Celedhring

I really hope I get to see another Cameron film that's not an Avatar sequel in my lifetime.

Now you guys have made me find out who the bad Matt Walsh is, I could have lived without that.

In 2008 they passed a motion to end the strike very quickly after a tentative deal was reached. Then approving the actual deal took longer. But the strike itself was called off 3 days after the tentative deal. But there's no way we are getting a deal in the next two weeks.

Variety, apparently: https://variety.com/lists/best-martin-scorsese-movies-ranked/the-king-of-comedy-1982/ Incidentally Silence as #1 is quite the take, but that film has gone sadly under the radar. Imho one of Scorsese top 10 for sure.

By replacing her WGA writers with whatever they will do instead. I agree that it's not much different than other daytime shows, but it's my understanding that WGA also pickets those.

Swift's movie is such an edge case (given her outsized starpower and following, and that a concert film is easier to produce than a regular feature) that I don't think studios will be too worried. It will remain extremely difficult to bypass them in the grand scheme of things, and 95% of indies just can't afford to.

Their English language shows have much larger viewership on average though. That said. it's true that their global footprint gives them much more buffer compared to the other big AMPTP players.

Personally, I believe that if the early Cannes hype is confirmed, Scorsese will win. He's 80 and has repeatedly talked about how he feels time's running out on him, so I feel the Academy would like to reward him, feeling that Nolan will have many more chances.

Many overall deals have been suspended since the strike began. This is non-news, really.

So they are losing $500m because of the strikes, when the estimated impact for WBD of accepting all the WGA demands over the entirety of the contract (3 years) would be... $47m (according to the WGA). EDIT: JWR was quicker than me.

The residuals is the main thing that both guilds share (and to an extent AI). However, SAG-AFTRA had a multitude of workplace concerns and others related to the audition process that AMPTP refused to even consider during the first round of talks. So it won't be quick.

I know Swift is such a phenom that it's hard to gauge, but concert movies have never done too well internationally. It's not a thing we do. But again, Swifties.

Because Marvel is not much of a director-driven studio.

Yeah, I'm firmly in the "we need shorter blockbusters" camp, but 98 minutes raises a red flag because it's shorter than any other MCU movie by a decent margin. And the current incumbent (The Incredible Hulk at 112) was butchered in the editing room. There's no way that was the intended length of the film.

For me Scorsese's never made a total dud, unless we go way back to stuff like Boxcar Bertha or Who's That Knocking on My Door. Even his less successful films feature such craftmanship/ideas that I just can't write them off completely. Spielberg is a bit like that too, although he does have some stinkers (The BFG, Ready Player One - and sue me but I enjoy 1941). So many of his "lesser" movies - the Alwayses, the Terminals, etc... are elevated because he's so damn good with a movie camera.

Yeah, I feel like people are forgetting how awful Golden Age Hollywood producers were. There's a reason why WGA/SAG precursor organizations came about in that era.

Not American, but I already got an offer to polish an AI re-written script (it was an old unproduced script which they used an AI to "update", and now they needed a human to polish the result). I flatly refused. In my experience, many producers view writers (and many other creatives involved in moviemaking) as just interchangeable tools, not people that can make their unique contributions and provide a vision. Once you assume that mindset, of course they are going to replace us with an AI as much as practicable.

Just to a panel of 6 WGA members that were forbidden to share that knowledge with anybody else. It was a bizarre proposal.

It's somewhat interesting that Barbie will be WB's first ever 600 DOM grosser. Every other studio has at least one or two by this point. I suppose that speaks to WBs failure in managing their franchises throughout the 2010s and so far the 2020s.

The amazingly convoluted ways things went wrong in 24 was the show's charm, imho.

Giving Shorwunners latitude sounds well and dandy on paper, but to me it sound as just a nice way to avoid putting the terms in the union contract. As usual with labor relations, there's the problem of unequal bargaining power between employer and employee (the reason unions exist). What I mean is: - Showrunner A gets the greenlight for a 10 episode show. They want a lean team, and request staffing the room with just 4-5 writers. - Showrunner B gets the greenlight for a 10 episode show. The studio "suggests" they just hire 4-5 writers. Showrunner wanted a larger room, but they really want to make the show - it's probably their big break - and accepts. It will be claimed it was the showrunner's decision. How to distinguish between the two and prevent B from happening? As usual the devil is in the details.

In what world doesn't Barbie have structure? It's a pretty old-fashioned hero's journey. Just because the plot seems loose and zany doesn't mean it's not meticulously laid out. That's why it's a great script.

You're not wrong, but just wanted to point out that in the 1990s and 2000s many movies - even big ones - were released with the expectation that money wouldn't be made until the film went through all the release windows. But stuff like home video or broadcasting rights brought in significant amounts back then.

A film that will break even "in a few years" can't be a flop. A failure? Sure. But we're talking about relative magnitudes here. It's like calling a 4-3 NBA series a sweep.

One confession: I have never seen the first Top Gun. When it came out my parents weren't too keen on taking me to pro-military movies, and once I grew up I just didn't have much of an interest anymore. So, I had zero nostalgia for TGM. I enjoyed it all the same, that movie is just fun. Movie-as-a-rollercoaster-ride at its finest. TFA was lazy. A bunch of Empire/Vader cosplayers as the villains, a bigger badder Death Star, a young force user from a desert planet saves the day... Once the nostalgia wore off, that movie had no rewatch value to me. The younger characters were actually the most interesting part of it, mostly because they were blank slates and thus fresh, although they ended up squandering that promise. The Jurassic World movies did have some hooks that the original trilogy teased but never explored in full: the functioning park, the dinosaurs escaping and living among humans. But they just didn't do much with these ideas.