Hey, nobody complains about the Jaws franchise. Even Michael Caine has complimentary things to say about the house it got him.
I am fucking shocked Jaws hasn't been rebooted/reimagined/gotten another sequel. Senior Spielbergo must have some serious dirt on the decision makers at Universal.
Hey, nobody complains about the Jaws franchise. Even Michael Caine has complimentary things to say about the house it got him.
I am fucking shocked Jaws hasn't been rebooted/reimagined/gotten another sequel. Senior Spielbergo must have some serious dirt on the decision makers at Universal.
The Meg was a feeler Im sure
Meg was in development hell for something like 20 years.
Its surprising no one just slapped the name Jaws on any of the substandard shark movies we've gotten the last few decades. Or that one of the scripts wasnt reworked to be an official entry in the series. Deep Blue Sea seemed the most obvious for a slight rewrite to be a Jaws movie.
I’m hard-pressed to consider the MCU an artistic movement purely on the basis that all of the movies are made by one company and overseen by one person. The rise of modern superhero movies could be called a movement, but that encompasses a lot more than just Marvel.
Anyway when the constant response to criticisms boils down to “you’re just a hater” the conversation gets pretty frustrating.
The MCU is art, thus an artistic movement, you don't have to like to accept this. Because movies are an art form. Except the main target of these conversations isn't Disney, that takes a backseat to Marvel which is a small subsection within their film division. Which has 3 movies a year. Disney makes more than 3 movies a year and many are blockbuster franchises. Star Wars, for instance.
Jaws (in the past), Pirates of the Caribbean, Terminator, Star Trek, Jurassic Park franchises keep going strong and no-one has a bone to pick with them. Terminator is on its 6th film, Pirates' 6th film is going to be a reboot, Jaws got 4, Trek's on its 12th, F & F are on its 8th and it had a spin-off, Jurassic Park's on its 6th. The only franchise there who aren't adaptions are Trek and Fast and Furious, neither of which are high art. And yet Marty hasn't said a word about disparaging those as are art forms, in fact he boosted the director who started two of them!
You are entirely missing his point. He's saying the MCU on it's own is not an artistic movement. Because it's just one entity. An artistic movement is basically always in my experience defined as a group of artists all pursuing some similar style/goal/philosophy/whatever as part of their own work. It's the fact that multiple people are doing it that make it a movement rather then just the specific artist's style.
Hence one could say the modern superhero film a movement in cinema and I'd generally agree, which is the point being made above.
One could also say the modern media franchise empire is itself a kind of movement in cinema frankly.
Yes.....when people are talking about Marvel they're not....talking about Jurassic Park?
The reason they hate Marvel is that they think it's trash that's taking away opportunities for other newer films, which nobody aims at those franchises. Nobody is complaining about Alien sequels blocking films like "The Irishman" getting made.
"Do not allow the media you love to become so much a part of you that critique of it becomes a critique of you."
Don't allow your ability to critique shit lead you to believe your critique is anything, but a subjective opinion.
Doesn't matter how well developed your critique is, or how much effort you put into it, or how smart you are. If the general public likes a thing you think is shit screaming about how much shit it is definitely isn't gonna convince everyone it's shit. Likely it's gonna do the opposite. Insisting people are dumb or insecure because they don't agree with your critique is also not gonna get you any accolades.
Okay but who's in this thread screaming that all the Disney Co. films are bad?
I mean the discussion of marvel movies generally consists of 3 positions "hey that was fun", "that movie was objectively garbage", or "that movie and the entire MCU are a crime against cinema". They all get a bit more text put to them than those simplifications but that's about the 3 responses marvel films get. First ones fine, second one's tedious but is sometimes at least compelling to read to see what may have been weak points to the film you didn't notice or care about, the third is almost always unabashed fart huffing.
"I hate this cultural/artistic movement", is always a useless critique because it means any of your individual critiques of the artistic movement are suspect. You admitted up front you dislike the entire artistic movement. Like if you hate cubism I'm not gonna really give a shit about your critiques of cubist media. Country fans aren't gonna agree with my critiques of their preferred music because I've baseline hated the artistic movement since about 1999 and can only find the rare gem I can enjoy and most of it is just oldies I've not heard yet.
If your review of a marvel movie includes the note that it's just following the formula, or that it's like every other marvel film congratulations, you dislike the artistic movement. That's fine. I'm just not gonna care about your opinions on it because I like the artistic movement and things that folks in group 3 up there find to be a problem with the individual marvel movies are commonly in fact strong elements of the artistic movement that they don't like. After a certain point you not liking them is a greater indication that it's sticking within the confines of that particular artistic movement and likely more true to a form that it's appreciative audience is looking for.
All of this is beside the whole monopolistic practices issue which is the far more compelling issue here. Like outside of artistic credibility, which literally no one ever really gets to be the ultimate arbiter of, the monopolistic business practices surrounding Disney media is the major problem that needs to be addressed. I don't think anyone can credibly deny this is and has been a problem for quite some time. Trying to tie that discussion to a discussion of the artistic movement that is superhero media is dumb on its face because the artistic merits aren't actually important to this. There's a monopoly that's trying to verticalize the entertainment industry. As much as I love some of the media they've produced they might need to get a legal smack down so they stop strangling small scale theaters.
Basically:
If you're saying Disney needs to be crushed because they are destroying artistic creativity, you're being a bit of a silly goose.
If you're saying Disney needs to be crushed because they have an alarming control of the global media framework then yeah that's a totally correct assessment of a monopolistic business that needs to be curtailed.
Or, you know, maybe it consists of more then those 3 strawmen.
I mean, just at the end there, part of the criticism of Disney's influence on the global media framework is that it leads to a strangling of artistic creativity.
This, in fact, would seem to be Scorsese's main point.
Scorsese has it backwards and upside down.
Disney movies have broad appeal, which means they are more profitable both for Disney and for theatres that show them.
The theatres that try to show niche selections suffer financially.
Niche selections move to a more cost effective medium like streaming with smaller and more limited theatrical runs.
Scorsese thinks that if the Disney movies weren’t there, just as many people would be paying theatre prices for movies that by definition aren’t as appealing to as many people, he is upset that his movies can’t compete financially for theatre time with Disney, and views all alternatives as plebeian and lesser than his vaunted cinema.
People that truly love movies have more available than ever before with on demand streaming and not being reliant on the fickle tastes of a local art house or the multiplex conglomerate.
This assumes the hand of the invisible hand of the free market is working perfectly. Do I even need to snort at this idea? Especially in the context of the size of an entity like Disney or the limitations of the international and Chinese markets?
So all the independent art house theatres are dying out because.... People really Want to go spend a bunch of money to watch an old movie in a rundown theatre but disney has the goose stepping mouse squad Frog march families into the multiplex to watch their latest princess movie?
The invisible hand doesnt have to be immaculately perfect, but there are enough market forces at play that you cant pretend that an art house in every neighborhood Or even every metro area is a viable business.
