(All of which kind of neglects that I think right now, the really interesting medium is television series.)
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.
Also, small consolation, Disney isn't shuttering Searchlight.
Yes, sorry, that was my mis-remembering. They're shutting down Fox 2000, which produced mid-budget independent films such as The Thin Red Line, Fight Club, Life of Pi, and more recently, The Hate U Give.
TV does great stuff with storytelling, but often it's still marred by the needs of TV: to keep the story going, to churn out another season - or, at the other end of the spectrum, being cancelled before finishing the story. A lot of my favourite pop culture from the last two decades is TV series, but even several of the best ones suffer from a lack of direction, because of the need to have x number of episodes or because you can't finish the story just yet, it's too successful.
Formally, I still think that cinema is where it's at. Not exclusively, but I think that good TV tends to fare better at telling a story than at experimenting with style, tone, atmosphere. There are exceptions, but I think that other than the best few series TV is rarely formally and stylistically inventive.
All in all, I have to say that I have little time for the "TV is better than movies!" "No, movies, are better than TV!" I will defend either for what they do best. I don't think cinema could've done something akin to The Wire or Mad Men, but I also don't think that TV could've done There Will Be Blood or Fury Road. Elements of either, definitely, but the different demands of the media would, and should, have produced different results
Thirith on
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I saw a black and white independent film at my local megaplex because I live in a sick ass city.
The Lighthouse blew me off my feet. It calls to you with its insane 1.18*1 ratio and oppressive black and white photography. You can't help but be seduced by the career defining performances from Willem DaFoe and Robert Pattinson, both of whom completely disappear into their roles. But by the time you realize that you're watching a nightmare of a sea shanty unfold, it's too late. You're swept away into an utter descent into the madness of two men trapped together at the edge of the world. If you at all enjoyed the Vvitch, do yourself a favor and take a dive into this film. 10/10 drowned gods.
Like without independent films being funded we wouldn't have Spielberg, Coppola, Lucas, Tarantino, Scorsese, Nolan, Rodrigo, Smith, or del Toro creating genuinely meaningful, significant work
It is an important part of the cinematic landscape
Then again, Marvel used almost all "indy" style directors and -for the most part- non-marquee actors for its universe.
Favreau, Russo Brothers, Whedon, Waititi....Chris Evans, RDJ (pre-IM1), Hemsworth, Ruffalo, Olsen, Rudd etc etc and turned them into huge stars.
Unlike other studios that wont get out of bed without a big name attached to some run-of-the-mill product sequel directed by some previous summer blockbuster yes man.
Looking at you WB and Fox.
Yea, turns out MCU movies make bank because they are damn fine movies expertly well made and -even more importantly- FANTASTICALLY cast with people who had all the talent in the world but just needed a big break. Feige gets a ton of credit, but da real MVP is the casting director for Marvel. And they made a run of movies unlike any ever seen before in a way that had never been done. And they used "no name" talent to do it.
Dont forget MARVEL itself was the very peak of an Indy studio before Disney bought them. It was a bunch of dudes that ran a comic book company who thought "hey, we have something to say people might enjoy. Lets scrape together what we can and give it the ol Parker try."
Not to say I don't love cinema! Each medium has its strengths and weaknesses, and yeah, only one of those is going to give us a Fury Road (and only one is going to give us a Wire).
What's actually been really interesting is watching through the series Fargo. Each season has the basic narrative structure of the movie, and the same theme of "small town everyman gets in over his head trying to commit a crime", and a similar tone and voice, but structured as a 10 episode series instead of a 2 hour movie. And since the Coens and Noah Hawley are both impeccable storytellers operating at the top of their craft, it's a cool illustration of how the strengths of the respective media inform how the stories play out. You can easily imagine what the movie would have looked like as a series, or what season one would have looked like as a movie.
(I think season two would not have translated as well to a film, given the necessarily larger number of key players, but the thought experiment works well with season one. Still working through season three.)
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.
+1
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Like without independent films being funded we wouldn't have Spielberg, Coppola, Lucas, Tarantino, Scorsese, Nolan, Rodrigo, Smith, or del Toro creating genuinely meaningful, significant work
It is an important part of the cinematic landscape
Then again, Marvel used almost all "indy" style directors and -for the most part- non-marquee actors for its universe.
Favreau, Russo Brothers, Whedon, Waititi....Chris Evans, RDJ (pre-IM1), Hemsworth, Ruffalo, Olsen, Rudd etc etc and turned them into huge stars.
