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

[filmlover]

2 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

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. 

Have any of those guys said that they turned to streaming because they were turned down by everyone else, though? Scorsese I know but that's really because The Irishman's budget is huge to the point where even box office numbers similar to The Departed would guarantee nothing but red ink.

[titanic2187]

I am generally agree with Scorsese comment on Marvel's film is a theme park but considering he himself just abandon the cinema with his Irishman , I don't think I should care his comment then. 

 

Cinematic experience is a must to define a film. Traditionalist are not seeking for permanent exclusive showing in cinema, i am just hoping for 2-3 months exclusive cinema run, Beyond that, you can show it at whatever platorm you like. It seem like too much for some.in the industry. 

 

   

[Menor the Destroyer]

3 hours ago, Jake Gittes said:

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: 

 

 

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. 

Well if that was all he had said, I doubt people would have a problem with it. I'd actually agree with him there. But the potshots at Marvel come off as dismissive and condescending towards those who don't share his tastes.

Edited October 14, 2019 by Menor

[JB33]

3 hours ago, Jake Gittes said:

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: 

 

 

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. 

Studios don't care what they make, as long as it makes money. The problem is people aren't filling up cinemas anymore unless it's for a big IP. 

 

Scorsese can complain all he wants, but he wants financing for a film that is most definitely not going to make the studio its money back. He's acting like it's a slam dunk and studios are just being prejudiced. Um no.

[The Futurist]

Martin Scorcese has promoted murderers, rapists, human trafickers his whole career.

 

i am supposed to care about his moral compass about the human condition in movies ?

 

The irony keeps on giving.

 

More than any other fillmmaker in the History of film, he made gangsters heroes of modern times.

Edited October 14, 2019 by The Futurist

[Jake Gittes]

59 minutes ago, JB33 said:

Studios don't care what they make, as long as it makes money. The problem is people aren't filling up cinemas anymore unless it's for a big IP. 

Yeah that's why Dark Phoenix and MIB International were such big hits while Get Out and Crazy Rich Asians and Hustlers and OUATIH didn't fill up any theaters. Right.

 

1 hour ago, JB33 said:

Scorsese can complain all he wants, but he wants financing for a film that is most definitely not going to make the studio its money back. He's acting like it's a slam dunk and studios are just being prejudiced. Um no.

Nowhere in his comments do I see Scorsese acting like The Irishman would have been a slam dunk with studio financing, I don't know where you're pulling that out of. But studios obviously are prejudiced, because they routinely lose money on IP-driven movies and still only keep doing more of them, but very rarely extend that courtesy to movies driven by individual voices. To complain about that is not only right but necessary. What's truly dispiriting is seeing ordinary audience members who ostensibly enjoy good cinema and want to see more of it respond to this by taking the POV of accountants rather than artists. 

[JB33]

7 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

Yeah that's why Dark Phoenix and MIB International were such big hits while Get Out and Crazy Rich Asians and Hustlers and OUATIH didn't fill up any theaters. Right.

 

Nowhere in his comments do I see Scorsese acting like The Irishman would have been a slam dunk with studio financing, I don't know where you're pulling that out of. But studios obviously are prejudiced, because they routinely lose money on IP-driven movies and still only keep doing more of them, but very rarely extend that courtesy to movies driven by individual voices. To complain about that is not only right but necessary. What's truly dispiriting is seeing ordinary audience members who ostensibly enjoy good cinema and want to see more of it respond to this by taking the POV of accountants rather than artists. 

Oh, IP-driven films bomb for sure. I'm not saying they're infallible. I'm saying studios would rather make those when there's at least a chance they'll make their money back.

 

By the way, I, as a member of the audience, am not saying I don't want more original, director-driven films. Of course I do! I'm just speaking from the studios' point of view. Scorsese is complaining about "Where do directors go to get their movie financed?" and I'm saying unfortunately gone are the days where the GA showed up to those movies with enough regularity for them to greenlight all of them unless they can take it to the bank with certain directors (Nolan, Tarantino, probably Inarritu now etc.).

