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.
Duel was Spielberg's made for TV movie that got him the Jaws gig.
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.
Duel was Spielberg's made for TV movie that got him the Jaws gig.
The problem is not the MCU or the rise of streaming services or prestige TV or the loss of mid tier movies playing in theatres. That's just change, uncomfortable, always bad for someone, and [Thanos]inevitable.[/Thanos]
The problem is Disney, full stop. They are the bad guy. They have a monopoly on way to much of American pop culture and are immorally using that monopoly to mold the market into what they want it to be when it should be the other way around. The paid streaming service of a single media company should not in any way be a good or attractive idea, yet here I am considering Disney+.
Now, am I going to stop seeing movies I want to see because I'm enabling Disney in it's monopoly? No! Fuck no! I refuse to let an immoral business hold hostage the things like. Also, it's not my goddsdamned job to police gigantic media companies. That's what government is for. So, actually, is it my job to do that with a ballot, but not with my money.
Break up Disney, let the chips fall where they may, mourn the very real loss of good things that always comes about due to change, and enjoy what we have.
The decade before MCU was already franchise heavy. Transformers, Hobbits, Harry Potter, Batman, Twilight.
That's how we got here. Those movies made way more money than anything else, and it slowly strangled genre movies.
Only horror has thrived, probably because it fits with moviegoing demographics:
Either 4 quadrant tentpoles, things focused at teens/early twenties, or straight up children movies. That's what makes money, and the rest is forgotten.
Anything targeted at older audiences withered.
Disney certainly squeezed the market at every corner, and made money out of leveraging their market position.
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.
Duel was Spielberg's made for TV movie that got him the Jaws gig.
Duel was awesome.
Can you even imagine going from a made for TV movie to Jaws? The stress that sort of jump could wreck a whole lot of people. Combine that with the harsh shooting conditions and its damn near a miracle Spielberg was able to give us the most perfect movie ever made. (Have no delusion, I will die on this fucking hill)
Anyone else remember like 15 years ago when Disney was a laughing stock?
like "Disney? Are they still making movies?"
"They own Pixar."
"OHHHH ohohoh. That explains it. Man Disney used to be so huge. I wonder how long they'll stick around...."
Now 15 years later they own like 60% of Hollywood.
Disney the machine may not be great, but the MCU is. In a way the smartest thing Disney has done with Marvel is (ironically) leave them the hell alone. Creatively speaking.
My umbrage is with people who try and tear down the MCU by saying things like "action is crap" or "story is cookie cutter" or they are "all the same". Which is flat not true.
I detest pickles, but i don't go around claiming they're poisonous.
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.
Duel was Spielberg's made for TV movie that got him the Jaws gig.
Duel was awesome.
Can you even imagine going from a made for TV movie to Jaws? The stress that sort of jump could wreck a whole lot of people. Combine that with the harsh shooting conditions and its damn near a miracle Spielberg was able to give us the most perfect movie ever made. (Have no delusion, I will die on this fucking hill)
I, personally, cannot.
But also, Jaws is basically a remake of Duel, just less scary.
Anyone else remember like 15 years ago when Disney was a laughing stock?
like "Disney? Are they still making movies?"
"They own Pixar."
"OHHHH ohohoh. That explains it. Man Disney used to be so huge. I wonder how long they'll stick around...."
Now 15 years later they own like 60% of Hollywood.
Disney the machine may not be great, but the MCU is. In a way the smartest thing Disney has done with Marvel is (ironically) leave them the hell alone. Creatively speaking.
My umbrage is with people who try and tear down the MCU by saying things like "action is crap" or "story is cookie cutter" or they are "all the same". Which is flat not true.
I detest pickles, but i don't go around claiming they're poisonous.
I have to say something about that: Without cookie cutters, would we have cookies? No. I rest my case.
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
+4
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Anyone else remember like 15 years ago when Disney was a laughing stock?
like "Disney? Are they still making movies?"
"They own Pixar."
"OHHHH ohohoh. That explains it. Man Disney used to be so huge. I wonder how long they'll stick around...."
Now 15 years later they own like 60% of Hollywood.
Disney the machine may not be great, but the MCU is. In a way the smartest thing Disney has done with Marvel is (ironically) leave them the hell alone. Creatively speaking.
My umbrage is with people who try and tear down the MCU by saying things like "action is crap" or "story is cookie cutter" or they are "all the same". Which is flat not true.
I detest pickles, but i don't go around claiming they're poisonous.
I have to say something about that: Without cookie cutters, would we have cookies? No. I rest my case.
I mean yeah we would but they'd be ugly and stupid
Have a pickleback instead. It's like Nickelback, but add a shot of whiskey (typically Jameson) and a shot of pickle juice (which you chase the Jameson with) and remove the band named Nickelback and the terrible aftertaste from a Nickelback and it's the same thing.
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Anyone else remember like 15 years ago when Disney was a laughing stock?
like "Disney? Are they still making movies?"
"They own Pixar."
"OHHHH ohohoh. That explains it. Man Disney used to be so huge. I wonder how long they'll stick around...."
Now 15 years later they own like 60% of Hollywood.
Disney the machine may not be great, but the MCU is. In a way the smartest thing Disney has done with Marvel is (ironically) leave them the hell alone. Creatively speaking.
My umbrage is with people who try and tear down the MCU by saying things like "action is crap" or "story is cookie cutter" or they are "all the same". Which is flat not true.
I detest pickles, but i don't go around claiming they're poisonous.
Taste is subjective, but there are objective qualities you can point to in food or film by way of comparison. There’s nothing wrong with saying “I like pickles, but this particular brand of pickles are too slimy, too salty, and gross-looking”.
I like superhero movies, but these particular superhero movies (in general) have bland action, are too formulaic in their plots, are too similar in visuals and score, and fail to accomplish basic tasks like good character development and theme.
+4
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
edited November 2019
Are we back on the "my taste is objectively correct" argument?
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.
You've claimed you are out like 3 times now. Leave the melodrama for the films dude.