Unlike other studios that wont get out of bed without a big name attached to some run-of-the-mill product sequel directed by some previous summer blockbuster yes man.
Looking at you WB and Fox.
Yea, turns out MCU movies make bank because they are damn fine movies expertly well made and -even more importantly- FANTASTICALLY cast with people who had all the talent in the world but just needed a big break. Feige gets a ton of credit, but da real MVP is the casting director for Marvel. And they made a run of movies unlike any ever seen before in a way that had never been done. And they used "no name" talent to do it.
Dont forget MARVEL itself was the very peak of an Indy studio before Disney bought them. It was a bunch of dudes that ran a comic book company who thought "hey, we have something to say people might enjoy. Lets scrape together what we can and give it the ol Parker try."
Marvel picked directors (and to a lesser extent actors) with less of a proven track record in film because that way they could control them, which was necessary in order for Marvel films to all have the same look, feel, tone, structure, etc. On TDK, Christopher Nolan wouldn’t even let a second unit film his insert shots; Marvel films have long used the same 2nd unit to film all the action sequences. Marvel makes bank not because individual entries are great, or even always decent, but because they are ruthlessly assembly-lined—like a Big Mac, the appeal is that you always know exactly what you’re going to get, and if you like that you won’t get tired of it. Big Macs are tasty but McDonald’s is not anything like a guy running a single food truck.
In general none of the directors Marvel has hired have gone on to do anything compelling outside of Marvel. Favreau made more Disney films. Whedon’s time with Marvel seems to have broken him. Coogler is writing Space Jam 2. Leterrier continued to make commercial junk. Taylor made a bad Terminator movie and then went back to HBO. Joe Johnston made that godawful Nutcracker movie. Peyton Reed can go fuck himself. Scott Derrickson used to make flawed but interesting horror movies, now it’s all Doctor Strange. Watts is just Spider-Man. Fleck broke out with indie darling Half-Nelson, then spent the rest of his career in TV, followed by Captain Marvel, followed by more TV. Gunn got fired and went to DC and then got rehired.
The only four people I can see who did decent work after making a Marvel film are:
-Shane Black, who had a huge career before IM3
-Branagh, likewise
-Wes Anderson, EDIT: Edgar Wright, who escaped before finishing Ant-Man and made Baby Driver instead
-Waititi, who has probably successfully leveraged Thor into getting Jojo Rabbit
I hear Jojo Rabbit is really good, but let’s not pretend Marvel is some incubator of great directorial talents, or a patron of the indies.
Astaereth on
+7
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Marvel's direction is nothing special that I've ever seen. It's mostly just very very generic. They hired directors that were cheap and that they could control and few of them really did anything interesting during their tenures with the MCU.
Their casting is top notch but let's not pretend like they were looking for hot indie talent. They were looking for cheap. They wanted nice cheap actors and within that framework whoever they had doing that job found a lot of under-valued talent. The casting director for the MCU absolutely deserves like an oscar or something.
+10
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I thought the TRON Legacy sequel (third in trilogy) got killed (or at least indefinitely postponed) because John Carter tanked, and the studio decided to veer away from weird SF.
0
Options
-Loki-Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining.Registered Userregular
Marvel's direction is nothing special that I've ever seen. It's mostly just very very generic. They hired directors that were cheap and that they could control and few of them really did anything interesting during their tenures with the MCU.
Their casting is top notch but let's not pretend like they were looking for hot indie talent. They were looking for cheap. They wanted nice cheap actors and within that framework whoever they had doing that job found a lot of under-valued talent. The casting director for the MCU absolutely deserves like an oscar or something.
It’s come up before but the MCU has one casting director - Sarah Finn. She’s done it since Iron Man and casting RDJ.
Marvel's direction is nothing special that I've ever seen. It's mostly just very very generic. They hired directors that were cheap and that they could control and few of them really did anything interesting during their tenures with the MCU.
Their casting is top notch but let's not pretend like they were looking for hot indie talent. They were looking for cheap. They wanted nice cheap actors and within that framework whoever they had doing that job found a lot of under-valued talent. The casting director for the MCU absolutely deserves like an oscar or something.
It’s come up before but the MCU has one casting director - Sarah Finn. She’s done it since Iron Man and casting RDJ.
/googles Sarah Finn
Jesus christ. Someone pay that women a billion dollars then, she's the fucking Mozart of casting directors.
