I thought I had a terrible dilemma coming up.
I don’t go see many movies in theaters. There was a time when I went to pretty much all of them, back when I was a copyeditor in Tennessee and was the paper’s film critic on the side. I wasn’t paid to do that additional work, but it wasn’t really work to me. Besides, the paper made it more than worthwhile by reimbursing me for the tickets. Not that the tickets cost much then. Fact is, I probably would have done it without the reimbursement. If, in my continuing project of cleaning out the garage, I run across a copy of my 1977 review of “Star Wars,” I’ll show to you. But I’ve promised to show it to my kids first.
Now, when I do go to a movie theater — once a year or so — I feel the need to take out a mortgage, to spread the payments out in easy installments. First, there’s the cost to get in. Of course, I can get the senior discount, but that discount is so inconsequential that the difference between that and full price is no more than the cost of a ticket in my youth. But hey, that’s just inflation over time, right? If you go to the CPI calculator, you’ll see that that the cost is about the same. Bu if you want to experience highway robbery, try to get some popcorn and a drink.
And no, the fancy recliner seats with the gigantic cupholders, arranged stadium-style, aren’t worth all that extra cost. I find myself wondering why, after the trauma of COVID and the ongoing existential threat posed by streaming and gigantic 4K screens at home, theaters didn’t go the other way — rock-bottom prices to sit on wooden benches or something. My buddy Tony and I used to go to a theater like that in Ecuador when we were about 10 to see Italian Hercules movies and “The Three Musketeers” in French (with Spanish subtitles, in case we wanted to follow the dialogue). It cost us 40 centavos to get in, which in those days amounted to about 2 cents American. And we loved it. A Coke — in a bottle — cost another 2 cents.
About now, I should start getting to my point, which is that my son who is an avid collector of Marvel comics and I were planning to see the new Fantastic Four when it comes out this Friday. (Or a few days later. You’re kind of crazy to go on opening night.) Even though we had just been to see the new Superman a couple of weeks back!
But then I found that “Happy Gilmore 2” was coming out on the same day — July 25! So what was I going to do?
OK, a word about “Happy Gilmore.” Of course, the original flick was overwhelmingly silly. But it worked! I’ve got this thing about movies (and books and other things) that work. They might be the stupidest plots acted out by actors I would never go to see under normal circumstances. But if, somehow, everthing clicks, I will watch it again and again. “Happy Gilmore” is a perfect example. “Old School” is another. They sound so stupid that you’re put off just hearing about them. But the actors — and director — take that stupid idea and make it brilliant. At least, that’s the way I reacted to it. I don’t think I’ve ever done a “Top Five Sports Comedies” list yet, but “Happy” would definitely be on it. In fact, it would be competing with “Major League” for the top spot.
And yeah, I know about sequels made 30 years after the original. They’re often sad — like that made-for-TV reunion movie for “The Beverly Hillbillies” in 1981. Buddy Ebsen had forgotten how to be Jed Clampett! But I’m not expecting brilliance — just a little bit of fun nostalgia. And I know for a fact that “Shooter” McGavin will appear!
But shell out money for a third theater visit in a year?
So imagine my joy when I got an email today from Netflix telling me it will be streaming “Happy Gilmore 2” starting Friday! I was already thinking I might wait for it to be streamed for free at home, and now I don’t have to wait! (Oh, and it had better be “free” to subscribers! They’d better not use this occasion to usher in a new class of premium “world premieres” or some such thieving gimmick!)
Well, I’m happy, and looking forward to Happy 2.
I wonder — how much longer will actual movie theaters continue to exist? The business model seems almost entirely unworkable now…
Related Posts
I sent the following short note to my legislators in DC [Joe Wilson (T-SC2), Lindsey Graham (T-SC), & Tim Scott (T-SC)]:
Like Bill Murray’s character as TV weatherman Phil Connors is stuck in a time-loop in the movie, “Groundhog Day”, the Trump/Epstein controversy is stuck in a time-loop. It will still be news when Congress returns in September.
I looked in YouTube for some clips of Groundhog Day. There’s going to be a sequel with the original major stars, Bill Murray and Andie McDowell.
Cool.
I enjoyed “Happy Gilmore 2,” by the way. As expected, it wasn’t nearly as good as the original, but it was a fun tribute to the original…
There are many sequels in the work that will help us. Remember times when they’re a little better. I need to laugh more often.
So what did you think of “Superman?” And if you saw “Fantastic Four: First Steps,” what did you think of that? Thanks!
Well, I liked it. It was pretty good. But I’ve had a beef lately with superhero movies. They’ve moved radically away from appealing storytelling to CGI razzle-dazzle. Their aim seems to be to accomplish nothing beyond causing the moviegoer to walk out dazed and staggering.