Except that's exactly what you are arguing. That these things succeeded because they are people like them more. We know markets don't work that way and frankly, we all know that basically nobody on this forum would be arguing this case for literally any other kind of market.
I think the general desire to defend Disney or the MCU or whatever on the grounds that it's profitable to be a bit strange frankly.
+2
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
Nobody needs to go to a movie theater to watch RBG or First Reformed. I find the argument that somehow all of this amazing theater-worthy content is no longer viable because it's being crowded out by Disney content to be disingenuous. That content really does not need to be seen in a theater to be properly experienced. The truth is that the giant cineplex business model is just not viable (for whatever reasons) unless you are making something that people are willing to spend $20+ per person to go out of their way to watch on a giant screen. The experience has to justify the cost. And the vast, vast majority of small, independent films, do not need a giant recliner with a 2-gallon soda and 24.7 surround sound speakers to be enjoyed.
Vilifying Disney as though they are the cause of this problem is putting the cart before the horse. People only go watch MCU movies because those movies have proven to be worth the expense. Otherwise, I'm already spending $20 on Netflix/Amazon/HBO/whatever and I can watch a million different shows and movies at home for a fraction of the cost. (Big surprise: the vast majority of people who have access to all this amazing stuff still never watch it because most of it is still actually not good)
And, increasingly, the so-called "original" content that used to be shown in theaters is now increasingly being shown on those same services. We're seeing a significant lowering of the barrier to entry for films of this kind all across the board - not only is there now a massive middle ground of content that can't quite justify a theatrical release available, but nowadays all you need is the phone on your camera or a cheap digital camera to create something that can be seen by millions of people on Youtube.
I'd also point out that the argument that somehow we had all this fantastic content before the arrival of Disney and that it's crowding out the market to be a misrepresentation of the past. It used to cost thousands of dollars to make a movie, back when thousands of dollars was a shit ton of money. If you got your genius creative vision off the ground, it was often because you managed to convince someone rich to bankroll it (per DaVinci and the Medicis) or because you yourself came from wealth. Those people are not having a problem getting their shit made today, and they will never have a problem getting their shit made. You can go watch that stuff now. The difference is that those people no longer have a leg up on everyone else because they now have to compete against a lot of other stuff.
The idea that if only Disney didn't exist and then people would be forced to watch all this great stuff is just plain not true. People can watch it now. They just don't. Because most of that stuff isn't good, and nobody wants to spend 2 hours of their life watching Paul Schrader finally realize that global warming is real.
+5
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I think Scorsese's argument isn't helped by one or two lines that are often repeated out of context. Read the whole thing, though, and those lines are really the least important part of his argument.
As usual with such things, he said some provocative shit off the cuff and it kinda obscured his overall point.
I think his recent clarification is a much better place to look for what Scorsese's argument is.
They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.
Another way of putting it would be that they are everything that the films of Paul Thomas Anderson or Claire Denis or Spike Lee or Ari Aster or Kathryn Bigelow or Wes Anderson are not. When I watch a movie by any of those filmmakers, I know I’m going to see something absolutely new and be taken to unexpected and maybe even unnameable areas of experience. My sense of what is possible in telling stories with moving images and sounds is going to be expanded.
"Absolutely new" is... woof
Do you think he's wrong about "That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption."?
That's always been the nature of Hollywood. To say anything else is an absolute fantasy
I think Scorsese's argument isn't helped by one or two lines that are often repeated out of context. Read the whole thing, though, and those lines are really the least important part of his argument.
As usual with such things, he said some provocative shit off the cuff and it kinda obscured his overall point.
I think his recent clarification is a much better place to look for what Scorsese's argument is.
They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.
Another way of putting it would be that they are everything that the films of Paul Thomas Anderson or Claire Denis or Spike Lee or Ari Aster or Kathryn Bigelow or Wes Anderson are not. When I watch a movie by any of those filmmakers, I know I’m going to see something absolutely new and be taken to unexpected and maybe even unnameable areas of experience. My sense of what is possible in telling stories with moving images and sounds is going to be expanded.
"Absolutely new" is... woof
Do you think he's wrong about "That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption."?
That's always been the nature of Hollywood. To say anything else is an absolute fantasy
Nah. Plenty of things come out of Hollywood that are nothing like that. The list Scorsese makes in that quote you are complaining about is a simple example of that. It is, after all, the entire point of him giving the list.
I mean, if there's one thing one can say about Wes Anderson, it's that he's market-researched the shit out of his films, am I right?
shryke on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I think Scorsese's argument isn't helped by one or two lines that are often repeated out of context. Read the whole thing, though, and those lines are really the least important part of his argument.
As usual with such things, he said some provocative shit off the cuff and it kinda obscured his overall point.
I think his recent clarification is a much better place to look for what Scorsese's argument is.
They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.
Another way of putting it would be that they are everything that the films of Paul Thomas Anderson or Claire Denis or Spike Lee or Ari Aster or Kathryn Bigelow or Wes Anderson are not. When I watch a movie by any of those filmmakers, I know I’m going to see something absolutely new and be taken to unexpected and maybe even unnameable areas of experience. My sense of what is possible in telling stories with moving images and sounds is going to be expanded.
"Absolutely new" is... woof
Do you think he's wrong about "That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption."?
That's always been the nature of Hollywood. To say anything else is an absolute fantasy
Nah. Plenty of things come out of Hollywood that are nothing like that. The list Scorsese makes in that quote you are complaining about is a simple example of that. It is, after all, the entire point of him giving the list.
You think films by Wes Anserson aren't precisely marketed, studied, and vetted with test audiences to appeal to a certain demographic?
I think Scorsese's argument isn't helped by one or two lines that are often repeated out of context. Read the whole thing, though, and those lines are really the least important part of his argument.
As usual with such things, he said some provocative shit off the cuff and it kinda obscured his overall point.
I think his recent clarification is a much better place to look for what Scorsese's argument is.
They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.
Another way of putting it would be that they are everything that the films of Paul Thomas Anderson or Claire Denis or Spike Lee or Ari Aster or Kathryn Bigelow or Wes Anderson are not. When I watch a movie by any of those filmmakers, I know I’m going to see something absolutely new and be taken to unexpected and maybe even unnameable areas of experience. My sense of what is possible in telling stories with moving images and sounds is going to be expanded.
"Absolutely new" is... woof
Do you think he's wrong about "That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption."?
That's always been the nature of Hollywood. To say anything else is an absolute fantasy
Nah. Plenty of things come out of Hollywood that are nothing like that. The list Scorsese makes in that quote you are complaining about is a simple example of that. It is, after all, the entire point of him giving the list.
You think films by Wes Anserson aren't precisely marketed, studied, and vetted with test audiences to appeal to a certain demographic?
I'm out. This is beyond absurd.
Wes Anderson is not comparable to Disney here
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I think Scorsese's argument isn't helped by one or two lines that are often repeated out of context. Read the whole thing, though, and those lines are really the least important part of his argument.
