DUNKIRK WEEKEND THREAD | ABSOLUTELY NO SPOILERS | Official estimates Dunkirk 50.5M, GT 30.3M, SMH 22M, Apes 20.4M, Val 17M | Wonder Woman is the new summer champ with 389M total | Summer Sale is Live!

[Water Bottle]

1 minute ago, That EddieKaspbrak Guy said:

 

I guess we should all stop criticizing Transformers movies.  they're only made for the fans of that series after all.

 

Fans aren't a real target audience. 

[Ethan Hunt]

Just now, Water Bottle said:

 

Fans aren't a real target audience. 

And the people that made DM3 didn't want any adults to come see the movie

[That One Girl]

Just now, Water Bottle said:

 

Fans aren't a real target audience. 

 

If Sully was a terrible movie, then would we not be allowed to criticize it because it was made for geriatric men and most of us here are not geriatric men?

 

except for tele

[Water Bottle]

Just now, That EddieKaspbrak Guy said:

 

If Sully was a terrible movie, then would we not be allowed to criticize it because it was made for geriatric men and most of us here are not geriatric men?

 

except for tele

 

I said you were allowed to like and dislike a movie. You are missing the point entirely. The target audience determines whether the movie is good or not. I liked Cars 3 but it's pretty clear most kids didn't. That makes it a bad movie to show kids and thus a bad kids movie. But I still liked it.

[RobinHood26]

Back to the netflix thing for a sec.

 

Considering Ive never been to a persons house thats not in film or loves movies that has there fucking motion blur turned off and the shittiest tv settings. Id say I have to agree with Nolan 

Edited July 24, 2017 by Jay Hollywood

[YM!]

However while not all animated movies has to be Inside Out, it can at least try to be good. 

[Dementeleus]

2 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

I think the reflexion surrounding Nolan comments need to be in Netflix particularity and what they are doing that Amazon is not.

 

I think is view is that Netflix could not only do everything they are currently doing but giving the movie a 45-60 days theatrical exclusivity windows...

 

Part of the problem is that his fans immediately echo a generic "fuck Netflix!" attitude, without the context he's saying. But while I completely support and cherish the theatrical experience, I think without question some film have found an audience on streaming that they never would've found otherwise (because they wouldn't have been purchased). And while perhaps some movies warrant a theatrical push and campaign, there's a business model that can successful with streaming only, but would fail otherwise. 

 

As a random (made-up) example: if Amazon buys 10 movies and gives them limited theatrical runs, and Netflix buys 50 movies and doesn't, is there a true "right" or "wrong" method here? I suspect if you were a fan (or the filmmaker) for one of the 50 you'd probably be happy. 

 

It just seems a tad churlish to scorn a model that literally can provide the only outlet for some new filmmaking voices, especially when you happen to be a position where you're at the absolute top of the film pyramid. 

[MrFanaticGuy34]

13 minutes ago, FantasticBeasts said:

Will this forum ever stop complaining about Illumination's success??

Every time someone posts something about Illumination's achievements, a shitliad of complaints follows.

Just get a life guys.

Kids like them and they are successful. End of the story.

Yeah.

 

I think the unfair bashing of a few Illumination-animated films gets out of control.

 

Keep in mind, several of the films from Illumination, have garnered huge box office successes.

 

Is this animation-fight becoming a bit similar to the "Dreamworks vs Disney/Pixar"-thing back in the 2000's? I mean, Dreamworks had their fare share of successes as well.

Edited July 24, 2017 by MrFanaticGuy34

[baumer]

13 minutes ago, RichWS said:

Girls Trip is gonna break 150.

 

I really doubt it. A 5x is unheard of for most films aimed at a mostly black audience. In fact a five multiplier for any film is basically unheard of.

[Water Bottle]

1 minute ago, YourMother said:

However while not all animated movies has to be Inside Out, it can at least try to be good. 

 

DM3 tried to be good. Saying otherwise is just silly. 

[Ethan Hunt]

Anyways I've gotten distracted.

 

The Big Sick is a phenomenal movie 

 

Am I allowed to say that? I'm not sure Michael Showalter had me in mind when he made it. I'll have to call him up and verify that I'm allowed to have an opinion on it

[WrathOfHan]

2 minutes ago, MrFanaticGuy34 said:

Yeah.

 

I think the unfair bashing of a few Illumination-animated films gets out of control.

 

Keep in mind, several of the films from Illumination, have garnered huge box office successes.

 

Is this animation-fight becoming a bit similar to the "Dreamworks vs Disney/Pixar"-thing back in the 2000's? Where Dreamworks had their fare share of successes as well.