It wasn’t like that in the early part of this century. For instance, the 2002 Spider-Man by Sam Raimi. I liked that (my son did not, but he appreciates the modern comics, and I’m a Silver Age guy). The CGI was excellent, but it was used only to make his powers seem realistic. The emphasis was on a simple story about a high school nerd who suddenly discovers he can do some amazing stuff, and sits down to sew himself a costume.
An example of the kind of film I DON’T like is the gee-whiz stuff we’ve seen since then — such as the Spider-Man who plays second-fiddle to the amazing suit that billionaire Iron Man makes for him. That just throws away the “friendly neighborhood Spider-Man” appeal of the original comics. Peter Parker’s a loner, not a member of a team with high tech and unlimited funding.
Anyway, there was some of that in the new Superman, but not as much as I saw in the Flash movie a year or two back, or the recent Marvel ones. But I still liked it. Just not as much as I would a humbler telling of the story.
We haven’t seen Fantastic Four yet. I think we’re going to go tomorrow…
More about CGI…
It’s a wonderful gift to superhero filmmaking — or fantasy, or whatever genre you’re attempting. But to me, the point is to make the unreal seem real, and blend into the rest of the story without you thinking, “Well, that looked lame…”
It’s to enable you to make the 2002 Sam Raimi Spider-Man, instead of the late-’70s version:
Having seen THAT back in the day, I was quite relieved to see Raimi’s version, and was gratified to see that now, it was possible to make a superhero movie.
But now the makers of these films seem uninterested in making the unreal real. Now, they want to overwhelm your senses to the point that EVERYTHING seems UNreal. It’s an enormous waste of the gift….
Speaking of waste, now that you’ve got me wound up…
Remember the old days, when you needed a “cast of thousands” — extras, that is — if you wanted to shoot a battle or a crowd scene?
Well, one of the things I don’t like about CGI — or don’t like about the way it’s used lately — is that it kind of bothers me to know, when I’m seeing two great hordes of sword- and ax-wielding warriors descending upon one another, that most of them are just ones and zeroes. I mean, c’mon — can’t you let a bunch of ordinary folks have their moment “acting” in a Hollywood movie, for once in their lives?
And here’s the outrageously ironic thing about this: Do you stay through all the credits at the end? Of course you do — otherwise you might miss watching the Avengers eating shawarma after the big battle. (Possibly the best scene in a modern Marvel movie, simply because it’s so extremely human and natural.)
Well, while you’re waiting for that postscript, do you ever try to count the tech people who worked on the special effects — screen after screen of them in multiple columns? It’s kind of overwhelming.
With that many people, you could stage almost any battle you want, without the CGI. And don’t you think the studio has to pay these coders a LOT more than they used to pay for extras?
So what has been gained?
You’ve touched a nerve — not just with the overload of CGI, but with what we’re losing when we let spectacle replace story.
When CGI first emerged, it was like the discovery of spice on Arrakis in Dune: a gift meant to expand perception and unlock impossible worlds. It was never meant to replace substance. Now, instead of using tech to enhance myth, filmmakers use it to overwhelm our senses — until even truth feels synthetic.
As someone who calls himself a blue-eyed Sang’gre, I feel this deeply. I’m actually watching the latest episodes of Sang’gre right now here in the Philippines — and while the effects have improved since the original Encantadia, what still grips me is not the visual power, but the emotional truth. The elemental bonds, the struggles of queens, the cost of power. That’s where real myth lives.
My personal mythology was forged through the pages and paths of stories that never needed a billion-dollar rendering engine:
In Dune, where Paul’s visions taught that destiny without humanity is just tyranny with special effects.
In The Dragonriders of Pern, where dragons are not just beasts, but bonded beings — and their riders earn that bond through love, loss, and grit.
In Earthsea, where true names carry weight, and the magic is in restraint, not flash.
In The Elfstones of Shannara, where every use of magic wounds the wielder.
In Narnia, where the deepest power was not in Aslan’s roar, but in a child’s faith.
In The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, where the smallest hands shape the fate of the world by bearing burdens, not waving sparks.
In Foundation, where even the most advanced psychohistory falters before the unpredictable spark of a human soul (Trump IS The Mule IMHO)
These stories respect the reader — and the viewer — as something more than a consumer – the same way classic journalism once respected us as citizens and participants. You nailed it with shawarma — a moment of simple humanity after cosmic chaos. That’s what stays with us. Not the battles. Not the boom. But the breath.
So yes, CGI is a tool. But when it becomes the story, the soul goes missing. Give me myth. Give me consequence. Give me wonder I can feel, not just see. Because in the end, I’d rather ride a dragon forged in words than one born of code.
A Blue-Eyed Sang’gre | Myth-Bearer of Many Small Worlds | Watching the Real Magic Unfold in Sang’gre in the Philippines