Jump to content
Eric Presley

SHANG-CHI WEEKEND THREAD | NO SPOILERS | 75.38M 3-Day, 94.67M 4-Day. Record for Labor Day! | Tony Leung saved the theater! | Get Vaccinated and Wear a mask.

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, Plain Old Tele said:


With attitudes like Jenkins’, maybe it’s better for the “theatrical movies” to just die. 

But she's right though. Streaming studios at this point are just making films for people to consume and shit out the next day and move on to the next thing. Obvious exceptions like The Irishman, but it's less and less likely we'll get films like that on streaming. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Cmasterclay said:

I just think the theater, while a luxury, is an essential and irreplaceable part of American culture and public life. We are already getting too distant from each other. 


I agree, I wish the studios would make a broader range of movies for more than just teens and teens-at-heart. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a ton of respect for the normal workers and creatives in the industry, and I know those working on movies that go to streaming are working just as hard and just as talented as everyone else. I just think they are not being given the resources or exposure needed to make great products that also get lasting attention.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the Rebecca remake last year looked stunning. Bright, 6 Underground and Army of the Dead looked like theatrical releases as well. Patty Jenkins is being elitist. The streamers are providing opportunity to many new filmmakers and investing in countries where the creative community has always suffered from lack of funding.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

But she's right though. Streaming studios at this point are just making films for people to consume and shit out the next day and move on to the next thing. Obvious exceptions like The Irishman, but it's less and less likely we'll get films like that on streaming. 


I mean, what do you think the studios are  doing? Making content we consume and shit out a day later as well. The difference (broadly) is the studios spend a ton to market specific movies and the streamers are content to market themselves (when they market at all.)
 

I also disagree that it’s less and less likely that we get movies like The Irishman, if anything the streamers are doubling down on giving Name Filmmakers the opportunity to make their prestige projects.  

Edited by Plain Old Tele
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be clear I also think most of the MCU and DCU movies are ugly as sin and look like they were shot in a parking lot, and alot of other franchises have followed suit, so maybe it's something larger in the industry beyond the streaming issue.  I've seen more studio movies I thought "this is ugly" in the past three years than in the entire decade prior.

Edited by Cmasterclay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Cmasterclay said:

Has anyone ever explained why all the streaming movies have such terrible lighting and look the way they do? It's almost uniform across the streamers, but Netflix the worst of course.

I've found few filmmakers today are actually good with using high res digital cameras+sharp lenses. So many movies that just look too glossy and fake today (which I thought inadvertantly worked really well with Stillwater recently). I'm also pretty sure Netflix has a post-production process to make their movies looks similar so that it looks good after the images are compressed for streaming.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Plain Old Tele said:

The streamers use literally the same facilities, production gear and crews that studios do. 

Do more of them use digital than the more prestige/nominated types? Because for what it's worth, the same problem I have with Netflix lighting and look is the same as I have with most of the MCU?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

I've found few filmmakers today are actually good with using high res digital cameras+sharp lenses. So many movies that just look too glossy and fake today (which I thought inadvertantly worked really well with Stillwater recently). I'm also pretty sure Netflix has a post-production process to make their movies looks similar so that it looks good after the images are compressed for streaming.

The glossy sheen is a great description of what I am talking about, with both Netflix and many blockbusters.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Plain Old Tele said:


I mean, what do you think the studios are  doing? Making content we consume and shit out a day later as well. The difference (broadly) is the studios spend a ton to market specific movies and the streamers are content to market themselves (when they market at all.)
 

I also disagree that it’s less and less likely that we get movies like The Irishman, if anything the streamers are doubling down on giving Name Filmmakers the opportunity to make their prestige projects.  

At least most studios don't forget about their past releases and just move onto their next upcoming film in a week like Netflix does (because they don't want people to stop subscribing). It's also due to Netflix's release model. A movie a week is just not a sustainable way to get people to talk about any of your movies.

 

How many "name filmmakers" are making prestige films for Netflix or Amazon (I'm not talking about films that these studios buy, but the ones that are made inhouse)? Even Scorsese's next film is getting a wide release from Paramount before it goes to Apple. Then there's fact that no streaming service has offered money to Coppola and stuff like Netflix fighting with Andrew Dominik because Blonde was too weird. Only big name filmmakers I can think of who have completely made the switch to streaming are probably Fincher, Baumbach, and Soderbergh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Plain Old Tele said:

The streamers use literally the same facilities, production gear and crews that studios do. 

