Barnack

Without knowing who (and how many people) told her that (her agents ? an agent ? a co-star ? a financier ? an executive ? a producer ?) it make the headline a bit click baity.

Feel we had a thread for this already: I would add to those: http://film.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/CA-Tax-Credit-Progress-Report-FINAL-DRAFT-11-2-18.pdf I imagine that why that practice has long been completely stopped (outside book adaptation type of deal where it seem still common to get f... on the book you sales before your first successful adaptation).

Is that not more used in the past verb sense and done by now, with every studio failing at it ? And going back to the spin-off, prequel, sequel more classic model ? Is there even just one non Disney cinematic universe going on at the moment ? A bit like people that tried to copy Titanic I am not sure how hard to reproduce success end up influential, versus easy to reproduce one.

Yes I think I was using the narrative word incorrectly (or at least differently), like if it was just about the and then and then plot sequence that kind of excluded exposition of a world building and character study, I was certainly making a distinction between ambitious movie and narratively ambitious here, Fury road is one of the most ambitious movie of the 21th century, same for Gravity, but I would have not putted them in the narratively ambitious (probably because of my misunderstanding of the word)

Agree (and arguably it make it less ambitious that aiming for big emotions), they tend to aim for a series of emotional beat more than anything, action is second, in modern musical/dancing, muscial and dancing is second and so on. Marvel being an ultimate version of that. Well if we take a Fury Road or The Raid 1-2 has example of the best action movie of this century, I think it is almost objectively true that Avengers 3 part 1-2 was more narratively ambitious.

Maybe not all of them, but an Infinity War/EndGame is much more ambitious narratively than an action movie. Emotions does not mean character driven (big music, jump scare, jokes for example are going for big emotions) I am not sure what the oppositions you are seeing with what I said.

Did you watch in Italian with subtitle ? It is not modern Hollywood acting for sure but it is nice that some dare to go in those zone from time to time.

Hollywood blockbuster are usually all about high emotions driven not really actions and the MCU is a really good example of that, that why someone pointed out that action is far from their forte and it show in the director choice, actor choice, shooting schedule and so on, action is far from a priority, we are far from Jackie Chan Hong-Kong cinema or even Mission Impossible. The Raid and John Wick series is striving for popcorn action, Feige output is much more ambitious than that imo.

aaaah... come-on, why ? how ?, it is beautiful imo

Well like I said I am really not sure the movie had anything smart to say about it, but it is what smartness boil down when talking movies, for example is Beethoven 5th dumb or smart ? Can a movie have smart editing choice, well written humor, smart exposition choice, smart sound editing device, smart world building, smart movie storytelling device gimmick, smart stunt creation and be a smart action porn (like arguably Fury Road, Gravity, Kill Bill 1-2, The Matrix, Inception)

Would need to define "smart", you can be 100% popcorn and still smart (quick-witted intelligence), Edge of Tomorrow/Jurassic Park/Back to the Future/Lord of the Rings/Casino Royal/End Game/Memento/The Matrix/Avatar/Inception/Edgar Wright stuff are pure 100% popcorn, but arguably still quite smart (it is not obvious what it mean when talking to a passive non-animated object like a movie, it is not like a movie will solve any problems or do something, people could mean different thing with that word).

There is a nuance between theme being present in a movie and what the movie said about it. Classic example would be using facism/nazi aesthetic for the villain to rapidly convey to the audience that they are the bad guys, show they inspire fear without necessarily having anything to say about it, same goes for religious symbolism being used. The minute you make the NSA surveillance by a Nazi third Reich organisation space gun that will literally kill 10% of the population that are threat for the secret Nazi organisation you risk of dumbing it down all the nuance, moral dilemma and real life question/conclusion, turning it into an obvious "of course you must shut it down I do not even have to think 3 second about it" that do not raise any question in the audience (but not necessarily either). Arguably Nolan version of the same theme in the SH genre showed how tempting using some surveillance without people permission thinking doing it for good would be, potential creating more interesting question. Because yes from Black Panther, to Winter Soldier thematically it is not dumb at least and in general it is not particularly dumb in many ways it goes above average blockbuster complexity imo: It demand from it's audience to follow quite a bit of moving part from Avengers until End Game in that "main" story line to fully appreciate all of it, a little bit a la Game of Thrones. In End Game there is quite the complexity in term of multi world Quantum physic movie structure. Same goes for those Ant-Man movie using different world with different time rules, did 90s blockbuster in average went more complex than that story device wise ?

It would have to be financed by pre-selling market/governmental support with many many player because of some IP, powerful producer/director and/or actor pushing it, a bit it happened for this: or this: Not sure how much cheaper they were, specially with the China market buyer number going around, something based on the biggest book of all time today (if it was not already turned into a movie) I could see happening without a significant investment from an MPAA studio and/or Netflix-Amazon. For a little while we had stuff like The Great Wall/Air Strike and other english speaking massive Chinese production with big Hollywood name, they could make a come back.

https://variety.com/2019/film/global/nate-parker-american-skin-spike-lee-venice-film-festival-1203320461/ Nate Parker Apologizes for Being ‘Tone Deaf’ in Response to Resurfaced Rape Charge Made me thought immediately of:

I doubt that the entertainment industry is really just like the main chain grocery store industry During that interview he talk about how financing incentive work quite differently than a lot of case. I doubt you have has much stories like those: https://variety.com/2018/film/news/annapurna-larry-ellison-megan-ellison-vice-1202975648/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Promise_(2016_film) https://www.nfb.ca/ In the convenience store or floating floor industries. Maybe quite similar to those mining/IT venture capital business too.

