Jump to content


Free Account+
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Ipickthiswhiterose

  1. Speaking of "Supernatural Marvel just getting started" and returning to odd commissioning choices and zeitgeists.....


    A note that right now the biggest TV show in the world is horror Squid Game, the new TV launch this week was horror Midnight Mass, the biggest Marvel movie of next year is coming from a Horror Director, three of the biggest COVID busting movies in terms of profitability were horror, the DCEU's first billion dollar movie came from a horror director, the first $100m movie at the box office post cover was a monster mashup and this week we have the horror aesthetics and tone of Venom romping home.


    And yet four years ago the company sitting on the biggest collection of prominent proven horror characters in existence went "I know what we'll do with these. Let's make a celeb-driven, 90s-style action franchise with airplane stunts!!!!"



  2. 3 minutes ago, john2000 said:

    highly doubt it, if we are talking about new versions of course , ghost rider and daredevil seem more intresting concepts than shang chi


    I don't think the other folks on the threat were talking about new versions. More that their 00s versions were being used as synonym for "any old superhero rubbish".


    Ghost Rider done well would perform extremely well right now and I don't know anyone would deny that. Indeed I think many suspect it's coming soon after Blade. Venom's success will make that even more likely. Supernatural Marvel is probably just getting started.

    • Like 1
  3. 11 minutes ago, wildphantom said:

    It’s still a prequel to the widely regarded greatest television series ever made. There’s a huge audience for it. A theatrical audience without HBO Max and a pandemic? Definitely. 

    Yet it’ll have a long life by association, and reignite interest from those who have never seen the show, which,…is on HBO Max!  It’s a more sensible green light of a movie than some other movies WB have spent a ton of money on imo. 

    without the pandemic and HBO it would have definitely done $20 million OW and decent legs. 


    I don't think that first point necessarily follows. You can frame any of Citizen Kane, Casablanca or Gone with the Wind as a 'widely regarded greatest film ever made' but I don't know a 2021 sequel to any would make any money. It isn't perceived as the greatest (etc) outside of the US so would be relying almost entirely on Dom and the status is based on contemporaneous US TV critics, not fandom-size. I have no doubt that it has very many dedicated fans but enough interested in a prequel with a bunch of new actors for a $20m opening? I'd argue a Breaking Bad or GOT movie would struggle to make that and they are much more recent and visible properties with subject matters that haven't specifically fallen out the zeitgeist.


    Certainly WB have made bigger risks, but probably those would all be risks with potentially higher ceilings if things hit. Is the ceiling for this big? I suppose it could trigger David Chase series on HBO....but those are happening anyway.


    That said, I acknowledge that at least a part of my argument is that it had never appeared that more content, especially after the death of JG, was something Sopranos fans even wanted. But since I'm not a Sopranos fan and seemingly you are and you're telling me they do then, hey, happy to be wrong.

  4. I don't understand what the business argument for the Many Saints of Newark is. Does it have an ultra-low budget or something?


    We're talking a completely fresh faced lead actor with no track record, great supporting actors but not with massive profiles, a TV writer, a property that hasn't been mainstream for 15 years and a genre that couldn't possibly be more out of the zeitgeist right now.


    None of which isn't to say it might not be a great film - given the talent involved it could well be - and of course there is a loyal following of sorts which will bring in some business but it does seem a strange project at an odd time (even pre-covid).


    Great news seemingly for Venom. Not my thing, but looks like they've judged the 90 minute pure adrenalin popcorn rush just right. Legs will be very interesting - intuition says it will struggle to sustain anything given incoming competition and that it's core demo will have rushed out, but it may be that people are just lining up for a release right now.

    • Like 1
  5. It's also with noting that while Bond generally has positive media coverage, currently it is slavering all over it.


    If we were outside of the current situation you could even argue the BBC is bordering on breaching neutrality the extent to which it is providing free publicity and going with the 'saviour of cinema' tag. There is no way anyone in the country is unaware this is coming out and that they are 'supposed' to go to it, even if they are non cinemagoers who never watch film trailers on Youtube or anything.

