excel1
-
Posts
6,898 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by excel1
-
-
1 minute ago, redfirebird2008 said:
Throwing nostalgia at the audience is not original. It’s not creative. It’s simply a cash grab. See The Force Awakens in 2015 as a perfect example of this.No way, DA FORCE AWAKENS is a very straight forward, easily understood. NWH is totally different level.
Imagine saying "Bond 26 will feature Daniel Craig, Pierce Brosnan, and AI Sean Connery all teaming up". Everybody would look at it like 🤨
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, AniNate said:
The definition of "original" here is so subjective and broad as to be almost meaningless. I think successful movies need to have some kind of unique hook, sure, but that's not much different from any other modern generation, and the ones before still didn't have to rely so much on established IP.
Unique or novel may be better words than original, some are sticking to that word far too heavily.
-
1 minute ago, redfirebird2008 said:
Really? Inside Out is an expensive, original movie that came out in summer 2015. It was far riskier than the movies you are listing here, other than Oppenheimer.Bro what? It wasn't risky at all, it was Pixar still in its prime, and they were a studio known for originality. Find a better example for real.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:
What makes The Batman any more original than Burton's, Nolan's or even Snyder's take on Batman?
Batman, Maverick, Guardians, Avatar were mores about quality being rewarded.
2 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:What's makes King's take on Wonka any more original than Burton's or Stuart's take? I'd say King's is actually the least original and most risk averse take... Super safe. I liked it though.
It's a new story on the character.
2 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:What makes Oppenheimer remotely close to as original as things like his own Inception, Interstellar or Tenet?
It is a unique experience for these times. I can't think of a remotely recent film of that approach that is comparable to it.
2 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:What makes AtsV any more original than ItSV?
The series is original.
2 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:Barbie for sure stands out.
I guess my confusion is similarly original takes were already highly successful in the recent and distant past for just about every property you named. I don't think its any different now. It's not like Super Mario wasn't huge last year.
Did Gen X crave originality? But just crave it way, way more? Raimi, Sonnenfeld, Burton, Verhoeven, Cronenberg, Cameron, Gilliam, Miller, Coens, Tarantino, etc. were known names the late 80s, through late 90s. I'd argue they craved it more actually.
Of those ones listed, Cameron is the only one who achieved true uber-blockbuster success off of his original ideas.
-
2 minutes ago, JustLurking said:
wtf is supposed to be "insane" about nwh. or even original for that matter. even theatrically the concept was ALREADY done (much better) by spiderverse.
nwh was huge because it unabashedly went for the nostalgia mines. "originality" lol give me a break.
Is this is a serious question....?
Teaming up McGOAT, Garfield, and Holland in 1 film is absolutely, 100000% creative and yes, insane. The Spiderverse comp is ridiculous. That wasn't animated film. Bringing together 3 well-known actors playing the same character in a film? When was that ever done before? I would have loved to listened in on the pitch meeting for that one bc I am sure the initial reaction near every executive would be ".....how? and went this confuse people?".
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Speedorito said:
I’m sorry but you can’t just change the definition of a word like that. Original means “not based on an existing IP or a sequel.” That’s how everyone uses the word.
Ok then go with the word "unique" instead, done.
2 minutes ago, Speedorito said:The Beekeeper is original. Barbie is not. GOTG Vol 3 is definitely not.
Just because people haven’t seen a live-action Barbie film or a super cool animated Spider-Man film doesn’t mean they’re original. If Greta Gerwig made a film about a doll called Jessica who lived in Jessica Land with all the other Jessicas and Matts, that would be original. But she didn’t, she made a film based on the incredibly well-known Barbie brand.
Guardians, Maverick, Avatar, The Batman are more about audiences rewarding quality films.
1 minute ago, redfirebird2008 said:
It’s still just IP with large built-in audiences. The brand is a requirement to have success. I find that pretty sad when looking back to earlier decades.Seeing it as sad feels 'glass half empty'. It is the next stage in the evolution of consumer demand, that's always interesting.
-
9 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:
Shouldn't speak for them but I can only assume they mean a creative, unexpected take on a big IP? That only really applies to Barbie and, I guess AtSV from the titles they listed. But, AtSV is a sequel. I don't think it's necessarily why either was a huge hit either. Otherwise, I'm with you. I don't understand it.
Joker, Barbie, ATSV, Wonka, NWH, Oppenheimer would be the big examples. All of those were concepts that, in one way or another, were radically, radically different and inherently risky as a result. My litmus test would be "would this film have felt out of place in the summer 2015 line up?". Those are all resounding 'yes'
-
1
-
2
-
1
-
-
1) The lighting screws mid 2000s Fox tv show, can't believe how cheap it looks.
2) 100% believe all of this "WHAT IS THIS?! ITS TOO DIFFERENT" crap is just a PR grab to assist with appears will be a challenging marketing campaign.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, redfirebird2008 said:
You listed zero original movies.see my post above. Original, outside the box takes on existing IP is still original.
-
1 hour ago, PenguinHyphy said:
The box office numbers disprove that, so why are people still trying to push that inane notion? They put out originals throughout the entire month of April, and they are not even going to outgross the Mean Girls musical that came out in January. Audiences today support IP way more than audiences in any other time throughout history. Excuses about not having the opportunity to support original stories because of studios not putting out original content are null and void
'Original takes on existing IP' is still original.
