|
Post by Prime etc. on Nov 6, 2019 3:31:42 GMT
Also, I don't think ticket prices cost THAT much. At least, I know that it doesn't in my area. It is blamed for causing people to not go out. Why should it cost so much? It's a racket. Lots of businesses don't run like that so why should film.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 6, 2019 13:03:00 GMT
Batman, Aquaman, Joker and Mad Max say hello. Yes, great art. The Road Warrior Beyond Thunderdome Batman Returns The Dark Knight Fury Road Joker They are all visionary masterpieces and works of art. If you can't get that, well, it's a personal problem of yours.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 6, 2019 15:23:31 GMT
The Road Warrior Beyond Thunderdome Batman Returns The Dark Knight Fury Road Joker They are all visionary masterpieces and works of art. If you can't get that, well, it's a personal problem of yours. The above are good movies and rise above the genre, but not art. Madness. You're minority, sorry. And for good reasons. You can't say that Mozart rises above the genre, but it's not art.
|
|
DarkManX
Junior Member
@shadowrun
Posts: 2,266
Likes: 1,100
|
Post by DarkManX on Nov 6, 2019 15:54:08 GMT
He sounds like a broken record. Reminds me of someone else. You mean Marvel fantards who explosively overreact to any kind of criticism even if its constructive?
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 6, 2019 19:03:39 GMT
Madness. You're minority, sorry. And for good reasons. You can't say that Mozart rises above the genre, but it's not art. Mozart don’t make movies, kid. I mean whatever. Can’t please everybody, so fuck ‘em. Have a great day. You sound like a nasty and angry playstation gamer. Okay, have a good room time!
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Nov 6, 2019 19:07:51 GMT
The Road Warrior Beyond Thunderdome Batman Returns The Dark Knight Fury Road Joker They are all visionary masterpieces and works of art. If you can't get that, well, it's a personal problem of yours. ALL movies are art. What ones you think merit the label is up to you. Doesn't make you right, because there is no right answer. If you can't get that, well, it's a personal problem of yours.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 6, 2019 19:24:59 GMT
The Road Warrior Beyond Thunderdome Batman Returns The Dark Knight Fury Road Joker They are all visionary masterpieces and works of art. If you can't get that, well, it's a personal problem of yours. ALL movies are art. What ones you think merit the label is up to you. Doesn't make you right, because there is no right answer. If you can't get that, well, it's a personal problem of yours. Not all movies break new grounds and inspire NEW CINEMATIC VISIONS. That's pretty objective.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Nov 6, 2019 19:38:48 GMT
ALL movies are art. What ones you think merit the label is up to you. Doesn't make you right, because there is no right answer. If you can't get that, well, it's a personal problem of yours. Not all movies break new grounds and inspire NEW CINEMATIC VISIONS. That's pretty objective. Define "NEW CINEMATIC VISIONS" and we'll see if it applies
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Nov 6, 2019 20:43:55 GMT
You sound like a nasty and angry playstation gamer. Okay, have a good room time! I saw Psycho as a seven year old, young whippersnapper. I saw Scorsese first film "Who's That Knocking at My Door" in at college art house cinema before you were born. Hurrumph. But were they "art"
|
|
|
Post by merh on Nov 7, 2019 2:32:28 GMT
Okay, I think this is getting comical. .
He literally thinks MCU is ruining cinema.
Slams them, says they dont take risk
MCU fans, what are your thoughts on his new latest attacks on the MCU. This is like the 5th time he has trashed marvel in less than a mount.
He is butthurt his latest isn't getting a decent theater run because Netflix won't honor the usual theater run length. It's hitting streaming by the end of this month. Rather than get mad at Netflix, he is taking it out on Marvel as the reason he can't get studios to hand him a pile of cash to make films anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Nov 7, 2019 2:46:51 GMT
He is butthurt his latest isn't getting a decent theater run because Netflix won't honor the usual theater run length. It's hitting streaming by the end of this month. Rather than get mad at Netflix, he is taking it out on Marvel as the reason he can't get studios to hand him a pile of cash to make films anymore. He and Coppola didn't seem to complain about the corporate takeover of studios and diminishing business opportunities when they were getting catered to. But that doesn't mean they are wrong about the overall direction that it has taken even if they didnt care about it until now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2019 3:51:51 GMT
He is butthurt his latest isn't getting a decent theater run because Netflix won't honor the usual theater run length. It's hitting streaming by the end of this month. Rather than get mad at Netflix, he is taking it out on Marvel as the reason he can't get studios to hand him a pile of cash to make films anymore. He and Coppola didn't seem to complain about the corporate takeover of studios and diminishing business opportunities when they were getting catered to. But that doesn't mean they are wrong about the overall direction that it has taken even if they didnt care about it until now.
