Outside of the hobbit (fuck you guys I'm seeing it!) there isn't anything coming out in theaters I want to see. I miss when we'd get an RDJ Sherlock movie for christmas, that was nice.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
I saw that The Gambler just had "December" on a commercial or trailer I saw, and I realized American Sniper is still out there, but I feel like only one is going to be genuinely good.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Outside of the hobbit (fuck you guys I'm seeing it!) there isn't anything coming out in theaters I want to see. I miss when we'd get an RDJ Sherlock movie for christmas, that was nice.
Those movies were a lot of fun. I disagree with a lot of people and I feel that the SPIRIT of the RDJ Sherlocks was in tune with the original books more than, say, the old black and whites, which just replicated the source material to a degree.
Sherlock Holmes was supposed to be a weathered, troubled, playful badass of a private detective.
If they're not going to put the movie out at all, "someone" should "leak" it online so everyone can see it anyway.
At this point, "The Interview" has changed from a so-so movie to a point about free speech. I'm not a big person for torrenting something, or other people doing it, but if a film is actively being repressed by bad persons, and is not available for me to view because of that, then I think it is now ok to torrent that movie if it is the only way to see it.
Because what's next? Someone makes a critical movie about Putin and he sics Russian hackers on a studio? Because that is the precedent that is being set here.
If they're not going to put the movie out at all, "someone" should "leak" it online so everyone can see it anyway.
At this point, "The Interview" has changed from a so-so movie to a point about free speech. I'm not a big person for torrenting something, or other people doing it, but if a film is actively being repressed by bad persons, and is not available for me to view because of that, then I think it is now ok to torrent that movie if it is the only way to see it.
Because what's next? Someone makes a critical movie about Putin and he sics Russian hackers on a studio? Because that is the precedent that is being set here.
That could easily happen.
I do love how the Internet allows people to give the big middle finger to those who would try to repress this, in most cases. It's a wonderful thing.
0
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
We're now almost guaranteed bad guys will only be white businessmen who are either british or american.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
One of the Brosnan Bond movies literally had a North Korean agent alter is appearance to that of a white guy. It was dumb in a movie full of dumb, but now I understand.
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
In some ways its ironic, since KJI was the one who kidnapped Japanese and Korean actors for his own movies.
Perhaps that's why he allowed Team America to suffer no wrath, because he so admired the use of puppetry and disdain fro American decadence, even if he was actually a giant space cockroach.
In some ways its ironic, since KJI was the one who kidnapped Japanese and Korean actors for his own movies.
Perhaps that's why he allowed Team America to suffer no wrath, because he so admired the use of puppetry and disdain fro American decadence, even if he was actually a giant space cockroach.
Actually, he was pretty pissed about 'Team America', to the extent that he was asking allies (Czech Republic) to ban it.
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
edited December 2014
Maybe it's been a while, maybe it's because I've only seen the cable versions for so long and always kind of watched bits and pieces over the years, but A Knight's Tale is so damn good and well ahead of its time.
It was always a good movie, but I forgot how smart it is and how well Bettany is as a gambling writer/showboater, how the idea of using modern music in medieval times should have bombed hard yet they make it work to the point I don't know why other films haven't tried to copy it, it's perfectly cast, even the kid actors, and it just picks a fun topic from the past and makes it all about that. The small drama there is is done well, especially the father stuff that actually had warmth to it despite only being in the movie for what, 10 minutes?
The only flaw, even though they use it well to have everyone pick on the Joker is Jocelyn
kind of being a GDB when it came to making Joker lose a match. That's messed up, yo.
See, here's the problem. I look at your lists of good movies and terrible movies, and my own such lists wouldn't look anything like those. So the answer to What Are You Missing? is just "Opinions LOL."
And I think this sort of personal preference drives the kind of articles we see bemoaning the Great Death of Whatever. Any given year is going to be great for some people and terrible for others. And so any given year, you're going to find such articles.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
The MCU was started by Marvel when it was still outside the corporate system; it took a risk, bet big, and won. Since then it's been integrated into Disney and is busy pumping out largely identical movies.
This is patently false. To point out just the most striking example, the two Captain America movies are of vastly different, dare I say opposite, genres and tones.
