Classic Conversation Thread

[filmlover]

2 minutes ago, cannastop said:

wait they filmed in Louisiana? huh

Tax reasons, I assume. That new Kirsten Dunst Showtime series premiering in a few weeks that takes place in early 90s Florida was also shot in Louisiana.

[Porthos]

2 hours ago, EarlyDeadlinePredictions said:

Got a free trail of Amazon Prime so I could binge watch The Boys. Still got 25 days left. What other good shows are worth binging on it?

Good Omens. Six episode self-contained adaptation of a very good (and funny) book.  Might be the best thing David Tennant has been in in ages.

 

It's especially good if you like off-beat British Humor.

[Barnack]

1 hour ago, Alli said:

how did Annapurna spend 350M since 2017? they produced low budget movies, not blockbusters.

They also made tv series, published video game and started a movie distribution branch.

 

A bit like when Weinstein tried to expand out of the movie business, expending fast out of your specialized lane (they were good at movie co-producing) very often fail.

[lorddemaxus]

14 minutes ago, Porthos said:

 

It's especially good if you like off-beat British Humor.

If we are talking off-beat British humour then Fleabag would be the best choice.

Edited August 8, 2019 by lorddemaxus

[Eric the Fall Guy]

2 hours ago, EarlyDeadlinePredictions said:

Got a free trail of Amazon Prime so I could binge watch The Boys. Still got 25 days left. What other good shows are worth binging on it?

Hate to pile another one on there, but Marvelous Mrs. Maisel is absolutely delightful, and I've already binged the first two seasons twice.

[cannastop]

16 minutes ago, Barnack said:

published video game

lol. Which one?

[Barnack]

1 minute ago, cannastop said:

lol. Which one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annapurna_Interactive

Year	Title	Platform(s)
2017	What Remains of Edith Finch	Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 4, Xbox One, Nintendo Switch
	Flower[8]	Microsoft Windows, iOS
	Gorogoa	Microsoft Windows, OS X, iOS, Android, Nintendo Switch, PlayStation 4, Xbox One
2018	Florence[9]	iOS, Android
	Donut County[10]	Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 4, OS X, iOS, Xbox One, Nintendo Switch
	Gone Home[11]	Nintendo Switch, iOS
	Ashen	Microsoft Windows, Xbox One
2019	Sayonara Wild Hearts[12]	Nintendo Switch, OS X, iOS, tvOS
	The Pathless	Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 4, OS X, iOS, tvOS
	Kentucky Route Zero: TV Edition	PlayStation 4, Xbox One, Nintendo Switch
	Wattam	Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 4
	Outer Wilds[13]	Microsoft Windows, Xbox One
	Journey	Microsoft Windows, iOS
	Telling Lies	Microsoft Windows, macOS

 

 

https://www.metacritic.com/company/annapurna-interactive

 

[DAR]

3 hours ago, EarlyDeadlinePredictions said:

Got a free trail of Amazon Prime so I could binge watch The Boys. Still got 25 days left. What other good shows are worth binging on it?

Marvelous Mrs. Maisel

[DAR]

1 hour ago, filmlover said:

Considering it got nominated for so many Oscars and even won one, I'd say it did work out?  Does feel like that's gonna go down as one of the more classic examples of "fake it until you make it" Best Picture nominees though (and that's saying something considering most of this past ceremony's winners/nominees seem to destined to age...not well).

I just watched Vice not too long ago.   Bale was great but the rest of the movie was kind of big shrug,

[filmlover]

2 minutes ago, DAR said:

I just watched Vice not too long ago.   Bale was great but the rest of the movie was kind of big shrug,

Rockwell's nomination was such a waste. I get the alternative was Chalamet in that no1curr movie, but that feels like the laziest "keep up the good work" afterglow nomination in a long time.

[aabattery]

3 hours ago, EarlyDeadlinePredictions said:

Got a free trail of Amazon Prime so I could binge watch The Boys. Still got 25 days left. What other good shows are worth binging on it?

 

Dunno if Fleabag is a Prime thing in America but it is here and it's great.

[Plain Old Tele]

2 hours ago, Barnack said:

In a limited resource and man hours worked world, it is normal to care with how the powerful entity that have the ability to influence how they are used (states, companies, rich individual), it is one thing to spend 200 M buying a painting (almost no work/resource was spent) than making movie, throwing cars in space or constructing and moving around giant yacht/private plane, this is because of the perceived opportunity cost of a different spending that would created more happiness in the world.

 

Sure, but then again I'd rather have the billionaire spend money on a project that employs hundreds (if not thousands) of people and creates something to entertainment everyone (in theory), rather than a single piece of art that would be placed in a private residence.

[Barnack]

Just now, Plain Old Tele said:

 

Sure, but then again I'd rather have the billionaire spend money on a project that employs hundreds (if not thousands) of people and creates something to entertainment everyone (in theory), rather than a single piece of art that would be placed in a private residence.

 

For the single piece of art the money was not really "spent" it only changed hands, it is yet to be known what incentive will be created with that money eventually. There is nothing loss if a rich guy account on a computer get a -100m and a +100m on a different rich guy appear, not the same is said for a movie production.

 

At the end the only thing that was created is the movie like you said thousand of people spent time on it instead of something else,, that the very issue with mis-allocating fund and the impact it has on society level of wealth, is getting a lot of people diverted doing that jobs instead of something useful. Using that much society resource should come with a responsibility, that the output is a bit worth it.

 

Overall a movie isn't a bad incentive to create for a billionaire at all imo, I am really not of the type spending hundreds of millions on a movie marketing instead of changing the life of 1 million family in Africa with that money type, entertainment is important and what the point of being rich if not to watch movies from time to time and stuff like that.