Blockbusters have been dominating for a while though. Part of why the Marvel Cinematic Universe and no other (I guess) superhero films are the target is because their success is letting Disney use them to drive the culture. The films aren't really the problem, or at least they weren't until they were this successful. In the span of 10 years I watched them go from films a few people were into to the 1 billion even 2 billion dollar club. It's like what Thor said in Avengers about the Earth showing the other realms it's ready for a higher form of war. The success of the Marvel movies invites a higher form of criticism.
If I'd never seen the Marvel Cinematic Universe movies, I'd still find it difficult to blame them for doing what they do. At least they're in the theaters, which is no guarantee of anything that comes from Netflix. I was of the camp if a film from Netflix is up for Oscar consideration, it has to be played in a cinema, or else it defeats the purpose. The Oscars are no good if no one's seen the nominees. I really liked Roma, but I would not be okay with it being a best picture nominee were it not played in theaters.
Studios have been into blockbusters and franchises for a long, long time. Franchises, sequels, remakes. It's such a factory it's no wonder auteurs and actors are writing original films for Netflix and Amazon now. The writing's been on the wall for a long time. Soon enough, Netflix and Amazon will be factories too. They're not benevolent, they're just behind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2019 3:58:20 GMT
Blockbusters have been dominating for a while though. Part of why the Marvel Cinematic Universe and no other (I guess) superhero films are the target is because their success is letting Disney use them to drive the culture. The films aren't really the problem, or at least they weren't until they were this successful. In the span of 10 years I watched them go from films a few people were into to the 1 billion even 2 billion dollar club. It's like what Thor said in Avengers about the Earth showing the other realms it's ready for a higher form of war. The success of the Marvel movies invites a higher form of criticism.
If I'd never seen the Marvel Cinematic Universe movies, I'd still find it difficult to blame them for doing what they do. At least they're in the theaters, which is no guarantee of anything that comes from Netflix. I was of the camp if a film from Netflix is up for Oscar consideration, it has to be played in a cinema, or else it defeats the purpose. The Oscars are no good if no one's seen the nominees. I really liked Roma, but I would not be okay with it being a best picture nominee were it not played in theaters.
Studios have been into blockbusters and franchises for a long, long time. Franchises, sequels, remakes. It's such a factory it's no wonder auteurs and actors are writing original films for Netflix and Amazon now. The writing's been on the wall for a long time. Soon enough, Netflix and Amazon will be factories too. They're not benevolent, they're just behind.
I posted on general film that some filmmakers are making a new film using a CGI’d James Dean. That would be weird. Is it true? Or are you yanking their chain?
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Nov 7, 2019 4:15:05 GMT
Movie Culture has changed in the last 15 years along with the technology. Marvel has successfully embraced the change to Event Level Movie Making. Somehow they have captured the Zeitgeist of the world. Other studios can to they just to find their Niche. DC seems to be doing too. Like they always have done with crafted individual stories. That's great. Other studios are cutting out their Niche like smart crafted socially aware Horror like Blumhouse has. Netflix became a content provider when they new other Streaming Services were on the horizon. They are a Movie Studio that bypasses the distribution model of the old world. That's also great. They still are in the business of making movies but have bypassed the middle men. A lot can change in 15 years. Since the dawn of Human Civilization to 1900, 1000s and 1000s of years the Human has used the Horse for transportation and locomotion. Then in just 13 years everything changed. This is a picture of 5th Avenue New York Easter 1900: This is a picture of 5th Avenue New York Easter 1913: Other Studios need to figure out how not to be a Horse Buggy Maker/Seller in 1913...
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Nov 7, 2019 4:17:20 GMT
Blockbusters have been dominating for a while though. Part of why the Marvel Cinematic Universe and no other (I guess) superhero films are the target is because their success is letting Disney use them to drive the culture. The films aren't really the problem, or at least they weren't until they were this successful. In the span of 10 years I watched them go from films a few people were into to the 1 billion even 2 billion dollar club. It's like what Thor said in Avengers about the Earth showing the other realms it's ready for a higher form of war. The success of the Marvel movies invites a higher form of criticism, and they're getting it now. It has nothing to do with audiences. It has to do with blockbooking and artificial monopolies to get full control. The majors have always done this. In the 1940s the major studios were forcing theaters to take all their films whether the public wanted them or not. It triggered anti-trust activity and allowed United Artists more room to provide an alternative. Walt Disney distributed his films through UA mostly.
Then in the 1970s the studios tried something different. Cater to the B movie crowd with spfx-oriented films-but make less of them-and remove the small studio competition. The blockbuster was just another form of blockbooking. We know this because they did not make 10 Star Wars-type movie s a year. If the public only wanted spfx movies, why did they only make a few a year?