As usual with such things, he said some provocative shit off the cuff and it kinda obscured his overall point.
I think his recent clarification is a much better place to look for what Scorsese's argument is.
They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.
Another way of putting it would be that they are everything that the films of Paul Thomas Anderson or Claire Denis or Spike Lee or Ari Aster or Kathryn Bigelow or Wes Anderson are not. When I watch a movie by any of those filmmakers, I know I’m going to see something absolutely new and be taken to unexpected and maybe even unnameable areas of experience. My sense of what is possible in telling stories with moving images and sounds is going to be expanded.
"Absolutely new" is... woof
Do you think he's wrong about "That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption."?
That's always been the nature of Hollywood. To say anything else is an absolute fantasy
Nah. Plenty of things come out of Hollywood that are nothing like that. The list Scorsese makes in that quote you are complaining about is a simple example of that. It is, after all, the entire point of him giving the list.
You think films by Wes Anserson aren't precisely marketed, studied, and vetted with test audiences to appeal to a certain demographic?
I'm out. This is beyond absurd.
Wes Anderson is not comparable to Disney here
Yes hes not.
But hes also not thumbing it to the marketing departments. None of them are. If you get something released from a major studio it's gone through the same vetting process and been fine tuned to appeal to the selected market. Hipsters are a market, and his movies are definitely 100% honed to get their dollars.
jungleroomx on
+3
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
The fact you think hes an auteur above the common rabble just means the marketing is working as intended.
I think Scorsese's argument isn't helped by one or two lines that are often repeated out of context. Read the whole thing, though, and those lines are really the least important part of his argument.
As usual with such things, he said some provocative shit off the cuff and it kinda obscured his overall point.
I think his recent clarification is a much better place to look for what Scorsese's argument is.
They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.
Another way of putting it would be that they are everything that the films of Paul Thomas Anderson or Claire Denis or Spike Lee or Ari Aster or Kathryn Bigelow or Wes Anderson are not. When I watch a movie by any of those filmmakers, I know I’m going to see something absolutely new and be taken to unexpected and maybe even unnameable areas of experience. My sense of what is possible in telling stories with moving images and sounds is going to be expanded.
"Absolutely new" is... woof
Do you think he's wrong about "That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption."?
That's always been the nature of Hollywood. To say anything else is an absolute fantasy
Nah. Plenty of things come out of Hollywood that are nothing like that. The list Scorsese makes in that quote you are complaining about is a simple example of that. It is, after all, the entire point of him giving the list.
You think films by Wes Anserson aren't precisely marketed, studied, and vetted with test audiences to appeal to a certain demographic?
I'm out. This is beyond absurd.
No. What are you basing this on? What could possibly give you that idea? Wes Anderson is like the posterboy for someone with their own distinct authorial style in cinema. To the point that, as someone posted only a day or two ago, you can mock it and everyone gets the joke.
This seems like the "everyone's corrupt" of talking about movies. A way to just not have to actual engage with the specifics by blanket claiming that it's all just the same.
Just as technology has finally (or very nearly) reached the long-prophesied point of letting us resurrect dead actors, it has made "home theater" no longer a joke or oxymoron. For most movies that aren't blockbusters, where the crowd and blow-your-hair-back spectacle are part of the experience, home theater setups are now (IMO) perfectly adequate.
Commander Zoom on
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I think Scorsese's argument isn't helped by one or two lines that are often repeated out of context. Read the whole thing, though, and those lines are really the least important part of his argument.
As usual with such things, he said some provocative shit off the cuff and it kinda obscured his overall point.
I think his recent clarification is a much better place to look for what Scorsese's argument is.
They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.
Another way of putting it would be that they are everything that the films of Paul Thomas Anderson or Claire Denis or Spike Lee or Ari Aster or Kathryn Bigelow or Wes Anderson are not. When I watch a movie by any of those filmmakers, I know I’m going to see something absolutely new and be taken to unexpected and maybe even unnameable areas of experience. My sense of what is possible in telling stories with moving images and sounds is going to be expanded.
"Absolutely new" is... woof
Do you think he's wrong about "That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption."?
That's always been the nature of Hollywood. To say anything else is an absolute fantasy
Nah. Plenty of things come out of Hollywood that are nothing like that. The list Scorsese makes in that quote you are complaining about is a simple example of that. It is, after all, the entire point of him giving the list.
You think films by Wes Anserson aren't precisely marketed, studied, and vetted with test audiences to appeal to a certain demographic?
I'm out. This is beyond absurd.
No. What are you basing this on? What could possibly give you that idea? Wes Anderson is like the posterboy for someone with their own distinct authorial style in cinema. To the point that, as someone posted only a day or two ago, you can mock it and everyone gets the joke.
He gets movies published through companies like Focus, who are owned by Universal.
If you honestly think his stuff is just direct from the director to film and to the theater, that's just... that's not how any major film is released. Ever.
I think Scorsese's argument isn't helped by one or two lines that are often repeated out of context. Read the whole thing, though, and those lines are really the least important part of his argument.
As usual with such things, he said some provocative shit off the cuff and it kinda obscured his overall point.
I think his recent clarification is a much better place to look for what Scorsese's argument is.
They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.
Another way of putting it would be that they are everything that the films of Paul Thomas Anderson or Claire Denis or Spike Lee or Ari Aster or Kathryn Bigelow or Wes Anderson are not. When I watch a movie by any of those filmmakers, I know I’m going to see something absolutely new and be taken to unexpected and maybe even unnameable areas of experience. My sense of what is possible in telling stories with moving images and sounds is going to be expanded.
"Absolutely new" is... woof
Do you think he's wrong about "That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption."?
That's always been the nature of Hollywood. To say anything else is an absolute fantasy
Nah. Plenty of things come out of Hollywood that are nothing like that. The list Scorsese makes in that quote you are complaining about is a simple example of that. It is, after all, the entire point of him giving the list.
You think films by Wes Anserson aren't precisely marketed, studied, and vetted with test audiences to appeal to a certain demographic?
I'm out. This is beyond absurd.
No. What are you basing this on? What could possibly give you that idea? Wes Anderson is like the posterboy for someone with their own distinct authorial style in cinema. To the point that, as someone posted only a day or two ago, you can mock it and everyone gets the joke.
He gets movies published through companies like Focus, who are owned by Universal.
If you honestly think his stuff is just direct from the director to film and to the theater, that's just... that's not how any major film is released. Ever.
You're ignoring wild differences in degrees of control
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I think Scorsese's argument isn't helped by one or two lines that are often repeated out of context. Read the whole thing, though, and those lines are really the least important part of his argument.
As usual with such things, he said some provocative shit off the cuff and it kinda obscured his overall point.
I think his recent clarification is a much better place to look for what Scorsese's argument is.
They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.
