|Posted by: MockingbirdGirl 07:52 pm EDT 09/10/21|
|In reply to: re: Dear Evan Hansen at 42% on Rotten Tomatoes - BroadwayTonyJ 06:49 pm EDT 09/10/21|
|But it does make me wonder when the last time is you actually went to a movie. The way films end has changed drastically over even the past decade. Even after all of the plot threads are resolved, movies often continue for 5 or 10 minutes. Why? Studios and franchising. Even movies that don't have an obvious sequel go on way too long. Why? Only a few years ago, studios were clamoring to shut down Rotten Tomatoes, claiming it was killing movies; now, they tack on unnecessary scenes to try to goose those scores. This from a recent article on the topic:
“I think it has a lot to do with CinemaScore and the testing process,” says a screenwriter. “Movies are looking for that little boost at the end to get that final impression up a bit right as people leave the theater. That’s why post-credit sequences work. You can see that movies that end ambiguously score lower in testing and on CinemaScore. So the longer endings remove all ambiguity.”
And because of this desperate need to make sure audiences don't leave thinking a movie was unsatisfying , we get artificial 'happy moments' tacked on to the end. It's not like Casablanca, where the plot resolves, the leads walk alway with a brief, snappy exchange of dialogue, and it's over. Once you start noticing it, it's impossible to ignore... and it's definitely not just "as much time as it needs to tell a story."
|Previous:||re: Dear Evan Hansen at 42% on Rotten Tomatoes - BroadwayTonyJ 05:41 am EDT 09/11/21|
|Next:||re: Charming naiveté - AnyaS 11:49 pm EDT 09/10/21|
Time to render: 0.025608 seconds.