  6. 9 hours ago, Chicago said:

     If SS never existed and the same trailer was released pre pandemic, it wouldn't be a flop


    If SS never existed and the same trailer was released pre pandemic it still would have major IP issues. It still wouldn't have had the Joker in it and it still wouldn't have had a star of the level of Will Smith in it. It would still be folly to drop that size of budget on it, given those factors.


    The first SS squad trailer was an action film trailer: but it also advertised a dark romance, was supposedly part of a continuing story and most of all...had the most reliable box office character in cinema history in it. 


    Deadpool 2 was a continuing story to a previously loved film as indicated...therefore not comparable to the Suicide Squad in terms of the job marketing had. The hard marketing job was Deadpool 1, which had the layered, reach-out-to-multiple-demos approach which heavily emphasised romance and a conventional origin story in its marketing alongside the risqué stuff - which was kept out of the first half of even the red band trailer.


    Again, in terms of marketing the trailers for GOTG isolated each character, voiceovered who they were and indicated why we should care about them. They were clearly concerned about the familiarity factor and directly addressed that potential weakness in those trailers. Then the film itself carefully curated the story of Quill with an extremely high stakes emotional hook at the start to make us care about the main character, and it received good (by MCU standard) legs.


    Thing is I don't think we're far off here: We all agree that following on from SS and bereft of the factors that caused SS to be a BO success despite being terrible, TSS never really had a chance whatever the quality of the movie was going to be and it was a plain bad idea to throw that level of budget at it. Probably not before COVID and certainly not alongside pandemic and co-release. 


    But I would still argue that with all that, the film needed to take more cues from that first Deadpool and provide the veneer of a wider appeal within the film, and provide more hooks in its marketing and, to a lesser extent, within the film itself. And that what it did instead was close its appeal as little as possible to a large but still niche audience. I find Idris Elba shout-arguing with his daughter more enjoyable than the Peter-Mom scene in Guardians, but in terms of motivating forces the latter is doing a lot more to create a character who stays in the memory for a GA member than the former. Indeed reading back the sentence it says a lot that I automatically wrote the actor name for the former and the character name for the latter.

  7. 1 hour ago, Chicago said:


    You also seem to be using what you didn't like about the film as the reason to its failure when in heinsight this was doomed from the start. The complaints you had sound very similar to what people were saying about GOTG and Deadpool before they surprised everyone. This film shares a similar tone and it's actually managed to have solid legs in the markets it was given a chance in so quality clearly wasn't an issue here.




    I like the film. And my only major criticism would be the Harley Quinn subplot, not the tone.


    I am specifically talking about advertising. The jokes I am referring to were perfectly tonal within the film. They were all amusing within the film. My argument is that they didn't work to be taken outside of the film to market it. The tones of Deadpool and TSS are similar. The trailers are not.


    The first two lines of the Deadpool Red Band trailer are: "I love you Wade Wilson, we can fight this." followed by "You're right. The cancer's only in my liver, lungs, prostate and brain." 


    The first two lines of the Suicide Squad red band trailer are: "You're going to risk the entire mission for a mental defective disguised as a court jester" followed by "this coming from a guy that's wearing a toilet seat on his head".


    Chalk and cheese.


    The Deadpool trailer started with the emotional hook of a loving husband getting cancer and clearly established the chracter. Then it showed a conventional origin story before only then giving something closer to the actual tone of the movie, and only gave a splurge of the really risqué stuff in the last 30 seconds. It only briefly showed its 'silly' CGI character.


    TSS trailer had no emotional hook, made the whole thing seem exclusively like an action movie (as opposed to action movie plus love story plus character piece), had risqué material throughout and flamboyantly showed off its 'silly' CGI characters.


    If the Deadpool trailer had been made like TSS one it would have included "Cock shot", "Happy International Women's Day" and Baby legs in the first trailer and shown loads of Colossus. All of which were fun in the movie, but which would have been dumb to use in advertising and would have put general audiences off the same way I claim the lines from TSS put the general audiences off. In isolation what works and is tonal in the film would have seemed childish and "goofy" as well. In the Deadpool trailer - and indeed the actual movie - that style is tampered with a well-established love story, a relatable family tragedy and a strong focus on character.  