 

That said, movies need to touch enough people to be worth it (and obviously touching a lot 1 million people can be more worth it than just a meh ok time for 50 millions people).

[CoolioD1]

1 hour ago, CoolEric258 said:

Hate to pile another one on there, but Marvelous Mrs. Maisel is absolutely delightful, and I've already binged the first two seasons twice.

i liked the first season a lot but the second season was kinda rough. i could see the early symptoms of a drop off in the S1 finale and then the second season was everything i was worried it would be.

 

anyway I didn't know Fleabag was an amazon thing in the US it's not here. since that's the case it's def the best Amazon show, Homecoming second.

[Plain Old Tele]

6 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

For the single piece of art the money was not really "spent" it only changed hands, it is yet to be known what incentive will be created with that money eventually. There is nothing loss if a rich guy account on a computer get a -100m and a +100m on a different rich guy appear, not the same is said for a movie production.

 

At the end the only thing that was created is the movie like you said thousand of people spent time on it instead of something else,, that the very issue with mis-allocating fund and the impact it has on society level of wealth, is getting a lot of people diverted doing that jobs instead of something useful. Using that much society resource should come with a responsibility, that the output is a bit worth it.

 

Overall a movie isn't a bad incentive to create for a billionaire at all imo, I am really not of the type spending hundreds of millions on a movie marketing instead of changing the life of 1 million family in Africa with that money type, entertainment is important and what the point of being rich if not to watch movies from time to time and stuff like that.

 

That said, movies need to touch enough people to be worth it (and obviously touching a lot 1 million people can be more worth it than just a meh ok time for 50 millions people).

 

How do we define "something useful"? The entertainment may or may not be trivial fluff, but the jobs created and industries supported are as real as anything else. The same is true of movie marketing -- of course I agree that using that money to lift large amount of poverty would be better from a humanitarian and/or global perspective, but it's not like these are the two options the studios have. (And let's face it, they're not gonna spend it on humanitarian aid.)

 

Going back to Megan Ellison: if she chose to apply a significant chunk of her fortune to non-profits, aid, and help for the needy, I would applaud her to the heavens. She doesn't... but she's hardly the worst of the the super-wealthy.

[Porthos]

28 minutes ago, Plain Old Tele said:

 

How do we define "something useful"? The entertainment may or may not be trivial fluff, but the jobs created and industries supported are as real as anything else. The same is true of movie marketing -- of course I agree that using that money to lift large amount of poverty would be better from a humanitarian and/or global perspective, but it's not like these are the two options the studios have. (And let's face it, they're not gonna spend it on humanitarian aid.)

This is like the old saw about the "usefulness" of the space program.  Never mind all of the money spent locally by folks employed by space industries, there are very real secondary and tertiary benefits from things developed because the space industry existed in the first place. 

 

Getting back to entertainment, that's setting aside the very real point about feeding the human soul as well as providing for food, clothing, and shelter.

Edited August 8, 2019 by Porthos

[Barnack]

52 minutes ago, Plain Old Tele said:

 

How do we define "something useful"? The entertainment may or may not be trivial fluff, but the jobs created and industries supported are as real as anything else. The same is true of movie marketing -- of course I agree that using that money to lift large amount of poverty would be better from a humanitarian and/or global perspective, but it's not like these are the two options the studios have. (And let's face it, they're not gonna spend it on humanitarian aid.)

 

Going back to Megan Ellison: if she chose to apply a significant chunk of her fortune to non-profits, aid, and help for the needy, I would applaud her to the heavens. She doesn't... but she's hardly the worst of the the super-wealthy.

 

That is really hard to calculate, but it is some form of quality of life change * number of people affected.

 

Those jobs created and supported in that level are possible only if people pay for tickets, you are just transferring moviegoers money into a different pocket at a macro level I am not sure jobs is an important metric, the output of the said jobs is what matter. Imagine you only give the money to the people with those jobs instead of making them make an unseen movie, much more efficient, they have much more money in their pocket and nothing is loss.

 

I think sometime people get caught in the illusion of money, a simple trade tool, what matter is the good&service created and added to society, not if people are paid and how much, it is not a bad illusion because it tend to have a good correlation between the 2, but just as long at it is the case, if a very rich person would start paying everyone a fortune to do movies at the end of the year we all die and we would be much much poorer (the only good & service that would exist would be movies we cannot watch).

 

It is not the 2 option studios have, it is certainly options rich people have and yes they will often spend it on humanitarian aid.

Edited August 8, 2019 by Barnack

[Plain Old Tele]

12 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Those jobs created and supported in that level are possible only if people pay for tickets, you are just transferring movie goes money into a different pocket at a macro level I am not sure jobs is an important metric, the output of the said jobs is what matter. Imagine you only give the money to the people with those jobs instead of making them make an unseen movie, much more efficient, they have much more money in their pocket and nothing is loss.

 

I feel like we're drifting far afield of whether or not it's good if Annapurna seeks bankruptcy or gets bailed out by Larry Ellison.  

Edited August 8, 2019 by Plain Old Tele

[Lordmandeep]

23 minutes ago, Porthos said:

This is like the old saw about the "usefulness" of the space program.  Never mind all of the money spent locally by folks employed by space industries, there are very real secondary and tertiary benefits from things developed because the space industry existed in the first place. 

 

Getting back to entertainment, that's setting aside the very real point about feeding the human soul as well as providing for food, clothing, and shelter.

but the issue is if you open up a studio with unlimited money as the foundation..

 

That is not a business, that is some sort of art patronage program.

 

So frankly, I am confused why its even in bankruptcy? Cant they just throw more money at it lol

[cannastop]