+20
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Shouldn't Marty direct his ire at the general movie going populace for deciding to drop money on Marvel flicks instead of his? Or maybe turn that frustration at himself for not wanting to make movies mass amounts of the paying public would be willing to spend $20 and a few hours on?
I want to see his new movie, but not for theater prices. I'll Redbox it or wait for it to hit Netflix/Prime Video. I guess that makes me part of his problem, but sorry broseph, it's my cash and I decide what it gets spent on.
Shouldn't Marty direct his ire at the general movie going populace for deciding to drop money on Marvel flicks instead of his? Or maybe turn that frustration at himself for not wanting to make movies mass amounts of the paying public would be willing to spend $20 and a few hours on?
I want to see his new movie, but not for theater prices. I'll Redbox it or wait for it to hit Netflix/Prime Video. I guess that makes me part of his problem, but sorry broseph, it's my cash and I decide what it gets spent on.
Disney is extremely aggressive about the screen real estate for their movies. Also, the compensation ratio.
Shouldn't Marty direct his ire at the general movie going populace for deciding to drop money on Marvel flicks instead of his? Or maybe turn that frustration at himself for not wanting to make movies mass amounts of the paying public would be willing to spend $20 and a few hours on?
I want to see his new movie, but not for theater prices. I'll Redbox it or wait for it to hit Netflix/Prime Video. I guess that makes me part of his problem, but sorry broseph, it's my cash and I decide what it gets spent on.
Disney is extremely aggressive about the screen real estate for their movies. Also, the compensation ratio.
Shouldn't Marty direct his ire at the general movie going populace for deciding to drop money on Marvel flicks instead of his? Or maybe turn that frustration at himself for not wanting to make movies mass amounts of the paying public would be willing to spend $20 and a few hours on?
I want to see his new movie, but not for theater prices. I'll Redbox it or wait for it to hit Netflix/Prime Video. I guess that makes me part of his problem, but sorry broseph, it's my cash and I decide what it gets spent on.
Disney is extremely aggressive about the screen real estate for their movies. Also, the compensation ratio.
But they can do that because everyone and their mother pays to see their movies. They have a ton of cash, but if the movies weren't making all the money, theaters would be more willing to tell them to take a hike with that shit.
Shouldn't Marty direct his ire at the general movie going populace for deciding to drop money on Marvel flicks instead of his? Or maybe turn that frustration at himself for not wanting to make movies mass amounts of the paying public would be willing to spend $20 and a few hours on?
I want to see his new movie, but not for theater prices. I'll Redbox it or wait for it to hit Netflix/Prime Video. I guess that makes me part of his problem, but sorry broseph, it's my cash and I decide what it gets spent on.
Disney is extremely aggressive about the screen real estate for their movies. Also, the compensation ratio.
But they can do that because everyone and their mother pays to see their movies. They have a ton of cash, but if the movies weren't making all the money, theaters would be more willing to tell them to take a hike with that shit.
No, they can do that because they own like half of entertainment media at this point.
Everyone and their mother paid to see Star Wars for decades and decades. Disney just came in and bought it.
Shouldn't Marty direct his ire at the general movie going populace for deciding to drop money on Marvel flicks instead of his? Or maybe turn that frustration at himself for not wanting to make movies mass amounts of the paying public would be willing to spend $20 and a few hours on?
I want to see his new movie, but not for theater prices. I'll Redbox it or wait for it to hit Netflix/Prime Video. I guess that makes me part of his problem, but sorry broseph, it's my cash and I decide what it gets spent on.
Disney is extremely aggressive about the screen real estate for their movies. Also, the compensation ratio.
But they can do that because everyone and their mother pays to see their movies. They have a ton of cash, but if the movies weren't making all the money, theaters would be more willing to tell them to take a hike with that shit.
Would you stand by this argument if it were a defense of wal mart?
Shouldn't Marty direct his ire at the general movie going populace for deciding to drop money on Marvel flicks instead of his? Or maybe turn that frustration at himself for not wanting to make movies mass amounts of the paying public would be willing to spend $20 and a few hours on?
I want to see his new movie, but not for theater prices. I'll Redbox it or wait for it to hit Netflix/Prime Video. I guess that makes me part of his problem, but sorry broseph, it's my cash and I decide what it gets spent on.
Disney is extremely aggressive about the screen real estate for their movies. Also, the compensation ratio.
But they can do that because everyone and their mother pays to see their movies. They have a ton of cash, but if the movies weren't making all the money, theaters would be more willing to tell them to take a hike with that shit.
Would you stand by this argument if it were a defense of wal mart?