    GOTG had the MCU Brand and was PG. It isn't comparable. However I would note that the both GOTG trailers focused primarily on extensively introducing us one by one to all the characters and indicating why we should care about them. Oh and the film itself starts with the main character's mother tragically dying and us seeing the main character's reaction to that.


    The advertising wasn't the single biggest issue with TSS: Covid (although movies in all directions being more successful really does make it difficult to put the RELATIVE failure at the feet of Covid even if the actual total was), the absence of the Joker (who was plastered all over advertising of the first film), the bad first film, the relative indifference towards the IP when the Joker was removed and probably the absence of Will Smith were bigger. But the marketing was horrible and I suspect actively put off the general public and in general the movie didn't make the audience care about it's characters enough outside of those who already wanted to be invested in them: ie the film was more niche than intended. 


  8. 4 minutes ago, Chicago said:


    I mean, he didn't have to kill Luke off the way he did. He didn't have to add that 30 minute casino scene and set up which led to nothing. He didn't have to make us think we were about to get an old school style lightsabre fight only for Luke to be a fucking ghost. We can slate TFA all we want for being a modern copy of the original, but atleast it was somewhat fun


    A year after the release of TLJ, the only people still talking about it were the rare few trying to defend it, everyone else had moved on, leaving the Star wars franchise behind them. Solo absolutely bombed and TROS underwhelmed all things considered. Clearly this all started after the release of TLJ




    No interest in the critique of the film itself particularly. You can critique anything. Although your complaint of the finale being Luke exposing an angry young man by showing him he was just flailing angrily about at nothing is probably the best summary of the philosophies of the original trilogy you can get. This is a story where the OT was resolved by the protagonist refusing to fight.


    We can slate TFA for being a copy of the original creatively sure. Some people loved that and some didn't, and that's all fine. But what's more significant is what that creative choice did for the rest of the trilogy: a binary had been created that couldn't possibly satisfy everyone and was bound to cause a rift. After that first film the trilogy had to either copy the original, which would have satisfied many but been creatively bankrupt and destroyed all casual fandom. Or you could not copy the original, which by the time Abrams had finished with the first meant actively going against some of his threads, which would be the more interesting option but was always going to annoy some. 


    As for Solo. Putting that at TLJ door is severely questionable. It was just a film that nobody asked for and nobody wanted the moment Harrison Ford wasn't going to be involved and it was a prequel. By it's very conceit it was a stakes-less movie.


    Again, Star Wars is alive and well albeit saturated.


    Bearing in mind I'm not contesting the overall sense of disappointment with the ST. What I'm contesting is the weird notion of TLJ as some unique franchise killer given the number of franchises that have, actually, been killed. And especially given the unique debacle that was the strategy surrounding the second and third Matrix films alongside their reception. 



    • Like 1
  9. 16 minutes ago, SchumacherFTW said:

    I won't comment upon TLJ's quality, that's been done ad nauseum for the last 4 years. I will say this though, The Matrix wasn't as established as a mega franchise, it had a beloved first film and poorly received follow up. Star Wars on the other hand was a 40+ year old icon with the release of Last Jedi and Rise of Skywalker. If Last Jedi wasn't poorly received, why does Rise of Skywalker, a film sold as the end of a classic franchise, drop so much over opening weekend? 



    Original Trilogy:

    Film One drops 30% to Film Two. Film Two drops 11% to Film Three.


    Prequel Trilogy:

    Film One drops 34% to Film Two. Film Three RISES


    Sequel Trilogy:

    Film One drops 36% to Film Two. Film Two drops 19% to Film Three.


    In each case the First Film is an unprecedented major cinematic event. 


    In the first two cases the films came out sparingly, with the third film representing what we considered the end of the franchise to the degree they were likely to be the final SW movies ever. With Star Wars (at least when the first film came out) unchallenged as the biggest movie franchise in existence.