Because box office is ALWAYS representative of a film's quality. ALWAYS

[grim22]

1 minute ago, Water Bottle said:

 

DM3 tried to be good. Saying otherwise is just silly. 

 

But it's Illumination so it's the devil and doesn't deserve good legs.

[Water Bottle]

2 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

Anyways I've gotten distracted.

 

The Big Sick is a phenomenal movie 

 

Am I allowed to say that? I'm not sure Michael Showalter had me in mind when he made it. I'll have to call him up and verify that I'm allowed to have an opinion on it

 

Once again your allowed to say if you liked it or not.

 

Man white teenage boys really can't take that their opinion isn't supreme.

[grim22]

Just now, WrathOfHan said:

Because box office is ALWAYS representative of a film's quality. ALWAYS

 

On a box office forum, of course we will discuss box office. Who said anything about quality? Kids liked DM3, it got legs, they hated Cars 3, it disappeared. 

 

Sometimes, quality and box office collide like with Wonder Woman, sometimes movies considered to be quality flop fully like Covfefe and ICAN.

[Ethan Hunt]

1 minute ago, WrathOfHan said:

Because box office is ALWAYS representative of a film's quality. ALWAYS

God Schindler's List is just obviously not as good as Suicide Squad

[aabattery]

1 minute ago, Water Bottle said:

 

Once again your allowed to say if you liked it or not.

 

Man white teenage boys really can't take that their opinion isn't supreme.

 

Especially since they should know that my opinion is the top dog. No respect these days.

[grim22]

 

1 minute ago, Water Bottle said:

 

Once again your allowed to say if you liked it or not.

 

Man white teenage boys really can't take that their opinion isn't supreme.

Seriously, anyone can like or hate a movie. But the point being made is that no one's ideal of a good movie is supreme. 

 

Han and Ethan really went off the far end with DM3 crossing a 3x didn't they?

[YM!]

8 minutes ago, MrFanaticGuy34 said:

Yeah.

 

I think the unfair bashing of a few Illumination-animated films gets out of control.

 

Keep in mind, several of the films from Illumination, have garnered huge box office successes.

 

Is this animation-fight becoming a bit similar to the "Dreamworks vs Disney/Pixar"-thing back in the 2000's? Where Dreamworks had their fare share of successes as well.

I just want good animated movies. By no means do I hate Illumination (they help give $50-$75 every time they release a movie and keep the genre alive) and their success if very impressive, but they've only had two good films. All of WAG's three films have been good to fantastic, and they started in 2014. Numerous animation studios have had at least 3 decent films (Blue Sky, Disney, Pixar, Laika, Dreamworks (which even started off with 3 great films), even SPA and Nickelodeon have made better movies.) I'd be giving any animated studio the same treatment if they did something like that. Not every animated film has to be a classic but it should at least be good.

Edited July 24, 2017 by YourMother

[Barnack]

8 minutes ago, Emperor Tele-Limai said:

And while perhaps some movies warrant a theatrical push and campaign, there's a business model that can successful with streaming only, but would fail otherwise. 

 

As a random (made-up) example: if Amazon buys 10 movies and gives them limited theatrical runs, and Netflix buys 50 movies and doesn't, is there a true "right" or "wrong" method here? I suspect if you were a fan (or the filmmaker) for one of the 50 you'd probably be happy. 

 

It just seems a tad churlish to scorn a model that literally can provide the only outlet for some new filmmaking voices, especially when you happen to be a position where you're at the absolute top of the film pyramid. 

Maybe one day but right now it does not seem to be a sustainable model (and if I<m not wrong every try in the past did fail, like in Italy that destroyed their industry went they started to do quick tv release of their movies).

 

The one maybe possible model would be removing all marketing cost and being on people netflix startup page being enough, but under that model every 100k movies already made become a bit the equivalent of new movies and remove a lot of the value of being new, it is built a bit on a scam that take advantage of the human nature (we prefer it when it is new, to the point to wait in line for a movie the OW instead of seeing for less without any disagreement tuesday in 2/3 weeks).

 

Remove that and it will be hard to make people pays nearly as much what they pay now for movies, netflix at that price cannot work if they do the movies with watch at that scale they are now. A much higher price netflix with people paying (even if the product will be extremelly close to the piracy version) is the other possible option.

 

Theatrical is mostly (often only) a publicity for home video, it cost much more than the ticket rental for small movie. So it is obvious why netflix would want to create a model that skip it, but we have yet to see a movie that has any value when released direct to video (there is a reason they still use that publicity/hype/value creation machine that is theatrical)

Edited July 24, 2017 by Barnack