|
|
Post by politicidal on Dec 22, 2019 19:09:24 GMT
In short, he hated it. He does know it's based off a comic book right? TEXT: Terry Gilliam is no fan of Black Panther. The 79-year-old director made his feelings known in an interview with IndieWire, saying that Ryan Coogler’s 2018 blockbuster made him "crazy." "I hated Black Panther. It makes me crazy. It gives young black kids the idea that this is something to believe in. Bullshit. It’s utter bullshit. I think the people who made it have never been to Africa,” he told the publication in the interview. “They went and got some stylist for some African pattern fabrics and things. But I just I hated that movie, partly because the media were going on about the importance of bullshit." Gilliam is incorrect that the Black Panther team never made it to the Motherland. Coogler and his people took a trip to Africa to find inspiration for the film. The filmmaker brought along Hannah Beachler, his longtime production designer, so they could search for details they could include in their film. The majority of the film was shot in Atlanta, but some aerial shots were filmed in Argentina, South Africa, Zambia, and Uganda. IndieWire asked the director if he believes Black Panther only received that much hype because of its commitment to "identity politics," Gilliam replied that "it makes my blood boil." But he seems to have a problem with the big superhero movies full stop. "There isn’t room or money for a greater range of films. You make a film for over $150 million or less than $10 [million]. Where’s all this other stuff? It doesn’t exist anymore,” the director complained, referencing the Marvel Cinematic Universe. "I make films where I’m trying to make people think. I mean, I try to entertain them enough that they don’t fall asleep on me, and they’re there to make you think and look at the world in a different way, hopefully, and consider possibilities. Those films don’t do that." Despite his critique, Black Panther remains one of the most commercially and critically successful films ever, earning over $1 billion worldwide. www.complex.com/pop-culture/2019/12/terry-gilliam-black-panther-africa |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2019 19:52:44 GMT
In short, he hated it. He does know it's based off a comic book right? TEXT: Terry Gilliam is no fan of Black Panther. The 79-year-old director made his feelings known in an interview with IndieWire, saying that Ryan Coogler’s 2018 blockbuster made him "crazy." "I hated Black Panther. It makes me crazy. It gives young black kids the idea that this is something to believe in. Bullshit. It’s utter bullshit. I think the people who made it have never been to Africa,” he told the publication in the interview. “They went and got some stylist for some African pattern fabrics and things. But I just I hated that movie, partly because the media were going on about the importance of bullshit." Gilliam is incorrect that the Black Panther team never made it to the Motherland. Coogler and his people took a trip to Africa to find inspiration for the film. The filmmaker brought along Hannah Beachler, his longtime production designer, so they could search for details they could include in their film. The majority of the film was shot in Atlanta, but some aerial shots were filmed in Argentina, South Africa, Zambia, and Uganda. IndieWire asked the director if he believes Black Panther only received that much hype because of its commitment to "identity politics," Gilliam replied that "it makes my blood boil." But he seems to have a problem with the big superhero movies full stop. "There isn’t room or money for a greater range of films. You make a film for over $150 million or less than $10 [million]. Where’s all this other stuff? It doesn’t exist anymore,” the director complained, referencing the Marvel Cinematic Universe. "I make films where I’m trying to make people think. I mean, I try to entertain them enough that they don’t fall asleep on me, and they’re there to make you think and look at the world in a different way, hopefully, and consider possibilities. Those films don’t do that." Despite his critique, Black Panther remains one of the most commercially and critically successful films ever, earning over $1 billion worldwide. www.complex.com/pop-culture/2019/12/terry-gilliam-black-panther-africaFor him. That's what Scorsese, Coppola, Gilliam now, always seem to forget when they talk about what movies are supposed to do and what the Marvel movies don't. They cast observations like movies are supposed to make you feel emotions, are supposed to inspire you, challenge you, make you consider a perspective you might not have considered before; all the things they say movies are supposed to do, these films do. They just don't do it for them.
