lorddemaxus

The National did the music for this (only learned today they also did the music for Cmon Cmon)? I guess I'm on the hype train now.

Having listened to the Dune sketchbook tracks, I think we can safely put Zimmer down for a score nom. I'd even say he has a shot at being the frontrunner (funny that Desplat is doing the score for both Anderson and Del Toro films this year since Zimmer lost to Desplat's scores for both these filmmaker's previous films).

5:45pm UK time is 9:45am PT.

Reviews will be out 9:45am PT. This is exactly when the movie premieres for the public btw.

It's called bad campaigning. I don't remember the last time MGM got a BP nomination and as I said before, WB likes to focus on one movie each year (and this year it's Dune, but it could be this if Dune flops hard). But still kinda weird there considering that they did take both joker and just mercy to TIFF in 2019.

Mind Killer is a banger

I was wrong about Cyrano but I still don't see it going anywhere. More people will still be talking about WSS than they will about this when it releases.

Ok I guess I was wrong about this. Still think it's not going to be a contender this year, besides Dinklage.

Could not find the thread but King Richard reactions: Feinberg liking it is good (his tastes align with Oscar voters). Only question is if WB will be able to campaign more than one film into a BP nomination.' Edit: Also contains a Beyonce song. I guess this is getting at least one nom then.

Belfast looks bad and I heard it's not very good either (supposedly had tepid applause and jokes didn't land very well in today's premiere).

Saw it last month. Thought it was one of the years best.

In what world is a film like the specific example I gave before a big and important film? No one knew about it until after it released at Sundance (not before). A lot of films, especially foreign ones, that make it even to the big film fests are rarely reported about too. And do tell me about these filmmakers that no one knows about until only after Netflix finances a film for them because I can't think of any.

As I keep saying, most of the films from newcomers (like the example I gave before) are made before streamers buy them. Many of them premiere at film fests first and then bought. Streamers rarely actually finance those kinds of films. The only good thing is that newcomers make more money now than they used from festival sales. But if you're a filmmaker who cares more about visibility than money then streaming isn't making a difference there. It's why the director of The Farewell said no to streaming.

Power of the Dog is literally the only film like that Netflix made this year though? I guess Del Toro's animated Pinocchio wouldnt have been made with a traditional studio either. Universal/Focus has made more director driven mid-budget studio fares this year at this point. Traditional studios are doing a shit job with these kinds of films too, but I don't think streamers are making things better.

The only thing Netflix has offered for newcomers is promise of wide distribution for films they buy after production is complete (and usually after they got some good festival buzz, which are films that another distributor would've bought anyways). But they make it incredibly hard for people to even find those kinds of movies on the service. Again, going back to the 40 Year old Version, did a Netflix release really make it more popular than if a studio like IFC bought it and gave it a limited release?

How many films from new up and coming filmmakers have streamers made (and no I'm not talking about films streamers snatch up after they get festival buzz like Netflix does with films like The 40 Year Old Version)? How many foreign film industries have broken into the mainstream due to streaming services? I can't think of any.

At least most studios don't forget about their past releases and just move onto their next upcoming film in a week like Netflix does (because they don't want people to stop subscribing). It's also due to Netflix's release model. A movie a week is just not a sustainable way to get people to talk about any of your movies. How many "name filmmakers" are making prestige films for Netflix or Amazon (I'm not talking about films that these studios buy, but the ones that are made inhouse)? Even Scorsese's next film is getting a wide release from Paramount before it goes to Apple. Then there's fact that no streaming service has offered money to Coppola and stuff like Netflix fighting with Andrew Dominik because Blonde was too weird. Only big name filmmakers I can think of who have completely made the switch to streaming are probably Fincher, Baumbach, and Soderbergh.

I've found few filmmakers today are actually good with using high res digital cameras+sharp lenses. So many movies that just look too glossy and fake today (which I thought inadvertantly worked really well with Stillwater recently). I'm also pretty sure Netflix has a post-production process to make their movies looks similar so that it looks good after the images are compressed for streaming.

But she's right though. Streaming studios at this point are just making films for people to consume and shit out the next day and move on to the next thing. Obvious exceptions like The Irishman, but it's less and less likely we'll get films like that on streaming.

Wait for the reviews from basic critics from Telluride. Although Hand of God now looking to be divisive too.

Yeah, I'm thinking this is getting into BP and BD. Both a great film (probably will be his most crowd pleasing) and a great, personal narrative to go with it.

Ok, one of the tracks just made go holy shit. Can't remember a major Hollywood blockbuster having music like that since the Matrix films maybe?

Seems like this movie is pretty good.

We'll maybe get vague reactions Friday noon Venice time (around 2 in the morning Pacific time) but the review embargo lifts after the public screening ends