Megalopolis l Francis Ford Coppola's future magnum opus l CINEMA HAS BEEN SAVED

[MightyDargon]

Studio execs are notoriously bad at predicting what is "commercial" and what isn't.

I doubt this will be a super high grosser but it COULD be a valuable asset to the catalogue or A24 or Neon, provided they can get the rights in a reasonable price.

[Firepower]

3 hours ago, Merkel said:

Movies are too quickly deemed masterpieces or failures these days

That's because of social media. And movies don't get reappraisals anymore, at least since 2000s. If some modern movie is completely destroyed on release, it won't be revaluated a decade later, that era is long gone, unfortunately.

Edited March 31 by Firepower

[Porthos]

8 hours ago, Firepower said:

That's because of social media. And movies don't get reappraisals anymore, at least since 2000s. If some modern movie is completely destroyed on release, it won't be revaluated a decade later, that era is long gone, unfortunately.

 

I.... I do not agree with this thesis.  Like, at all.

 

(reappraisal still goes on in both directions, as far as I am concerned)

[cannastop]

12 hours ago, Merkel said:

Didn't Apocalypse Now ĝet a somewhat muted response when it was released?

 

Movies are too quickly deemed masterpieces or failures these days

No? It won the Palme at Cannes.

[Firepower]

48 minutes ago, Porthos said:

I.... I do not agree with this thesis.  Like, at all.

 

(reappraisal still goes on in both directions, as far as I am concerned)

Show me an example of 2000s movie that was destroyed by both critics and audiences, and now has good ratings from both, I'll wait.

[Porthos]

7 minutes ago, Firepower said:

Show me an example of 2000s movie that was destroyed by both critics and audiences, and now has good ratings from both, I'll wait.

 

Speed Racers

 

Done.

 

Also Edge of Tomorrow.

 

Also done.

 

(could throw in Interstellar, but that's more of an edge case of "more appreciated" now than when released)

 

[Porthos]

1 minute ago, Porthos said:

 

Speed Racers

 

Done.

 

Also Edge of Tomorrow.

 

Also done.

 

(could throw in Interstellar, but that's more of an edge case of "more appreciated" now than when released)

 

 

Part of the problem here is... it takes time for things to be re-assessed, positively and negatively.

 

[NB: I AM ***INTENTIONALLY*** staying away from things that have been negatively reassessed as well as Franchise Entries as I don't want to derail the thread]

 

The other part of the problem is the decline of the multichannel bundle and the rise of the streaming package.  With multichannel, it was easier to find things randomly on a cable channel somewhere and just sit and watch it.  With streaming, unless the Almighty Algorithm finds something for you, you have to go searching for Lost Gems.

 

Anyway, if you want a somewhat specious look at things, I will note that the list over at TV Tropes for Vindicated by History isn't exactly short for the 2000's.  I personally disagree with a lot of them (hence my not listing many of them)... but, again:

 

It.

Takes.

Time.

 

To reassess things.  Nearly by definition.  I even feel kinda icky including Edge of Tomorrow  as that was a case of a very rapid "Whooops, our bad".  But I do think it might be the classic case of recent reappraisal.

 

Hell even a certain film from 20*19*, which shall go nameless to stick to my No Franchise Entry rule, has already been reappraised by some — which would seem to run counter to one of your central points about how films will never ever be reappraised thanks to social media.

Edited April 1 by Porthos

[Reddroast]

1 hour ago, Porthos said:

 

I.... I do not agree with this thesis.  Like, at all.

 

(reappraisal still goes on in both directions, as far as I am concerned)

I remember seeing people on social media talking fondly about 2017's power rangers

[AniNate]

I don't know what an objective consensus "reappraisal" would entail but Blood Diamond has an IMDB rating of 8 despite mixed critical reviews and flopping at the box office

[Porthos]

21 minutes ago, AniNate said:

I don't know what an objective consensus "reappraisal" would entail but Blood Diamond has an IMDB rating of 8 despite mixed critical reviews and flopping at the box office

 

I don't think there's any such thing, is another part of the problem.  What there is is just enough people to say "Hey, this film/tv show/whatever" is actually good to reach a level of critical mass where it becomes self-sustaining.

 

Relatedly, where social media comes in is that there really isn't much of a thing as "consensus" anymore.  Or at least, it's not as easily reached.  

 

What can happen is if someone becomes (re)popular later in the career it can give an incentive to check out their earlier work.  To give an example, Keanu Reeves getting popular again recent years led to some reappraisals of some of his lesser known works.  Constantine is one that is cited as something that is looked on more fondly now than when it was released, but personally I'm waiting for the day when people discover the brilliance of A Scanner Darkly.

 

But I suspect that one might just be too far out there for most and thus it will probably be forever a lesser-known entry in his filmography.

 

====

 

All of this is getting pretty massively off topic, so to preclude a frowny face from mods, I'll consider the posts I made above as my stance on the subject and try to stay away from a tennis volley of back and forth on the subject.

Edited April 1 by Porthos

[Jake Gittes]

14 minutes ago, AniNate said:

Blood Diamond has an IMDB rating of 8

 

It always did. It showed up in the top 250 a few times over the years, starting in 2007.