The MCU was started by Marvel when it was still outside the corporate system; it took a risk, bet big, and won. Since then it's been integrated into Disney and is busy pumping out largely identical movies.
Marvel Studios isn't out the corporate system, its merely its own corporate beast that is slightly different from the person in charge being a genuine comic nerd, rather than a typical exec. Marvel is very much a corporation, while its Studios divison was technically independent it was a branch of any other mid-sized corporation. The MCU takes risks regularly, especially with the movies - Iron Man was a fluke, and the company would have folded if it had failed. They made missteps early on but they didn't try to repeat Iron Man (it's physically impossible - it was mostly improvised while filming) instead they tried new strategies which proved successful overall. Aside from IM 2 every movie in Phase 1 was very risky and yet they still kept a close eye on the projects and retained enormously control behind the scenes. That's why they've had problems with directors and actors, though this is getting better. AS much as the risks they take they make sure to keep the risks to a minimum too. That's why they have a formula which they stick to, yet they're wise enough to adjust it when they have to. In Phase 1 Avengers was a pipe dream, not a guarantee. Fury's cameo in Iron Man was fan service to the comic readers, not there to actually set up Avengers. They also started off being cheap, and do this occasionally today - that's why it was such a fuss about the principal cast in Avengers not getting paid very much, excluding Downey Jr. until Downey leveraged them to get more for future projects. Every phase has one riskier movie to measure how much insanity the audience can handle and the reaction dictates how wild the next Phase can be. Thor was that in Phase 1, GOTG did that in Phase 2.
edit: One difference I'll note from Marvel Studios is that they learn from the past and adjust accordingly with impressive regularity. Most Studios don't do that. Also a strong leader with creative vision. The MCU owes much to Fiege, and when he leaves they had better find a suitable replacement - putting a standard exec in that position will regress the studio to a typical Hollywood studio.
Harry Dresden on
+1
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
See, here's the problem. I look at your lists of good movies and terrible movies, and my own such lists wouldn't look anything like those. So the answer to What Are You Missing? is just "Opinions LOL."
And I think this sort of personal preference drives the kind of articles we see bemoaning the Great Death of Whatever. Any given year is going to be great for some people and terrible for others. And so any given year, you're going to find such articles.
The MCU was started by Marvel when it was still outside the corporate system; it took a risk, bet big, and won. Since then it's been integrated into Disney and is busy pumping out largely identical movies.
This is patently false. To point out just the most striking example, the two Captain America movies are of vastly different, dare I say opposite, genres and tones.
I'm not sure I want to hash this argument out again. I'll only end up finishing that ranting Avengers liveblog, and nobody wants that.
The various MCU films have a lot of similarities and a fair number of differences. Whether you want to call them "too alike" is a matter of taste. I think they strike a good balance between being different enough to not get tedious, but similar enough that they're clearly from the same universe.
(Excepting GOTG, which is pretty distinct. )
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
See, here's the problem. I look at your lists of good movies and terrible movies, and my own such lists wouldn't look anything like those. So the answer to What Are You Missing? is just "Opinions LOL."
And I think this sort of personal preference drives the kind of articles we see bemoaning the Great Death of Whatever. Any given year is going to be great for some people and terrible for others. And so any given year, you're going to find such articles.
Which is why the article he linked went for actual metrics.
At some point, listwarz is the only way to actually talk about this argument beyond "lolopinons". And even if one doesn't believe it's the death of cinema or something, I think the evidence that article presents is rather compelling for saying there is a real trend going on.
+3
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
Seems odd to me that even though the film's release has been cancelled, I'm still seeing ads for it non-stop.
The MCU was started by Marvel when it was still outside the corporate system; it took a risk, bet big, and won. Since then it's been integrated into Disney and is busy pumping out largely identical movies.
This is patently false. To point out just the most striking example, the two Captain America movies are of vastly different, dare I say opposite, genres and tones.
It really isn't. Basically every MCU film, barring perhaps the Hulk one because it pre-dates the MCU locking in it's style, is the same tone and style. Individual films lean a bit more on one aspect or the other but they are all the tone and style. The same PG-13 spectacle blockbuster with a mix of action and comedy with a certain directorial style and a certain tone.