I mean, I hate Walmart and dont shop there. But the vast majority of the people in the town I sadly inhabit shop there, so I can see how Walmart gets away with the shit they pull.
Shouldn't Marty direct his ire at the general movie going populace for deciding to drop money on Marvel flicks instead of his? Or maybe turn that frustration at himself for not wanting to make movies mass amounts of the paying public would be willing to spend $20 and a few hours on?
I want to see his new movie, but not for theater prices. I'll Redbox it or wait for it to hit Netflix/Prime Video. I guess that makes me part of his problem, but sorry broseph, it's my cash and I decide what it gets spent on.
Disney is extremely aggressive about the screen real estate for their movies. Also, the compensation ratio.
But they can do that because everyone and their mother pays to see their movies. They have a ton of cash, but if the movies weren't making all the money, theaters would be more willing to tell them to take a hike with that shit.
Would you stand by this argument if it were a defense of wal mart?
I mean, I hate Walmart and dont shop there. But the vast majority of the people in the town I sadly inhabit shop there, so I can see how Walmart gets away with the shit they pull.
But they shop there because the prices are lower and they can be lower because wal mart runs every other business out of town and bullies suppliers with their market share.
Granted they dont send out their movies for cheaper, they just use an extremely polished movie formula that pulls people in and the art form as a whole is left without any air.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Granted they dont send out their movies for cheaper, they just use an extremely polished movie formula that pulls people in and the art form as a whole is left without any air.
Actually they send their movies out for more, in that Disney also forces theaters to give them a bigger percentage of the box office than normal.
Speaking of cinema, watching House Two: The Second Story and it's just as enjoyable as I remember it being. They really dont make horror comedies like this anymore.
Marvel's direction is nothing special that I've ever seen. It's mostly just very very generic. They hired directors that were cheap and that they could control and few of them really did anything interesting during their tenures with the MCU.
Their casting is top notch but let's not pretend like they were looking for hot indie talent. They were looking for cheap. They wanted nice cheap actors and within that framework whoever they had doing that job found a lot of under-valued talent. The casting director for the MCU absolutely deserves like an oscar or something.
They wanted cheap and talented, and they were experts at getting it with casting that rivalled the bigger studios in quality acting. The control aspect varies, some adapt more than others like everywhere else and all movie studios have their ups and downs with their directors. It's not like WB hasn't had its struggles with its directors.
0
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
I thought the TRON Legacy sequel (third in trilogy) got killed (or at least indefinitely postponed) because John Carter tanked, and the studio decided to veer away from weird SF.
I'd love to know what political bullshit went down with the TRON stuff that got Disney to basically execute the franchise. The film made "only" $400 million, which is higher than several of the MCU entries, and then they put out the surprisingly excellent TRON Uprising animated series... then proceeded to fuck with broadcast dates and show order, which is the typical "some asshole is trying to bury the franchise" maneuver. The Asian market loves those "pretending an online game world is real" shows, and TRON had the further benefit of being an actual digital world with actual people; making another one of those would be an easy earnings win for Disney.
It just seems really weird to completely tank the TRON franchise because John Carter cratered.
I thought the TRON Legacy sequel (third in trilogy) got killed (or at least indefinitely postponed) because John Carter tanked, and the studio decided to veer away from weird SF.
I'd love to know what political bullshit went down with the TRON stuff that got Disney to basically execute the franchise. The film made "only" $400 million, which is higher than several of the MCU entries, and then they put out the surprisingly excellent TRON Uprising animated series... then proceeded to fuck with broadcast dates and show order, which is the typical "some asshole is trying to bury the franchise" maneuver. The Asian market loves those "pretending an online game world is real" shows, and TRON had the further benefit of being an actual digital world with actual people; making another one of those would be an easy earnings win for Disney.
It just seems really weird to completely tank the TRON franchise because John Carter cratered.
A high ranking Disney exec must have had it out for Tron. But they need to replace the director after the movie, he's good at making pretty movies without any depth underneath.
If I could press a button to get rid of the MCU and put all that money into making original movies with new ideas I would in a heartbeat. With the exception of Black Panther probably
For all the criticism leveled at the MCU (and I largely agree with Scorsese's structural criticism), I would still maintain that many of its critics are overly dismissive of what the franchise has managed - creatively as much as logistically. That doesn't mean it's perfect, and I still wish they'd been more daring with respect to staking out the MCU's stylistic territory - but they've managed to do things that few franchises have attempted and IMO none have achieved. Perhaps those achievements aren't something you enjoy, and that's perfectly fair, but with some people it results in a kind of willful blindness to what is actually there.