 

I'm basically putting some of the blame on the audience. Hell, you can also put some of the blame on cinemas and ticket prices. There are a lot of factors that go into the film landscape nowadays. Studios don't make these decisions just cuz. They follow the market, and WE set the market.

Edited October 14, 2019 by JB33

[Jake Gittes]

2 minutes ago, JB33 said:

I'm just speaking from the studios' point of view.

But why? What's the point of, or the gain in that? The thing about studios vs audiences is, end of the day, it's the studios that have the power to make and push literally all kinds of movies; we, the audiences, only have the power to give our money to the movies they actually do make and push. Their decisions determine our options, and it's on them if the options become limited. It's not on the audiences if the studios decide to limit their options by just not making a certain kind of movie and then the audiences can't support it because it doesn't exist as a choice anymore. Because audiences have shown time and time again that they're willing to support different kinds of movies. And neither Nolan nor Tarantino were born draws. They became draws because they got opportunities to showcase their artistry, opportunities that are now denied to aspiring and up-and-coming filmmakers on the studio level. 

 

51 minutes ago, JB33 said:

Hell, you can also put some of the blame on cinemas and ticket prices.

Ticket prices are definitely another factor, yes. 

[LaughingEvans]

2 hours ago, The Futurist said:

Martin Scorcese has promoted murderers, rapists, human trafickers his whole career.

 

Or with 2 words, Joe Pesci.

[filmlover]

1 hour ago, Jake Gittes said:

But why? What's the point of, or the gain in that? The thing about studios vs audiences is, end of the day, it's the studios that have the power to make and push literally all kinds of movies; we, the audiences, only have the power to give our money to the movies they actually do make and push. Their decisions determine our options, and it's on them if the options become limited. It's not on the audiences if the studios decide to limit their options by just not making a certain kind of movie and then the audiences can't support it because it doesn't exist as a choice anymore. Because audiences have shown time and time again that they're willing to support different kinds of movies. And neither Nolan nor Tarantino were born draws. They became draws because they got opportunities to showcase their artistry, opportunities that are now denied to aspiring and up-and-coming filmmakers on the studio level. 

But that's the thing though: the major studios do still make those kinds of movies if you look at the slate of releases of any studio besides I suppose Disney. Even Scorsese's going back to Paramount for his next movie (even 10 years ago, when the MCU was in its infancy, any major studio likely would've told him "get lost" re: The Irishman, a crazy expensive 3.5 hour crime drama starring actors long removed from their primes). It's just that sometimes you get a Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood, which connected, and sometimes you get an Ad Astra, which didn't. You just don't which ones will make a splash and which ones won't until they're actually out.

 

I haven't really seen much evidence that non-IP movies from major studios is officially dead yet. More and more big names are doing streaming now because there's no shame to doing streaming anymore, but there's still a pulse (especially when we have a whole bunch of prestige movies from major studios coming out in the next two months). But anyone suggesting that Marvel/Disney is the one responsible for the soft box office returns of the ones that missed and that they would've made that kind of money in a universe where those kinds of films didn't exist...yeah, I clearly can't help you.

[HeadShot]

On 13 October 2019 at 11:34 AM, IronJimbo said:

Before Avatar.. No one will ever beat titanic

To be fair no one expected the huge economic crash in 2008! 

[The Futurist]

The power of imagination has triumphed and it seems problematic for  a lot of people.

 

Do we really need another movie shot in New York or Chicago  ?

 

Nope.

 

Imagination seems to opress a lot of cinephiles these days, they are insecure about what GA likes.

Edited October 15, 2019 by The Futurist

[Captain Craig]

37 minutes ago, HeadShot said:

To be fair no one expected the huge economic crash in 2008! 

Not true. These things are cyclical. Some use the rule of 9 but other factors can prolong a crash or depression a few years. They roughly are or have been 10-12 years apart regardless of politics. 

The 80s was a boom that saw an early 90s crash.

With a respite we then had the "Dot.com" or "Tech" Boom which was shorter and ended after Clinton left office/Bush W started. Bad policy had a Housing Boom but prognosticators warned how the Fannie/Freddie lending policies were headed for trouble but that was ignored---BOOM, 2008 out Bush/in Obama. (I lost my job in that one).

