Cmasterclay

If someone unironically believes that women will only vote for romance films or "PC feminist movies", they need to step back and re-evaluate themselves before making another post, IMO. Just an inane insinutation. But let's hope for irony. Anyway, The Revenant is a great book but I'm not sure its quite Oscar material. It'll be a great showcase for Leo and the cinematography on it is going to be out of this world but it doesn't scream Oscar to me. Plus, I'm pretty worried Inarritu is going to end up miles up his own ass with this one. Birdman allowed for that I guess, but this material doesn't. Both Bridge of Spies and Joy look thoroughly mediocre (also, I'm pretty sure Spies was filmed on a potato) but they have as good a chance as any, I suppose. Gavron, Todd Haynes, and Tom Hooper (lame) all seem like good bets at the moment. I'm rooting hardest for Miller and QT but I have my doubts. Wouldn't rule out a surprise nom for Vallee or Frears based on the supposed quality of their material. My predictions: Gavron Haynes Hooper DOR Someone. Could be QT, could be SS, could be Miller, could be Vallee, could be Boyle, hell, it could even be Ron Howard. Gun to my head, I say Boyle.

Dear goodness I really hope you're being ironic.

Can we have AMY and Frost/Nixon please?

Django's script changed alot from the version I originally read, so I'm assuming H8's script will too, but its bonkers. Same kind of historical setting as Django, but completely different feel. It's much smaller scale, and much more intimate and complex. Gittes put it pretty much perfectly- it's RD set in the Old West. I'm not in love with all the casting (Madsen in particular doesn't thrill me in that role, would have liked some interesting stunt casting), but the dialogue and plot is insanity and it feels like the kind of movie QT would have followed up Pulp Fiction with given the budget. Also, if the script is any indication, Goggins is probably in line for a nom (at least). His role is loaded, and he's gonna crush it. Also, judging based on the trailer, the early word, and the current cultural zeitgeist, I'd say Sarah Gavron really has a shot to break in. If Tyldum could do it for the Imitation Eh, she certainly can for what will probably be a better movie. (Imitation Game wasn't bad at all, just forgettable)

Dink's obviously getting a nomination but I'm curious as to what his submission will be- he didn't really have a standout episode like last year, and that might hurt his chance at a win. Kit Harrington might have an outside shot for Hardhome.

Trailer for this played before AMY, and was very well-received. This looks excellent.

I do think that the Minions have a massive audience far beyond just children, particularly teenagers and young adults, but those who love the Minions are kind of predisposed to love this movie anyway, so WOM is fine. Also, off topic, but Amy is spectacular. Just so heartbreaking and supremely put together. I recommend it for anyone who enjoys a well-made doc, even if you aren't an Amy Winehouse fan. Just great.

I do agree to disagree, and you're right, there is very large variance in movies, but it was the way you sarcastically jumped to a fake extreme to try to make your point I was disagreeing with. No one is saying that every movie where the director has control will be great or that every movie where the producers impose alot will be bad. But the evidence points to the fact that producers have more/stricter creative control due to the franchise synergy jumble than in the past, and that it's driving high-caliber directors away from franchise films.

NP

Martin Campbell's did a bang up job with action direction before Casino Royale in GoldenEye and Mask of Zorro. Staging action in and of itself is a skill, and Campbell clearly has it. But keep trying with the whole unreasonably "edgy" and contrarian thing, it's a good look.

Mendes got plenty of creative control on Skyfall (and Spectre, from the looks of it), and it worked out swimmingly. It's clearly his movie and the film is all the better for it, and so was the box office. The last three Mission Impossible movies have had great reception (and by that I mean 3, 4, and 5, because apparently Rogue Nation is really good), and they've all had clear elements of their individual director's style and creative ideals. Raimi got plenty of power for the first two Spider-Man movies, and I'd say most people loved them. It wasn't until the studio forced Venom into the third one that their started being behind-the-scenes drama not related to Tobey's back, and it showed in the final product. For the first Avengers, everything tied into that movie, instead of the other way around, so for the most part Whedon got to make his movie, and it worked out. So while it is rare, there's enough examples to remain hopeful, I suppose. Anyway, looks like the WC is going to determine whether Minions is just merely huge or whether it can potentially challenge Shrek The Third's record, but even 43 million would put the record out of reach. And even if Minions looks mad annoying, a record is a record, so I'm rooting for it. I think that anything over 330 million domestic would (hopefully) put to rest any discussion of whether the Minions are the biggest part of this franchise's drawing power. There's still plenty of people who say its Gru.