Cap 1 and Cap 2 are incredibly similar films. Cap 2 just steals a few plot points from spy thrillers but the difference between Cap 2 and an standard spy thriller is vastly greater then that between Cap 1 and Cap 2. And you could do this for any of them.
The various MCU films have a lot of similarities and a fair number of differences. Whether you want to call them "too alike" is a matter of taste. I think they strike a good balance between being different enough to not get tedious, but similar enough that they're clearly from the same universe.
(Excepting GOTG, which is pretty distinct. )
GOTG isn't really that distinct at all. It's just the same formula they've been using since they could react to Iron Man working, with the jokes emphasized over the drama.
See, here's the problem. I look at your lists of good movies and terrible movies, and my own such lists wouldn't look anything like those. So the answer to What Are You Missing? is just "Opinions LOL."
And I think this sort of personal preference drives the kind of articles we see bemoaning the Great Death of Whatever. Any given year is going to be great for some people and terrible for others. And so any given year, you're going to find such articles.
Which is why the article he linked went for actual metrics.
At some point, listwarz is the only way to actually talk about this argument beyond "lolopinons". And even if one doesn't believe it's the death of cinema or something, I think the evidence that article presents is rather compelling for saying there is a real trend going on.
Except I don't find the metrics all that meaningful. In the end, either Hollywood is putting a lot of movies that you like, or it isn't. Whether GotG exists because of some auteur realizing his grand vision, or because some cynical executive market tested the whole thing from start to finish, it exists and I loved it.
When there are so many good movies out there that it is functionally impossible top watch them all anyway, griping about the death of creativity in Hollywood feels like arguing between a countable infinity and an uncountable infinity.
"Yes, sure, there's an infinite supply of rational numbers, but think how lovely it would be if we had the irrational numbers, too!"
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
And seriously, nobody is going to win the "all MCU films have the same tone!" argument. it's kind of a dead end discussion.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
See, here's the problem. I look at your lists of good movies and terrible movies, and my own such lists wouldn't look anything like those. So the answer to What Are You Missing? is just "Opinions LOL."
And I think this sort of personal preference drives the kind of articles we see bemoaning the Great Death of Whatever. Any given year is going to be great for some people and terrible for others. And so any given year, you're going to find such articles.
Which is why the article he linked went for actual metrics.
At some point, listwarz is the only way to actually talk about this argument beyond "lolopinons". And even if one doesn't believe it's the death of cinema or something, I think the evidence that article presents is rather compelling for saying there is a real trend going on.
Except I don't find the metrics all that meaningful. In the end, either Hollywood is putting a lot of movies that you like, or it isn't. Whether GotG exists because of some auteur realizing his grand vision, or because some cynical executive market tested the whole thing from start to finish, it exists and I loved it.
The metrics that Hollywood is just putting out tons of sequels is most definitely meaningful. If to no other point then showing that Hollywood is leaning heavily on recycling the same properties over and over again and more so then they've ever done.
When there are so many good movies out there that it is functionally impossible top watch them all anyway, griping about the death of creativity in Hollywood feels like arguing between a countable infinity and an uncountable infinity.
"Yes, sure, there's an infinite supply of rational numbers, but think how lovely it would be if we had the irrational numbers, too!"
Why?
There can be more movies then you could actually watch in a year and still function and still be a lack of creativity in the making of those movies.
There can be more movies then you could actually watch in a year and still function and still be a lack of creativity in the making of those movies.
Marvel Studios output alone shows creativity in Hollywood is far from dead.
Man, what? Comic book films are the last place I would look for creativity. They're just adapting things that have a proven market in the most crowd pleasing way possible.
There can be more movies then you could actually watch in a year and still function and still be a lack of creativity in the making of those movies.
Marvel Studios output alone shows creativity in Hollywood is far from dead.
Man, what? Comic book films are the last place I would look for creativity. They're just adapting things that have a proven market in the most crowd pleasing way possible.
They've been proven for the comic book industry, this is the first time they've been given massive adaptions which are great to watch. That's more than the video-game industry can say about its movie adaptions. Adaptions can be creative, and how Marvel's done it is pioneering - no one else comes close to what they're doing and they've got studios who have been in the industry for decades. Original isn't necessarily creative - adaptions and sequels are by no means new to Hollywood. They're also amazingly superior to the movies from the super-hero movies in 80's & 90's.