And yes, I am asking you to just accept the rather obvious fact that not every film is market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, etc to hell and back. That plenty of films just get made because the studio trusts the people making them and lets them do their own thing in their own style. That's where you get directors with very distinct and sometimes quite niche styles from. Like, do you think market-research and audience-testing and studio oversight gets you a David Lynch film? Shit, there's the story about his time on Twin Peaks where one of the TV execs asks "Can we give you a few suggestions?" and he just said "No". Or even on the shittier end, you get George Lucas and the Prequels.
Again, this just seems like nothing more then another attempt to avoid having to engage with people's criticisms in the thread by pretending like all films are the same on this account.
+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.
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.
You've claimed you are out like 3 times now. Leave the melodrama for the films dude.
And yes, I am asking you to just accept the rather obvious fact that not every film is market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, etc to hell and back. That plenty of films just get made because the studio trusts the people making them and lets them do their own thing in their own style. That's where you get directors with very distinct and sometimes quite niche styles from. Like, do you think market-research and audience-testing and studio oversight gets you a David Lynch film? Shit, there's the story about his time on Twin Peaks where one of the TV execs asks "Can we give you a few suggestions?" and he just said "No". Or even on the shittier end, you get George Lucas and the Prequels.
Again, this just seems like nothing more then another attempt to avoid having to engage with people's criticisms in the thread by pretending like all films are the same on this account.
I mean, I feel that with everything I've heard or read about Hollywood that this is naive.
Especially since we're not talking about 1980's TV like Twin Peaks, we're talking about major studio movie releases in the modern era. We'll say past 20 years, going by Scorsese's own timeline on when movies just really started being horrible.
And George Lucas owned the studio that made the Prequels, so again, your argument makes no sense.
Everything gets vetted, tested, and marketed. Everything. Unless you have proof to the contrary, other than "but these movies are art and those are not", it's a leap in logic I refuse to accept just on its own merits. Did Fox not vet Isle of Dogs and advertise it? Indepedent movies can get by, but major releases go through the marketing departments.
Anyone else remember like 15 years ago when Disney was a laughing stock?
like "Disney? Are they still making movies?"
"They own Pixar."
"OHHHH ohohoh. That explains it. Man Disney used to be so huge. I wonder how long they'll stick around...."
Now 15 years later they own like 60% of Hollywood.
Disney the machine may not be great, but the MCU is. In a way the smartest thing Disney has done with Marvel is (ironically) leave them the hell alone. Creatively speaking.
My umbrage is with people who try and tear down the MCU by saying things like "action is crap" or "story is cookie cutter" or they are "all the same". Which is flat not true.
I detest pickles, but i don't go around claiming they're poisonous.
Taste is subjective, but there are objective qualities you can point to in food or film by way of comparison. There’s nothing wrong with saying “I like pickles, but this particular brand of pickles are too slimy, too salty, and gross-looking”.
I like superhero movies, but these particular superhero movies (in general) have bland action, are too formulaic in their plots, are too similar in visuals and score, and fail to accomplish basic tasks like good character development and theme.
Are you saying MCU movies have bland action and fail to accomplish character development and theme????
They absolutely do. SO much, that i'd posit you DONT actually like super hero movies. There may be a few that you enjoy despite the subject matter, or that arent actually "super hero movies" despite having a super hero character.
And since you probably dont actually like super hero or "comic book" style story telling you're never going to like the MCU. Which is fine! Absolutely. Again, i dont like pickles! People have tastes and thats ok.
But to say that its "bland action" and "fail to accomplish basic tasks like good character development and theme" is so just very wrong i dont even know where to start.
Like saying that pickles are poisonous. When they very much are not.
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.
You've claimed you are out like 3 times now. Leave the melodrama for the films dude.
And yes, I am asking you to just accept the rather obvious fact that not every film is market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, etc to hell and back. That plenty of films just get made because the studio trusts the people making them and lets them do their own thing in their own style. That's where you get directors with very distinct and sometimes quite niche styles from. Like, do you think market-research and audience-testing and studio oversight gets you a David Lynch film? Shit, there's the story about his time on Twin Peaks where one of the TV execs asks "Can we give you a few suggestions?" and he just said "No". Or even on the shittier end, you get George Lucas and the Prequels.
Again, this just seems like nothing more then another attempt to avoid having to engage with people's criticisms in the thread by pretending like all films are the same on this account.
I mean, I feel that with everything I've heard or read about Hollywood that this is naive.
Especially since we're not talking about 1980's TV like Twin Peaks, we're talking about major studio movie releases in the modern era. We'll say past 20 years, going by Scorsese's own timeline on when movies just really started being horrible.
And George Lucas owned the studio that made the Prequels, so again, your argument makes no sense.
Everything gets vetted, tested, and marketed. Everything. Unless you have proof to the contrary, other than "but these movies are art and those are not", it's a leap in logic I refuse to accept just on its own merits.
You have no proof of your own argument dude. We're talking about movies in general. Which is no different in many ways then any other form of mass media, be they books or TV or music or whatever. There's editors and executives and producers and all that in every industry and the amount of influence they have over any work varies from work to work. Which is why artists struggling with control of their own work is such a fucking cliche in these industries.
Your argument is that movies are unique and special and it's always the same for every film. It's ludicrous on it's face and it's an argument that exists so we can move on to yet another line, like "you just hate them because they are popular", where you don't have to actually engage with what people are actually saying.
Anyone else remember like 15 years ago when Disney was a laughing stock?
like "Disney? Are they still making movies?"
"They own Pixar."
"OHHHH ohohoh. That explains it. Man Disney used to be so huge. I wonder how long they'll stick around...."
Now 15 years later they own like 60% of Hollywood.
Disney the machine may not be great, but the MCU is. In a way the smartest thing Disney has done with Marvel is (ironically) leave them the hell alone. Creatively speaking.
My umbrage is with people who try and tear down the MCU by saying things like "action is crap" or "story is cookie cutter" or they are "all the same". Which is flat not true.
I detest pickles, but i don't go around claiming they're poisonous.