 

We've been without a serious Boom for some time due to the depressed nature for most of the Obama years but here we are 11 years since the 2008 and its very likely a Depression or full on Crash is coming. It's just a matter of trends and history.

 

[The Futurist]

3 minutes ago, Captain Craig said:

Not true. These things are cyclical. Some use the rule of 9 but other factors can prolong a crash or depression a few years. They roughly are or have been 10-12 years apart regardless of politics. 

The 80s was a boom that saw an early 90s crash.

With a respite we then had the "Dot.com" or "Tech" Boom which was shorter and ended after Clinton left office/Bush W started. Bad policy had a Housing Boom but prognosticators warned how the Fannie/Freddie lending policies were headed for trouble but that was ignored---BOOM, 2008 out Bush/in Obama. (I lost my job in that one).

 

We've been without a serious Boom for some time due to the depressed nature for most of the Obama years but here we are 11 years since the 2008 and its very likely a Depression or full on Crash is coming. It's just a matter of trends and history.

 

Except we never left the 2008 crash.

[Captain Craig]

^^^^^

Well Professionals disagree with you. After the 2008 Crash/BUST we had no where to go but up. The rise was depressed for a few years but finally took off the last several. Indicators are GDP for one.

[HeadShot]

19 hours ago, Captain Craig said:

Not true. These things are cyclical. Some use the rule of 9 but other factors can prolong a crash or depression a few years. They roughly are or have been 10-12 years apart regardless of politics. 

The 80s was a boom that saw an early 90s crash.

With a respite we then had the "Dot.com" or "Tech" Boom which was shorter and ended after Clinton left office/Bush W started. Bad policy had a Housing Boom but prognosticators warned how the Fannie/Freddie lending policies were headed for trouble but that was ignored---BOOM, 2008 out Bush/in Obama. (I lost my job in that one).

 

We've been without a serious Boom for some time due to the depressed nature for most of the Obama years but here we are 11 years since the 2008 and its very likely a Depression or full on Crash is coming. It's just a matter of trends and history.

 

Girl it ain't that serious. 

[mikee11]

Don't follow the economy that closely but I had some small savings and a friend told me it's a good idea to buy gold because it's a safe haven in an unpredictable and weak economy,  that was about a year ago and gold was $1200, now it's $1500. So for me it not only worked as a safe haven but made money of it too. And apparently it still has ways to go 

Edited October 16, 2019 by mikee11

[dudalb]

Economist were expecting a recession in 2008, but the size of it took them by surprise.

They were expecting a normal size recession, but no the disaster that happened.

Edited October 16, 2019 by dudalb

[dudalb]

7 hours ago, mikee11 said:

Don't follow the economy that closely but I had some small savings and a friend told me it's a good idea to buy gold because it's a safe haven in an unpredictable and weak economy,  that was about a year ago and gold was $1200, now it's $1500. So for me it not only worked as a safe haven but made money of it too. And apparently it still has ways to go 

But then the Goldbugs always oversell the worth of Gold as an investment. A solid blue chip stock in a company you know is not going anywere is better.

Unless we are in total economic collapse, in which case guns and canned foods are a better investment then Gold.

[dudalb]

On ‎10‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 3:38 PM, Jake Gittes said:

Yeah that's why Dark Phoenix and MIB International were such big hits while Get Out and Crazy Rich Asians and Hustlers and OUATIH didn't fill up any theaters. Right.

 

Nowhere in his comments do I see Scorsese acting like The Irishman would have been a slam dunk with studio financing, I don't know where you're pulling that out of. But studios obviously are prejudiced, because they routinely lose money on IP-driven movies and still only keep doing more of them, but very rarely extend that courtesy to movies driven by individual voices. To complain about that is not only right but necessary. What's truly dispiriting is seeing ordinary audience members who ostensibly enjoy good cinema and want to see more of it respond to this by taking the POV of accountants rather than artists. 

I 1000% agree with you, but, sadly, the vast majority of people posting here would be satisfied with nothing but a diet of CBM's, action films, and other franchise films, with the occasion animated film thrown in.

Real problem is studios will not invest any large amount of money in a film that is not franchise material.