Though personally I'd be okay with someone snapping their fingers and getting rid of half the MCU films planned for any given year, and the rest can go into original movies with new ideas (though I might debate the idea of "original" and "new ideas". I think there is some real originality to some of the MCU, and I don't think that a film like, say, If Beale Street Could Talk is great because of originality and new ideas, but I would nevertheless not hesitate to call it great).
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Posts
Television has been for I want to say at least a decade where real interesting work is being done.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yes, sorry, that was my mis-remembering. They're shutting down Fox 2000, which produced mid-budget independent films such as The Thin Red Line, Fight Club, Life of Pi, and more recently, The Hate U Give.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Formally, I still think that cinema is where it's at. Not exclusively, but I think that good TV tends to fare better at telling a story than at experimenting with style, tone, atmosphere. There are exceptions, but I think that other than the best few series TV is rarely formally and stylistically inventive.
All in all, I have to say that I have little time for the "TV is better than movies!" "No, movies, are better than TV!" I will defend either for what they do best. I don't think cinema could've done something akin to The Wire or Mad Men, but I also don't think that TV could've done There Will Be Blood or Fury Road. Elements of either, definitely, but the different demands of the media would, and should, have produced different results
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
The Lighthouse blew me off my feet. It calls to you with its insane 1.18*1 ratio and oppressive black and white photography. You can't help but be seduced by the career defining performances from Willem DaFoe and Robert Pattinson, both of whom completely disappear into their roles. But by the time you realize that you're watching a nightmare of a sea shanty unfold, it's too late. You're swept away into an utter descent into the madness of two men trapped together at the edge of the world. If you at all enjoyed the Vvitch, do yourself a favor and take a dive into this film. 10/10 drowned gods.
Then again, Marvel used almost all "indy" style directors and -for the most part- non-marquee actors for its universe.
Favreau, Russo Brothers, Whedon, Waititi....Chris Evans, RDJ (pre-IM1), Hemsworth, Ruffalo, Olsen, Rudd etc etc and turned them into huge stars.
Unlike other studios that wont get out of bed without a big name attached to some run-of-the-mill product sequel directed by some previous summer blockbuster yes man.
Looking at you WB and Fox.
Yea, turns out MCU movies make bank because they are damn fine movies expertly well made and -even more importantly- FANTASTICALLY cast with people who had all the talent in the world but just needed a big break. Feige gets a ton of credit, but da real MVP is the casting director for Marvel. And they made a run of movies unlike any ever seen before in a way that had never been done. And they used "no name" talent to do it.
Dont forget MARVEL itself was the very peak of an Indy studio before Disney bought them. It was a bunch of dudes that ran a comic book company who thought "hey, we have something to say people might enjoy. Lets scrape together what we can and give it the ol Parker try."
What's actually been really interesting is watching through the series Fargo. Each season has the basic narrative structure of the movie, and the same theme of "small town everyman gets in over his head trying to commit a crime", and a similar tone and voice, but structured as a 10 episode series instead of a 2 hour movie. And since the Coens and Noah Hawley are both impeccable storytellers operating at the top of their craft, it's a cool illustration of how the strengths of the respective media inform how the stories play out. You can easily imagine what the movie would have looked like as a series, or what season one would have looked like as a movie.
(I think season two would not have translated as well to a film, given the necessarily larger number of key players, but the thought experiment works well with season one. Still working through season three.)
Marvel picked directors (and to a lesser extent actors) with less of a proven track record in film because that way they could control them, which was necessary in order for Marvel films to all have the same look, feel, tone, structure, etc. On TDK, Christopher Nolan wouldn’t even let a second unit film his insert shots; Marvel films have long used the same 2nd unit to film all the action sequences. Marvel makes bank not because individual entries are great, or even always decent, but because they are ruthlessly assembly-lined—like a Big Mac, the appeal is that you always know exactly what you’re going to get, and if you like that you won’t get tired of it. Big Macs are tasty but McDonald’s is not anything like a guy running a single food truck.
In general none of the directors Marvel has hired have gone on to do anything compelling outside of Marvel. Favreau made more Disney films. Whedon’s time with Marvel seems to have broken him. Coogler is writing Space Jam 2. Leterrier continued to make commercial junk. Taylor made a bad Terminator movie and then went back to HBO. Joe Johnston made that godawful Nutcracker movie. Peyton Reed can go fuck himself. Scott Derrickson used to make flawed but interesting horror movies, now it’s all Doctor Strange. Watts is just Spider-Man. Fleck broke out with indie darling Half-Nelson, then spent the rest of his career in TV, followed by Captain Marvel, followed by more TV. Gunn got fired and went to DC and then got rehired.
