Jump to content
Plain Old Tele

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

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Walt Disney said:

Whining that you can’t get the big budget that you want for your movie is not a legitimate issue

That's not what his op-ed was about at all

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TMP said:

Yes, everyone who brings up legitimate issues with the state of theatrical distribution today is a fanboy and a hater. Brilliant observation as always Walt Disney!

Walt Disney clearly idolises a for-profit company that views movies as products rather than art so of course he doesn't blame the capitalistic model of today's Hollywood but blames the director who wants the modern day Hollywood system to die and throws words at people who side with that idea.

Edited by lorddemaxus
  • Like 3
  • Not Cool 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

Walt Disney clearly idolises a for-profit company that views movies as products rather than art so of course he doesn't blame the capitalistic model of today's Hollywood but blames the director who wants the modern day Hollywood system to die and throws words at people who side with that idea.

well when it comes to blockbusters. movies are a business product first art second. 

if you're a producer and you have $100M from investors to produce a movie would you go and spend their money on projects that likely won't turn out profitable? 

 

it's more reasonable to take risks on smaller films but when you're talking about 100M-200M mega productions the safer option will always make more sense from a business perspective.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, RealLyre said:

well when it comes to blockbusters. movies are a business product first art second. 

if you're a producer and you have $100M from investors to produce a movie would you go and spend their money on projects that likely won't turn out profitable? 

 

it's more reasonable to take risks on smaller films but when you're talking about 100M-200M mega productions the safer option will always make more sense from a business perspective.

Maybe these kinds of films being seen as risky is a product of the modern day system where big budget blockbusters (most of the time undeservingly so) hog up all the space? It was clear back in the 70s that Hollywood can flourish financially and creatively by letting directors do what they want instead of being controlled by an oligopoly.

 

What we're seeing recently is that making a generic action blockbuster isn't enough to please audiences and is just as much of a risky bet as a 3.5 hr long Martin Scorsese film (the movie probably wouldn't even be so long if it had a proper theatrical release). I really don't see why Paramount could spend money on Gemini Man (a film I actually liked btw) but not The Irishman. I think films like Gemini Man or Tereminator Dark Fate are going to become increasingly risky and we're gonna go back to the New Hollywood System of the 70s once big budget superhero movies also inevitably die.

 

I'm pretty sure if this was 60 years ago, a lot of people here would have said the same thing about Hitchcock when studios didn't want to finance Psycho.

Edited by lorddemaxus
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

@lorddemaxus You are acting all other top studios cares about art.

All Studios are same. Just because Disney is popular doesn't mean othee studios are good. 

 

I would rather watch Toy Story4 and Frozen 2 on loop than watching Doctor Sleep and Richard Jewell. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Madhuvan said:

@lorddemaxus You are acting all other top studios cares about art.

All Studios are same. Just because Disney is popular doesn't mean othee studios are good. 

 

I would rather watch Toy Story4 and Frozen 2 on loop than watching Doctor Sleep and Richard Jewell. 

I also criticise Paramount in my post above. I know none of the studios care about art and they never will and thats why I literally say the entire system should change.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

once big budget superhero movies also inevitably die.

 

That's not happening. Superhero movies have been, generally speaking, box office gold for 4 decades. The stories never age because the content isn't possible in the real world, unlike westerns which the world grew away from. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, VenomXXR said:

 

That's not happening. Superhero movies have been, generally speaking, box office gold for 4 decades. The stories never age because the content isn't possible in the real world, unlike westerns which the world grew away from. 

For the past 4 decades? The only suphero hits in 80s were Batman and Superman 2, in the 90s it was Blade, TMNT, and The Mask. I don't even have a problem with superhero movies, I do have a problem with how they are made and how they are part of the reason Hollywood is the way it is today. The studios are still in charge unless the budget is smaller. As much as I'm excited for Birds of Prey, I know the only reason Margot Robbie and Cathy Yan have as much control over the movie as they do is because of the smaller than usual budget. Its why WB didn't Suicide Squad it eventhough they are supposedly concerned with the movie.

Edited by lorddemaxus
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MrGlass2 said:

People didn't go watch Titanic because of 3D or the name of the director. They went thanks to extraordinary, once-in-a-generation word of mouth - it became a phenomenon, a true Cinematic Event bigger than even James Cameron's ego.

Lol yeah that's kind of a given isn't it?

 

There's no question that most people didn't see Titanic because of his name, that's not the problem. The question that was raised was: which director is the bigger draw between Nolan and Cameron? The most important thing for any director is obviously that they deliver something that people want to see, no one can rely on their name alone. Then when you have the movie, what makes most of the money is the marketing, the WOM and the reviews. Also is it based on a known IP? In what genre is the movie etc. All things that generally matter more than the name of the director.

 

I don't know based on what data you can make the assumption that Nolan has more pull than Cameron. Here's something interesting: The Martian (630.2M) directed by Ridley Scott made just about the same as Interstellar (677.5M) even though Scott's previous movie was a flop (Exodus: Gods and Kings 268.2M). So 2 well made sci-fi space exploration movies grossing about the same thing. Now The Martian was based on a best seller novel, which certainly has helped, but considering that Scott's name isn't a massive draw anymore with how uneven his career has been, I'd say it just about evens it out. Not the best example, but I think it's relevant to point out that both of those movies with a lot similarities, but different directors, made about the same thing.