Taste is subjective, but there are objective qualities you can point to in food or film by way of comparison. There’s nothing wrong with saying “I like pickles, but this particular brand of pickles are too slimy, too salty, and gross-looking”.
I like superhero movies, but these particular superhero movies (in general) have bland action, are too formulaic in their plots, are too similar in visuals and score, and fail to accomplish basic tasks like good character development and theme.
Are you saying MCU movies have bland action and fail to accomplish character development and theme????
They absolutely do. SO much, that i'd posit you DONT actually like super hero movies. There may be a few that you enjoy despite the subject matter, or that arent actually "super hero movies" despite having a super hero character.
And since you probably dont actually like super hero or "comic book" style story telling you're never going to like the MCU. Which is fine! Absolutely. Again, i dont like pickles! People have tastes and thats ok.
But to say that its "bland action" and "fail to accomplish basic tasks like good character development and theme" is so just very wrong i dont even know where to start.
Like saying that pickles are poisonous. When they very much are not.
No, it's just that they actually have bland action scenes and the scripts are often a mess. Like, I've seen all the MCU films. I enjoy them and they are usually lots of fun. But baring a few exceptions, their action scenes are totally unmemorable and bland. I can think of only a handful of MCU films that have action I found actually compelling and probably none on the level of any of the really great action movies of the past several decades. And the scripts can be frequently dodgy, with incoherent themes or character development. And it's not like these criticisms are new or unique to this thread or something. Maybe the simplest explanation is that people actually think the things they say rather then that they hate superhero movies.
Are we back on the "my taste is objectively correct" argument?
No, you got it backwards MY taste is objectively corrent, not yours.
I mean, art is not something that cant be critiqued, its not just all about taste, and not everything just by nature of "being made" is art.
MCU is fallible, it has mistakes, some people pointing them out is fine.
Also, MCU is entretainment, not art, and consuming Disney products is unethical.
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
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.
You've claimed you are out like 3 times now. Leave the melodrama for the films dude.
And yes, I am asking you to just accept the rather obvious fact that not every film is market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, etc to hell and back. That plenty of films just get made because the studio trusts the people making them and lets them do their own thing in their own style. That's where you get directors with very distinct and sometimes quite niche styles from. Like, do you think market-research and audience-testing and studio oversight gets you a David Lynch film? Shit, there's the story about his time on Twin Peaks where one of the TV execs asks "Can we give you a few suggestions?" and he just said "No". Or even on the shittier end, you get George Lucas and the Prequels.
Again, this just seems like nothing more then another attempt to avoid having to engage with people's criticisms in the thread by pretending like all films are the same on this account.
I mean, I feel that with everything I've heard or read about Hollywood that this is naive.
Especially since we're not talking about 1980's TV like Twin Peaks, we're talking about major studio movie releases in the modern era. We'll say past 20 years, going by Scorsese's own timeline on when movies just really started being horrible.
And George Lucas owned the studio that made the Prequels, so again, your argument makes no sense.
Everything gets vetted, tested, and marketed. Everything. Unless you have proof to the contrary, other than "but these movies are art and those are not", it's a leap in logic I refuse to accept just on its own merits.
You have no proof of your own argument dude. We're talking about movies in general. Which is no different in many ways then any other form of mass media, be they books or TV or music or whatever. There's editors and executives and producers and all that in every industry and the amount of influence they have over any work varies from work to work. Which is why artists struggling with control of their own work is such a fucking cliche in these industries.
Your argument is that movies are unique and special and it's always the same for every film. It's ludicrous on it's face and it's an argument that exists so we can move on to yet another line, like "you just hate them because they are popular", where you don't have to actually engage with what people are actually saying.
To the bolded: Every single documentary, article, interview, and behind the scenes process of making a film is my proof.
You're asking me to accept a fairy tale because its a director you like and you don't want to think he's part of the process. Not happening.
0
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered 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.
You've claimed you are out like 3 times now. Leave the melodrama for the films dude.
And yes, I am asking you to just accept the rather obvious fact that not every film is market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, etc to hell and back. That plenty of films just get made because the studio trusts the people making them and lets them do their own thing in their own style. That's where you get directors with very distinct and sometimes quite niche styles from. Like, do you think market-research and audience-testing and studio oversight gets you a David Lynch film? Shit, there's the story about his time on Twin Peaks where one of the TV execs asks "Can we give you a few suggestions?" and he just said "No". Or even on the shittier end, you get George Lucas and the Prequels.
Again, this just seems like nothing more then another attempt to avoid having to engage with people's criticisms in the thread by pretending like all films are the same on this account.
I mean, I feel that with everything I've heard or read about Hollywood that this is naive.
Especially since we're not talking about 1980's TV like Twin Peaks, we're talking about major studio movie releases in the modern era. We'll say past 20 years, going by Scorsese's own timeline on when movies just really started being horrible.
And George Lucas owned the studio that made the Prequels, so again, your argument makes no sense.
Everything gets vetted, tested, and marketed. Everything. Unless you have proof to the contrary, other than "but these movies are art and those are not", it's a leap in logic I refuse to accept just on its own merits.
You have no proof of your own argument dude. We're talking about movies in general. Which is no different in many ways then any other form of mass media, be they books or TV or music or whatever. There's editors and executives and producers and all that in every industry and the amount of influence they have over any work varies from work to work. Which is why artists struggling with control of their own work is such a fucking cliche in these industries.
Your argument is that movies are unique and special and it's always the same for every film. It's ludicrous on it's face and it's an argument that exists so we can move on to yet another line, like "you just hate them because they are popular", where you don't have to actually engage with what people are actually saying.
To the bolded: Every single documentary, article, interview, and behind the scenes process of making a film is my proof.
You're asking me to accept a fairy tale because its a director you like and you don't want to think he's part of the process. Not happening.
But it's not every single one of those things. It's not even most. As I said, every artistic industry is rife with stories over arguments about these kind of things. Push and pull between between people up and down the food chain. People making their bones before being allowed more creative freedom. Your argument does no actually match anything you see when people talk about the film industry dude.