+1
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
See, here's the problem. I look at your lists of good movies and terrible movies, and my own such lists wouldn't look anything like those. So the answer to What Are You Missing? is just "Opinions LOL."
And I think this sort of personal preference drives the kind of articles we see bemoaning the Great Death of Whatever. Any given year is going to be great for some people and terrible for others. And so any given year, you're going to find such articles.
Which is why the article he linked went for actual metrics.
At some point, listwarz is the only way to actually talk about this argument beyond "lolopinons". And even if one doesn't believe it's the death of cinema or something, I think the evidence that article presents is rather compelling for saying there is a real trend going on.
Except I don't find the metrics all that meaningful. In the end, either Hollywood is putting a lot of movies that you like, or it isn't. Whether GotG exists because of some auteur realizing his grand vision, or because some cynical executive market tested the whole thing from start to finish, it exists and I loved it.
When there are so many good movies out there that it is functionally impossible top watch them all anyway, griping about the death of creativity in Hollywood feels like arguing between a countable infinity and an uncountable infinity.
"Yes, sure, there's an infinite supply of rational numbers, but think how lovely it would be if we had the irrational numbers, too!"
You need more good movies out there than any one person can watch, because most people have preferences. Some people prefer to watch mostly romantic comedies, and if there aren't any good rom coms out, that person is not going to be glad to hear that there are plenty of good war movies available. The more good movies there are in general, the bigger the spread--the more likely that no matter what your preference or opinion set, you're going to have as many or more good movies than you can reasonably watch.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
The metrics that Hollywood is just putting out tons of sequels is most definitely meaningful. If to no other point then showing that Hollywood is leaning heavily on recycling the same properties over and over again and more so then they've ever done.
I feel that this sort of sequelmania is the way people like things. Compact individual stories all connecting to a large, central arc. The MU is a perfect example of this, but there are far more examples in a different medium altogether: Books.
Books have been doing this for centuries.
I feel the way the medium has changed from "if it airs on tv" or "if the video store has it" to "which way are we going to watch this?" has been hugely influential in the way these stories have evolved from episodic sequels to serialized, massive overarching plot lines. I feel that HBO's two shows, The Sopranos and The Wire (Not to mention the LOTR and Harry Potter films) came at the perfect time when technology and entertainment were merging. DVR appeared, and now it wasn't a matter of simply seeing the episodes if you were lucky enough (or having to deal with a VCR), but watching them at your convenience. This means the oft-repeated 1980's mantra of "I tried watching that show but I didn't know what was going on!" that spelled the death of many shows is now an obsolete function, and Hollywood knows this.
Now we can literally punch up an entire movie series on the DirecTV box or on the major streaming movie sites (or other means) and binge watch the entire thing.
You may feel it is recycling the same content, but I feel like it is building movie universes. With the Marvel movies, these aren't simply retreads of each other but different stories from different characters telling small parts of the whole (which come together at the Avengers nexus point), and if people like the characters and the universe then I don't see how you can compare the glut of sequels in the 1980's which rarely, if ever, advanced a central plot and instead stood as individual stories, for better or worse. These Marvel movies (again, just for example) are working off of each other and creating their own reality.
A good example of this done in books are the Stephen King books after he started tying them to the Dark Tower series. Every book nearly had some mention of an aspect of the Dark Tower, whether in passing or not.
Movies like The Expendables definitely fit your description, but those kinds of sequels are few and far between in comparison to grand visions of 9-10 hour sprawling epics that have to be divided up.
See, here's the problem. I look at your lists of good movies and terrible movies, and my own such lists wouldn't look anything like those. So the answer to What Are You Missing? is just "Opinions LOL."
And I think this sort of personal preference drives the kind of articles we see bemoaning the Great Death of Whatever. Any given year is going to be great for some people and terrible for others. And so any given year, you're going to find such articles.
Which is why the article he linked went for actual metrics.
At some point, listwarz is the only way to actually talk about this argument beyond "lolopinons". And even if one doesn't believe it's the death of cinema or something, I think the evidence that article presents is rather compelling for saying there is a real trend going on.