 

Here's an hypothetical question: take Interstellar (same exact movie, same actors, same trailers etc.)  but instead of advertising it as a Christopher Nolan movie, advertise it as James Cameron's next big thing. Which movie grosses more money wordwide?

Edited by Alexdube
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Alexdube said:

Here's an hypothetical question: take Interstellar (same exact movie, same actors, same trailers etc.)  but instead of advertising it as a Christopher Nolan movie, advertise it as James Cameron's next big thing. Which movie grosses more money wordwide?

Probably neither. James Cameron's name only works when the movie is revolutionary. Terminator, Titanic, and Avatar are all technical revolutions and while Interstellar is extremely well made, its not as innovative as those three movies (except for the black hole sequence). And the reason Titanic and Avatar became such huge hits were their legs, not their opening. I don't see your hypothetical situation giving a much different outcome than what we got because Interstellar didn't get the WoM or legs Titanic and Avatar got.

Edited by lorddemaxus
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

Probably neither. James Cameron's name only works when the movie is revolutionary. Terminator, Titanic, and Avatar are all technical revolutions and while Interstellar is extremely well made, its not as innovative as those three movies (except for the black hole sequence). And the reason Titanic and Avatar became such huge hits were their legs, not their opening. I don't see your hypothetical situation giving a much different outcome than what we got because Interstellar didn't get the WoM or legs Titanic and Avatar got.

So yeah, about even. See I mostly agree with that. It would invalidate the idea that only Nolan can draw a crowd on his name alone, which is what I disagreed with. I think it would be close, no doubt. And you can build a solid case for each one outdoing the other (if only slightly). Nolan has been very consistent and has been much more productive than Cameron these last few years. But Cameron's next movie after 2 worldwide phenomenon would also draw a lot of attention on its own.

Edited by Alexdube
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Jim doesn't need his name to sell his movie.

 

Jim CINEMA sells itself

I misread your comment as: "Jim is CINEMA itself"

 

both statements are true tbh 😏

 

arnold schwarzenegger terminator GIF

Edited by Alexdube
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can’t say I personally have any interest in seeing anymore Avatar films at this point. I used to be interested, but between the constant delays, Disney buying Fox and the fact that CGI worlds aren’t really a novel concept at this point, I just don’t care anymore. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Madhuvan said:

@lorddemaxus You are acting all other top studios cares about art.

All Studios are same. Just because Disney is popular doesn't mean othee studios are good. 

 

I would rather watch Toy Story4 and Frozen 2 on loop than watching Doctor Sleep and Richard Jewell. 

Other studios do care about art, even a little. Its why Nolan can make a 250 million dollar film with WB. Disney would never shed that for nolan or any director if it wasnt for a mcu or star wars movie.

  • Not Cool 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Cameron fans are in for a rude awakening once, or more accurately, if, Avatar 2 gets released.

 

Avatar 2 is not going to break records, the mainstream audience does not care for a sequel of a movie made a decade ago. Nor do they care for Cameron, unless of course he's making stupid comments. Without the box office defence, Cameron stans are done.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, lorddemaxus said:

Probably neither. James Cameron's name only works when the movie is revolutionary. Terminator, Titanic, and Avatar are all technical revolutions and while Interstellar is extremely well made, its not as innovative as those three movies (except for the black hole sequence). And the reason Titanic and Avatar became such huge hits were their legs, not their opening. I don't see your hypothetical situation giving a much different outcome than what we got because Interstellar didn't get the WoM or legs Titanic and Avatar got.

Part of why I'm more pessimistic about Avatar 2 is because I don't see the big technical revolution yet. They are hyping up the underwater capture technology, but will the difference between how Avatar 2 does it versus other movies like Aquaman be obvious to the general audience? Maybe there will be great CG but other franchises certainly have not been slacking in that department.

Edited by stealthyfrog
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, The Chad DC said:

Other studios do care about art, even a little. Its why Nolan can make a 250 million dollar film with WB. Disney would never shed that for nolan or any director if it wasnt for a mcu or star wars movie.

1) it took many many films for wb to let nolan do that, at the same time pixar and walt disney animation says hi , like it or dont , most of disneys/pixar animations , are oginigal movies, they are very well made, they are emotional and with very well made storys, at least most of them , at the same time nolan movies are blockbuster movies really

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely do not agree with the idea that modern Disney films are well made and emotional. Most of their films just sort of blend together at this point. Their animated movies feel more formulaic than ever, their live action remakes are terrible, their Star Wars movies don’t seem to know what the hell they're doing, and their Marvel movies are fine, but most of them aren’t what I’d personally consider to be extraordinary. 

 

Also, them buying 20th Century Fox was possibly the worst thing to have happened to the entertainment industry in the 2010s. And yes, I’m aware that Rupert Murdoch was the one who wanted to sell it. That doesn’t make the merger any less disastrous. 

  • Like 4
  • Not Cool 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • 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.