This is being a bit too "edgy" for me. Not to defend Forrest Gump as an all-time great or anything, but is there really something wrong or unsavory about its conception?

What you call "exploiting a demographic" is more like "having a target audience instead of trying to be all things to all people". Sure, Boomers are a huge generation. But they were entering their 50's when Forrest Gump came out... and studios usually aim at 18-34 year olds because that's who spends the most time and disposable income at the movies.

What you call "Spielberging" is probably just a combination of cinematography, soundtrack, and accessibility over hipster snob appeal. In other words, good mass-market filmmaking.

Maybe this particular movie isn't your cup of tea, but there's nothing negative or cynical about this. "Cynical" would be hijacking HN threads to bring up urban walkability, UBI, random potshots at Baby Boomers, or any of the other standard hot buttons that typically guarantee upvotes and validation.

I believe the cynicism would be when a studio chooses demographic and marketability over art.

There is no "best" art (sorry, high art world), but there are absolutely choices you can make for marketing rather than artistic reasons.

I like Robert Zemeckis and Ron Howard films, but they're boring ideas, well-executed. And I have a sneaking suspicion that given their copious directorial output and uniformity of end product... some of those choices were made for monetary rather than creative reasons.

Nobody says "I want to make a mind-bending Dune film, get me Robert Zemeckis!"

> "there are absolutely choices you can make for marketing rather than artistic reasons"

That is fair. I believe it's also the case that when evaluating art, it's easy to conflate those reasons with one's own POV and demographic biases.

In other words: Forrest Gump is cynical pandering to Baby Boomers... but [this-year's-Marvel-superhero-movie] is an artistic gem, and The Dark Knight or Black Panther got robbed at the Oscars, etc.

That's an odd way to characterize it, IMO. Like if someone wanted to argue that Zemeckis makes substandard movies because he wants to profit from it, I should be able to argue that the Leanardo DaVinci painted substandard art because he profited from it. 100 years from now, nobody will care if Zemeckis made money, because he'll be dead. The legacy is what remains. The art is what is left behind, and what is left behind is better preserved if more people like it. I would argue that the value of art is not a pure measure of quality, but more like the product of quality and outreach.

I'd say it is unsavory in the same way today's movies are "manufactured" to extract the most value from american and chinese markets. Where decisions of film locations, dialogue, plot, etc are driven by marketing and political aspects of these two major markets. And the "art" comes after the market research.

"ars gratia artis" doesn't apply to Forrest Gump. It was manufactured out of marketing data. It was the 90s version of most recent nostalgia film "Ready Player One". I know it won a bunch of awards ( which I put no credence or value on ) but it is film saccharine. Forrest Gump is one of the forefathers of the current movie industry.

Just because a movie is created because of cynicism on the part of the production company does not mean that it is created because of cynicism on the part of the filmmaker, crew, or editors.

A filmmaker will flagrantly appeal to the cynicism of the producers in order to produce a film they believe in wholeheartedly. Forrest Gump is probably a great example of it.

Spielberg and Ron Howard definitely make middle-of-the-road appeal-to-everyone films.

But so did Shakespeare. Middlebrow and excellent are not mutually exclusive terms.

Oh, and Michael Bay is represented on the Wikipedia List of Film Auteurs page.[1]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_auteurs

>massive demographic the studios could exploit the Hell out of

who? readers of a novel?

Baby Boomers! The film Forrest Gump was basically Baby Boomers: The Movie.

It was a Greatest Hits album of everything the stereotypical Boomer would consider great and memorable about their childhood and young adulthood.

My wife and I are 47 and love it. Our teenage kids enjoyed it when we watched it with them recently. My dad, a boomer, actually doesn’t care all that much for it. It happens to be a good story irrespective of when you were a child or young adult. Shrug.

Certainly doesn't hurt that Tom Hanks attracts all kinds

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here - there's nothing wrong with enjoying it, there's nothing wierd about younger people enjoying it and that still doesn't really change the fact that movie targets nostalgia of a certain demografic. Considering it's success, it does that very well.

I saw it in my teens and loved it. It was a film that could appeal to all.

Disturbing modern idea that everything has to appease only a certain group of people, others need not apply.

What in the world are you talking about?

Gump was Zemeckis!

those 2 have quite a similar approach to movies AFAIK

Spielburg produced a lot of his films, so that would make sense.