Except I don't find the metrics all that meaningful. In the end, either Hollywood is putting a lot of movies that you like, or it isn't. Whether GotG exists because of some auteur realizing his grand vision, or because some cynical executive market tested the whole thing from start to finish, it exists and I loved it.
When there are so many good movies out there that it is functionally impossible top watch them all anyway, griping about the death of creativity in Hollywood feels like arguing between a countable infinity and an uncountable infinity.
"Yes, sure, there's an infinite supply of rational numbers, but think how lovely it would be if we had the irrational numbers, too!"
You need more good movies out there than any one person can watch, because most people have preferences. Some people prefer to watch mostly romantic comedies, and if there aren't any good rom coms out, that person is not going to be glad to hear that there are plenty of good war movies available. The more good movies there are in general, the bigger the spread--the more likely that no matter what your preference or opinion set, you're going to have as many or more good movies than you can reasonably watch.
But... there are. Even if all you like are rom-coms, you probably won't run out of stuff to watch. That article was trying to hang its hat on the idea that in the next six years, there are 70 movies coming out that are part of some franchise or other. 70! That's almost 12 per year! Which amounts to almost two percent of the movies released annually! DOOOOOOOOM.
Sorry man, the scene is just not that dire, even if you are one of the select few that hate current Hollywood trends. I submit as evidence the fact that even our loveable resident anti-MCU curmudgeon seems to find ample films to praise each year.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Maybe it's been a while, maybe it's because I've only seen the cable versions for so long and always kind of watched bits and pieces over the years, but A Knight's Tale is so damn good and well ahead of its time.
It was always a good movie, but I forgot how smart it is and how well Bettany is as a gambling writer/showboater, how the idea of using modern music in medieval times should have bombedhard yet they make it work to the point I don't know why other films haven't tried to copy it, it's perfectly cast, even the kid actors, and it just picks a fun topic from the past and makes it all about that. The small drama there is is done well, especially the father stuff that actually had warmth to it despite only being in the movie for what, 10 minutes?
The only flaw, even though they use it well to have everyone pick on the Joker is Jocelyn
kind of being a GDB when it came to making Joker lose a match. That's messed up, yo.
While not a film, they do this in the show Reign. It's terrible. They play modern music using instruments from that era. Flutes, Lutes, Harps, etc.
God, that sounds awful. Like, that particular rendition of Royals is cool, but if you're going to go that route, you need to own that shit. Knight's Tale owned it, and it worked great. Ditto Moulin Rouge.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
This is what I thought they would have done, only in scenes where of offending KJU they intersplice hardcore pornography without anyone knowing.
I have no interest in the movie or seeing it, but it's a dumb precedent to set over vague and anonymous threats.
Not even much serious Oscar bait
pleasepaypreacher.net
Those movies were a lot of fun. I disagree with a lot of people and I feel that the SPIRIT of the RDJ Sherlocks was in tune with the original books more than, say, the old black and whites, which just replicated the source material to a degree.
Sherlock Holmes was supposed to be a weathered, troubled, playful badass of a private detective.
At this point, "The Interview" has changed from a so-so movie to a point about free speech. I'm not a big person for torrenting something, or other people doing it, but if a film is actively being repressed by bad persons, and is not available for me to view because of that, then I think it is now ok to torrent that movie if it is the only way to see it.
Because what's next? Someone makes a critical movie about Putin and he sics Russian hackers on a studio? Because that is the precedent that is being set here.
Diablo 3 - ArtfulDodger#1572
Minecraft - ArtfulDodger42
That could easily happen.
I do love how the Internet allows people to give the big middle finger to those who would try to repress this, in most cases. It's a wonderful thing.
So, more Adam Sandler movies?
Wtf
Perhaps that's why he allowed Team America to suffer no wrath, because he so admired the use of puppetry and disdain fro American decadence, even if he was actually a giant space cockroach.
Actually, he was pretty pissed about 'Team America', to the extent that he was asking allies (Czech Republic) to ban it.
Diablo 3 - ArtfulDodger#1572
Minecraft - ArtfulDodger42
‘Team America; World Police’ Replaces ‘The Interview’ At Alamo Drafthouse Dallas
It was always a good movie, but I forgot how smart it is and how well Bettany is as a gambling writer/showboater, how the idea of using modern music in medieval times should have bombed hard yet they make it work to the point I don't know why other films haven't tried to copy it, it's perfectly cast, even the kid actors, and it just picks a fun topic from the past and makes it all about that. The small drama there is is done well, especially the father stuff that actually had warmth to it despite only being in the movie for what, 10 minutes?