    In the case of the sequels, the films came out among 5 Star Wars films in 5 years, with promises of ongoing further Star Wars content. With at least 3 major franchises as competitors for the Star Wars franchise.


    Really don't see the major issue here: the sequel trilogy does the weakest here, but this is clearly explainable by changing contexts, sudden saturation and the lack of a plan. Disappointing? To a degree yeah - the trilogy should have been planned, obviously and this caused growing discontentment. "A franchise killer" - objectively not since Star Wars is still a major brand with a large scale movie and multiple TV series on the way. In a far better state than the Matrix, Predator, Alien, Terminator and even at this stage Harry Potter/Beasts franchises. 

  10. 21 minutes ago, Chicago said:

    Yeah a whole group of us went to watch TLJ and I was the only one who thought it was passable. Time has only made things worse for it and now it's know as the movie that single handidly killed a promising franchise 


    I mean if the GA actually liked TLJ, he would have directed the 3rd. 


    I find this baffling but there we go.


    Nobody in the history of movies has been put in the position Rian Johnson was in that film as far as I'm aware (ie. no creative control over the first or the third movie in a pre-determined trilogy, just having to make a second). Add to that he had to follow a first film that had simply remade the first SW movie....hardly a "promising" setup no matter how successful financially it had been. It was somewhat contentious (again, less so in my experience than TROS) but no more so than was inevitable after Abrams did what he did with the first film. It still blows my mind that to those to whom it is important, Johnson is the villain in the story and not Abrams. And that the trilogy was fundamentally unplanned is a huge mark against its producers and a reason for the diminishing returns, but not something to hold specifically against one of the three films. 


    As you say...the Matrix reception and release strategy was a disaster. Hence a far more tangible tanking of a franchise than anything that's happened with the - still entirely alive and didn't have to take a 20 years hiatus unlike the Matrix - Star Wars franchise. 

  11. 29 minutes ago, SchumacherFTW said:

    Star Wars in the UK is definitely an interesting case for sure. The sequel trilogy obviously had much higher gross potential then it inevitably did as can be shown by the TFA total and TLJ opening. But I really can't remember another situation where the fortunes of a franchise went so wrong so quickly as it did with Last Jedi. I firmly believe that if Last Jedi were received better it likely would have been bigger than Skyfall by a small margin


    I'd pretty fundamentally disagree with this: as stated before the only really toxic word of mouth I ever exerienced was RoS, not TLJ. I just feel TLJ was a return to where the franchise always was in the UK following an anomaly in TFA.


    I always saw the backlash to TLJ as a combination of an American thing and TFA having been such a remake of ANH that a certain degree of dissonance in the turns it took afterwards was inevitable. But that's an old debate not worth addressing here.


    As for a franchise going wrong so quickly, the Matrix trilogy's trajectory was clearly worse: 2 to 3 shed 42% of the box office in a 6 month gap with the second having been one of the most anticipated films in history.  Star Wars Rise of Skywalker lost 19% of the Last Jedi box office with a 2 year gap. That's not even the biggest loss in Star Wars history - Phantom Menace to AOTC was 34%. 

  12. 7 minutes ago, charlie Jatinder said:

    I used to think Potter being #1 before TFA did what it did, but the next two SW films didn't go great, TRoS opening under Frozen II and TLK, so not entirely sure about that.


    But also with peak 3D boost, Potter DH2 was barely able to do 70M. I guess may be Avengers will be #2.


    Though box office could be different than actual popularity, but I guess MCU is growing franchise with kids taking it up. Potter is no longer kids friendly I guess, same for Star Wars, and Bond... well.



    I think TFA had a big curiosity and nostalgia factor. The next two films are probably more representative of the general UK appetite for SW: high but not rabid. Then in addition to already mixed response to TLJ, TRoS had absolutely toxic word of mouth in the UK in my experience.


    Potter had a set audience of enthusiasts, even if it was a large one. Bond gets mums, dads, grans and Joe Public out. Huge amounts of non-cinemagoers turn out for Bond.


