Jake Gittes

But why? What's the point of, or the gain in that? The thing about studios vs audiences is, end of the day, it's the studios that have the power to make and push literally all kinds of movies; we, the audiences, only have the power to give our money to the movies they actually do make and push. Their decisions determine our options, and it's on them if the options become limited. It's not on the audiences if the studios decide to limit their options by just not making a certain kind of movie and then the audiences can't support it because it doesn't exist as a choice anymore. Because audiences have shown time and time again that they're willing to support different kinds of movies. And neither Nolan nor Tarantino were born draws. They became draws because they got opportunities to showcase their artistry, opportunities that are now denied to aspiring and up-and-coming filmmakers on the studio level. Ticket prices are definitely another factor, yes.

Yeah that's why Dark Phoenix and MIB International were such big hits while Get Out and Crazy Rich Asians and Hustlers and OUATIH didn't fill up any theaters. Right. Nowhere in his comments do I see Scorsese acting like The Irishman would have been a slam dunk with studio financing, I don't know where you're pulling that out of. But studios obviously are prejudiced, because they routinely lose money on IP-driven movies and still only keep doing more of them, but very rarely extend that courtesy to movies driven by individual voices. To complain about that is not only right but necessary. What's truly dispiriting is seeing ordinary audience members who ostensibly enjoy good cinema and want to see more of it respond to this by taking the POV of accountants rather than artists.

Netflix isn't a bad platform for movies like Boy Erased that don't seem like they'd gain much if anything from the big screen experience. (On the other hand, they can also simply get lost there if Netflix decides to just not promote them, which I wouldn't wish on any filmmaker.) What's truly dispiriting is watching Scorsese, the Coens, Fincher, Cuaron, etc. turn to streaming because they don't see a better option. That's total bullshit on the industry's part. Even something like Marriage Story I wish were a theatrical release, because it seems like an emotionally dynamic, engaging enough movie to benefit from a crowd experience.

It's not on Marvel to do anything. They have their thing going and that's fair, as much as I or other people can sometimes find it exasperating. It's on the major studios who make ungodly amounts of cash from properties like Marvel (or DC, or Mission Impossible, or Fast and Furious, or Jumanji - all of these are "theme park" movies) to use that money to support and promote other kinds of films. Different voices, different sensibilities. As the biggest suppliers of content, it's absolutely their responsibility to make that content actually diverse. Like, this year, Sony will have lost money on MIB International and had a great high-profile success with Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, and they're still gonna greenlight 10 more useless brand extensions like the former before they entrust even a chunk of that money to a talented, idiosyncratic storyteller like Tarantino (but one who hasn't had to spend 25 years turning him- or herself into a brand). Universal has just blown 175 million (or who knows how much more) on Dolittle, a movie that looks like a bad joke, when instead they could have produced 10 movies costing 17.5 million on average, some of which wouldn't connect but others could become the next Get Out or La La Land or Black Swan or True Grit, and still others could end up being fine moderate successes and stepping stones for talented directors. Don't even get me started on how much good Disney could do if it revived Touchstone, which it could afford to do a hundred times over. Scorsese's actual key quote is: He's correct. A young director today who wants to make their mark with a Mean Streets, or a Do the Right Thing, or a Pulp Fiction, or a Se7en, or a Boogie Nights, doesn't have a major studio to go to. And we're poorer for it.

Iconic. They should have turned that into a movie.

There isn't any competition. The big movies steamroll over virtually everything else. And yeah, God forbid smaller personal films that have already mostly been forced out into limited theatrical runs and on streaming get some sort of support here. No, what we need to defend are the fucking behemoths with which everyone is spoiled rotten year in and year out and which are literally the biggest most popular movies on the planet, because one mean septuagenarian filmmaker has dared to lament their omnipresence.

You've done it, mikee11! You've cracked it wide open!

That's why I specified heh. But then, did anyone see that movie?

Well, you're still right that Joker doesn't need an origin story

My feeling rn is that Johansson will have a resurgence once Marriage Story is released and take Best Actress in the end. Also I've read enough descriptions of De Niro's character/performance in The Irishman as passive (by design, but still) that I wouldn't be at all surprised if he doesn't get nominated. I sure would like it if Phoenix, the best actor of the decade, didn't win for the worst performance I've seen him give in it, but hey that's just the way the Oscars roll.

what's the issue there?

if you're gonna see it at all, do HFR

from the guy who gave you GOLD