[AniNate]

12 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

 

It always did. It showed up in the top 250 a few times over the years, starting in 2007.

 

Even so, it did flop, so evidently the appreciative audience didn't discover it until past its theatrical release.

 

I do agree with Porthos' larger point that there's no such thing as a real consensus and there's not much of a point to debating this. I do think with high-profile auteur projects like this, "reappraisals" are inevitable however badly they might get critically drubbed just because they're still such an indelible entry in the director's body of work. Even if Megalopolis gets a 0% RT, someone somewhere is gonna be saying it was a "misunderstood masterpiece" in 2034. 

 

 

Edited April 1 by AniNate

[lorddemaxus]

1 hour ago, Porthos said:

 

Speed Racers

 

Done.

 

Also Edge of Tomorrow.

 

Also done.

 

(could throw in Interstellar, but that's more of an edge case of "more appreciated" now than when released)

 

War of the Worlds or Vanilla Sky would be much better examples of Tom Cruise movies that had reappraisals long after they released.

[cannastop]

2 hours ago, Porthos said:

 

I.... I do not agree with this thesis.  Like, at all.

 

(reappraisal still goes on in both directions, as far as I am concerned)

I only get the impression that movies don't get reappraisals because Rotten Tomatoes puts the original reviews in amber. But I guess they still get reappraised.

[emoviefan]

42 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

War of the Worlds or Vanilla Sky would be much better examples of Tom Cruise movies that had reappraisals long after they released.

 

2 hours ago, Porthos said:

 

Speed Racers

 

Done.

 

Also Edge of Tomorrow.

 

Also done.

 

(could throw in Interstellar, but that's more of an edge case of "more appreciated" now than when released)

 

Edge of Tomorrow got strong reviews out of the gate. The marketing just did not click and that's what hurt it. 

[Cmasterclay]

Vertigo was widely considered a Hitchcock trifle that did mediocre numbers upon release and is now the consensus pick for the greatest English language film of all time. Not 2000s obviously but that reputation change didn't really even start to happen until the 1980s - thirty years!

[WittyUsername]

3 hours ago, Porthos said:

 

Speed Racers

 

Done.

 

Also Edge of Tomorrow.

 

Also done.

 

(could throw in Interstellar, but that's more of an edge case of "more appreciated" now than when released)

 

Edge of Tomorrow isn’t really a good example. It was always a well received movie. It just flopped because the marketing wasn’t very good. 

Edited April 1 by WittyUsername

[Bob Train]

Insterstellar and Gladiator have pretty meh critical reviews considering they are now revered as some of the most infuential movies this century.

[Porthos]

26 minutes ago, Bob Train said:

Insterstellar and Gladiator have pretty meh critical reviews considering they are now revered as some of the most infuential movies this century.

 

This is the inherent problem with even looking too deeply at this idea, as just what qualifies as "more/less liked than before" when we have so many more voices now critiquing things.  Like, take Gladiator.  Might have had some "meh" reviews, but it won Best Picture that year!  The acting was similarly acclaimed. Not just eventual Best Actor winner Russell Crowe, but just about the entire damn cast was given glowing reviews from what I remember at the time.

 

But it's also kinda a fuzzy thing.  Just exactly when did It's a Wonderful Life cross over from being a mostly "eh" 1940s film to a perennial classic?  How many times did folks have to see it while growing up before it shifted?  Can anyone actually pinpoint an era, never mind year, when everybody just looked around and said, "Okay, yeah.  That's a classic!"

 

Or take the more modern example of Shawshank Redemption.  Got glowing reviews at the time, and the public more or less ignored it.  How many times, exactly, was it on TNT/TBS before people turned Shawshank into SHAWSHANK!  

 

On the flip side, there have been some Oscar winners which have so fallen out of favor that we look back on them now and wonder "just what were they thinking".  Not gonna name names, as this thread is already getting somewhat derailed, but it's re-examining some of the Oscar winners of the last twenty years that was forefront on my mind when I said things get re-examined positively and negatively.

[Firepower]

5 hours ago, Bob Train said:

Insterstellar and Gladiator have pretty meh critical reviews considering they are now revered as some of the most infuential movies this century.

They still have meh critical reviews, but they both had great audience reviews from the get-go with great box office multipliers, Gladiator also won Best Picture.

 

9 hours ago, Porthos said:

Speed Racers

 

Done.

Ehhh...

6.1 imdb

6.8 letterboxd

It got slightly better, but it doesn't differ that much from its release.

 

9 hours ago, Porthos said:

Also Edge of Tomorrow.

 

Also done.

Are you kidding me, it got great reviews from both critics and audiences since the day it was released, it underperformed financially, but it wasn't destroyed by anyone, quite the opposite.

 

 

So no examples I suppose? Show me 2000s movie that got rotten critics reviews and audience scores in low 6 or high 5 on release, but now have at least 7 average and positive critics score. I can't think of any because they most likely don't exist. The Thing, Scarface, Blade Runner and The Shining type of reappraisals don't exist since late 90s, those were considered rotten movies on release with Razzies nominations, that era is long over.

 

Edited April 1 by Firepower