Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Nov 7, 2019 3:56:31 GMT
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.
I posted on general film that some filmmakers are making a new film using a CGI’d James Dean.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
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 Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Nov 7, 2019 4:32:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
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 Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Nov 7, 2019 4:46:57 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... Exactly. In times of great anxiety and uncertainty, people want to feel there’s hope. It appears the Thanos narrative thread in the Avengers Saga is the most popular. That his horrible deed can be overcome and reversed is the hope.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Nov 7, 2019 4:55:48 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.
|
|
|
|
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
|
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
|
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 Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Nov 8, 2019 2:11:38 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.
I know the studios are dumping Oscar bait movies now, but really there are lot indies and prestige films currently out. With huffing and puffing over Mar-Vell, I wonder how many outraged cinephiles actually go to these non-audio/visual non-theme park ride movies. Because if more people went to them, then more would be made. The Corporations are out to make what sells. If they weren’t, you’d see more Edsels on the highway. If they love Marty’s movies so much, then go see them so the poor man can get the 200 mil he needs for his next Leonardo De Caprio opus as Frank Sinatra. Can’t you just see Leo belting out New York, New York? Or maybe they can just CGI Old Blue Eyes.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by nostromo on Nov 8, 2019 9:36:57 GMT
Interesting. I'll admit, the phrase "don't hate the player, hate the game" springs to mind. Interesting ideas in there, though.
I know the studios are dumping Oscar bait movies now, but really there are lot indies and prestige films currently out. With huffing and puffing over Mar-Vell, I wonder how many outraged cinephiles actually go to these non-audio/visual non-theme park ride movies. Because if more people went to them, then more would be made. The Corporations are out to make what sells. If they weren’t, you’d see more Edsels on the highway. What an odd way of looking at things. My local pub doesn't sell my favourite beer. It sells loads of cheap lager though. You're literally saying that the most popular things are the best. It's just going back to the McDonalds argument again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Nov 8, 2019 9:47:31 GMT
I know the studios are dumping Oscar bait movies now, but really there are lot indies and prestige films currently out. With huffing and puffing over Mar-Vell, I wonder how many outraged cinephiles actually go to these non-audio/visual non-theme park ride movies. Because if more people went to them, then more would be made. The Corporations are out to make what sells. If they weren’t, you’d see more Edsels on the highway. What an odd way of looking at things. My local pub doesn't sell my favourite beer. It sells loads of cheap lager though. You're literally saying that the most popular things are the best. It's just going back to the McDonalds argument again. You’ve misconstrued what I’ve written. I am asking rhetorically how many people who claim they like art house movies over Marvel actually go to art house movies? Or are they just appealing to authority? Please point out where I said Marvel was better than art house movies. I posted above my argument is not about quality, but whether Marvel is legitimate cinema or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by nostromo on Nov 8, 2019 9:51:35 GMT
What an odd way of looking at things. My local pub doesn't sell my favourite beer. It sells loads of cheap lager though. You're literally saying that the most popular things are the best. It's just going back to the McDonalds argument again. Translation: how many people who claim they like art house movies over Marvel actually go to art house movies? I am asking a rhetorical question. Why would they not go and see arthouse movies if they claim they do? I don't get it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Nov 8, 2019 10:02:37 GMT
Translation: how many people who claim they like art house movies over Marvel actually go to art house movies? I am asking a rhetorical question. Why would they not go and see arthouse movies if they claim they do? I don't get it. Because some here are just butthurt fans of other similar movies. I’m not interested in your opinion about any films quality. And you won’t consider my argument about Marvel’s adherence to its root genre: comic books, because you’re arguing from about film value based on Scorsese’s incomplete theory. So, I guess we’re done here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2019 20:39:34 GMT
Translation: how many people who claim they like art house movies over Marvel actually go to art house movies? I am asking a rhetorical question. Why would they not go and see arthouse movies if they claim they do? I don't get it. Journalistic instinct would be my reason for asking. Case in point, a user here criticized the Marvel movies for being colorful, to which I asked when was the last time they watched a black and white film? It's been over a year and no answer.
People get ahead of themselves when they say things they think other people want to hear. So why might they lie (or exaggerate)? Maybe they spoke too soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Nov 8, 2019 22:47:22 GMT
Why would they not go and see arthouse movies if they claim they do? I don't get it. Journalistic instinct would be my reason for asking. Case in point, a user here criticized the Marvel movies for being colorful, to which I asked when was the last time they watched a black and white film? It's been over a year and no answer.
People get ahead of themselves when they say things they think other people want to hear. So why might they lie (or exaggerate)? Maybe they spoke too soon.
Add in that while many may watch "art house" films, they probably are not going to the theater to see them. If so, the argument becomes moot because Scorsese's point is the blockbusters are driving the smaller pictures out of the way and funding what he considers non-cinema because the smaller films don't generate the revenue. However, if enough bodies land in those movie house seats with a big bucket of popcorn in their lap,* then the studios will find the money to make the product. *And concessions are important because this is where the theater operators make most of the money.
|
|