I really don't get the "Marvel action is mostly bland" opinion. Writing, themes, character development, I can kinda see that. I think it was Film Critic Hulk that showed me the flaws in Homecoming. But action? Nah. It's good stuff. There are so many moments where I'm squeeing in my head over what's happening onscreen. IM 1 kicked it off with the cave escape and it's been going strong ever since.
The tram fight in Black Panther was ducking godawful but that's the only one that sticks out in my mind as truly bad.
EDIT: if you want to reply to my post, please do so on the Marvel thread where I'm moving it to.
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.
You've claimed you are out like 3 times now. Leave the melodrama for the films dude.
And yes, I am asking you to just accept the rather obvious fact that not every film is market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, etc to hell and back. That plenty of films just get made because the studio trusts the people making them and lets them do their own thing in their own style. That's where you get directors with very distinct and sometimes quite niche styles from. Like, do you think market-research and audience-testing and studio oversight gets you a David Lynch film? Shit, there's the story about his time on Twin Peaks where one of the TV execs asks "Can we give you a few suggestions?" and he just said "No". Or even on the shittier end, you get George Lucas and the Prequels.
Again, this just seems like nothing more then another attempt to avoid having to engage with people's criticisms in the thread by pretending like all films are the same on this account.
I mean, I feel that with everything I've heard or read about Hollywood that this is naive.
Especially since we're not talking about 1980's TV like Twin Peaks, we're talking about major studio movie releases in the modern era. We'll say past 20 years, going by Scorsese's own timeline on when movies just really started being horrible.
And George Lucas owned the studio that made the Prequels, so again, your argument makes no sense.
Everything gets vetted, tested, and marketed. Everything. Unless you have proof to the contrary, other than "but these movies are art and those are not", it's a leap in logic I refuse to accept just on its own merits.
You have no proof of your own argument dude. We're talking about movies in general. Which is no different in many ways then any other form of mass media, be they books or TV or music or whatever. There's editors and executives and producers and all that in every industry and the amount of influence they have over any work varies from work to work. Which is why artists struggling with control of their own work is such a fucking cliche in these industries.
Your argument is that movies are unique and special and it's always the same for every film. It's ludicrous on it's face and it's an argument that exists so we can move on to yet another line, like "you just hate them because they are popular", where you don't have to actually engage with what people are actually saying.
To the bolded: Every single documentary, article, interview, and behind the scenes process of making a film is my proof.
You're asking me to accept a fairy tale because its a director you like and you don't want to think he's part of the process. Not happening.
How do you explain the vast amount of films that get made, hit the festival circuit, and only then get picked up for distribution? Not every movie is made by a studio shopping a script around like we see in Entourage.
It's naive to think a huge blockbuster film wouldn't have some degree of exec meddling but smaller features? I seriously doubt they would be treated the same way at all.
+1
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
Executives have a name in the film industry. They're called producers.
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.
You've claimed you are out like 3 times now. Leave the melodrama for the films dude.
And yes, I am asking you to just accept the rather obvious fact that not every film is market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, etc to hell and back. That plenty of films just get made because the studio trusts the people making them and lets them do their own thing in their own style. That's where you get directors with very distinct and sometimes quite niche styles from. Like, do you think market-research and audience-testing and studio oversight gets you a David Lynch film? Shit, there's the story about his time on Twin Peaks where one of the TV execs asks "Can we give you a few suggestions?" and he just said "No". Or even on the shittier end, you get George Lucas and the Prequels.
Again, this just seems like nothing more then another attempt to avoid having to engage with people's criticisms in the thread by pretending like all films are the same on this account.
I mean, I feel that with everything I've heard or read about Hollywood that this is naive.
Especially since we're not talking about 1980's TV like Twin Peaks, we're talking about major studio movie releases in the modern era. We'll say past 20 years, going by Scorsese's own timeline on when movies just really started being horrible.
And George Lucas owned the studio that made the Prequels, so again, your argument makes no sense.
Everything gets vetted, tested, and marketed. Everything. Unless you have proof to the contrary, other than "but these movies are art and those are not", it's a leap in logic I refuse to accept just on its own merits.
You have no proof of your own argument dude. We're talking about movies in general. Which is no different in many ways then any other form of mass media, be they books or TV or music or whatever. There's editors and executives and producers and all that in every industry and the amount of influence they have over any work varies from work to work. Which is why artists struggling with control of their own work is such a fucking cliche in these industries.
Your argument is that movies are unique and special and it's always the same for every film. It's ludicrous on it's face and it's an argument that exists so we can move on to yet another line, like "you just hate them because they are popular", where you don't have to actually engage with what people are actually saying.
To the bolded: Every single documentary, article, interview, and behind the scenes process of making a film is my proof.
You're asking me to accept a fairy tale because its a director you like and you don't want to think he's part of the process. Not happening.
How do you explain the vast amount of films that get made, hit the festival circuit, and only then get picked up for distribution? Not every movie is made by a studio shopping a script around like we see in Entourage.
It's naive to think a huge blockbuster film wouldn't have some degree of exec meddling but smaller features? I seriously doubt they would be treated the same way at all.
It's also worth noting here that the vast majority of films made in the indie/festival circuit aren't actually what we think of as indie films. What gets primarily screened and sold are low to mid budget horror films. That becomes really evident when you look at the IMDB pages of people who, say, direct the newest live-action Disney features.
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.
You've claimed you are out like 3 times now. Leave the melodrama for the films dude.
And yes, I am asking you to just accept the rather obvious fact that not every film is market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, etc to hell and back. That plenty of films just get made because the studio trusts the people making them and lets them do their own thing in their own style. That's where you get directors with very distinct and sometimes quite niche styles from. Like, do you think market-research and audience-testing and studio oversight gets you a David Lynch film? Shit, there's the story about his time on Twin Peaks where one of the TV execs asks "Can we give you a few suggestions?" and he just said "No". Or even on the shittier end, you get George Lucas and the Prequels.
Again, this just seems like nothing more then another attempt to avoid having to engage with people's criticisms in the thread by pretending like all films are the same on this account.
