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 😛
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.
I’d 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. You’re 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 “look how cool this is bruh”.
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? 🙂 You would have been like 3yo when it came out, right?
No major character arch’s 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 “Style” is entertaining and “Substance” 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 don’t really see what you mean, sorry. I’d find it hard to get “originality” or “the value of hard work” 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 I’m 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 replies
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.
I haven't even seen it and this was the movie I thought of when I saw the question.
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.
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.
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 😛
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.
I read the book ages ago ... wasn't it just a kid in a boat?
Yup. With an animal.
Speed Racer. It was a blast. Sometimes Style is all you need.
Speed racer has tons of substance and heart. Watched it for the first time last year in a theater. Awesome movie
Michael Bay. Although The Rock is hilarious.
Tim Burton… most recently
Didn't realize that Michael Bay is a movie
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.
It's a genre.
Hardcore Henry
But its style is so good, the lack of substance does not even matter.
The Expendables franchise
Avatar, most marvel and dc films, most nolan films
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.
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.
Neon Demon but in a good way, the style becomes the substance. Love that movie
I think you could add most movies by Nicolas Winding Refn here.
His film Only God Forgives has to be the most style over substance film of his, hands down
One of the best "all style" movies has to be:
"The Good, The Bad and the Ugly."
Equilibrium.
More recently, Tron Ares.
The Fast and Furious movies literally started as an excuse for Paul Walker to drive his cool car collection, so I nominate those
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
The Tree of Life from 2011. I felt like half the movie was just shots of the universe with music. It was pretty nonsensical.
Saltburn
I’d 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. You’re 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 “look how cool this is bruh”.
Enter The Void is pretty good.
Nah, it's not
Just about anything from directing team Hélène Cattet and Bruno Forzani (Let The Copses Tan and The Strange Color of Your Body’s Tears)
Drive. I LOVR the movie, and LOVE the soundtrack, but it's a run of the mill movie.
I'm a real human bean, and a real hero
College and electric youth, fuck yeah.
Also Kavinsky, got me into synth wave and darksynth
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.
Style to me. I love the movie, but the story to me is very basic.
Enter the Void is pretty bad
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.
Angels egg. I get the idea but dam that was an empty movie. Whole thing could have been 12 frames.
Speedracer
Every Tarantino film.
Came here to say the same.
Ghostbusters (1984)
Ultraviolet (2006)
Torque (2004)
Sin City (2005)
Drive (2011)
The Lighthouse (2019)
I'll probably come back to add more.
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.
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.
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.
I think you should have led with this. Just saying controversial things to start a conversation is cringe.
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? 🙂 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.
What are your thoughts on the Avatar movies?
Are they substantive?
No idea. I'm much more of bandes dessinées 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.
It's true, your honor, ☝️ this man has no dick.
Incredibly strong disagree
What's the substance of The Lighthouse?
What's the meaning? The message? What's the point of it?
Alcohol doesn’t solve anything
Don’t kill seagulls
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 don’t really see what you mean, sorry. I’d find it hard to get “originality” or “the value of hard work” 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 I’m 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.
Could you (and anyone else) list any of your possible meanings? Correct doesn’t exist, imo, so no worries if they feel incomplete.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Lmao ok man, I guess we're done here.