Another way of putting it would be that they are everything that the films of Paul Thomas Anderson or Claire Denis or Spike Lee or Ari Aster or Kathryn Bigelow or Wes Anderson are not. When I watch a movie by any of those filmmakers, I know I’m going to see something absolutely new and be taken to unexpected and maybe even unnameable areas of experience. My sense of what is possible in telling stories with moving images and sounds is going to be expanded.
"Absolutely new" is... woof
Do you think he's wrong about "That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption."?
That's always been the nature of Hollywood. To say anything else is an absolute fantasy
Nah. Plenty of things come out of Hollywood that are nothing like that. The list Scorsese makes in that quote you are complaining about is a simple example of that. It is, after all, the entire point of him giving the list.
You think films by Wes Anserson aren't precisely marketed, studied, and vetted with test audiences to appeal to a certain demographic?
I'm out. This is beyond absurd.
No. What are you basing this on? What could possibly give you that idea? Wes Anderson is like the posterboy for someone with their own distinct authorial style in cinema. To the point that, as someone posted only a day or two ago, you can mock it and everyone gets the joke.
He gets movies published through companies like Focus, who are owned by Universal.
If you honestly think his stuff is just direct from the director to film and to the theater, that's just... that's not how any major film is released. Ever.
You're ignoring wild differences in degrees of control
No, I'm waiting for proof that Wes Anderson has executive control over a major studio he doesnt own.
Nobody needs to go to a movie theater to watch RBG or First Reformed. I find the argument that somehow all of this amazing theater-worthy content is no longer viable because it's being crowded out by Disney content to be disingenuous. That content really does not need to be seen in a theater to be properly experienced. The truth is that the giant cineplex business model is just not viable (for whatever reasons) unless you are making something that people are willing to spend $20+ per person to go out of their way to watch on a giant screen. The experience has to justify the cost. And the vast, vast majority of small, independent films, do not need a giant recliner with a 2-gallon soda and 24.7 surround sound speakers to be enjoyed.
Vilifying Disney as though they are the cause of this problem is putting the cart before the horse. People only go watch MCU movies because those movies have proven to be worth the expense. Otherwise, I'm already spending $20 on Netflix/Amazon/HBO/whatever and I can watch a million different shows and movies at home for a fraction of the cost. (Big surprise: the vast majority of people who have access to all this amazing stuff still never watch it because most of it is still actually not good)
And, increasingly, the so-called "original" content that used to be shown in theaters is now increasingly being shown on those same services. We're seeing a significant lowering of the barrier to entry for films of this kind all across the board - not only is there now a massive middle ground of content that can't quite justify a theatrical release available, but nowadays all you need is the phone on your camera or a cheap digital camera to create something that can be seen by millions of people on Youtube.
I'd also point out that the argument that somehow we had all this fantastic content before the arrival of Disney and that it's crowding out the market to be a misrepresentation of the past. It used to cost thousands of dollars to make a movie, back when thousands of dollars was a shit ton of money. If you got your genius creative vision off the ground, it was often because you managed to convince someone rich to bankroll it (per DaVinci and the Medicis) or because you yourself came from wealth. Those people are not having a problem getting their shit made today, and they will never have a problem getting their shit made. You can go watch that stuff now. The difference is that those people no longer have a leg up on everyone else because they now have to compete against a lot of other stuff.
The idea that if only Disney didn't exist and then people would be forced to watch all this great stuff is just plain not true. People can watch it now. They just don't. Because most of that stuff isn't good, and nobody wants to spend 2 hours of their life watching Paul Schrader finally realize that global warming is real.
The problem is not actually at the low end when it comes to production. As you say, films are cheaper to make at that level then ever before. Now, getting anyone to see your film is a much harder proposition.
The problem on the production side is actually just above that. The mid-tier film. Because while it's super cheap to make a super cheap indie film now, it's not really much cheaper to make a mid-budget film and the funding for those has, as far as anything I've read, been drying up.
+2
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
The mid-tier films have mostly become TV shows, and that’s not the same thing.
Big original movies are a lot less common.
Also, I find that the theatrical experience is different from the home experience in several important ways. The viewing environment is different. The theater has a mass audience that is reacting live with you while you watch. And unlike streaming or Blu-ray you’re not in control, you can’t pause or switch to Twitter or check your phone, you give yourself over to the movie. Midsommar in a theater is not like Midsommar at home because in the theater you’re trapped in a miasma of dread and at home when things get too uncomfortable you can stop it, or even just think about stopping it.
The home experience has gotten better in the past decade but it’s still not the same.
I think Scorsese's argument isn't helped by one or two lines that are often repeated out of context. Read the whole thing, though, and those lines are really the least important part of his argument.
As usual with such things, he said some provocative shit off the cuff and it kinda obscured his overall point.
I think his recent clarification is a much better place to look for what Scorsese's argument is.
They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.
Another way of putting it would be that they are everything that the films of Paul Thomas Anderson or Claire Denis or Spike Lee or Ari Aster or Kathryn Bigelow or Wes Anderson are not. When I watch a movie by any of those filmmakers, I know I’m going to see something absolutely new and be taken to unexpected and maybe even unnameable areas of experience. My sense of what is possible in telling stories with moving images and sounds is going to be expanded.
"Absolutely new" is... woof
Do you think he's wrong about "That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption."?
That's always been the nature of Hollywood. To say anything else is an absolute fantasy
Nah. Plenty of things come out of Hollywood that are nothing like that. The list Scorsese makes in that quote you are complaining about is a simple example of that. It is, after all, the entire point of him giving the list.
You think films by Wes Anserson aren't precisely marketed, studied, and vetted with test audiences to appeal to a certain demographic?
I'm out. This is beyond absurd.
No. What are you basing this on? What could possibly give you that idea? Wes Anderson is like the posterboy for someone with their own distinct authorial style in cinema. To the point that, as someone posted only a day or two ago, you can mock it and everyone gets the joke.
He gets movies published through companies like Focus, who are owned by Universal.
If you honestly think his stuff is just direct from the director to film and to the theater, that's just... that's not how any major film is released. Ever.
You're ignoring wild differences in degrees of control
No, I'm waiting for proof that Wes Anderson has executive control over a major studio he doesnt own.
What even is this standard? WTF are you talking about?
I think Scorsese's argument isn't helped by one or two lines that are often repeated out of context. Read the whole thing, though, and those lines are really the least important part of his argument.
As usual with such things, he said some provocative shit off the cuff and it kinda obscured his overall point.
I think his recent clarification is a much better place to look for what Scorsese's argument is.
They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.
Another way of putting it would be that they are everything that the films of Paul Thomas Anderson or Claire Denis or Spike Lee or Ari Aster or Kathryn Bigelow or Wes Anderson are not. When I watch a movie by any of those filmmakers, I know I’m going to see something absolutely new and be taken to unexpected and maybe even unnameable areas of experience. My sense of what is possible in telling stories with moving images and sounds is going to be expanded.
"Absolutely new" is... woof
Do you think he's wrong about "That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption."?
