Someone get these references OUT OF MY FILMS! (Rant)

The last oh I would say maybe 15 years of film have generated a trend that is becoming ludicrous, overly referencing your fandom in films!
 
 Referencing other films in your own is a time honoured tradition in film, god knows Tarantino would be at a loss for ideas if he was not such a fan of Spaghetti Westerns and Asian Cinema, and who can forget the great scene in the Untouchables where the baby carriage flies down the stairs, mimicking the famous sequence in Battleship Potemkin, paying homage to an old film is a great way to give a slight nod to a favourite director or film, but these days its so blatant its almost as bad as product placement in cinema.  
 
I watched Paul with my husband and we sat there counting references, by the time we got to 100 we were bored of the game and lost interest, that is the ones we could actually pick up, the more obscure Sci Fi we were sure to miss as we are not big fans of the genre. The film was RIDDLED with them, it was so blatant even to the point of having Star Wars music from Jabba's craft as the entrance music into a street side restaurant or shop (I forget the exact place) It was almost as bad as the excessive lens flares in Star Trek.  
 
I am yet to watch Rango but all the reports I am getting are that it is little more than one big homage to Westerns.   
 
Is it the new product placement? does it give film buffs some sense of elite awareness that transcends their experience of the film? Happy in the knowledge that they are the only ones who could pick up on the incessant placements? or is it just another way that they are dumbing down our cinema experience, giving us little more to work with than a shoddy script and a few dozen handfuls of re capping of films we once loved but that are now so overly referenced that they are loosing their shine.     
 
I used to love having to work hard to find a reference, spot a character deference, even a small tingle of music that was a hint to something old, these days it may as well be turned into a drinking game. 
 
Not happy.     
 
(Original Blog can be found on Screened)

 
The general populace is mainly comprised of retards, and retards love obvious references.  Ever seen an episode of Family Guy?

"

 
The general populace is mainly comprised of retards, and retards love obvious references.  Ever seen an episode of Family Guy?

"

I think the problem which you are talking about is not so much about references but rather the fact that they are non sequitur and don't really add anything to the story.  As you mentioned the baby carriage scene from untouchables was awesome and more so was a focal point of the plot.  Same thing at the beginning of Casino where the Sam Rothstein's body is seen flying through the air (I don't know which movie this is giving homage to though - anyone can help me out?)   
 
I dont agree about the Simpsons though, the references they use there are usually incorprated into the story, or at least they were when I watched.  I am still picking out references to things years later which I didnt even know were references. 

Lol, I saw your tweet and was curious as to what you were talking about, now I know.
 
The reason why I hate Family Guy is because of all those stupid references. I don't mind references in general (in fact I tend to find them hilarious), especially if the rest of the conversation can be understood (if it's a conversation) regardless. They do this is Buffy a lot, and it's something I always loved about it. My main problem with Family Guy is that it just won't age well. In 20 years kids will watch these for the first time and just not have a clue, unless they're specifically interested in certain things.
 
I mean, The Simpsons used to be more along the lines of what Buffy did, with a little reference here and there, but overall you understood the story and it was good. But even recent episodes of The Simpsons have me scratching my head thinking 'eh? What was all that about?', and I'm well versed in cultural products. It just takes you out of the narrative.
 
Btw, Rango is more of a pastiche. The story is perfectly understandable if you don't get the references, and if you do it doesn't really take you out of the story. Still doesn't make it a great story though.

" I think the problem which you are talking about is not so much about references but rather the fact that they are non sequitur and don't really add anything to the story.  As you mentioned the baby carriage scene from untouchables was awesome and more so was a focal point of the plot.  Same thing at the beginning of Casino where the Sam Rothstein's body is seen flying through the air (I don't know which movie this is giving homage to though - anyone can help me out?)    I dont agree about the Simpsons though, the references they use there are usually incorprated into the story, or at least they were when I watched.  I am still picking out references to things years later which I didnt even know were references.  "

Too many writers putting out " Dude, wouldn't it be cool if...", not enough that focus on putting something there because it needs to be.

If you look for it, you can find it anywhere. Just because something is similar doesn't mean that it's ripping off nor paying homage. I mean if you stretch anything you make it seem like another film.

" Too many writers putting out " Dude, wouldn't it be cool if...", not enough that focus on putting something there because it needs to be. "

" Agreed.  Juno was another sterling example of citing other movies for the sake of looking hip.  It's like a new postmodernism.  Post-postmodernism?  I don't like the sound of that. "

I didn't mind all the homages and references in rango because it was a kids movie, but the not-so-subtle references let the older audience (i'm weeping while writing this because I'm not yet 21) have fun picking out references. I liked it because of how over the top it was. but live-action films crammed with such references just seem so overdone and useless. anyway, that's just my two cents...

It's very hard to find something original anymore. References aside, look at the films that are coming out this summer: how many of them are sequels, remakes, or adaptations of some other media into film (many of them flagrantly unnecessary)? Hollywood has an intense phobia of anything that doesn't already fall into their comfort zone; if you want to make something "new," you better already be a well-established filmmaker (many of which have jumped on the "eh, let's just crank out the same drivel that everybody paid to see last year" bandwagon), or be wealthy enough to fund and distribute the film on your own.
This would be an abysmal enough situation if filmmakers could at least handle it well, such as in a way that pays homage to the past but also builds upon it and takes genres in exciting new directions. Instead, we get phenomenon that I like the call the "Scary Movie Effect:" they simply make references to other movies (or, more broadly, anything that recently blipped on the pop culture radar) without making clever jokes, wry observations, or anything else to that effect.
Everything builds upon the past, and cinema is no exception. However, it seems like this most recent generation of filmmakers' contribution to the art is going to equivalent of taking a Sharpie and putting chin stubble on the Statue of Liberty: transitory, meaningless, and only amusing to the "artist" and his drunken cohorts.