Fanboy Wars Thread: Personal Attacks not allowed | With Digital Fur Technology

[mikee11]

I was on the money, this is why critics love knives out so much. It's basically critic bait the movie. Waiting for general audience reactions.

 

 

[TMP]

59 minutes ago, SpiderByte said:

He called for theater owners to "take action" against big Marvel films competing with smaller indie films

Way to miss the point of his comments 🤦‍♂️ 

[Jake Gittes]

1 hour ago, mikee11 said:

I was on the money, this is why critics love knives out so much.

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

[Jake Gittes]

1 hour ago, SpiderByte said:

He called for theater owners to "take action" against big Marvel films competing with smaller indie films

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. 

[filmlover]

1 hour ago, SpiderByte said:

He called for theater owners to "take action" against big Marvel films competing with smaller indie films

How the heck did you get to that conclusion from his comments?

[SpiderByte]

42 minutes ago, filmlover said:

How the heck did you get to that conclusion from his comments?

I mean there's not much theater owners could to to "take action" against Marvel being bigger than indie films other than not screening them.

46 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

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. 

There are, on average, 3 Marvel films a year. Combined with DC/Sony/other stuff like Brightburn/Kick-Ass/Incredibles and etc and thats about 6 or 7 superhero films a year. Out of hundreds of releases. Hardly a strangulation.

Edited October 14, 2019 by SpiderByte

[filmlover]

6 minutes ago, SpiderByte said:

I mean there's not much theater owners could to to "take action" against Marvel being bigger than indie films other than not screening them.

He sounds a bit salty but he's not asking for theaters to ban all Marvel movies cause they're a danger to public health or anything. Think he knows as much as anyone else that the millions who were always gonna flock to Endgame would have in no scenario touched The Irishman with a 10 foot poll even if it had gotten a proper theatrical release.

[TMP]

36 minutes ago, filmlover said:

He sounds a bit salty but he's not asking for theaters to ban all Marvel movies cause they're a danger to public health or anything. Think he knows as much as anyone else that the millions who were always gonna flock to Endgame would have in no scenario touched The Irishman with a 10 foot poll even if it had gotten a proper theatrical release.

Considering Goodfellas is a classic, I feel like people are under-estimating how much The Irishman could have done financially with a conventional release

[filmlover]

6 minutes ago, TMP said:

Considering Goodfellas is a classic, I feel like people are under-estimating how much The Irishman could have done financially with a conventional release

Goodfellas adjusts to almost $100M on the dot with nearly 30 years of inflation, numbers that were always gonna assure The Irishman would be a money loser with its budget. It's probably telling that 5 of his 8 most attended movies ever have all starred Leo.

[TMP]

12 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Goodfellas adjusts to almost $100M on the dot with nearly 30 years of inflation, numbers that were always gonna assure The Irishman would be a money loser with its budget. It's probably telling that 5 of his 8 most attended movies ever have all starred Leo.

$100m dom wouldn't be that bad considering the similarly budget Gemini Man from Paramount (Deadline said it cost $158m) will close with like $43m or something. Even then, Goodfellas is a revered film now, and the reviews for Irishman & the fact that it appeals older means it could have done something like $130m+ dom like Argo

Edited October 14, 2019 by TMP

[SpiderByte]

35 minutes ago, TMP said:

Considering Goodfellas is a classic, I feel like people are under-estimating how much The Irishman could have done financially with a conventional release

At 3 and a half hours?

[YM!]

1 hour ago, SpiderByte said:

There are, on average, 3 Marvel films a year. Combined with DC/Sony/other stuff like Brightburn/Kick-Ass/Incredibles and etc and thats about 6 or 7 superhero films a year. Out of hundreds of releases. Hardly a strangulation.

 

 

[TMP]

Just now, SpiderByte said:

At 3 and a half hours?

sure

[Barnack]

12 hours ago, MrGlass2 said:

Hopefully the incredible success of Joker will open Scorsese's eyes. This homage to some of his classics could show him that comic book movies can be art too - that is what happened to the "elitist" jury at Venice.

Not sure if serious (you do realize he was involved on this one and he is obviously not saying anything about comic book adaptation at large)

[Darth Lehnsherr]

I get what Scorsese is saying but what are Marvel supposed to do. Stop releasing more than one film a year?

[The Futurist]

Martin Scorcese is old.

[Jake Gittes]

10 hours ago, Darth Lehnsherr said:

I get what Scorsese is saying but what are Marvel supposed to do. Stop releasing more than one film a year?

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: 

 

Quote

‘Where do young people go to get their films financed now? I have no idea. They are not going to go to a Hollywood studio.’

 

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. 

Edited October 14, 2019 by Jake Gittes

[filmlover]

tbh I'm not surprised more and more big names are turning to streaming and ditching the theaters. I read an interview with Joel Edgerton a few weeks ago when he was promoting The King where he talked about how he wished he had taken the Netflix deal for Boy Erased when the distribution rights for it were on sale over the Focus Features deal he ended up taking because the movie and its message likely would've been absorbed by a lot more people that way than it did as a proper theatrical release (and honestly, he's not wrong). I think we've reached the point where most in the industry don't care how their work gets seen, as long as it gets seen at all.

Edited October 14, 2019 by filmlover

[The Futurist]

36 minutes ago, filmlover said:

tbh I'm not surprised more and more big names are turning to streaming and ditching the theaters. I read an interview with Joel Edgerton a few weeks ago when he was promoting The King where he talked about how he wished he had taken the Netflix deal for Boy Erased when the distribution rights for it were on sale over the Focus Features deal he ended up taking because the movie and its message likely would've been absorbed by a lot more people that way than it did as a proper theatrical release (and honestly, he's not wrong). I think we've reached the point where most in the industry don't care how their work gets seen, as long as it gets seen at all.

Yeah, propaganda works better on Netflix.

[Jake Gittes]

57 minutes ago, filmlover said:

tbh I'm not surprised more and more big names are turning to streaming and ditching the theaters. I read an interview with Joel Edgerton a few weeks ago when he was promoting The King where he talked about how he wished he had taken the Netflix deal for Boy Erased when the distribution rights for it were on sale over the Focus Features deal he ended up taking because the movie and its message likely would've been absorbed by a lot more people that way than it did as a proper theatrical release (and honestly, he's not wrong). I think we've reached the point where most in the industry don't care how their work gets seen, as long as it gets seen at all.

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.