It's okay to not be into things. I don't think it's an age thing or a generation thing. It's boredom. I would say if these movies bore them, it's because they have nothing to offer. Nothing in there speaks to them, and that's okay! It really is okay. But they gotta understand just because it doesn't do anything for them doesn't mean it's not there. It's just on a wavelength they're not attuned to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Dec 22, 2019 19:55:31 GMT
This is the important part:
"There isn’t room or money for a greater range of films. You make a film for over $150 million or less than $10 [million]. Where’s all this other stuff? It doesn’t exist anymore,”
It's like a beverage company that used to offer 20 different drinks and reduces them to 5. Why reduce? There's no reason to. It's a management decision not an audience or artist one. And the managers are clueless so...they want to reach a point where there is only 1 type of drink.
|
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Dec 22, 2019 21:52:22 GMT
This is the important part: "There isn’t room or money for a greater range of films. You make a film for over $150 million or less than $10 [million]. Where’s all this other stuff? It doesn’t exist anymore,”It's like a beverage company that used to offer 20 different drinks and reduces them to 5. Why reduce? There's no reason to. It's a management decision not an audience or artist one. And the managers are clueless so...they want to reach a point where there is only 1 type of drink. Not really because with the drink thing they all presumably cost the same to make each type of drink so the only reason to stop selling them is if they are not selling well enough, which makes sense, with movies it's less so a $40m that does $400m in sales is as good a ROI as a $100m that makes $1b, only difference is that if that $40m bombs the studio can take less of a hit.
Then again his statement is bullshit anyway, I mean there were over 30 films with budgets lower than $100m and higher than $30m this year and about half as many made for more, it's like many things just a bullshit excuse made up because it seems like the truth, truth is that the bigger movies just take up more of the attention of people because they tend to make the most money and stand out more, compared to a $25m movie which grosses $110m, it's just the mid budget movies don't mean what they used to mean, but then again the mid budget movie isn't the same as it used to be, used to be $100m was one of the most expensive films of the year if not the most expensive now there is nearly 20 movies that cast as much if not more a year.
|
|
|
|
Post by blockbusted on Dec 22, 2019 21:56:59 GMT
This is the important part: "There isn’t room or money for a greater range of films. You make a film for over $150 million or less than $10 [million]. Where’s all this other stuff? It doesn’t exist anymore,”It's like a beverage company that used to offer 20 different drinks and reduces them to 5. Why reduce? There's no reason to. It's a management decision not an audience or artist one. And the managers are clueless so...they want to reach a point where there is only 1 type of drink. Not really because with the drink thing they all presumably cost the same to make each type of drink so the only reason to stop selling them is if they are not selling well enough, which makes sense, with movies it's less so a $40m that does $400m in sales is as good a ROI as a $100m that makes $1b, only difference is that if that $40m bombs the studio can take less of a hit.
Then again his statement is bullshit anyway, I mean there were over 30 films with budgets lower than $100m and higher than $30m this year and about half as many made for more, it's like many things just a bullshit excuse made up because it seems like the truth, truth is that the bigger movies just take up more of the attention of people because they tend to make the most money and stand out more, compared to a $25m movie which grosses $110m, it's just the mid budget movies don't mean what they used to mean, but then again the mid budget movie isn't the same as it used to be, used to be $100m was one of the most expensive films of the year if not the most expensive now there is nearly 20 movies that cast as much if not more a year.
His comment about 'Black Panther', in particular, treads into a racism territory. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2019 22:11:17 GMT
This is the important part: "There isn’t room or money for a greater range of films. You make a film for over $150 million or less than $10 [million]. Where’s all this other stuff? It doesn’t exist anymore,”It's like a beverage company that used to offer 20 different drinks and reduces them to 5. Why reduce? There's no reason to. It's a management decision not an audience or artist one. And the managers are clueless so...they want to reach a point where there is only 1 type of drink. Not really because with the drink thing they all presumably cost the same to make each type of drink so the only reason to stop selling them is if they are not selling well enough, which makes sense, with movies it's less so a $40m that does $400m in sales is as good a ROI as a $100m that makes $1b, only difference is that if that $40m bombs the studio can take less of a hit.