Everyone should go back to the first days were Todd Phillips Joker film was announced. Everyone thought the concept was absurd and it would be a giant mess, especially if zero-box-office-pull nut job Joaquin Phoenix was cast as Joker. Think of ludicrous it would sound to say, at that time, that it's sequel would be a musical costarring Lady Gaga as Harley Quinn. Let's go a step further. Imagine the insanity of saying "we're going to do a Spider-man film where all 3 main interactions of the character show up together". The entire concept of Barbie film is utterly absurd on paper.
We're living in a time where outside the box takes on existing characters are not only welcomed, they feel borderline required for something to really explode. It's also translating into a lot of exciting new franchise tentpoles.
Cookier cutter assembly line film-by-focus-group takes ala Marvel or obvious nostalgic cash grabs need more today than they did in 2015, which in my view is a very good thing.
-
1
-
-
I have always been a 'glass is half full' person but I truly believe this. Gen Z and tiktokers crave originality above all. This is actually an exciting time because studios are being forced out of the cookie cutter mcdonald's for every one type of approach.
Think of all genius and longstanding success that came out of the creative risks taken in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Feel like we are trending towards a period with that type of consumer demand again. It is a GREAT thing that last years biggest hits - Barbie, Spider-verse, Oppenheimer, Guardians 3, Wonka etc were all 80s or 90s on RT. Maverick, The Batman, Avatar in 2022.
Feel like this all going to pay big dividends in 2 or 3 years from now.
-
5
-
1
-
1
-
-
37 minutes ago, Flopped said:
Cruise hasn't been a draw outside of MI and TG in ages and he knows it. The Mummy, Valkarie, Knight & Day, Jack Reacher, American Made, Oblivion, even the great Edge of Tomorrow...none of them set the b.o. on fire.
He is no different than Brad Pitt or Will Smith or any other 1990s king who is now pushing/past 60. They are draws in certain roles. That's it. Valkyrie was also a clear box office hit btw.
Gen Z and tiktokers crave originality above all. This is actually an exciting time because studios are being forced out of the cookie cutter mcdonald's for every one type of approach.
-
Get Z loves off ball creativity and this looked so blah. TRAP will be the summers big oqerperformer if it is any good
-
1 hour ago, CloneWars said:
Box Office doesn't matter. This will sell more toys
I would love to see a Christmas set JW film released around Christmas. No joke, this is the next big thing.
Barbie 2 should be an Christmas film.
-
Zendaya as a Mom honestly made me laugh, she looks so young. I personally greatly enjoy her as an actress, it just felt so off.
This movie has a serious issue at its core in that none of the leads are overly likable, especially Zendaya. I couldn't feel anything for any of them and it def. removed some tension for me at the end.
-
1 hour ago, Mojoguy said:
Just realized I've never seen Twister even though I have it in an unopened Bluray for like 10 years. Twisters is finally going to make me see Twister.
Twister is an awesome 1990s popcorn disaster flick. Like ARMAGEDDON and ID4, it is flawless for what it is.
-
1
-
-
Wonka 3 and Barbie 2 needed that green light announcement yesterday
-
Freddie Prinze Jr and Sarah Michelle Gellar need a Josh Hartnett style revival
-
1
-
-
We need to go back to the early and mid 1990s challengers is weird but good and will find an audience
-
1
-
-
Summer of Shyamalan incoming.
-
Guy has earned it, it is what it is. TRAP looks like a huge breakout incoming that's has 2 comeback for director and star in 1 film, both of whom seem to be in WBs pocket.
Well done Zaslav. Well done.
-
2
-
-
This film might be awesome but if it can't figure out what it is relative to the 1996 film, it is going to get a reputation as confused.
-
1
-
-
Josh trending on Twitter makes it kinda feel like they wasted the big moment that his comeback would be. Needed to announce him as Dent yesterday.
@Eric Atreides is no doubt on point, the trailer twist reveal is going to b a giant red herring for sure
-
1
-
-
Of course it's big on Twitter. Hartnett as the lead is the latest big comeback, he will make a fantastic villain, the film looks very unique, and Shyamalan is capable of utter greatness.
Weekend Numbers | actuals | 27.75M THE FALL GUY | 8.72M SW: EP I - TPM | 7.59M CHALLENGERS | 6.50M TAROT
in Numbers and Data
Posted · Edited by excel1
True, that explains why everyone lined up to see Harrison Ford return in BLADE RUNNER 49, Shwarzenegger - and later Linda Hamilton - return to Terminator, Keanu in MATRIX and BILL AND TED, the OGs in GHOSTBUSTERS 3 and 4, Keaton's Batman in FLASH, Ellen Burstyn in EXORCIST, Channing Tatum in MAGIC MIKE 3, Stallone in RAMBO 5, Vin Diesel in XXX 2, Damon in JASON BOURNE, Stiller in ZOOLANDER 2. How could we forget the giant success that was INDEPENDENCE DAY 2? Fans of course are still elated at Palpatines iconic return in Star Wars 9.
Reality is that "NOSTALGIA!!!" as the reasoning for success has a pretty shitty track record outside oof a few GIANT successes. Hard nostalgia pulls with certain actors in certain roles worked for DA FORCE AWAKENS and HALLOWEEN, but did little to nothing in pretty much every other attempt. Nostalgias track record with concepts-only is even worse, for every JURASSIC WORLD, there are 6 or 7 films like MIB: International, CHIPS, Charlies Angels, etc.
See things through the eyes of a normal fan. New major tentpole film had ever done anything like what occurred in NWH. It is inherently risky to take that approach.