The only four people I can see who did decent work after making a Marvel film are:
-Shane Black, who had a huge career before IM3
-Branagh, likewise
-Wes Anderson, EDIT: Edgar Wright, who escaped before finishing Ant-Man and made Baby Driver instead
-Waititi, who has probably successfully leveraged Thor into getting Jojo Rabbit
I hear Jojo Rabbit is really good, but let’s not pretend Marvel is some incubator of great directorial talents, or a patron of the indies.
A Wes Anderson Marvel movie would be fascinating.
Their casting is top notch but let's not pretend like they were looking for hot indie talent. They were looking for cheap. They wanted nice cheap actors and within that framework whoever they had doing that job found a lot of under-valued talent. The casting director for the MCU absolutely deserves like an oscar or something.
I mean they've already got a ton of movies with all white people in them
It’s come up before but the MCU has one casting director - Sarah Finn. She’s done it since Iron Man and casting RDJ.
/googles Sarah Finn
Jesus christ. Someone pay that women a billion dollars then, she's the fucking Mozart of casting directors.
Thanks for the correction.
Obligatory repost of the closest things we’ll probably ever get to a Wes Anderson Marvel movie:
I want to see his new movie, but not for theater prices. I'll Redbox it or wait for it to hit Netflix/Prime Video. I guess that makes me part of his problem, but sorry broseph, it's my cash and I decide what it gets spent on.
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
Disney is extremely aggressive about the screen real estate for their movies. Also, the compensation ratio.
*pours one out for Quentin Tarantino*
https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/12/16/quentin-tarantino-says-disneys-star-wars-forced-his-hateful-eight-out-of-giant-screen-cinerama-dome/
But they can do that because everyone and their mother pays to see their movies. They have a ton of cash, but if the movies weren't making all the money, theaters would be more willing to tell them to take a hike with that shit.
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
No, they can do that because they own like half of entertainment media at this point.
Everyone and their mother paid to see Star Wars for decades and decades. Disney just came in and bought it.
Would you stand by this argument if it were a defense of wal mart?
I mean, I hate Walmart and dont shop there. But the vast majority of the people in the town I sadly inhabit shop there, so I can see how Walmart gets away with the shit they pull.
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
But they shop there because the prices are lower and they can be lower because wal mart runs every other business out of town and bullies suppliers with their market share.
Thats what Disney does.
Actually they send their movies out for more, in that Disney also forces theaters to give them a bigger percentage of the box office than normal.
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
Blizzard: Pailryder#1101
GoG: https://www.gog.com/u/pailryder
They wanted cheap and talented, and they were experts at getting it with casting that rivalled the bigger studios in quality acting. The control aspect varies, some adapt more than others like everywhere else and all movie studios have their ups and downs with their directors. It's not like WB hasn't had its struggles with its directors.
I'd love to know what political bullshit went down with the TRON stuff that got Disney to basically execute the franchise. The film made "only" $400 million, which is higher than several of the MCU entries, and then they put out the surprisingly excellent TRON Uprising animated series... then proceeded to fuck with broadcast dates and show order, which is the typical "some asshole is trying to bury the franchise" maneuver. The Asian market loves those "pretending an online game world is real" shows, and TRON had the further benefit of being an actual digital world with actual people; making another one of those would be an easy earnings win for Disney.
It just seems really weird to completely tank the TRON franchise because John Carter cratered.
A high ranking Disney exec must have had it out for Tron. But they need to replace the director after the movie, he's good at making pretty movies without any depth underneath.
I think we have enough Indy films. After Crystal Skull I’m surprised anyone wants more of them.
Boooooooooooo. Boo this man. Booooooooooooooooo.
Though personally I'd be okay with someone snapping their fingers and getting rid of half the MCU films planned for any given year, and the rest can go into original movies with new ideas (though I might debate the idea of "original" and "new ideas". I think there is some real originality to some of the MCU, and I don't think that a film like, say, If Beale Street Could Talk is great because of originality and new ideas, but I would nevertheless not hesitate to call it great).
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
If I could push a button I'd nuke every movie ever and funnel that movie into important things.
That’s the rule
Indy fighting Nazis means the movie is good, if he’s not it’s crap.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades