 10-15 years.

Yo, I just never liked that kid, the V.O. or how it dragged on

Hated Goonies too, but never tell a fan that, those suckers are sensitive.
 

Is there a person alive that doesn't like A NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS? I don't want to meet those soulless drones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny 

I used think that there wasn't a a person alive that disliked A Christmas Story, but they apparently exist, but not in droves.

 

 

I can understand not liking The Breakfast Club, but I used to think everybody dug Ferris Bueller's Day Off because it had a simple but effective premise, excellent pacing, and good characters. But then I discovered the internet and saw how many people are so humorless about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 

I'm not necessarily talking about films everyone simply 'has' to like. More films that have as much of a chance entertaining and charming a kid as they do his grandfather.

I think this will become a narrower and narrower niche; I feel like, narratively and aesthetically, films of 1980 had more in common with films of 1950 than films of 1980 have in common with films of 2010, which creates "connection" problems on both ends of the generational spectrum. Contemporary kids think ET is boring and people older than me (inclusive) can't make heads or tails out of some of today's bigger flicks. Technology is driving the medium (as it always has), but it's growing exponentially and the evolution of storytelling is changing more and more quickly (look at the split in Sucker Punch reactions: some hail it as a "new kind of cinema" while others deride it as incomprehensible).

It also comes down to the true foundation of Hollywood these days the bean counting executives. They think myopically for the most part and looking at film these days its easy to see.

Its all about profits inside (tickets) and outside (toys etc) the theater. City Slickers is an interesting choice as its a comedy and a western you don't see a lot of films fuse those kind of elements anymore.

Shit people have said Raiders i'd settle for more Jurassic Park. Its natural to cater to genres or demographics but as we have seen trickier to cater to all of the above.

Have we really gotten this far without mentioning Ghostbusters?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Art Decade 

Have we really gotten this far without mentioning Ghostbusters?

It has a ghost blowjob and a reference to a man being dickless. And a female character saying to a male character, "I want you inside me." Rose-colored glasses.

But the kids love it! (the Sigorney Weaver nip slip!)

"I want you inside me," means that she wanted his soul in hers, right?  Right?  And the ghost was just tickling Ray's bare legs, yes?  Approved for all audiences!!!

(I was a sheltered kid)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil 

It has a ghost blowjob and a reference to a man being dickless. And a female character saying to a male character, "I want you inside me." Rose-colored glasses.

 

Slow down there, Capt. Contrarian, every elementary-age kid I knew growing up loved it as did my then 40-something mother & her friends. Rose-colored glasses, my ass.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 

I think you're hitting the nail on the head there Phil. I also think it doesn't help that Hollywoods target demographic has become younger with each passing year so that the older generation of movie lovers don't really get a look-in these days.
 

 

Hah.

Hollywood at the moment seems determined to please 25-40 year olds, it's literally strip mining any property that was big in the 1980s or 1990s. Even the superhero genre seems to be aimed less at kids and more at adults with arrested development. I'd suggest that we're in a weird place now where Hollywood films feel like they're aiming for older audiences whilst indie cinema is hitting younger kids. Just watching the trailers for a bunch of indie films made me realise how keyed into certain demographics they are. 

"Sadly", depending on your view, I think they're all animated nowadays. Pixar, of course, excels at it. But there's also stuff like Fantastic Mr. Fox and Myazaki films out there, while not as popular as something like, say, How to Train Your Dragon, still have something both kids and adults can enjoy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Art Decade 

Slow down there, Capt. Contrarian, every elementary-age kid I knew growing up loved it as did my then 40-something mother & her friends. Rose-colored glasses, my ass.

I loved Porky's when I was 11.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil 

It has a ghost blowjob and a reference to a man being dickless. And a female character saying to a male character, "I want you inside me." Rose-colored glasses.

 

You know, it's been years since I've seen Ghostbusters, but it wasn't until the internet was created for me to find out about the ghost blowjob. I'm sure that's going to be lost on any given grade schooler.

I guess the question is "Was Ghostbusters intended to be a 'film for everyone'?" I don't believe it was. It certainly worked out that way, and the cartoons and shit that came after were kid-oriented (but not adult-oriented). The original film feels more like a successor to the slob/snob stuff these guys had been doing for five or six years at that point.

But I dunno, maybe it was. Splash had titty in it and that was a pan-generational hit.

Star Wars is the obvious answer as the prototypical "movie for all ages".   I know since then, George Lucas has tried to tarnish the brand but EVERYONE loved Star Wars.  If you want a modern example, Avatar is the easy choice.   It doesn't mean everyone loves the movie but it does appeal to every demographic (partly because of its entirely cliche story).

Another thing about Ghostbusters is that the concept, despite goofy execution, is pretty morbid. That in mind, I'd agree with you the movie's main endgame originally wasn't suppose to be some kiddie merchandise bonanza.

That logic aside, I feel that this movie was designed to branch into different ventures like toys, cartoons, etc. What's tripping me up is that it's also deeply morbid, and to my knowledge, is the only PG rated movie I can think of that has the word "fuck"; elements that I can understand provoking a reaction by parents.

While I can't say that any particular film is well loved by everybody, I find it endlessly fascinating just how far & wide characters like Batman & Superman hold appeal. EVERYBODY, young & old, white or non-white, rich or poor LIKES Batman, Supes, & the more traditional heroes like Robin Hood & King Arthur.

Spaceballs also had, "Out of order!?  FUCK!  Even in the future nothing works!"  Pretty sure it was PG.  And it was said loudly off-screen.  It could've easily been removed without anyone knowing.  I certainly didn't know when I first saw the movie on Dialing for Dollars one sunny summer afternoon...

Would we all agree that by the time the 90s got underway, most such "for everyone" movies had lost their balls for the most part?  Thought I don't consider the first Ninja Turtles to be a movie for EVERYONE (it was definitely aiming for the kids), it was noticeably grittier and more violent than the second one.  It had a grittier and darker look to it.  The anti-violence-in-the-media sentiment of the 90s made it so that the Turtles couldn't use their weapons in the sequel and its tone was a lot more 'family friendly' than the first.

So, based on that... I think Ghostbusters (or Ghost Busters!) was very much a movie for everyone at a time when skins were thicker about objectionable content.  Doing some quick research... I see that Ghostbusters (June 1984) was given a PG rating the same year the PG-13 was first used for Red Dawn and Dreamscape (both August 1984). 

I... don't know what to think.  Back when I was watching my Ghostbusters VHS over and over in the 90s, I'd always assumed it was a PG-13.  But then, I was pretty sheltered.

"I want you inside me!"  What does that mean!?

EDIT:  And Spaceballs... with its "FUCK!" was rated PG in 1987.  I know it's been re-rated to be PG-13 now.  Not sure when that happened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walker 

I have heard not one bad thing said about Who Framed Roger Rabbit?. NOT ONE.

 

Movie geeks get something out of it. Soccer Moms get something out of it. My racist grandfather gets something out of it.

 

Everyone loves Who Framed Roger Rabbit?.

Not my one friend who saw it theatrically, who revisited it a few years ago and stopped watching it out of boredom.

Save The Dark Knight and Toy Story 3, I've found myself disliking or not loving a lot of the modern, big populist blockbusters that "everyone" is supposed to like. Avatar drags terribly in the middle. Alice in Wonderland was a plane crash spiraling into a train wreck that caused a massive car crash that somehow was the #2 highest-grossing film of last year.

Inception almost qualifies for this, but the complexities could turn people off, and (I think) I'm one of the only people here who thought it was visually arresting but found the film's substance in terms of story and plot to be completely hollow and over-expository, and I say this as someone who has sworn by the man since Memento. However, up at Ramapo College (most famous for being one of the colleges A.J. Soprano applied to and an immense rash of alcohol-related hospitalizations and Four Loko-related nonsense), there's no professor in the communication arts department who likes the film, let alone Nolan's other work.

That being said, with the exception of Cars due to its cloying to Middle America, Pixar gets full immunity here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

Spaceballs also had, "Out of order!?  FUCK!  Even in the future nothing works!"  Pretty sure it was PG.  And it was said loudly off-screen.  It could've easily been removed without anyone knowing.  I certainly didn't know when I first saw the movie on Dialing for Dollars one sunny summer afternoon...

 

Would we all agree that by the time the 90s got underway, most such "for everyone" movies had lost their balls for the most part?  Thought I don't consider the first Ninja Turtles to be a movie for EVERYONE (it was definitely aiming for the kids), it was noticeably grittier and more violent than the second one.  It had a grittier and darker look to it.  The anti-violence-in-the-media sentiment of the 90s made it so that the Turtles couldn't use their weapons in the sequel and its tone was a lot more 'family friendly' than the first.

 

So, based on that... I think Ghostbusters (or Ghost Busters!) was very much a movie for everyone at a time when skins were thicker about objectionable content.  Doing some quick research... I see that Ghostbusters (June 1984) was given a PG rating the same year the PG-13 was first used for Red Dawn and Dreamscape (both August 1984). 