I mean, I feel that with everything I've heard or read about Hollywood that this is naive.
Especially since we're not talking about 1980's TV like Twin Peaks, we're talking about major studio movie releases in the modern era. We'll say past 20 years, going by Scorsese's own timeline on when movies just really started being horrible.
And George Lucas owned the studio that made the Prequels, so again, your argument makes no sense.
Everything gets vetted, tested, and marketed. Everything. Unless you have proof to the contrary, other than "but these movies are art and those are not", it's a leap in logic I refuse to accept just on its own merits.
You have no proof of your own argument dude. We're talking about movies in general. Which is no different in many ways then any other form of mass media, be they books or TV or music or whatever. There's editors and executives and producers and all that in every industry and the amount of influence they have over any work varies from work to work. Which is why artists struggling with control of their own work is such a fucking cliche in these industries.
Your argument is that movies are unique and special and it's always the same for every film. It's ludicrous on it's face and it's an argument that exists so we can move on to yet another line, like "you just hate them because they are popular", where you don't have to actually engage with what people are actually saying.
To the bolded: Every single documentary, article, interview, and behind the scenes process of making a film is my proof.
You're asking me to accept a fairy tale because its a director you like and you don't want to think he's part of the process. Not happening.
How do you explain the vast amount of films that get made, hit the festival circuit, and only then get picked up for distribution? Not every movie is made by a studio shopping a script around like we see in Entourage.
It's naive to think a huge blockbuster film wouldn't have some degree of exec meddling but smaller features? I seriously doubt they would be treated the same way at all.
They're not paying to make the movie. Someone else has already taken that on.
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.
You've claimed you are out like 3 times now. Leave the melodrama for the films dude.
And yes, I am asking you to just accept the rather obvious fact that not every film is market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, etc to hell and back. That plenty of films just get made because the studio trusts the people making them and lets them do their own thing in their own style. That's where you get directors with very distinct and sometimes quite niche styles from. Like, do you think market-research and audience-testing and studio oversight gets you a David Lynch film? Shit, there's the story about his time on Twin Peaks where one of the TV execs asks "Can we give you a few suggestions?" and he just said "No". Or even on the shittier end, you get George Lucas and the Prequels.
Again, this just seems like nothing more then another attempt to avoid having to engage with people's criticisms in the thread by pretending like all films are the same on this account.
I mean, I feel that with everything I've heard or read about Hollywood that this is naive.
Especially since we're not talking about 1980's TV like Twin Peaks, we're talking about major studio movie releases in the modern era. We'll say past 20 years, going by Scorsese's own timeline on when movies just really started being horrible.
And George Lucas owned the studio that made the Prequels, so again, your argument makes no sense.
Everything gets vetted, tested, and marketed. Everything. Unless you have proof to the contrary, other than "but these movies are art and those are not", it's a leap in logic I refuse to accept just on its own merits.
You have no proof of your own argument dude. We're talking about movies in general. Which is no different in many ways then any other form of mass media, be they books or TV or music or whatever. There's editors and executives and producers and all that in every industry and the amount of influence they have over any work varies from work to work. Which is why artists struggling with control of their own work is such a fucking cliche in these industries.
Your argument is that movies are unique and special and it's always the same for every film. It's ludicrous on it's face and it's an argument that exists so we can move on to yet another line, like "you just hate them because they are popular", where you don't have to actually engage with what people are actually saying.
To the bolded: Every single documentary, article, interview, and behind the scenes process of making a film is my proof.
You're asking me to accept a fairy tale because its a director you like and you don't want to think he's part of the process. Not happening.
How do you explain the vast amount of films that get made, hit the festival circuit, and only then get picked up for distribution? Not every movie is made by a studio shopping a script around like we see in Entourage.
It's naive to think a huge blockbuster film wouldn't have some degree of exec meddling but smaller features? I seriously doubt they would be treated the same way at all.
They're not paying to make the movie. Someone else has already taken that on.
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.
You've claimed you are out like 3 times now. Leave the melodrama for the films dude.
And yes, I am asking you to just accept the rather obvious fact that not every film is market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, etc to hell and back. That plenty of films just get made because the studio trusts the people making them and lets them do their own thing in their own style. That's where you get directors with very distinct and sometimes quite niche styles from. Like, do you think market-research and audience-testing and studio oversight gets you a David Lynch film? Shit, there's the story about his time on Twin Peaks where one of the TV execs asks "Can we give you a few suggestions?" and he just said "No". Or even on the shittier end, you get George Lucas and the Prequels.
Again, this just seems like nothing more then another attempt to avoid having to engage with people's criticisms in the thread by pretending like all films are the same on this account.
I mean, I feel that with everything I've heard or read about Hollywood that this is naive.
Especially since we're not talking about 1980's TV like Twin Peaks, we're talking about major studio movie releases in the modern era. We'll say past 20 years, going by Scorsese's own timeline on when movies just really started being horrible.
And George Lucas owned the studio that made the Prequels, so again, your argument makes no sense.
Everything gets vetted, tested, and marketed. Everything. Unless you have proof to the contrary, other than "but these movies are art and those are not", it's a leap in logic I refuse to accept just on its own merits.
You have no proof of your own argument dude. We're talking about movies in general. Which is no different in many ways then any other form of mass media, be they books or TV or music or whatever. There's editors and executives and producers and all that in every industry and the amount of influence they have over any work varies from work to work. Which is why artists struggling with control of their own work is such a fucking cliche in these industries.
Your argument is that movies are unique and special and it's always the same for every film. It's ludicrous on it's face and it's an argument that exists so we can move on to yet another line, like "you just hate them because they are popular", where you don't have to actually engage with what people are actually saying.
To the bolded: Every single documentary, article, interview, and behind the scenes process of making a film is my proof.
You're asking me to accept a fairy tale because its a director you like and you don't want to think he's part of the process. Not happening.
How do you explain the vast amount of films that get made, hit the festival circuit, and only then get picked up for distribution? Not every movie is made by a studio shopping a script around like we see in Entourage.
It's naive to think a huge blockbuster film wouldn't have some degree of exec meddling but smaller features? I seriously doubt they would be treated the same way at all.
They're not paying to make the movie. Someone else has already taken that on.
Yeah, usually a bank. Those banks don't care what you're making for a movie.
I'm basing this on a good friend of mine that has made multiple motion pictures with real budgets, etc. They come up with a concept, find financing, film it, and shop it for distribution. At no point are executives getting involved to restructure the film.
edit: I'll add, that is in contrast to an old client of mine that was the effects supervisor across all of the X-Men films. In particular when he was working on the third film he talked a lot about executive meddling to the point where the film almost changed completely. I saw the pre-meddled version on a laptop sitting in his car and it was a completely different film than what came out.
SatanIsMyMotor 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.
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.
You've claimed you are out like 3 times now. Leave the melodrama for the films dude.
And yes, I am asking you to just accept the rather obvious fact that not every film is market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, etc to hell and back. That plenty of films just get made because the studio trusts the people making them and lets them do their own thing in their own style. That's where you get directors with very distinct and sometimes quite niche styles from. Like, do you think market-research and audience-testing and studio oversight gets you a David Lynch film? Shit, there's the story about his time on Twin Peaks where one of the TV execs asks "Can we give you a few suggestions?" and he just said "No". Or even on the shittier end, you get George Lucas and the Prequels.
Again, this just seems like nothing more then another attempt to avoid having to engage with people's criticisms in the thread by pretending like all films are the same on this account.
I mean, I feel that with everything I've heard or read about Hollywood that this is naive.
Especially since we're not talking about 1980's TV like Twin Peaks, we're talking about major studio movie releases in the modern era. We'll say past 20 years, going by Scorsese's own timeline on when movies just really started being horrible.
And George Lucas owned the studio that made the Prequels, so again, your argument makes no sense.
Everything gets vetted, tested, and marketed. Everything. Unless you have proof to the contrary, other than "but these movies are art and those are not", it's a leap in logic I refuse to accept just on its own merits.
You have no proof of your own argument dude. We're talking about movies in general. Which is no different in many ways then any other form of mass media, be they books or TV or music or whatever. There's editors and executives and producers and all that in every industry and the amount of influence they have over any work varies from work to work. Which is why artists struggling with control of their own work is such a fucking cliche in these industries.
Your argument is that movies are unique and special and it's always the same for every film. It's ludicrous on it's face and it's an argument that exists so we can move on to yet another line, like "you just hate them because they are popular", where you don't have to actually engage with what people are actually saying.
To the bolded: Every single documentary, article, interview, and behind the scenes process of making a film is my proof.
You're asking me to accept a fairy tale because its a director you like and you don't want to think he's part of the process. Not happening.
How do you explain the vast amount of films that get made, hit the festival circuit, and only then get picked up for distribution? Not every movie is made by a studio shopping a script around like we see in Entourage.
It's naive to think a huge blockbuster film wouldn't have some degree of exec meddling but smaller features? I seriously doubt they would be treated the same way at all.
They're not paying to make the movie. Someone else has already taken that on.
Yeah, usually a bank. Those banks don't care what you're making for a movie.
I'm basing this on a good friend of mine that has made multiple motion pictures with real budgets, etc. They come up with a concept, find financing, film it, and shop it for distribution. At no point are executives getting involved to restructure the film.
And they do this for major studios, like Universal or Disney?
I've got a friend on social media I went to college with who just got done with a movie with a 2 million dollar budget and they didn't do the interference, but it's from a small ass studio and not from one of the above or a subsidiary.
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.
You've claimed you are out like 3 times now. Leave the melodrama for the films dude.
And yes, I am asking you to just accept the rather obvious fact that not every film is market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, etc to hell and back. That plenty of films just get made because the studio trusts the people making them and lets them do their own thing in their own style. That's where you get directors with very distinct and sometimes quite niche styles from. Like, do you think market-research and audience-testing and studio oversight gets you a David Lynch film? Shit, there's the story about his time on Twin Peaks where one of the TV execs asks "Can we give you a few suggestions?" and he just said "No". Or even on the shittier end, you get George Lucas and the Prequels.
Again, this just seems like nothing more then another attempt to avoid having to engage with people's criticisms in the thread by pretending like all films are the same on this account.
I mean, I feel that with everything I've heard or read about Hollywood that this is naive.
Especially since we're not talking about 1980's TV like Twin Peaks, we're talking about major studio movie releases in the modern era. We'll say past 20 years, going by Scorsese's own timeline on when movies just really started being horrible.
And George Lucas owned the studio that made the Prequels, so again, your argument makes no sense.
Everything gets vetted, tested, and marketed. Everything. Unless you have proof to the contrary, other than "but these movies are art and those are not", it's a leap in logic I refuse to accept just on its own merits.
You have no proof of your own argument dude. We're talking about movies in general. Which is no different in many ways then any other form of mass media, be they books or TV or music or whatever. There's editors and executives and producers and all that in every industry and the amount of influence they have over any work varies from work to work. Which is why artists struggling with control of their own work is such a fucking cliche in these industries.
Your argument is that movies are unique and special and it's always the same for every film. It's ludicrous on it's face and it's an argument that exists so we can move on to yet another line, like "you just hate them because they are popular", where you don't have to actually engage with what people are actually saying.
To the bolded: Every single documentary, article, interview, and behind the scenes process of making a film is my proof.
You're asking me to accept a fairy tale because its a director you like and you don't want to think he's part of the process. Not happening.
How do you explain the vast amount of films that get made, hit the festival circuit, and only then get picked up for distribution? Not every movie is made by a studio shopping a script around like we see in Entourage.
It's naive to think a huge blockbuster film wouldn't have some degree of exec meddling but smaller features? I seriously doubt they would be treated the same way at all.
They're not paying to make the movie. Someone else has already taken that on.
Yeah, usually a bank. Those banks don't care what you're making for a movie.
I'm basing this on a good friend of mine that has made multiple motion pictures with real budgets, etc. They come up with a concept, find financing, film it, and shop it for distribution. At no point are executives getting involved to restructure the film.
And they do this for major studios, like Universal or Disney?
I've got a friend on social media I went to college with who just got done with a movie with a 2 million dollar budget and they didn't do the interference, but it's from a small ass studio and not from one of the above or a subsidiary.
They do it for nobody but themselves. They make the film and then use the major studios for distribution.
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.
You've claimed you are out like 3 times now. Leave the melodrama for the films dude.
And yes, I am asking you to just accept the rather obvious fact that not every film is market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, etc to hell and back. That plenty of films just get made because the studio trusts the people making them and lets them do their own thing in their own style. That's where you get directors with very distinct and sometimes quite niche styles from. Like, do you think market-research and audience-testing and studio oversight gets you a David Lynch film? Shit, there's the story about his time on Twin Peaks where one of the TV execs asks "Can we give you a few suggestions?" and he just said "No". Or even on the shittier end, you get George Lucas and the Prequels.
Again, this just seems like nothing more then another attempt to avoid having to engage with people's criticisms in the thread by pretending like all films are the same on this account.
I mean, I feel that with everything I've heard or read about Hollywood that this is naive.
Especially since we're not talking about 1980's TV like Twin Peaks, we're talking about major studio movie releases in the modern era. We'll say past 20 years, going by Scorsese's own timeline on when movies just really started being horrible.
And George Lucas owned the studio that made the Prequels, so again, your argument makes no sense.
Everything gets vetted, tested, and marketed. Everything. Unless you have proof to the contrary, other than "but these movies are art and those are not", it's a leap in logic I refuse to accept just on its own merits.
You have no proof of your own argument dude. We're talking about movies in general. Which is no different in many ways then any other form of mass media, be they books or TV or music or whatever. There's editors and executives and producers and all that in every industry and the amount of influence they have over any work varies from work to work. Which is why artists struggling with control of their own work is such a fucking cliche in these industries.
Your argument is that movies are unique and special and it's always the same for every film. It's ludicrous on it's face and it's an argument that exists so we can move on to yet another line, like "you just hate them because they are popular", where you don't have to actually engage with what people are actually saying.
To the bolded: Every single documentary, article, interview, and behind the scenes process of making a film is my proof.
You're asking me to accept a fairy tale because its a director you like and you don't want to think he's part of the process. Not happening.
How do you explain the vast amount of films that get made, hit the festival circuit, and only then get picked up for distribution? Not every movie is made by a studio shopping a script around like we see in Entourage.
It's naive to think a huge blockbuster film wouldn't have some degree of exec meddling but smaller features? I seriously doubt they would be treated the same way at all.
They're not paying to make the movie. Someone else has already taken that on.
Yeah, usually a bank. Those banks don't care what you're making for a movie.
I'm basing this on a good friend of mine that has made multiple motion pictures with real budgets, etc. They come up with a concept, find financing, film it, and shop it for distribution. At no point are executives getting involved to restructure the film.
And they do this for major studios, like Universal or Disney?
I've got a friend on social media I went to college with who just got done with a movie with a 2 million dollar budget and they didn't do the interference, but it's from a small ass studio and not from one of the above or a subsidiary.
They do it for nobody but themselves. They make the film and then use the major studios for distribution.
It's almost like we're not talking about the same thing.
Posts
We do, but discussions like this never reach that thread.
Just saying is all
Duel was Spielberg's made for TV movie that got him the Jaws gig.
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
Duel was awesome.
The problem is Disney, full stop. They are the bad guy. They have a monopoly on way to much of American pop culture and are immorally using that monopoly to mold the market into what they want it to be when it should be the other way around. The paid streaming service of a single media company should not in any way be a good or attractive idea, yet here I am considering Disney+.
Now, am I going to stop seeing movies I want to see because I'm enabling Disney in it's monopoly? No! Fuck no! I refuse to let an immoral business hold hostage the things like. Also, it's not my goddsdamned job to police gigantic media companies. That's what government is for. So, actually, is it my job to do that with a ballot, but not with my money.
Break up Disney, let the chips fall where they may, mourn the very real loss of good things that always comes about due to change, and enjoy what we have.
That's how we got here. Those movies made way more money than anything else, and it slowly strangled genre movies.
Only horror has thrived, probably because it fits with moviegoing demographics:
Either 4 quadrant tentpoles, things focused at teens/early twenties, or straight up children movies. That's what makes money, and the rest is forgotten.
Anything targeted at older audiences withered.
Disney certainly squeezed the market at every corner, and made money out of leveraging their market position.
Please don't metamod.
Can you even imagine going from a made for TV movie to Jaws? The stress that sort of jump could wreck a whole lot of people. Combine that with the harsh shooting conditions and its damn near a miracle Spielberg was able to give us the most perfect movie ever made. (Have no delusion, I will die on this fucking hill)
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
like "Disney? Are they still making movies?"
"They own Pixar."
"OHHHH ohohoh. That explains it. Man Disney used to be so huge. I wonder how long they'll stick around...."
Now 15 years later they own like 60% of Hollywood.
Disney the machine may not be great, but the MCU is. In a way the smartest thing Disney has done with Marvel is (ironically) leave them the hell alone. Creatively speaking.
My umbrage is with people who try and tear down the MCU by saying things like "action is crap" or "story is cookie cutter" or they are "all the same". Which is flat not true.
I detest pickles, but i don't go around claiming they're poisonous.
I, personally, cannot.
But also, Jaws is basically a remake of Duel, just less scary.
I have to say something about that: Without cookie cutters, would we have cookies? No. I rest my case.
I mean yeah we would but they'd be ugly and stupid
Taste is subjective, but there are objective qualities you can point to in food or film by way of comparison. There’s nothing wrong with saying “I like pickles, but this particular brand of pickles are too slimy, too salty, and gross-looking”.
I like superhero movies, but these particular superhero movies (in general) have bland action, are too formulaic in their plots, are too similar in visuals and score, and fail to accomplish basic tasks like good character development and theme.