The only flaw, even though they use it well to have everyone pick on the Joker is Jocelyn
See, here's the problem. I look at your lists of good movies and terrible movies, and my own such lists wouldn't look anything like those. So the answer to What Are You Missing? is just "Opinions LOL."
And I think this sort of personal preference drives the kind of articles we see bemoaning the Great Death of Whatever. Any given year is going to be great for some people and terrible for others. And so any given year, you're going to find such articles.
Not only replacing it, but tickets are free. That's the way to do it! Wish there was one in my area that was doing that.
Diablo 3 - ArtfulDodger#1572
Minecraft - ArtfulDodger42
This is patently false. To point out just the most striking example, the two Captain America movies are of vastly different, dare I say opposite, genres and tones.
Marvel Studios isn't out the corporate system, its merely its own corporate beast that is slightly different from the person in charge being a genuine comic nerd, rather than a typical exec. Marvel is very much a corporation, while its Studios divison was technically independent it was a branch of any other mid-sized corporation. The MCU takes risks regularly, especially with the movies - Iron Man was a fluke, and the company would have folded if it had failed. They made missteps early on but they didn't try to repeat Iron Man (it's physically impossible - it was mostly improvised while filming) instead they tried new strategies which proved successful overall. Aside from IM 2 every movie in Phase 1 was very risky and yet they still kept a close eye on the projects and retained enormously control behind the scenes. That's why they've had problems with directors and actors, though this is getting better. AS much as the risks they take they make sure to keep the risks to a minimum too. That's why they have a formula which they stick to, yet they're wise enough to adjust it when they have to. In Phase 1 Avengers was a pipe dream, not a guarantee. Fury's cameo in Iron Man was fan service to the comic readers, not there to actually set up Avengers. They also started off being cheap, and do this occasionally today - that's why it was such a fuss about the principal cast in Avengers not getting paid very much, excluding Downey Jr. until Downey leveraged them to get more for future projects. Every phase has one riskier movie to measure how much insanity the audience can handle and the reaction dictates how wild the next Phase can be. Thor was that in Phase 1, GOTG did that in Phase 2.
edit: One difference I'll note from Marvel Studios is that they learn from the past and adjust accordingly with impressive regularity. Most Studios don't do that. Also a strong leader with creative vision. The MCU owes much to Fiege, and when he leaves they had better find a suitable replacement - putting a standard exec in that position will regress the studio to a typical Hollywood studio.
Eh, fair enough.
--
I'm not sure I want to hash this argument out again. I'll only end up finishing that ranting Avengers liveblog, and nobody wants that.
Both Avengers movies have unique tones, from AoU's trailers at least, and they're by the same director.
(Excepting GOTG, which is pretty distinct. )
Which is why the article he linked went for actual metrics.
At some point, listwarz is the only way to actually talk about this argument beyond "lolopinons". And even if one doesn't believe it's the death of cinema or something, I think the evidence that article presents is rather compelling for saying there is a real trend going on.
It really isn't. Basically every MCU film, barring perhaps the Hulk one because it pre-dates the MCU locking in it's style, is the same tone and style. Individual films lean a bit more on one aspect or the other but they are all the tone and style. The same PG-13 spectacle blockbuster with a mix of action and comedy with a certain directorial style and a certain tone.
Cap 1 and Cap 2 are incredibly similar films. Cap 2 just steals a few plot points from spy thrillers but the difference between Cap 2 and an standard spy thriller is vastly greater then that between Cap 1 and Cap 2. And you could do this for any of them.
GOTG isn't really that distinct at all. It's just the same formula they've been using since they could react to Iron Man working, with the jokes emphasized over the drama.
Except I don't find the metrics all that meaningful. In the end, either Hollywood is putting a lot of movies that you like, or it isn't. Whether GotG exists because of some auteur realizing his grand vision, or because some cynical executive market tested the whole thing from start to finish, it exists and I loved it.
