The article “Don’t Panic, Simon Pegg” challenges Pegg’s accusations of modern cinema’s dull development and depth in mainstream films with an effective, balanced response about the exceptions of the industry.
The Atlantic article reviews a statement Simon Pegg makes about the “infantilized” nature of modern cinema (Sims). The author, David Sims, reiterates Simon Pegg’s accusation that films, particularly blockbusters, fail to have depth. Pegg makes this broad assumption because he feels films focus more on spectacle than any type of meaning. While Sims agrees that spectacle plays a large role in popular films, he clarifies that spectacle has been the basis of films since the beginning. The main arguing point for Pegg, however, is that earlier films leave a moviegoer thinking as the film finishes. To counter Pegg’s thought, Sims targets the exceptions by describing the philosophical depth of…show more content… Sims references The Matrix and The Avengers without any hesitation. He acknowledges the subculture that those series came from but does not label them as “infantilized” (Sims). Sims mentions subculture in his article with the purpose of addressing how films have become a manifestation of interests. These interests exhibit the strength subculture has on Hollywood and how Hollywood is gravitating toward it. Thus, the modern blockbuster is born causing those like Pegg to question cinema. It becomes a matter of “balance between art and commerce” that Sims is directing Pegg to wonder about (Sims). Yet, Pegg is seeing commerce as the greater force and the focus on art the fleeting force. Sims reference to The Matrix and The Avengers shows the moments when art is clear but also how such movies thrive from the longevity of their runs monetarily. These references call for debate, as Sims concludes because no one can address the balance without a discussion on what is of greater importance: art or