After the round of mergers in the 90s, the studios started reducing their film production, eliminating the mid budget film, and thus reducing diversity in content even more. Superheroes are popular with the studios because the owners consider it their own cultural heritage. Flash Gordon or Tarzan or Doc Savage or Conan is too "pioneering American" in creation. This is why I doubt the studios are going to abandon them for American western characters or knights or something.
There is no way that human biology shifted in the last 10 years so people want nothing but superhero movies. It happened because the studios ate up all the distribution and marketing avenues and that makes it impossible for small production companies to make content as an alternative. Netflix and Amazon (in their funded productions) are not really offering all that many alternatives either. It is like corrupt politicians. The media and banks fund corrupt politicians who do not listen to the public. They get re-elected one way or the other, while candidates who might listen to the public either can't run or if they do, are denied media and bank support. The movie business works just like this. If you listen to Studio executives talking in Hollywood Reporter round tables-none of them even like movies. They don't have to because they have a monopoly and full money backing and there is no possibility for competition to come along and offer diverse content. The technology exists for anyone to get into filmmaking now-but there is no means for filtering or for allowing non-studio content to gather public recognition. That's why a new Walt Disney cannot appear--he was shunned by the majors but succeeded outside of the studio system. There is no modern equivalent. Only the ghettos of youtube or Amazon DIY production.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Nov 7, 2019 4:38:57 GMT
As AI enhanced CGI gets better and cheaper we are going to get to a point where you won't be able to tell the difference between fully CGI'ed actors vs real ones. They have already figured out how to get rid of most of the Uncanny Valley with cgi. Something in the eyes and mouths are still off. They've made great strides in last 10 years, but still behind. Something in our Lizard Brain's still detects the Other in cgi. I think they'll be able to figure that out. When they do they will still be tethered to human actors emoting and digitizing it, but I think they'll eventually be able to even bypass this. They'll eventually be able to create the emoting, acting, and life of a human actor with no input from an actor. It will be a fucked up time in Movie History to be sure...
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Nov 7, 2019 5:03:31 GMT
As AI enhanced CGI gets better and cheaper we are going to get to a point where you won't be able to tell the difference between fully CGI'ed actors vs real ones. They have already figured out how to get rid of most of the Uncanny Valley with cgi. Something in the eyes and mouths are still off. They've made great strides in last 10 years, but still behind. Something in our Lizard Brain's still detects the Other in cgi. I think they'll be able to figure that out. When they do they will still be tethered to human actors emoting and digitizing it, but I think they'll eventually be able to even bypass this. They'll eventually be able to create the emoting, acting, and life of a human actor with no input from an actor. It will be a fucked up time in Movie History to be sure... I doubt live actors will become passé, but for these CGI’d films, animated characters will probably they will take over the roles. I’m not sure how I feel about using dead actors though. I didn’t care for the recreated Peter Cushing and Carrie Fisher in Star Wars Something. I think it will first be a marketing tool. They master the capture of actors without the dead eyes or with seemless intergration. The Peter Cushing was great cgi but my brain the whole time was like "fuck no there is something terrifyingly off in this." Give them another 10 years and that will be gone. When that happens they'll be some smart Studio Exec who will market a film soley on that concept. Then it will be used as enhancing a story. Then creating a story with only AI CGI with no human emoting/acing input. They will defend it with by saying humans are still "creating" the emotion but it will be visual artists. Then I think they'll make a movie even without that. The AI creating the "acting" alone. Cost will drive it. Studios will push for more because it will be cheaper than paying actors. Then by the time I'm buried movies with "Hum" Actors not "Sythn" actors will take the spot of Animated Movies of that time. Or maybe I'm getting cynical and I've read too much Sci-Fiction lately...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2019 1:50:36 GMT
Blockbusters have been dominating for a while though. Part of why the Marvel Cinematic Universe and no other (I guess) superhero films are the target is because their success is letting Disney use them to drive the culture. The films aren't really the problem, or at least they weren't until they were this successful. In the span of 10 years I watched them go from films a few people were into to the 1 billion even 2 billion dollar club. It's like what Thor said in Avengers about the Earth showing the other realms it's ready for a higher form of war. The success of the Marvel movies invites a higher form of criticism, and they're getting it now. It has nothing to do with audiences. It has to do with blockbooking and artificial monopolies to get full control. The majors have always done this. In the 1940s the major studios were forcing theaters to take all their films whether the public wanted them or not. It triggered anti-trust activity and allowed United Artists more room to provide an alternative. Walt Disney distributed his films through UA mostly.
Then in the 1970s the studios tried something different. Cater to the B movie crowd with spfx-oriented films-but make less of them-and remove the small studio competition. The blockbuster was just another form of blockbooking. We know this because they did not make 10 Star Wars-type movie s a year. If the public only wanted spfx movies, why did they only make a few a year?