When there are so many good movies out there that it is functionally impossible top watch them all anyway, griping about the death of creativity in Hollywood feels like arguing between a countable infinity and an uncountable infinity.
"Yes, sure, there's an infinite supply of rational numbers, but think how lovely it would be if we had the irrational numbers, too!"
The metrics that Hollywood is just putting out tons of sequels is most definitely meaningful. If to no other point then showing that Hollywood is leaning heavily on recycling the same properties over and over again and more so then they've ever done.
Why?
There can be more movies then you could actually watch in a year and still function and still be a lack of creativity in the making of those movies.
Marvel Studios output alone shows creativity in Hollywood is far from dead.
Man, what? Comic book films are the last place I would look for creativity. They're just adapting things that have a proven market in the most crowd pleasing way possible.
They've been proven for the comic book industry, this is the first time they've been given massive adaptions which are great to watch. That's more than the video-game industry can say about its movie adaptions. Adaptions can be creative, and how Marvel's done it is pioneering - no one else comes close to what they're doing and they've got studios who have been in the industry for decades. Original isn't necessarily creative - adaptions and sequels are by no means new to Hollywood. They're also amazingly superior to the movies from the super-hero movies in 80's & 90's.
You need more good movies out there than any one person can watch, because most people have preferences. Some people prefer to watch mostly romantic comedies, and if there aren't any good rom coms out, that person is not going to be glad to hear that there are plenty of good war movies available. The more good movies there are in general, the bigger the spread--the more likely that no matter what your preference or opinion set, you're going to have as many or more good movies than you can reasonably watch.
They canceled it today; airtime was probably bought weeks or months ago. It'll probably take a week or so to really shut down the marketing train.
I feel that this sort of sequelmania is the way people like things. Compact individual stories all connecting to a large, central arc. The MU is a perfect example of this, but there are far more examples in a different medium altogether: Books.
Books have been doing this for centuries.
I feel the way the medium has changed from "if it airs on tv" or "if the video store has it" to "which way are we going to watch this?" has been hugely influential in the way these stories have evolved from episodic sequels to serialized, massive overarching plot lines. I feel that HBO's two shows, The Sopranos and The Wire (Not to mention the LOTR and Harry Potter films) came at the perfect time when technology and entertainment were merging. DVR appeared, and now it wasn't a matter of simply seeing the episodes if you were lucky enough (or having to deal with a VCR), but watching them at your convenience. This means the oft-repeated 1980's mantra of "I tried watching that show but I didn't know what was going on!" that spelled the death of many shows is now an obsolete function, and Hollywood knows this.
Now we can literally punch up an entire movie series on the DirecTV box or on the major streaming movie sites (or other means) and binge watch the entire thing.
You may feel it is recycling the same content, but I feel like it is building movie universes. With the Marvel movies, these aren't simply retreads of each other but different stories from different characters telling small parts of the whole (which come together at the Avengers nexus point), and if people like the characters and the universe then I don't see how you can compare the glut of sequels in the 1980's which rarely, if ever, advanced a central plot and instead stood as individual stories, for better or worse. These Marvel movies (again, just for example) are working off of each other and creating their own reality.
A good example of this done in books are the Stephen King books after he started tying them to the Dark Tower series. Every book nearly had some mention of an aspect of the Dark Tower, whether in passing or not.
Movies like The Expendables definitely fit your description, but those kinds of sequels are few and far between in comparison to grand visions of 9-10 hour sprawling epics that have to be divided up.
But... there are. Even if all you like are rom-coms, you probably won't run out of stuff to watch. That article was trying to hang its hat on the idea that in the next six years, there are 70 movies coming out that are part of some franchise or other. 70! That's almost 12 per year! Which amounts to almost two percent of the movies released annually! DOOOOOOOOM.
Sorry man, the scene is just not that dire, even if you are one of the select few that hate current Hollywood trends. I submit as evidence the fact that even our loveable resident anti-MCU curmudgeon seems to find ample films to praise each year.
While not a film, they do this in the show Reign. It's terrible. They play modern music using instruments from that era. Flutes, Lutes, Harps, etc.
Example: Royals.
They do this all the time. It's fucking terrible.
I'm flabbergasted by this. No VOD? No nothing? They'll surely change their mind in a month or less, right?