Then again his statement is bullshit anyway, I mean there were over 30 films with budgets lower than $100m and higher than $30m this year and about half as many made for more, it's like many things just a bullshit excuse made up because it seems like the truth, truth is that the bigger movies just take up more of the attention of people because they tend to make the most money and stand out more, compared to a $25m movie which grosses $110m, it's just the mid budget movies don't mean what they used to mean, but then again the mid budget movie isn't the same as it used to be, used to be $100m was one of the most expensive films of the year if not the most expensive now there is nearly 20 movies that cast as much if not more a year.
Movies just deal with a colossal amount of money that's almost too much to comprehend. My first thought whenever I see a big budget movie is how much of the budget went to the actors themselves? Not that I'm against it, not at all, but sizeable chunks of all movie budgets go to the actors, especially big name actors and even more especially for ensemble casts.
The criticism of films these days kind of holds a mirror to ourselves as consumers and viewers. I hear about the quality of movies being made to day, superhero flicks crowding the theaters...have these critics (and directors) forgotten that we don't make the movies, we just see them? I consider us the most innocent party in the process. It's not our fault studios up the ante and won't back smaller projects. How dare they accuse us of being the problem when a) we pay to see the movies, and b) it's them who makes the movies, not us. I've little interest in hearing directors and critics blame viewers for the quality of movies they put out.
The other elephant in the room is nepotism. Whether it's politics, whether it's films, whether it's people I adore like Scorsese/Gilliam, people I'm so-so on like Coppola or James Cameron, there's an issue with men who don't want to pass the torch. They can dress it up in valid sounding criticisms like films are supposed to inspire/convey emotions, blah blah, but ultimately these men who've had their time in the sun just don't want to let go.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Dec 22, 2019 22:15:26 GMT
Not really because with the drink thing they all presumably cost the same to make each type of drink so the only reason to stop selling them is if they are not selling well enough, which makes sense, with movies it's less so a $40m that does $400m in sales is as good a ROI as a $100m that makes $1b, only difference is that if that $40m bombs the studio can take less of a hit.
Then again his statement is bullshit anyway, I mean there were over 30 films with budgets lower than $100m and higher than $30m this year and about half as many made for more, it's like many things just a bullshit excuse made up because it seems like the truth, truth is that the bigger movies just take up more of the attention of people because they tend to make the most money and stand out more, compared to a $25m movie which grosses $110m, it's just the mid budget movies don't mean what they used to mean, but then again the mid budget movie isn't the same as it used to be, used to be $100m was one of the most expensive films of the year if not the most expensive now there is nearly 20 movies that cast as much if not more a year.
No that's bullshit. Hollywood Accounting means "lying about business." No other business has a term specifically for lying about their business.
In the old days small companies could make a film and get ROI. Then the blockbuster came along. Now, the conventional lie is that in 1975 and 1977 audiences just said: gee whiz--I don't need 20 movies a month-I am happy if I can watch Jaws or Star Wars 20 times instead.
That is nonsense. The studio owners merely started gobbling up the competition in mergers and shutting down the distribution access. It has nothing to do with audiences wanting less variety. The drink analogy still applies--the companies buy up the smaller ones and then say "gee, we aren't making enough money" so they kill the smaller brands-forcing people to have less choice.
Between 1960 and 1975 production costs for studio films were pretty much unchanging, so clearly escalation in cost has nothing to do with audiences--it has to do with what they are doing behind the scenes. And they claim they need money from governments (subsidies). No wonder Hollywood is such a joke-they have less coherence than the mafia. If they were concerned about money, they could not blacklist Mira Sorvino or Ashley Judd across all studios because they refused to sleep with Weinstein. Yet that is what they did.