Using Marvel as an example again- I think Daredevil is some of the finest work in the MCU, and it's of completely different tone and feel than the movies, and doesn't seem studio made at all. Obviously it's a TV show on Netflix, not a major movie, but it's gained a massive audience and widespread acclaim without having to bend its will to references to Infinity Rings and power orbs. Presenting the characters, story, and world in an interesting way should be the first priority, and fitting the pieces into the larger puzzle should come AFTER that's ensured.

Oh, absolutely. Jurassic World is one of the worst examples, IMO. Marvel is just an easily accessible example.

I doubt that's a consideration, really, and even if it was, some of the best movies of all time are pretty political. We live in a political world. I don't think blockbusters, especially if they take place on modern Earth, should exist in some vacuum from any tangible discussion of political implications (Iron Man 2 came the closest, but the forced set-up of Avengers and SHIELD killed that spark before it could even begin). Also, whether a director has a good vision or not is obviously subjective, but the discussion is about whether that vision actually comes across on film, , and whether studio restrictions keep it from being portrayed.

Absolutely. To me, directors break into several groups, on inexact lines. There's the kings of Hollywood who can do pretty much whatever (Spielberg, Cameron, Nolan, etc.),there's the big-name/biggish name group of directors who can alternate between original fare at a comparitively large-scale prices and more artistic versions of franchise blockbusters (everyone from J.J. to Matt Vaughn to Zach Snyder to Whedon to Sam Raimi), there's the huge name prestige directors who can sell adult dramas and mid-priced fare based on quality and name (Marty Scorcese, Tarantino, D.O. Russell, Ang Lee, David Fincher, etc.), there's the legion of TV/music video type guys who know how to work in a system and direct bargain bin blockbusters and action movies by the dozens (the Ratners and McGs and Alan Taylors and Peyton Reeds of the world), there's comedy big wigs (Apatow and McKay types) and there's no-name, tiny level indie guys trying to make a big break despite no real prestige (Webb, Watts Trevorrow, etc). But there's one category of director that can determine whether franchise/blockbuster movies start to try something different and wield some creative firepower, and that's mid-level autuers who have earned tons of respect through a couple of exceedingly well received projects but haven't become big enough to really earn that star director status that affords so much creative freedom. This was Nolan before Batman, Raimi before Spider-Man, Whedon before Avengers, etc. In the past, these guys were given opportunities to direct blockbusters with their creative vision intact, and they used this to become stars. But now, that lack of creative opportunity means that they instead choose to work their way up the harder way, through adult films that eventually earn them the freedom they want (Innaritu is a prime example of this). This is people like DuVernay, Coogler, Jeff Nichols, Damien Chazelle, J.C. Chandor, Dennis Villevenhue, and maybe even Oscar nominated people like Bennett Miller and Steve McQueen (though they're on the way to big name status pronto). Instead of creating the best version of a franchise, they're taking the beaten path and earning a bigger name through mid-level dramas and prestige pieces. And that's all good. They make great movies. But the reliance on a studio vision of events has stifled the opportunity for even better blockbusters, because these great mid-level artists don't want to do it anymore, like Nolan after Memento.

But the only minority or women directors that are getting a chance are tokenized into the superhero of their corresponding demographic. Of course creative vision is what matters, but it's not like Trevorrow or Peyton Reed or Jon Watts have shown the skills of someone like Coogler and many other black directors, so it's not like they're getting some genius creative minds. It's not like their giving full creative control to the Damien Chazelle and J.C. Chandor's of the world, they're giving studio projects away that don't have any room for creative vision. And if they're gonna do that, they might as well look beyond the same old demographic.

Here's my thing: there's nothing inherently wrong with hiring young, straight white dudes out of the indie farm system- hell, they describes me, someone should have me direct the next Green Lantern or something!- and if it's someone whose creative vision can truly shine through and make a great film, more power to them. But I just think it's so dumb that the only African-American Marvel seriously has considered hiring has been for the Black Panther movie, and the only DCU movie where a female has been part of the process is Wonder Woman. Like a woman can ONLY direct a movie about the most famous female superhero, or the ONLY major black solo film in the MCU is the only one an African-American is qualified to directed. Why couldn't Patty Jenkins direct the Flash? Why can't DuVarney or Coogler direct fucking Spider-Man, instead of some dude who hasn't really done jack doodly squat? When you only consider hiring these demographics for the heroes that fit that demographic, that feels less like a real effort for diversity and more like misguided pandering.

That isn't the point though. I'm not talking about box office. I'm talking about creative opportunities within the industry. It doesn't matter to the customer what color the chef is, or what color the teacher is, or what color the doctor is (unless you're a racist, obviously) but when it comes to the internal system re: hiring and opportunity, it does matter. Same with movies.