That's always been the nature of Hollywood. To say anything else is an absolute fantasy
Nah. Plenty of things come out of Hollywood that are nothing like that. The list Scorsese makes in that quote you are complaining about is a simple example of that. It is, after all, the entire point of him giving the list.
You think films by Wes Anserson aren't precisely marketed, studied, and vetted with test audiences to appeal to a certain demographic?
I'm out. This is beyond absurd.
No. What are you basing this on? What could possibly give you that idea? Wes Anderson is like the posterboy for someone with their own distinct authorial style in cinema. To the point that, as someone posted only a day or two ago, you can mock it and everyone gets the joke.
This seems like the "everyone's corrupt" of talking about movies. A way to just not have to actual engage with the specifics by blanket claiming that it's all just the same.
Wes Andersen answers to film studios and marketing departments like any other director, he's never had Nolan level influence. He's not a low level indy developer running films out his garage with no oversight. IE test audiences and the like, which Jungle was talking about.
It's about about "everyone's corrupt" it's acknowledging all the movie studios have a system in place, which many directors are part of. They don't get to ignore the system, once directors get big enough they become the system - like George Lucas.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I think Scorsese's argument isn't helped by one or two lines that are often repeated out of context. Read the whole thing, though, and those lines are really the least important part of his argument.
As usual with such things, he said some provocative shit off the cuff and it kinda obscured his overall point.
I think his recent clarification is a much better place to look for what Scorsese's argument is.
They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.
Another way of putting it would be that they are everything that the films of Paul Thomas Anderson or Claire Denis or Spike Lee or Ari Aster or Kathryn Bigelow or Wes Anderson are not. When I watch a movie by any of those filmmakers, I know I’m going to see something absolutely new and be taken to unexpected and maybe even unnameable areas of experience. My sense of what is possible in telling stories with moving images and sounds is going to be expanded.
"Absolutely new" is... woof
Do you think he's wrong about "That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption."?
That's always been the nature of Hollywood. To say anything else is an absolute fantasy
Nah. Plenty of things come out of Hollywood that are nothing like that. The list Scorsese makes in that quote you are complaining about is a simple example of that. It is, after all, the entire point of him giving the list.
You think films by Wes Anserson aren't precisely marketed, studied, and vetted with test audiences to appeal to a certain demographic?
I'm out. This is beyond absurd.
No. What are you basing this on? What could possibly give you that idea? Wes Anderson is like the posterboy for someone with their own distinct authorial style in cinema. To the point that, as someone posted only a day or two ago, you can mock it and everyone gets the joke.
He gets movies published through companies like Focus, who are owned by Universal.
If you honestly think his stuff is just direct from the director to film and to the theater, that's just... that's not how any major film is released. Ever.
You're ignoring wild differences in degrees of control
No, I'm waiting for proof that Wes Anderson has executive control over a major studio he doesnt own.
What even is this standard? WTF are you talking about?
You're asking me to believe that Wes Anderson's movies aren't put through the same old Hollywood testing that every other movie in existence out of a major studio does. I'm being told that major studio releases by X people aren't marketed, modified, researched, and reshot, which goes against quite literally every single thing we hear out of Hollywood all the time.
No, they dont get the same scrutiny as an MCU film, but they absolutely are marketed to hell and back. Major studio releases always get marketed. It's just the marketing that appeals to a different demographic.
I feel like pretending this doesnt happen to certain auteurs kills the discussion dead because it's entirely removed from reality.
+2
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
The mid-tier films have mostly become TV shows, and that’s not the same thing.
This isn't a bad point, but I'm not sure it's a bad thing.
Maybe, for example, Fleabag the series exists because someone decided not to make Fleabag the movie. But Fleabag the series is amazing, so even if that's the case, did we miss out? Would we have been better off with Fleabag the movie?
The media landscape, comprised of cinema and network television and streaming services and everything else, looks a lot different than it did 10 years ago. Collectively, though, I don't think you can say it's worse. If the death of mid-tier movies (and I don't know if I'd even agree that's an accurate summation, but let's go with it) was the price to pay for peak television, maybe it was worth it.
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.
+8
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
"Do not allow the media you love to become so much a part of you that critique of it becomes a critique of you."
Don't allow your ability to critique shit lead you to believe your critique is anything, but a subjective opinion.
Doesn't matter how well developed your critique is, or how much effort you put into it, or how smart you are. If the general public likes a thing you think is shit screaming about how much shit it is definitely isn't gonna convince everyone it's shit. Likely it's gonna do the opposite. Insisting people are dumb or insecure because they don't agree with your critique is also not gonna get you any accolades.
Okay but who's in this thread screaming that all the Disney Co. films are bad?
I mean the discussion of marvel movies generally consists of 3 positions "hey that was fun", "that movie was objectively garbage", or "that movie and the entire MCU are a crime against cinema". They all get a bit more text put to them than those simplifications but that's about the 3 responses marvel films get. First ones fine, second one's tedious but is sometimes at least compelling to read to see what may have been weak points to the film you didn't notice or care about, the third is almost always unabashed fart huffing.
"I hate this cultural/artistic movement", is always a useless critique because it means any of your individual critiques of the artistic movement are suspect. You admitted up front you dislike the entire artistic movement. Like if you hate cubism I'm not gonna really give a shit about your critiques of cubist media. Country fans aren't gonna agree with my critiques of their preferred music because I've baseline hated the artistic movement since about 1999 and can only find the rare gem I can enjoy and most of it is just oldies I've not heard yet.
If your review of a marvel movie includes the note that it's just following the formula, or that it's like every other marvel film congratulations, you dislike the artistic movement. That's fine. I'm just not gonna care about your opinions on it because I like the artistic movement and things that folks in group 3 up there find to be a problem with the individual marvel movies are commonly in fact strong elements of the artistic movement that they don't like. After a certain point you not liking them is a greater indication that it's sticking within the confines of that particular artistic movement and likely more true to a form that it's appreciative audience is looking for.
All of this is beside the whole monopolistic practices issue which is the far more compelling issue here. Like outside of artistic credibility, which literally no one ever really gets to be the ultimate arbiter of, the monopolistic business practices surrounding Disney media is the major problem that needs to be addressed. I don't think anyone can credibly deny this is and has been a problem for quite some time. Trying to tie that discussion to a discussion of the artistic movement that is superhero media is dumb on its face because the artistic merits aren't actually important to this. There's a monopoly that's trying to verticalize the entertainment industry. As much as I love some of the media they've produced they might need to get a legal smack down so they stop strangling small scale theaters.
Basically:
If you're saying Disney needs to be crushed because they are destroying artistic creativity, you're being a bit of a silly goose.
If you're saying Disney needs to be crushed because they have an alarming control of the global media framework then yeah that's a totally correct assessment of a monopolistic business that needs to be curtailed.
Or, you know, maybe it consists of more then those 3 strawmen.
I mean, just at the end there, part of the criticism of Disney's influence on the global media framework is that it leads to a strangling of artistic creativity.
This, in fact, would seem to be Scorsese's main point.
Scorsese has it backwards and upside down.
Disney movies have broad appeal, which means they are more profitable both for Disney and for theatres that show them.
The theatres that try to show niche selections suffer financially.
Niche selections move to a more cost effective medium like streaming with smaller and more limited theatrical runs.
Scorsese thinks that if the Disney movies weren’t there, just as many people would be paying theatre prices for movies that by definition aren’t as appealing to as many people, he is upset that his movies can’t compete financially for theatre time with Disney, and views all alternatives as plebeian and lesser than his vaunted cinema.
People that truly love movies have more available than ever before with on demand streaming and not being reliant on the fickle tastes of a local art house or the multiplex conglomerate.
I mean, okay
The other side of this is that Momento didn't exactly blow the doors of the box office but got us The Dark Knight and Inception, which did
American Graffiti got us Star Wars
The effects of Disney's ruthless focus-tested corporate machine won't be felt for fifteen years, but they will be felt
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
Key and Peele got us Get Out and Us.
The Office got us A Quiet Place.
Lost got us the new Star Wars.
Angel got us Cabin in the Woods.
There are still avenues for up and coming filmmakers to wind up creating blockbusters, they're just different avenues than they were before.
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.
Disney movies have broad appeal, which means they are more profitable both for Disney and for theatres that show them.
The theatres that try to show niche selections suffer financially.
Niche selections move to a more cost effective medium like streaming with smaller and more limited theatrical runs.
Scorsese thinks that if the Disney movies weren’t there, just as many people would be paying theatre prices for movies that by definition aren’t as appealing to as many people, he is upset that his movies can’t compete financially for theatre time with Disney, and views all alternatives as plebeian and lesser than his vaunted cinema.
People that truly love movies have more available than ever before with on demand streaming and not being reliant on the fickle tastes of a local art house or the multiplex conglomerate.
I mean, okay
The other side of this is that Momento didn't exactly blow the doors of the box office but got us The Dark Knight and Inception, which did
American Graffiti got us Star Wars
The effects of Disney's ruthless focus-tested corporate machine won't be felt for fifteen years, but they will be felt
Momento got us the Prestige, which got Batman, which lead to Inception which lead to the majority of the English speaking world no longer understanding what the word inception means.
Good directors will always have to climb the ladder or strike it lucky.
There are directors making names for themselves now, between streaming and social media, the ability to blow up or be a flash in the pan is much more accessible than it ever was in the studio system where you had to impress a studio execs hair dresser for a shot at a mid tier release.
Disney movies have broad appeal, which means they are more profitable both for Disney and for theatres that show them.
The theatres that try to show niche selections suffer financially.
Niche selections move to a more cost effective medium like streaming with smaller and more limited theatrical runs.
Scorsese thinks that if the Disney movies weren’t there, just as many people would be paying theatre prices for movies that by definition aren’t as appealing to as many people, he is upset that his movies can’t compete financially for theatre time with Disney, and views all alternatives as plebeian and lesser than his vaunted cinema.
People that truly love movies have more available than ever before with on demand streaming and not being reliant on the fickle tastes of a local art house or the multiplex conglomerate.
I mean, okay
The other side of this is that Momento didn't exactly blow the doors of the box office but got us The Dark Knight and Inception, which did
American Graffiti got us Star Wars
The effects of Disney's ruthless focus-tested corporate machine won't be felt for fifteen years, but they will be felt
Momento got us the Prestige, which got Batman, which lead to Inception which lead to the majority of the English speaking world no longer understanding what the word inception means.
While the Disney Monopoly is a problem, and the company should be split up because monopolies are bad. Taika Waititi is making a coming of age comedy about a boy and his imaginary friend Hitler. I think people will still get their blank checks.
There are still avenues for up and coming filmmakers to wind up creating blockbusters, they're just different avenues than they were before.
I don't know if they're that different than they were before, notable Hollywood directors have been starting out in TV since the 50's. It's where directors like Sidney Lumet and Robert Altman got their start.
But a lot of directors do start in grassroots independent work and really rely on film festivals and limited run to build their name. Film festivals are struggling in some cities because of the shrinking numbers of independent theaters, as are limited run releases for the same reason as well as fewer screens for those sorts of films in multiplexes. It feels like some of the conversation is migrating to "how important is theatrical exhibition?", and it's clear a number of posters here are of the opinion that it isn't that important (or better served for spectacle driven films---I'd argue for the opposite personally); and that's fine, but for Scorsese, who became a filmmaker because of the specifics of theatrical moviegoing and continues to make films for that format in mind, it makes sense that he sees it as a bit depressing.
Support your local independent theater! Interesting people work there and the audiences are probably much better and you'll only have to sit through some weird old Czech movie about a cowboy trying to sell people lemonade.
While I love the MCU for what it has done in making solid movies that myself, wife, and oldest kid like watching... i understand mass appeal works great for us but many people are able to watch more diverse movies. If i took my family to some indie film not only would i probably be bored, my wife and kid would revoke my movie selection privilege. Indie films by and large are both hugely variant in quality but also appeal.
That said Disney monopolistic behavior needs to be curbed. Also while that happens can we explain to the old guard that indie films releasing on streams and other small screen formats is fine? What do they get out of the sound and video technology in a modern theater anyway compared to the average blockbuster?
0
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
While the Disney Monopoly is a problem, and the company should be split up because monopolies are bad. Taika Waititi is making a coming of age comedy about a boy and his imaginary friend Hitler. I think people will still get their blank checks.
Yeah, the issue with Disney has nothing to do with what they're making, it's that visual media utterly, utterly dominates the information market and information drives opinion. Disney should be broken up because no company should have that much control over media sources, ever.
And regardless of that, the stagnating movie market has led to the most amazing series stuff since forever, so I'm actually feeling... pretty okay with that tradeoff? It's finally been drilled through the collective thick skulls of studio runners that people want to stories to have the space they need to be told, not butchered to fit into film length/trilogy or drawn and quartered into a formulaic season of a series. It turns out that giving people what they want to see means just giving them what they want to see, not telling them what they want to see.
"Do not allow the media you love to become so much a part of you that critique of it becomes a critique of you."
Don't allow your ability to critique shit lead you to believe your critique is anything, but a subjective opinion.
Doesn't matter how well developed your critique is, or how much effort you put into it, or how smart you are. If the general public likes a thing you think is shit screaming about how much shit it is definitely isn't gonna convince everyone it's shit. Likely it's gonna do the opposite. Insisting people are dumb or insecure because they don't agree with your critique is also not gonna get you any accolades.
Okay but who's in this thread screaming that all the Disney Co. films are bad?
I mean the discussion of marvel movies generally consists of 3 positions "hey that was fun", "that movie was objectively garbage", or "that movie and the entire MCU are a crime against cinema". They all get a bit more text put to them than those simplifications but that's about the 3 responses marvel films get. First ones fine, second one's tedious but is sometimes at least compelling to read to see what may have been weak points to the film you didn't notice or care about, the third is almost always unabashed fart huffing.