Imagine if a sewing company had a star seamstress and they fired her because she wouldnt sleep with the boss. So they lose their star. Why would other sewing companies in town not take her in? Because they all have a "nudge nudge wink wink" close family ties. That is what happened with Sorvino and Judd. Peter Jackson confirmed that he was told not to hire them for LOTR even though it is a different company.
It makes no business sense for those companies to honor that blacklist unless there is no real competition or fear of going out of business. So Hollywood does not run like any normal business. The fact that they could be treating actresses like they were in a harem is also an irrational business approach.
If Hollywood had grassroots competition they would be fucked.
Gilliam and others are griping that they no longer get the attention they once did due to the lack of loyalty and mergers and change in ownership but they are right that compared to 20 or 30 years ago there is far less content variety. Most movies talked about in VARIETY are sequels or remakes compared to 30 years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Dec 22, 2019 22:20:35 GMT
The other elephant in the room is nepotism. Whether it's politics, whether it's films, whether it's people I adore like Scorsese/Gilliam, people I'm so-so on like Coppola or James Cameron, there's an issue with men who don't want to pass the torch. They can dress it up in valid sounding criticisms like films are supposed to inspire/convey emotions, blah blah, but ultimately these men who've had their time in the sun just don't want to let go. It is nepotism but it is in the ownership. Cameron and Scorsese and the others would be out in the cold if they didn't do what the studio bosses wanted. Yes they are griping that they no longer get the same attention despite playing ball (Scorsese even appeared as a husband driven mad from his wife having an affair with a black man--so he did the dance he had to).
They are just learning that there is no loyalty in the owners of these companies. They use people (unless you are Woody Allen).
George Miller tried a different tune-he defended Disney and brought up Swahili storytellers so he let the owners know he was virtue signalling.
Good art cannot be made when people are falling over each other to be the best apparatchik.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2019 22:24:27 GMT
Not really because with the drink thing they all presumably cost the same to make each type of drink so the only reason to stop selling them is if they are not selling well enough, which makes sense, with movies it's less so a $40m that does $400m in sales is as good a ROI as a $100m that makes $1b, only difference is that if that $40m bombs the studio can take less of a hit.
Then again his statement is bullshit anyway, I mean there were over 30 films with budgets lower than $100m and higher than $30m this year and about half as many made for more, it's like many things just a bullshit excuse made up because it seems like the truth, truth is that the bigger movies just take up more of the attention of people because they tend to make the most money and stand out more, compared to a $25m movie which grosses $110m, it's just the mid budget movies don't mean what they used to mean, but then again the mid budget movie isn't the same as it used to be, used to be $100m was one of the most expensive films of the year if not the most expensive now there is nearly 20 movies that cast as much if not more a year.
No that's bullshit. Hollywood Accounting means "lying about business." No other business has a term specifically for lying about their business.
In the old days small companies could make a film and get ROI. Then the blockbuster came along. Now, the conventional lie is that in 1975 and 1977 audiences just said: gee whiz--I don't need 20 movies a month-I am happy if I can watch Jaws or Star Wars 20 times instead.
That is nonsense. The studio owners merely started gobbling up the competition in mergers and shutting down the distribution access. It has nothing to do with audiences wanting less variety. The drink analogy still applies--the companies buy up the smaller ones and then say "gee, we aren't making enough money" so they kill the smaller brands-forcing people to have less choice.
Between 1960 and 1975 production costs for studio films were pretty much unchanging, so clearly escalation in cost has nothing to do with audiences--it has to do with what they are doing behind the scenes. And they claim they need money from governments (subsidies). No wonder Hollywood is such a joke-they have less coherence than the mafia. If they were concerned about money, they could not blacklist Mira Sorvino or Ashley Judd across all studios because they refused to sleep with Weinstein. Yet that is what they did.