I'm not saying that black and female directors aren't just as capable of making shitty or forgettable studio blockbusters as white guys, but I do think that giving a more diverse group of people the chance to utilize their creativity is a good thing, without doubt. It's clear that the current studio blockbuster system as Gopher described is favoring white, youngish males at a rate disproportionate to the rest of Hollywood (which is already not doing too well in and of itself, obviously).

Even MOS, like it or not, certainly feels like a Zach Snyder movie. Now, whether that worked or not is obviously up for debate, but at least there IS a debate, and I'll take something that's significantly flawed and interesting over something that's blandly totally competent and completely forgettable any day of the week. What's even the point of getting someone like Webb or CT if you're not gonna let them have any creative control potential that has been shown by their indie resume? You might as well just get one of the million competent TV directors who know how to work within a producer's system, like the Russos. And if studios are picking directors based on level of control rather than directorial vision, do they HAVE to pick only mid 30 white guys? If the artistic vision has no bearing on the movie, you might as well give someone underrepresented a chance (though obviously the optimal situation would be for these underrepresented directors to actually be given the opportunity to direct something with significant creative input, ala Cuaron with POA, for one example).

So bumping this five pages late is probably completely unnecessary, but the only reason Creed is happening is because Coogler (and Jordan) went to MGM with the idea for this movie. I have no doubt this passion is gonna translate to quality That's the dream situation, obviously, but having a passionate director with an idea come to YOU to revitalize/continue the franchise (as I think Rian Johnson might have done with Episode 8, IIRC) rather than plugging in whatever young, just happy-to-be there white dude you can best control would no doubt assure better movies, which USUALLY leads to more money, more merch, and more strength. But the MCU model has worked so swimmingly for Disney that other studios seem afraid to give smart young directors creative control, even though Nolan's Batman movies showed how important that can be.

1) Will the Woman in Gold drop less than 18%? Yes 2) Will Entourage cross 32 million when actuals come out? Yes 3. Will Spy Drop Less than 25 percent? Yes 4) Will Avengers have a Saturday increase of more than 40%? Yes 5) Will JW finish second? Yes 6) Will IO finish second? No 7) Will Minions have an OD of more than 35 million? Yes 8) Will Self/Less make the top 5? No 9) Will any film increase more than 48% on Saturday? Yes 10) Will more than 2 films increase on this Saturday from last Saturday? Yes 11) Will Gallows make more than Self/Less Yes 12) Will JW have a better Saturday gross than IO? Yes 13. Will Minions make more than 100 million OW? Yes 14) Will any film in the top 10 drop less than 15%? No 12/14 4000 13/14 5000 14/15 8000 What films finish in spots: 2 Jurassic 3 IO 4 Termy 5 Gallows 8 Ted 1.148.44 2. 12.04

I hate being hyperbolic, but this has had one of the most universally positive receptions to a trailer I've ever seen across multiple media platforms/demographics. Obviously that's very unscientific, and that might not even mean anything, but I'm starting to think this could do soar past 100m.

1) Will Terminator be number one? No 2) Will Magic Mike be number two? No 3) Will Jurassic World drop more than 45%? No 4) Will IO have a Saturday decrease of more than 32.7% on Saturday? No 5) Will Terminator or MM fall more than 20% on Thursday? No 6) Will any film in the top 10, playing in more than 999 theaters, have a Friday increase of more than 75%? Yes 7) Will Spy increase more than 22.2% on Thursday? Yes 8) Will IO and JW both make more than Terminator? Yes 9) Will San Andreas fall less % wise than Spy? No 10) Will Ted fall more than 49%? Yes 11) Will Max make more than 7 million? Yes 12) Will JW be over 1.375 billion by Sunday estimates, according to RENTRAK http://www.rentrak.c...rankings.html#1 Yes 10/12 5000 11/12 7000 12/12 9000 I think the questions are kind of tough this week. What films finish in spots: 1 JW 2 IO 3 Magic 4 Termy 5 Ted 9 Dope 2000 each, get all 6 right bonus of 7000 Bonus 1: What will T5's total be for Wed and Thurs? 5000 13.4 Bonus 2: What will JW's total be after Thursday? 5000 527.5 Bonus 3: What will Ted's total be after Sunday? 5000 64.64

God, I hope they kill him. Not because I have some sort of bloodlust or anything mean-spirited, but Rocky dying and Creed fighting to honor him would give this movie instant pop culture credibility, make it something ballsy and unique instead of just another boxing movie, and allow the franchise to move in a fresh direction with this momentum building event giving this movie an emotional bottom. It'd just be good filmmaking.