You've claimed you are out like 3 times now. Leave the melodrama for the films dude.
And yes, I am asking you to just accept the rather obvious fact that not every film is market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, etc to hell and back. That plenty of films just get made because the studio trusts the people making them and lets them do their own thing in their own style. That's where you get directors with very distinct and sometimes quite niche styles from. Like, do you think market-research and audience-testing and studio oversight gets you a David Lynch film? Shit, there's the story about his time on Twin Peaks where one of the TV execs asks "Can we give you a few suggestions?" and he just said "No". Or even on the shittier end, you get George Lucas and the Prequels.
Again, this just seems like nothing more then another attempt to avoid having to engage with people's criticisms in the thread by pretending like all films are the same on this account.
I mean, I feel that with everything I've heard or read about Hollywood that this is naive.
Especially since we're not talking about 1980's TV like Twin Peaks, we're talking about major studio movie releases in the modern era. We'll say past 20 years, going by Scorsese's own timeline on when movies just really started being horrible.
And George Lucas owned the studio that made the Prequels, so again, your argument makes no sense.
Everything gets vetted, tested, and marketed. Everything. Unless you have proof to the contrary, other than "but these movies are art and those are not", it's a leap in logic I refuse to accept just on its own merits. Did Fox not vet Isle of Dogs and advertise it? Indepedent movies can get by, but major releases go through the marketing departments.
C'mon man.
Are you saying MCU movies have bland action and fail to accomplish character development and theme????
They absolutely do. SO much, that i'd posit you DONT actually like super hero movies. There may be a few that you enjoy despite the subject matter, or that arent actually "super hero movies" despite having a super hero character.
And since you probably dont actually like super hero or "comic book" style story telling you're never going to like the MCU. Which is fine! Absolutely. Again, i dont like pickles! People have tastes and thats ok.
But to say that its "bland action" and "fail to accomplish basic tasks like good character development and theme" is so just very wrong i dont even know where to start.
Like saying that pickles are poisonous. When they very much are not.
You have no proof of your own argument dude. We're talking about movies in general. Which is no different in many ways then any other form of mass media, be they books or TV or music or whatever. There's editors and executives and producers and all that in every industry and the amount of influence they have over any work varies from work to work. Which is why artists struggling with control of their own work is such a fucking cliche in these industries.
Your argument is that movies are unique and special and it's always the same for every film. It's ludicrous on it's face and it's an argument that exists so we can move on to yet another line, like "you just hate them because they are popular", where you don't have to actually engage with what people are actually saying.
No, it's just that they actually have bland action scenes and the scripts are often a mess. Like, I've seen all the MCU films. I enjoy them and they are usually lots of fun. But baring a few exceptions, their action scenes are totally unmemorable and bland. I can think of only a handful of MCU films that have action I found actually compelling and probably none on the level of any of the really great action movies of the past several decades. And the scripts can be frequently dodgy, with incoherent themes or character development. And it's not like these criticisms are new or unique to this thread or something. Maybe the simplest explanation is that people actually think the things they say rather then that they hate superhero movies.
No, you got it backwards MY taste is objectively corrent, not yours.
I mean, art is not something that cant be critiqued, its not just all about taste, and not everything just by nature of "being made" is art.
MCU is fallible, it has mistakes, some people pointing them out is fine.
Also, MCU is entretainment, not art, and consuming Disney products is unethical.
To the bolded: Every single documentary, article, interview, and behind the scenes process of making a film is my proof.
You're asking me to accept a fairy tale because its a director you like and you don't want to think he's part of the process. Not happening.
But it's not every single one of those things. It's not even most. As I said, every artistic industry is rife with stories over arguments about these kind of things. Push and pull between between people up and down the food chain. People making their bones before being allowed more creative freedom. Your argument does no actually match anything you see when people talk about the film industry dude.
Personally, I can't enjoy something if I enjoy it.
The tram fight in Black Panther was ducking godawful but that's the only one that sticks out in my mind as truly bad.
EDIT: if you want to reply to my post, please do so on the Marvel thread where I'm moving it to.
How do you explain the vast amount of films that get made, hit the festival circuit, and only then get picked up for distribution? Not every movie is made by a studio shopping a script around like we see in Entourage.
It's naive to think a huge blockbuster film wouldn't have some degree of exec meddling but smaller features? I seriously doubt they would be treated the same way at all.
Rewriting the screen play
Editing room cutting or changes
Reshoots
Test audiences
Can we talk about scripts that are not shot at all as a form of editing?
How about movies that don’t get picked up for a wider release, or are similarly given only a limited release?
Or how some directors are given more latitude because of past success and expectations of future performance?
What is it that Marvel/Disney does in this area that is so outside the norm that people find so offensive?
MWO: Adamski
It's also worth noting here that the vast majority of films made in the indie/festival circuit aren't actually what we think of as indie films. What gets primarily screened and sold are low to mid budget horror films. That becomes really evident when you look at the IMDB pages of people who, say, direct the newest live-action Disney features.
They're not paying to make the movie. Someone else has already taken that on.
It's an established investor market. The joke has always been that dentists pay for them all, but it's basically anyone with $25k to risk.
Yeah, usually a bank. Those banks don't care what you're making for a movie.
I'm basing this on a good friend of mine that has made multiple motion pictures with real budgets, etc. They come up with a concept, find financing, film it, and shop it for distribution. At no point are executives getting involved to restructure the film.
edit: I'll add, that is in contrast to an old client of mine that was the effects supervisor across all of the X-Men films. In particular when he was working on the third film he talked a lot about executive meddling to the point where the film almost changed completely. I saw the pre-meddled version on a laptop sitting in his car and it was a completely different film than what came out.
And they do this for major studios, like Universal or Disney?
I've got a friend on social media I went to college with who just got done with a movie with a 2 million dollar budget and they didn't do the interference, but it's from a small ass studio and not from one of the above or a subsidiary.
They do it for nobody but themselves. They make the film and then use the major studios for distribution.
It's almost like we're not talking about the same thing.