After the round of mergers in the 90s, the studios started reducing their film production, eliminating the mid budget film, and thus reducing diversity in content even more. Superheroes are popular with the studios because the owners consider it their own cultural heritage. Flash Gordon or Tarzan or Doc Savage or Conan is too "pioneering American" in creation. This is why I doubt the studios are going to abandon them for American western characters or knights or something.
There is no way that human biology shifted in the last 10 years so people want nothing but superhero movies. It happened because the studios ate up all the distribution and marketing avenues and that makes it impossible for small production companies to make content as an alternative. Netflix and Amazon (in their funded productions) are not really offering all that many alternatives either. It is like corrupt politicians. The media and banks fund corrupt politicians who do not listen to the public. They get re-elected one way or the other, while candidates who might listen to the public either can't run or if they do, are denied media and bank support. The movie business works just like this. If you listen to Studio executives talking in Hollywood Reporter round tables-none of them even like movies. They don't have to because they have a monopoly and full money backing and there is no possibility for competition to come along and offer diverse content. The technology exists for anyone to get into filmmaking now-but there is no means for filtering or for allowing non-studio content to gather public recognition. That's why a new Walt Disney cannot appear--he was shunned by the majors but succeeded outside of the studio system. There is no modern equivalent. Only the ghettos of youtube or Amazon DIY production.
Interesting.
I'll admit, the phrase "don't hate the player, hate the game" springs to mind.
Interesting ideas in there, though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2019 1:56:06 GMT
That's just grotesque. It says The Guardian, but reads like The Onion. Well, so much for resting in peace.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Nov 8, 2019 9:23:23 GMT
It has nothing to do with audiences. It has to do with blockbooking and artificial monopolies to get full control. The majors have always done this. In the 1940s the major studios were forcing theaters to take all their films whether the public wanted them or not. It triggered anti-trust activity and allowed United Artists more room to provide an alternative. Walt Disney distributed his films through UA mostly.
Then in the 1970s the studios tried something different. Cater to the B movie crowd with spfx-oriented films-but make less of them-and remove the small studio competition. The blockbuster was just another form of blockbooking. We know this because they did not make 10 Star Wars-type movie s a year. If the public only wanted spfx movies, why did they only make a few a year?
After the round of mergers in the 90s, the studios started reducing their film production, eliminating the mid budget film, and thus reducing diversity in content even more. Superheroes are popular with the studios because the owners consider it their own cultural heritage. Flash Gordon or Tarzan or Doc Savage or Conan is too "pioneering American" in creation. This is why I doubt the studios are going to abandon them for American western characters or knights or something.
There is no way that human biology shifted in the last 10 years so people want nothing but superhero movies. It happened because the studios ate up all the distribution and marketing avenues and that makes it impossible for small production companies to make content as an alternative. Netflix and Amazon (in their funded productions) are not really offering all that many alternatives either. It is like corrupt politicians. The media and banks fund corrupt politicians who do not listen to the public. They get re-elected one way or the other, while candidates who might listen to the public either can't run or if they do, are denied media and bank support. The movie business works just like this. If you listen to Studio executives talking in Hollywood Reporter round tables-none of them even like movies. They don't have to because they have a monopoly and full money backing and there is no possibility for competition to come along and offer diverse content. The technology exists for anyone to get into filmmaking now-but there is no means for filtering or for allowing non-studio content to gather public recognition. That's why a new Walt Disney cannot appear--he was shunned by the majors but succeeded outside of the studio system. There is no modern equivalent. Only the ghettos of youtube or Amazon DIY production.
Interesting.
I'll admit, the phrase "don't hate the player, hate the game" springs to mind.
Interesting ideas in there, though.
Except a lot is nonsense, the last 8 years has seen a substantial drop in wide releases by the 6 bigger studios whilst a steady increase in overall wide releases from the smaller studios, major studio releases are down from the 8 years prior to that whilst smaller studiobig releases are up, which are also substantially up from the amount of wide releases the prior 8 years to that whilst major studio wide releases remained the same.
The big 6 actually pulled back which let the smaller studios get more spots, the average from 96-2003 was like 21 wide releases combined from all the smaller studios, now it's 42, where as the combined average from the major studios back then was close to 110 a year, where as the last 8 years it's dropped to about 86.
And since 95' according to The Numbers.com the highest grossing genre's are Adventure then Action then Drama, except Drama has like 5500 movies to it's credit compared to the 1000 or so for either Action or Adventure, it's nothing new, people like going to the cinema to see spectacles, the one drama in the last 25 years that was the No.1 ticket seller for that year was Titanic which was a drama wrapped in spectacle, everything else is action or adventure with big spectacle's to behold.
Also the idea you either have to go to the big studios or DIY is rubbish, Blumhouse, A24 and a number of smaller but well known studios/production companies make tons of movies a year which they greenlight and finance they just then partner with a distributor ie a studio to get their product out into the world and pay for the marketing.
|
|