I am not sure how much the goal was money when they acquired A Hidden Life at that price tag or Tree of Life or people getting into the Silence business or Netflix putting 150-200m in The Irishman or 30-50M in Roma award budget. Or at least it is playing some very long game, but this is one of the business for which money was often one of the smallest place in goals (relative to other business), egos/prestige for example play an high part, specially in the indie world what are the chance you have to go to the golden globes with a star at your table / how cool the project sound when you talk about the movie you are invested in at your next diner party is a big incentive and apparently why star attached is so much a big deal for those. And better at it (at least in term of higher ROI, does make a production company different, they can become so good at it that the movie business by itself get seen has a bad use of capital, the franchise one that help parks/merch/sequels/video game/etc... becoming the only good use of money). Putting it more simply, with all that transpired in the last 2 year's I really doubt that Miramax/The Weinstein company was always purely run with the only goal to return the most money to the investor, there is much more than that going on, I would also imagine to be the case at Marvel (not having bad days from fans on social media and when you go to events could be weighted more than pure profit for example, inclusivity measure is not necessarily purely driven by the bottom line, for those movies academy award probably mean nothing financially they still spend on them now that Perlmutter is gone, etc....).

That usually a sign that the original didn't play that well in those market no ? (Or that it became popular after the remake project started), would be hard and strange to sell to audience a remake of an show they already watched.

That is true: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-untouchable/weinstein-co-to-remake-french-film-untouchable-idUSTRE7676V520110708 And the summer right after it failed a Paul Feig remake project started, so maybe. But the Intouchables didn't do much better (if at all/not worst) in the UK and English Canada where they were not distributed by them and I see no indication in what way the release was any different than an Fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain and how it got sabotaged.

That make little sense considering he had the market right, would have been more profitable for him to make money from the first release and if Miramax would have not distributed it, who would have ? The way he talked about it back in the day he really loved that one it and was quite hurt by it's failure

Soron, Boromir, Galadriel, Legolas, Gandalf, Pippin/Merry/Elendil, Bilbo, Saruman, Gimli, Gollumn, Elrond were all british, Australian, New Zealanders, Mortensen is quite international.

There is a lot of non American English movies, South Korea could easily make the equivalent of an Bong Joon-ho type of director in English for most of the run time if they huge budget and that was still a big factor, UK production obviously are in English. Bond/Potter one day could become British movies, under some metric the Lord of The Rings were considered non-Americans production.

Question open ended for centuries make the answer yes sound always much more certain. BR made 900M about a very non american subject and a 50m budget, would it have been impossible without fox involvement and a British production ? If yes would it be the case in a future with a 100% online distribution and marketing model ? The Inchouchable having a Green Book + 20% run in China and The Upside+ 20% domestic run would have made over 640M, probably more than enough to go toward the blockbuster side if it's 426m run isn't enough.

Aladdin has a realistic shot at being the weakest Disney remake of the 4 grown jewel of Disney renaissance, despite having been the second most popular back in their days by a good amount and having Will Smith Rank Title (click to view) Studio Gross / Theaters Opening / Theaters Date 1 The Lion King (2019) BV $523,549,294 4,802 $191,770,759 4,725 7/19/19 2 Beauty and the Beast (2017) BV $504,014,165 4,210 $174,750,616 4,210 3/17/17 3 The Jungle Book (2016) BV $364,001,123 4,144 $103,261,464 4,028 4/15/16 4 Aladdin (2019) BV $354,509,665 4,476 $91,500,929 4,476 5/24/19 Rank Title (click to view) Studio Worldwide Domestic / % Overseas / % Year 1 The Lion King (2019) BV $1,564.5 $523.5 33.5% $1,041.0 66.5% 2019 2 Beauty and the Beast (2017) BV $1,263.5 $504.0 39.9% $759.5 60.1% 2017 3 Aladdin (2019) BV $1,044.1 $354.5 34% $689.6 66% 2019 In a couple of year, maybe it will look not that special at all, we need to give weight to the bad CGI film twitter panic/middle of the road reviews (even thought the family target audience is an extremely robust one toward both aspect) for it to look special in any way. Considering how some record exploded with EndGame and taking the unadjusted #1 WW spot of all time..... could be hard to justify to not have it number 1. That said in how many market EndGame will be the summer #1 movie vs in how many market it will not be the number 1 movie (would it be Lion King, Aladdin, Toy Story 4 or a local one), for the number 1 movie of all time it is probably quite weak in that regard.

Not sure what JJ getting fired would mean in that context, he must be done no matter what with Star Wars no ? Episode 9 being already quite pushing it, it is not like he can be fired (by who of what job ?) https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/jj-abrams-bidding-war-won-by-warnermedia-as-bad-robot-nears-500m-partnership-1207800?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=THR Breaking News_2019-06-17 11:07:00_lgoldberg&utm_term=hollywoodreporter_breakingnews

Is there really a narrative saying that Democrats need Tennessees private Catholic school students parents/staff vote ? Like is there a movement saying Democrat should let go of protecting abortion rights to get those votes ? Isn't the republican lead in that state and specially sub population so high that it is considered a lost cause by everyone ?