 

I... don't know what to think.  Back when I was watching my Ghostbusters VHS over and over in the 90s, I'd always assumed it was a PG-13.  But then, I was pretty sheltered.

 

"I want you inside me!"  What does that mean!?

 

EDIT:  And Spaceballs... with its "FUCK!" was rated PG in 1987.  I know it's been re-rated to be PG-13 now.  Not sure when that happened.

Spaceballs has always been PG. It was mislabeled as PG-13, I believe, on the original home video release of the film that was appropriately labeled Spaceballs: The Video. I have this version somewhere in my house (which also has the Willow teaser and a spot for Fatal Beauty) and I clearly remember the PG-13 rating being on there. However, it's had its PG rating on the DVD and Blu-ray releases of the film.

I can also tell you I clearly remember I had Ghostbusters on tape back in the 90's, specifically this version which had a mislabeled PG-13 rating on the back of the box, but every release since is correct.

Oh yeah, and I idolized RoboCop as a kid, though it was primarily from the sequels, and the second one is almost as violent as the first but masquerading as a kids' movie. And I loved the third one at that age. Shame on me.

Oh, and I totally had a ton of H.R. Giger rape-monsters and crusading Marines, despite the fact that I never saw any of the Alien movies till I was 13.

I dunno. I work in the arts/entertainment world and I hear "4 quadrant" (young/old, male/female) an awful lot from marketing. They still want to cast a wide net and pull in as many fish as possible. Many safe choices are still being made ("What can we do to trim this R to a PG-13?"). It's weird, the world's been more jaded/numbed to certain things thanks to the internet, exploitive tv, etc and yet certain entertainment has been much more neutered than it had been when I grew up. Will we ever see another WATERSHIP DOWN?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil 

I loved Porky's when I was 11.

Maybe so, but my Mom wouldn't have taken me to Porky's. Or bought me toys from Porky's. Flicks like GHOSTBUSTERS, BEETLEJUICE, and GREMLINS, despite having questionable material in them, were still marketed towards kids to varying degrees. Plus, there's a certain nostalgic/classic status that has earned enough goodwill to keep them playing on regular TV for the newer generations (albeit with edits).

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 
As much as I hate to concede it as I abhor the film personally, Avatar is probably a very good example of the modern all ages filmic success. Certainly financially anyway - did it work as a film speaking to all ages? Well anecdotally I know more people from across demographic spectrums that either hated it or didn't think much of it than loved it, but you can't argue with the fact that a vast array of age groups must have given it a chance in theatres for it to make the money it did.
 

This^. James Cameron (see also TITANIC) has the formula down. He is a 4-Quadrant Mofo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 

I dunno. I work in the arts/entertainment world and I hear "4 quadrant" (young/old, male/female) an awful lot from marketing. They still want to cast a wide net and pull in as many fish as possible. Many safe choices are still being made ("What can we do to trim this R to a PG-13?"). It's weird, the world's been more jaded/numbed to certain things thanks to the internet, exploitive tv, etc and yet certain entertainment has been much more neutered than it had been when I grew up. Will we ever see another WATERSHIP DOWN?

I have no doubt that you're right.  I should've been clearer. 

The 4 quadrant approach to commercial art is only going to get stronger (worse).  But what we're seeing now is "artistic daring" being completely assimilated into that marketing culture, resulting in a Frankenstein monster combining homogenized appeal and the pretense of being edgy/hip/creative/in-yo-face.  That way leads to some sloppy shit, I feel.   A bunch of high-profile works that are neither here nor there and end up a film meant for no one in particular.

Basically... what Bill Hicks said about marketing people.

This thread has stayed with me, and I've racked and racked my brain as to what could possibly qualify with the criteria stated above.

So far, I've come up with two possibles:

Here's my stupid answer that's obviously a lame joke.

And here's my suggestion that I sincerely submit as fun for the whole family.

I think War Horse, based on the material might be a contender for this thread (if it's any good).  If it's done right, The Hobbit also has that potiential as does Tintin.

So maybe there is hope for the future?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 
I think the huge successful films often qualify - Spielberg was the master of this while Cameron was still dicking around with Corman. Jaws, Close Encounters, ET - hell, the guy hit so many quadrants he changed Hollywoods entire business model.

Can't argue with that.

"I've been making 4-quadrant films since before you were sucking on Corman's TEAT!"

Best case scenario, War Horse is another Empire of the Sun, which clearly should have been a film for everyone instead of being routinely ignored.

Have we gone this long without someone cracking a Professional joke?