    MCU is definitely the biggest in the under 25s. But it was working up from a much lower base. Potter captured Millenials and pretty much the whole of Phase One of the MCU just wasn't a particularly big deal here at all.



    • Like 1
  13. 4 minutes ago, Chicago said:

    I'd say the UK popularity goes 


    1. Bond

    2. Potter

    3. Star Wars 

    4. Avengers



    On opening weekends, Avengers and Star Wars both have 2 bigger openings than any Bond. Potter has one. 


    For overall returns the 2012 and 2015 Bond films do better than anything other than Force Awakens. 


    As a broad premise I'd concur with your list. Though it would heavily depend on generation.


    It's all totally dissonant with me as I have no personal interest in Bond films and haven't watched any in the cinema since The World is Not Enough. I'd say that in terms of overall cultural exposure *most of the time* the other three franchises are more prominent, BUT when Bond's out in cinemas the country sees it as *our* thing and turns out enthusiastically.

    • Like 1
  14. 19 minutes ago, John Marston said:





    35 years ago today this Australian movie opened and somehow dominated in the US. Would be around 400m or more adjusted for inflation



    One of the greatest Box office performances of all time. Possibly even the greatest. 


    Outgrossed Platoon, Aliens, Ferris Bueller, Rambo First Blood p2, Beverly Hills Cop 2, Three Men and A Baby and Lethal Weapon in terms of film released a year either side of it. Would have been the highest grossing film of the year if it had been released in either the following 2 years, as it was it was second to Top Gun. In fact after its release in 1986, the only two films that would outgross it during the rest of the 80s in the US would be Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and Batman. Crazy.

    • Like 1
  15. 9 minutes ago, Valonqar said:

    Why is SC OS lagging behind dom? Don't say China. It must be low somewhere, perhaps in Europe?


    I think I'm right in saying its release has been late in 4 of the bigger East Asian markets: Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia. Certainly it's only just dropped in Indonesia. Those 4 markets are usually good for 40-50m for MCU films.


    Hasn't done particularly well in South Korea. Has done pretty well in HK and Singapore by standards of pandemic (ie. quite a bit better than Widow), but those nations are well below normal still.


    It's doing about the same as Black Widow in North Western Europe: UK, Fra, Ger, Scandi but last time I checked was doing quite a bit worse in Meditteranean Europe. Don't think it's doing as well in Central or East Europe either.


    Finally, the Australian box office is super depressed right now. It has opened, but it's very location-dependent.

  16. Worth noting Paw Patrol has gone over $100m worldwide and is now at around x4 its budget.


    Probably excites not many folks on here, but I know it was 100% on the radar of my parent-of-toddler friends. A reliable brand has been well built up there and the mums, dads and kids showed up very reliably.


    Here in the UK its going to finish close to both Cruella and Croods. Done great in France and Germany too.

    • Like 1
  17. 8 hours ago, RRA said:

    It does feel like Scott Pilgrim 2.0 just in a much smaller scale.


    im curious to see how people react to it post-Malignant 


    Agree to a degree. I think Scott Pilgrim's biggest issue - as with the recent TSS - was that its creators (and its critics) didn't notice how narrow the film's target demo was because everyone involved, plus both online and print critics, nearly all fell in that group as it's the most visible and vocal demo. The marketing got blamed, but I don't think that was fair. The film just had a ceiling.


    That wasn't the same for Baby Driver which had universal appeal.


    Last Night in Soho doesn't have the same roadblock as Scott Pilgrim when it comes to character (ie. If you don't inherently identify with the central character then they just come across as annoying and engaging in toxic behaviour - a scenario ironically similar to Dear Evan Hansen) BUT otherwise I think it has the same main issue of there simply being an inherent ceiling to what the film as marketed can do. Blame modern audiences for being milquetoast, or obsessed with IPs - and that's all true - but it be what it be.


     Bad Times at the El Royale as discussed above is, I think, a good comparison. Good movie. If anything, a more impressive cast, but a less-known director. Overtly stylised. Comes across as a too-cool-for-school-thinkpiece. I love it but I'm not the general audience. Never really stood a chance.


    Would be interesting to be proven wrong, though.

  18. 6 hours ago, Krissykins said:

    Dear Evan Hansen with a 93% verified audience score and an A- CinemaScore yet 32% with critics. Another disconnect. 


    I think more likely an example of a film that has a hardwired, dedicated core audience of people who are already committed to loving the material. The people who like this show find it VERY important to them, and they are likely to be a large proportion of the first day audience, but there is also a very limited number of them. Not sure we can read anything into the wider reception yet.

    • Like 10
  19. Might as well put on a list as a provocation since it might help discussion and I already had a list from a different environment a couple years ago. Just made a few sketchy changes, might come back to it as there are a few things here I've not seen in a while. Any publishing of this sort of thing is opening oneself to critique, nay ridicule, so feel free to taken open season on this or ask any questions. I may come back and change this. I do study horror, albeit mostly live/theatre rather than film, but there's always the balance between importance, objective quality and then just what outright scares you. So if you're wondering at any moment why I include film-x so high - probs because it scared me a lot, unlike film-y which might be of more importance but doesn't have much going beyond scares that have little effect on me.


    PS: I was aware in myself before looking over this that I didn't really rate 80s horror. But I didn't quite realise the pattern was as marked as this.

    PPS: I invite category issue discussions for The Devils, The Skin I Live In, Return to Oz and The Nightingale, all of which I consider horror but would understand their omission. I'm open to including Pan's Labyrinth, Se7en and Predator and they would potentially get onto my list if its mutually decided they count. I'm pretty immovable on not including anything that is overtly action though (ie. Aliens, Monsterverse/Kong)

    PPPS: I make the distinction between horror-comedies and comedies about horror. If the film sits INSIDE the genre as a horror movie with humourous elements in, its in. If it's a specific commentary ON the horror genre at a meta level then AFAIC it essentially has to situate itself outside the genre to do so (Cabin in the Woods, Shaun of the Dead) so it's out.


    Anyway after that totally unnecessary commentary:

    1. Candyman (1992)
    2. Suspiria (1977)
    3. Jaws (1975)
    4. The Devils (1971)
    5. Ravenous (1999)
    6. Alien (1979)
    7. Psycho (1960)
    8. The Thing (1982)
    9. The Innocents (1961)
    10. Freaks (1932)
    11. The Witches (1966)
    12. Rosemary’s Baby (1967)
    13. The Wicker Man (1973)
    14. Les Diaboliques (1955)
    15. The Devil Rides Out (1968)
    16. Peeping Tom (1960)
    17. The Shining (1980)
    18. The VVitch (2015)
    19. Martyrs (2008)
    20. Lemora (1973)
    21. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
    22. The Exorcist (1973)
    23. Session 9 (2001)
    24. Don’t Look Now (1973)
    25. Night of the Hunter (1955)
    26. The Haunting (1963)
    27. Black Christmas (1974)
    28. The Skin I Live In (2011)
    29. Suspiria (2017)
    30. Repulsion (1965)
    31. The Cabinet of Dr Caligari (1920)
    32. Nosferatu (1922)
    33. The Borderlands (2013) (Final Prayer in the US)
    34. Night of the Living Dead (1968)
    35. Halloween (1978)
    36. Midsommar (2019)
    37. Black Sabbath (1963)
    38. The Blair Witch Project (1999)
    39. A L’Intérieur (2007)
    40. Deathwatch (2002)
    41. Jacob's Ladder (1990)
    42. Blood On Satan’s Claw (1971)
    43. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)
    44. Scream (1996)
    45. Near Dark (1987)
    46. Black Swan (2010)
    47. A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
    48. Hereditary (2018)
    49. Witchfinder General (1968)
    50. You’re Next (2011)
    51. Pontypool (2008)
    52. Gothic (1986)
    53. Return to Oz (1985)
    54. Evil Dead II (1987)
    55. Carrie (1976)
    56. The Mothman Prophecies (2002)
    57. The House on Haunted Hill (1959)
    58. The Fly (1986)
    59. What We Do in the Shadows (2014)
    60. Hellraiser (1987)
    61. Twins of Evil (1971)
    62. Tremors (1990)
    63. Event Horizon (1997)
    64. Neon Demon (2016)
    65. I Walked with a Zombie (1943)
    66. Tenebrae (1980)
    67. Possession (1981)
    68. Dog Soldiers (2002)
    69. House of the Devil (2009)
    70. Shadow of the Vampire (2000)
    71. Raw (2016)
    72. Wes Craven’s New Nightmare (1994)
    73. Frailty (2001)
    74. Dust Devil (1992)
    75. In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
    76. Lets Scare Jessica To Death (1971)
    77. Bone Tomahawk (2015)
    78. The Fury (1978)
    79. The Theatre of Blood (1973)
    80. The Hills Have Eyes (1977)
    81. The Orphanage (2007)
    82. The Purge (2013)
    83. Cronos (1993)
    84. Dawn of the Dead (1978)
    85. Evil Dead (2016)
    86. The Devil’s Rejects (2005)
    87. Society (1989)
    88. Videodrome (1983)
    89. Rec (2007)
    90. Audition (1999)
    91. The Bad Seed (1956)
    92. Rabid Dogs (1974)
    93. Brotherhood of the Wolf (2001)
    94. The Nightingale (2018)
    95. The Serpent and the Rainbow (1988)
    96. The Ruins (2008)
    97. Frankenstein Created Woman (1967)
    98. Taste the Blood of Dracula (1970)
    99. The Loved Ones (2009)
    100. Little Shop of Horrors (1986)


    • Like 7
    • Thanks 1
  20. The previous two comments are excellent and I wish I'd written them.


    To slightly address filmlover's point though: I don't think that it's so much film's propensity for naturalism that's the issue, rather how contemporary filmmakers simply don't strategise around the change from that live environment to screen, regardless of how than manifests. And even when they do strategise - such as Rocket Man - the audience only goes with it for as far as they're inherently bought into the material.


    Indeed two recent-ish transitions from Stage to screen that didn't work are History Boys and God of Carnage both of which are themselves fairly naturalistic scripts. In that case it was the verisimilitude of the script that was the problem - both those films are static beyond belief.


    Looking to history there are plenty of examples of films leaning into non-naturalism unashamedly that work perfectly from Animal Crackers to West Side Story and Little Shop. But in a individualised, hyper participatory world it's hard to see how that can be done for a mass audience without appropriating material that's already uber popular such as Disney Remakes or the Mamma Mia/Bohemian Rhapsody gig. The only example that broke all that was Les Mis but then that's an ultra rare case where a) You have a genuinely world-known property and b) Hoodwinking the audience into thinking they're watching something naturalistic was already woven into the stage show.


    I think Cats was actually a great opportunity ironically. It just needed a deliberately self-aware balls to the wall piece of bonkers-ness rather than grabbing the world's most mundane point-a-camera-at-the-literal-thing director. It could have really showcased the versatility and creativity of musical theatre, rather than confirm every stereotype that exists of it.

    • Like 4
  21. 23 minutes ago, CoolioD1 said:

    The transfer of ott praise to "wait what the fuck?" when the wider public discovers it happens with so much broadway shit. theater nerds are just different.


    It's an incredibly strange phenomenon. Especially given how many genuinely good shows there are, versus the ones that become significant and successful. Seems like an arbitrary toss of a coin as to which shows get deemed 'good'.  


    Theatre culture however is very slow moving and operates as an insular bubble because it kind of has to given the size of the demographic matched against how much money the big shows cost. Once the pieces move in on a show the culture kind of feels it has to go all in in order to get the mainstream to then buy in to enough of a degree. As such you get shows that feel/promote something niche/radical/special but are actually incredibly bland and surprisingly generically populist. 


    This dynamic happens with books and other properties too though, it's just the slow pace of the theatre culture enhances the dynamic more. I think even a little aspect of this can be seen recently with The Suicide Squad - what was awesome to one large, but still limited, demographic was just rejected by large segments of the general public who didn't align with it at all. Scott Pilgrim another example.  

    • Like 2
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.