"I hate this cultural/artistic movement", is always a useless critique because it means any of your individual critiques of the artistic movement are suspect. You admitted up front you dislike the entire artistic movement. Like if you hate cubism I'm not gonna really give a shit about your critiques of cubist media. Country fans aren't gonna agree with my critiques of their preferred music because I've baseline hated the artistic movement since about 1999 and can only find the rare gem I can enjoy and most of it is just oldies I've not heard yet.
If your review of a marvel movie includes the note that it's just following the formula, or that it's like every other marvel film congratulations, you dislike the artistic movement. That's fine. I'm just not gonna care about your opinions on it because I like the artistic movement and things that folks in group 3 up there find to be a problem with the individual marvel movies are commonly in fact strong elements of the artistic movement that they don't like. After a certain point you not liking them is a greater indication that it's sticking within the confines of that particular artistic movement and likely more true to a form that it's appreciative audience is looking for.
All of this is beside the whole monopolistic practices issue which is the far more compelling issue here. Like outside of artistic credibility, which literally no one ever really gets to be the ultimate arbiter of, the monopolistic business practices surrounding Disney media is the major problem that needs to be addressed. I don't think anyone can credibly deny this is and has been a problem for quite some time. Trying to tie that discussion to a discussion of the artistic movement that is superhero media is dumb on its face because the artistic merits aren't actually important to this. There's a monopoly that's trying to verticalize the entertainment industry. As much as I love some of the media they've produced they might need to get a legal smack down so they stop strangling small scale theaters.
Basically:
If you're saying Disney needs to be crushed because they are destroying artistic creativity, you're being a bit of a silly goose.
If you're saying Disney needs to be crushed because they have an alarming control of the global media framework then yeah that's a totally correct assessment of a monopolistic business that needs to be curtailed.
Or, you know, maybe it consists of more then those 3 strawmen.
I mean, just at the end there, part of the criticism of Disney's influence on the global media framework is that it leads to a strangling of artistic creativity.
This, in fact, would seem to be Scorsese's main point.
Scorsese has it backwards and upside down.
Disney movies have broad appeal, which means they are more profitable both for Disney and for theatres that show them.
The theatres that try to show niche selections suffer financially.
Niche selections move to a more cost effective medium like streaming with smaller and more limited theatrical runs.
Scorsese thinks that if the Disney movies weren’t there, just as many people would be paying theatre prices for movies that by definition aren’t as appealing to as many people, he is upset that his movies can’t compete financially for theatre time with Disney, and views all alternatives as plebeian and lesser than his vaunted cinema.
People that truly love movies have more available than ever before with on demand streaming and not being reliant on the fickle tastes of a local art house or the multiplex conglomerate.
I mean, okay
The other side of this is that Momento didn't exactly blow the doors of the box office but got us The Dark Knight and Inception, which did
American Graffiti got us Star Wars
The effects of Disney's ruthless focus-tested corporate machine won't be felt for fifteen years, but they will be felt
That's not caused by Disney, every studio has their own version of that.
Momento was the film which got Nolan noticed by Hollywood, that's why Soderbergh hired him to direct Insomnia - which opened the doors for Batman Begins. Marvel does this, too, before Winter Soldier all the Russos were known for was the paintball episodes on Community and You, Me and Dupree. Hollywood studios picking up obscure talent from tv and failed movie projects is more common than people think. Spielberg himself came from directing tv shows and made for tv movies.
Spielberg got his break (?) directing an episode for Columbo didn’t he? He’d done other things but that was the first time he got his chance to really have a go because each Columbo episode was like a mini movie.
Murder by the book; one of the stronger episodes if memory serves me correctly. There is something to be said to lounging on the sofa and watching an episode of Columbo on a lazy Sunday afternoon.
Posts
The Meg was a feeler Im sure
Meg was in development hell for something like 20 years.
Its surprising no one just slapped the name Jaws on any of the substandard shark movies we've gotten the last few decades. Or that one of the scripts wasnt reworked to be an official entry in the series. Deep Blue Sea seemed the most obvious for a slight rewrite to be a Jaws movie.
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
You are entirely missing his point. He's saying the MCU on it's own is not an artistic movement. Because it's just one entity. An artistic movement is basically always in my experience defined as a group of artists all pursuing some similar style/goal/philosophy/whatever as part of their own work. It's the fact that multiple people are doing it that make it a movement rather then just the specific artist's style.
Hence one could say the modern superhero film a movement in cinema and I'd generally agree, which is the point being made above.
One could also say the modern media franchise empire is itself a kind of movement in cinema frankly.
The reason they hate Marvel is that they think it's trash that's taking away opportunities for other newer films, which nobody aims at those franchises. Nobody is complaining about Alien sequels blocking films like "The Irishman" getting made.
Except that's exactly what you are arguing. That these things succeeded because they are people like them more. We know markets don't work that way and frankly, we all know that basically nobody on this forum would be arguing this case for literally any other kind of market.
I think the general desire to defend Disney or the MCU or whatever on the grounds that it's profitable to be a bit strange frankly.
Vilifying Disney as though they are the cause of this problem is putting the cart before the horse. People only go watch MCU movies because those movies have proven to be worth the expense. Otherwise, I'm already spending $20 on Netflix/Amazon/HBO/whatever and I can watch a million different shows and movies at home for a fraction of the cost. (Big surprise: the vast majority of people who have access to all this amazing stuff still never watch it because most of it is still actually not good)
And, increasingly, the so-called "original" content that used to be shown in theaters is now increasingly being shown on those same services. We're seeing a significant lowering of the barrier to entry for films of this kind all across the board - not only is there now a massive middle ground of content that can't quite justify a theatrical release available, but nowadays all you need is the phone on your camera or a cheap digital camera to create something that can be seen by millions of people on Youtube.
I'd also point out that the argument that somehow we had all this fantastic content before the arrival of Disney and that it's crowding out the market to be a misrepresentation of the past. It used to cost thousands of dollars to make a movie, back when thousands of dollars was a shit ton of money. If you got your genius creative vision off the ground, it was often because you managed to convince someone rich to bankroll it (per DaVinci and the Medicis) or because you yourself came from wealth. Those people are not having a problem getting their shit made today, and they will never have a problem getting their shit made. You can go watch that stuff now. The difference is that those people no longer have a leg up on everyone else because they now have to compete against a lot of other stuff.
The idea that if only Disney didn't exist and then people would be forced to watch all this great stuff is just plain not true. People can watch it now. They just don't. Because most of that stuff isn't good, and nobody wants to spend 2 hours of their life watching Paul Schrader finally realize that global warming is real.
That's always been the nature of Hollywood. To say anything else is an absolute fantasy
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
Nah. Plenty of things come out of Hollywood that are nothing like that. The list Scorsese makes in that quote you are complaining about is a simple example of that. It is, after all, the entire point of him giving the list.
I mean, if there's one thing one can say about Wes Anderson, it's that he's market-researched the shit out of his films, am I right?