Imagine if a sewing company had a star seamstress and they fired her because she wouldnt sleep with the boss. So they lose their star. Why would other sewing companies in town not take her in? Because they all have a "nudge nudge wink wink" close family ties. That is what happened with Sorvino and Judd. Peter Jackson confirmed that he was told not to hire them for LOTR even though it is a different company.
It makes no business sense for those companies to honor that blacklist unless there is no real competition or fear of going out of business. So Hollywood does not run like any normal business. The fact that they could be treating actresses like they were in a harem is also an irrational business approach.
If Hollywood had grassroots competition they would be fucked.
Gilliam and others are griping that they no longer get the attention they once did due to the lack of loyalty and mergers and change in ownership but they are right that compared to 20 or 30 years ago there is far less content variety. Most movies talked about in VARIETY are sequels or remakes compared to 30 years ago.
That part is true but it again begs the question, whose fault is that? Reboot and sequel fatigue has been a thing for a long time. There's no circle/club of movie fans that hasn't observed Hollywood's been running out of ideas for years. It's like they pump out unoriginal ideas, remakes of TV shows, remakes of movies, rebooting dead franchises, then they have the nerve to turn to the fans and say can you believe audiences these days, tough crowd.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2019 22:27:45 GMT
The other elephant in the room is nepotism. Whether it's politics, whether it's films, whether it's people I adore like Scorsese/Gilliam, people I'm so-so on like Coppola or James Cameron, there's an issue with men who don't want to pass the torch. They can dress it up in valid sounding criticisms like films are supposed to inspire/convey emotions, blah blah, but ultimately these men who've had their time in the sun just don't want to let go. It is nepotism but it is in the ownership. Cameron and Scorsese and the others would be out in the cold if they didn't do what the studio bosses wanted. Yes they are griping that they no longer get the same attention despite playing ball (Scorsese even appeared as a husband driven mad from his wife having an affair with a black man--so he did the dance he had to).
They are just learning that there is no loyalty in the owners of these companies. They use people (unless you are Woody Allen).
George Miller tried a different tune-he defended Disney and brought up Swahili storytellers so he let the owners know he was virtue signalling.
Good art cannot be made when people are falling over each other to be the best apparatchik.
I'm afraid that's also probably true. No one's too big to be given the boot. It might seem like madness that studios would turn their backs on the OG's like Scorsese and Cameron, but thems the breaks. It's a cold, nasty driven marketplace out there. One day you're on top of the world, the next day you're some schmo working in a box factory. Losely quoted from Krusty the Klown.
It's rough out there. You can be these legends and still not get a break.
|
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Dec 22, 2019 22:44:57 GMT
Not really because with the drink thing they all presumably cost the same to make each type of drink so the only reason to stop selling them is if they are not selling well enough, which makes sense, with movies it's less so a $40m that does $400m in sales is as good a ROI as a $100m that makes $1b, only difference is that if that $40m bombs the studio can take less of a hit.
Then again his statement is bullshit anyway, I mean there were over 30 films with budgets lower than $100m and higher than $30m this year and about half as many made for more, it's like many things just a bullshit excuse made up because it seems like the truth, truth is that the bigger movies just take up more of the attention of people because they tend to make the most money and stand out more, compared to a $25m movie which grosses $110m, it's just the mid budget movies don't mean what they used to mean, but then again the mid budget movie isn't the same as it used to be, used to be $100m was one of the most expensive films of the year if not the most expensive now there is nearly 20 movies that cast as much if not more a year.
No that's bullshit. Hollywood Accounting means "lying about business." No other business has a term specifically for lying about their business.
In the old days small companies could make a film and get ROI. Then the blockbuster came along. Now, the conventional lie is that in 1975 and 1977 audiences just said: gee whiz--I don't need 20 movies a month-I am happy if I can watch Jaws or Star Wars 20 times instead.
That is nonsense. The studio owners merely started gobbling up the competition in mergers and shutting down the distribution access. It has nothing to do with audiences wanting less variety. The drink analogy still applies--the companies buy up the smaller ones and then say "gee, we aren't making enough money" so they kill the smaller brands-forcing people to have less choice.
Between 1960 and 1975 production costs for studio films were pretty much unchanging, so clearly escalation in cost has nothing to do with audiences--it has to do with what they are doing behind the scenes. And they claim they need money from governments (subsidies). No wonder Hollywood is such a joke-they have less coherence than the mafia. If they were concerned about money, they could not blacklist Mira Sorvino or Ashley Judd across all studios because they refused to sleep with Weinstein. Yet that is what they did.
Imagine if a sewing company had a star seamstress and they fired her because she wouldnt sleep with the boss. So they lose their star. Why would other sewing companies in town not take her in? Because they all have a "nudge nudge wink wink" close family ties. That is what happened with Sorvino and Judd. Peter Jackson confirmed that he was told not to hire them for LOTR even though it is a different company.
It makes no business sense for those companies to honor that blacklist unless there is no real competition or fear of going out of business. So Hollywood does not run like any normal business. The fact that they could be treating actresses like they were in a harem is also an irrational business approach.
If Hollywood had grassroots competition they would be fucked.
Gilliam and others are griping that they no longer get the attention they once did due to the lack of loyalty and mergers and change in ownership but they are right that compared to 20 or 30 years ago there is far less content variety. Most movies talked about in VARIETY are sequels or remakes compared to 30 years ago.
Uhuh, ok so what does any of that have to do with his claim that it's either $150m or $10m and nothing in between in terms of movie making today despite there being twice as many $100m to $30m movies than there are $100+ movies this year?
Rather than argue the point that what he said is true or not you just went on a bah evil Hollywood rant, there are mid budget movies these days, same as there used to be, is everything more expensive yeah probably, partly due to Hollywood stars now making more than ever compared to back in the day when they were treated far morel like cattle a lot of the time, but like where do you get this info that movie cost between 1960 and 1975 didn't change much? as if that was peanuts, the most expensive film by 1960 unadjusted had the budget equivalent of $140m today, so it's not like $100m budgets is that modern a thing.
And again how does any of that change the fact that TG was talking bullshit? yes there are many 9 digit budget movies these days but they do NOT out number the 8 digit number budgeted movies on a year to year base, let alone drove them to extinction, The Numbers has 131 films on their major and minor US studio releases for the year of 2019, only 15 or so of them are for over $100m barely over 10% of all the major and minor US releases are over $100m budgets, are some 110+ other movies that are listed as under $100m actually more expensive? I dunno maybe but I don't know and neither do you, but even so that's a far cry from the $150m he claims so either way he is talking shit and making excuses for him not having movies, so fuck him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Dec 22, 2019 22:59:39 GMT
Uhuh, ok so what does any of that have to do with his claim that it's either $150m or $10m and nothing in between in terms of movie making today despite there being twice as many $100m to $30m movies than there are $100+ movies this year?
He's talking about the middle. There used to be mid range films and independents, even within the major studio structure. Now it is either super low budget or all films that are $200 million each. If you looked at Box Office Mojo from the last couple of years and compared to 20-30 years ago you would see what he is talking about. last time I looked at it (a couple of years ago) all the films in the first 30 or so were franchise films and the rest were either small indie Oscar season films or asian ones or christian family films.
So they are making less films for theatrical distribution. They may be making a ton more for cable or internet but if that is true most of those slip off the radar which is mainly because so much of the media focus is on advertising franchises.
People usually say: oh this isn't true, I saw a great film from South Korea recently.
Uh yeah-that's great for South Korea-what happened to the North American indie film?
To say the public wanted less variety makes as much sense as saying the public want corrupt politicians because they keep voting for the same ones. But the ones who may not be corrupt dont get media attention or funding..just like alternative movies...
|
|
|
|
Post by hobowar on Dec 23, 2019 13:19:21 GMT
I wonder if the Guardians crew had "ever been to space."
|
|