You think films by Wes Anserson aren't precisely marketed, studied, and vetted with test audiences to appeal to a certain demographic?
I'm out. This is beyond absurd.
Wes Anderson is not comparable to Disney here
Yes hes not.
But hes also not thumbing it to the marketing departments. None of them are. If you get something released from a major studio it's gone through the same vetting process and been fine tuned to appeal to the selected market. Hipsters are a market, and his movies are definitely 100% honed to get their dollars.
I mean they hire directors specifically based on good a cog theyll be. There's more going on than market research.
No. What are you basing this on? What could possibly give you that idea? Wes Anderson is like the posterboy for someone with their own distinct authorial style in cinema. To the point that, as someone posted only a day or two ago, you can mock it and everyone gets the joke.
This seems like the "everyone's corrupt" of talking about movies. A way to just not have to actual engage with the specifics by blanket claiming that it's all just the same.
He gets movies published through companies like Focus, who are owned by Universal.
If you honestly think his stuff is just direct from the director to film and to the theater, that's just... that's not how any major film is released. Ever.
You're ignoring wild differences in degrees of control
No, I'm waiting for proof that Wes Anderson has executive control over a major studio he doesnt own.
The problem is not actually at the low end when it comes to production. As you say, films are cheaper to make at that level then ever before. Now, getting anyone to see your film is a much harder proposition.
The problem on the production side is actually just above that. The mid-tier film. Because while it's super cheap to make a super cheap indie film now, it's not really much cheaper to make a mid-budget film and the funding for those has, as far as anything I've read, been drying up.
Big original movies are a lot less common.
Also, I find that the theatrical experience is different from the home experience in several important ways. The viewing environment is different. The theater has a mass audience that is reacting live with you while you watch. And unlike streaming or Blu-ray you’re not in control, you can’t pause or switch to Twitter or check your phone, you give yourself over to the movie. Midsommar in a theater is not like Midsommar at home because in the theater you’re trapped in a miasma of dread and at home when things get too uncomfortable you can stop it, or even just think about stopping it.
The home experience has gotten better in the past decade but it’s still not the same.
What even is this standard? WTF are you talking about?
Wes Andersen answers to film studios and marketing departments like any other director, he's never had Nolan level influence. He's not a low level indy developer running films out his garage with no oversight. IE test audiences and the like, which Jungle was talking about.
It's about about "everyone's corrupt" it's acknowledging all the movie studios have a system in place, which many directors are part of. They don't get to ignore the system, once directors get big enough they become the system - like George Lucas.
You're asking me to believe that Wes Anderson's movies aren't put through the same old Hollywood testing that every other movie in existence out of a major studio does. I'm being told that major studio releases by X people aren't marketed, modified, researched, and reshot, which goes against quite literally every single thing we hear out of Hollywood all the time.
No, they dont get the same scrutiny as an MCU film, but they absolutely are marketed to hell and back. Major studio releases always get marketed. It's just the marketing that appeals to a different demographic.
I feel like pretending this doesnt happen to certain auteurs kills the discussion dead because it's entirely removed from reality.
This isn't a bad point, but I'm not sure it's a bad thing.
Maybe, for example, Fleabag the series exists because someone decided not to make Fleabag the movie. But Fleabag the series is amazing, so even if that's the case, did we miss out? Would we have been better off with Fleabag the movie?
The media landscape, comprised of cinema and network television and streaming services and everything else, looks a lot different than it did 10 years ago. Collectively, though, I don't think you can say it's worse. If the death of mid-tier movies (and I don't know if I'd even agree that's an accurate summation, but let's go with it) was the price to pay for peak television, maybe it was worth it.
I mean, okay
The other side of this is that Momento didn't exactly blow the doors of the box office but got us The Dark Knight and Inception, which did
American Graffiti got us Star Wars
The effects of Disney's ruthless focus-tested corporate machine won't be felt for fifteen years, but they will be felt
The Office got us A Quiet Place.
Lost got us the new Star Wars.
Angel got us Cabin in the Woods.
There are still avenues for up and coming filmmakers to wind up creating blockbusters, they're just different avenues than they were before.
Momento got us the Prestige, which got Batman, which lead to Inception which lead to the majority of the English speaking world no longer understanding what the word inception means.
Good directors will always have to climb the ladder or strike it lucky.
There are directors making names for themselves now, between streaming and social media, the ability to blow up or be a flash in the pan is much more accessible than it ever was in the studio system where you had to impress a studio execs hair dresser for a shot at a mid tier release.
MWO: Adamski
it means BWAAAAAAAAAH
I don't know if they're that different than they were before, notable Hollywood directors have been starting out in TV since the 50's. It's where directors like Sidney Lumet and Robert Altman got their start.
But a lot of directors do start in grassroots independent work and really rely on film festivals and limited run to build their name. Film festivals are struggling in some cities because of the shrinking numbers of independent theaters, as are limited run releases for the same reason as well as fewer screens for those sorts of films in multiplexes. It feels like some of the conversation is migrating to "how important is theatrical exhibition?", and it's clear a number of posters here are of the opinion that it isn't that important (or better served for spectacle driven films---I'd argue for the opposite personally); and that's fine, but for Scorsese, who became a filmmaker because of the specifics of theatrical moviegoing and continues to make films for that format in mind, it makes sense that he sees it as a bit depressing.
Support your local independent theater! Interesting people work there and the audiences are probably much better and you'll only have to sit through some weird old Czech movie about a cowboy trying to sell people lemonade.
That said Disney monopolistic behavior needs to be curbed. Also while that happens can we explain to the old guard that indie films releasing on streams and other small screen formats is fine? What do they get out of the sound and video technology in a modern theater anyway compared to the average blockbuster?
Yeah, the issue with Disney has nothing to do with what they're making, it's that visual media utterly, utterly dominates the information market and information drives opinion. Disney should be broken up because no company should have that much control over media sources, ever.
And regardless of that, the stagnating movie market has led to the most amazing series stuff since forever, so I'm actually feeling... pretty okay with that tradeoff? It's finally been drilled through the collective thick skulls of studio runners that people want to stories to have the space they need to be told, not butchered to fit into film length/trilogy or drawn and quartered into a formulaic season of a series. It turns out that giving people what they want to see means just giving them what they want to see, not telling them what they want to see.
That's not caused by Disney, every studio has their own version of that.
Momento was the film which got Nolan noticed by Hollywood, that's why Soderbergh hired him to direct Insomnia - which opened the doors for Batman Begins. Marvel does this, too, before Winter Soldier all the Russos were known for was the paintball episodes on Community and You, Me and Dupree. Hollywood studios picking up obscure talent from tv and failed movie projects is more common than people think. Spielberg himself came from directing tv shows and made for tv movies.
Murder by the book; one of the stronger episodes if memory serves me correctly. There is something to be said to lounging on the sofa and watching an episode of Columbo on a lazy Sunday afternoon.
Pretty excited for that