Yep, and you can guarantee that if films like Red Notice had a theatrical release, nobody would bat an eyelid at its alleged “fake” look. I thought it looked fine, put that trailer on after any other film starring Dwayne Johnson or Ryan Reynolds and it wouldn’t look out of place at all.

 

Not saying some Netflix films don’t look cheap, because they do, but Red Notice isn’t one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem I have with most of the streaming movies I have seen is how they seem to be made by an algorithm rather than a director. Every 10 minutes it has to hit some genre trope then instead of letting it play out it then pivots to something else. The pacing seems all wrong. Its obviously designed to keep people engaged in watching it rather than  getting bored and using there phone or switching off.  Lets throw in some random action sequence to keep people watching.

 

I guess its a case of how short many peoples attention span is and how we want instant gratification in our lives these days. Its mostly prestige tv and older movies that I watch these days and the odd new movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Napoleon said:

The streamers are providing opportunity to many new filmmakers and investing in countries where the creative community has always suffered from lack of funding.

How many films from new up and coming filmmakers have streamers made (and no I'm not talking about films streamers snatch up after they get festival buzz like Netflix does with films like The 40 Year Old Version)? How many foreign film industries have broken into the mainstream due to streaming services? I can't think of any. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CoolioD1 said:

Patty's right. (Even if I'd include her own streaming movie from last year in this assessment). 90% of the stuff Netflix puts out looks like a fake trailer you'd see in a real movie. I just saw the red notice trailer. c'mon, that doesn't really exist. you can't convince me.

Has she seen ww84? It's trash that's why no one talks about it. Streaming is the future. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Cmasterclay said:

Do more of them use digital than the more prestige/nominated types? Because for what it's worth, the same problem I have with Netflix lighting and look is the same as I have with most of the MCU?


Almost everyone shoots digitally now (there are exceptions, of course). But the digital/film debate is kind of pointless, I think — you don’t see people saying Roger Deakins movies look like shit and he’s been a digital guy for quite awhile now. You also have people doing sneaky stuff like shooting on 35 with the occasional digital shot and no one knowing the difference.

 

I think in part some studios/companies like a general flat, brightly lit look because it’s going to be easy to see on all platforms and they don’t want pushback from either extreme (this includes some Netflix stuff as well as things like the MCU). You also have people like Michael Bay doing his high-contrast, super-saturated look regardless of whether it fits the content or not. 

 

14 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

How many films from new up and coming filmmakers have streamers made (and no I'm not talking about films streamers snatch up after they get festival buzz like Netflix does with films like The 40 Year Old Version)? How many foreign film industries have broken into the mainstream due to streaming services? I can't think of any. 

 
Obviously quality is all over the place but streamers can and do make a ton of movies with up-and-comers. Honestly it’s either them or dirt-cheap indie stuff on the side, because (again) the studios aren’t in that production model anymore. They’re only making tentpole-y stuff and that does mean someone who’s proven to handle at least a basic production (even the “unknowns” Marvel brings onto their projects have a lot of either TV or indie experience). IMDB isn’t much help here, typically someone’s page only has a fraction of what they’ve worked on. 

Edited by Plain Old Tele
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Plain Old Tele said:


I mean, what do you think the studios are  doing? Making content we consume and shit out a day later as well. The difference (broadly) is the studios spend a ton to market specific movies and the streamers are content to market themselves (when they market at all.)
 

I also disagree that it’s less and less likely that we get movies like The Irishman, if anything the streamers are doubling down on giving Name Filmmakers the opportunity to make their prestige projects.  

This right here. It's so weird to me how there are folks that complain all the time about the current theatrical output, how corporate it is, how ugly it is, how there's no innovation, etc., but then also go on about how streaming services is an affront to humanity and that it's impossible to like movies on your TV and refuse to see movies outside of a cinema trip. Especially when they complain about the lack of director-driven or midbudget fare, but streamers...are giving them exactly what they want. It's biting the hand that feeds them. Netflix going away won't suddenly mean stuff like Power of the Dog will get greenlit by Paramount or whoever.

 

You don't have to like everything Netflix puts out and you're more than free to critique them and Amazon and Hulu for their failure in promoting their content or up and coming filmmakers, but I think people should realize the problem is less on the existence of streaming and more on the issues of the industry as a whole...or even just being one's own problem of just not being into new movies anymore. And that's fine. You're more than free to move away from a hobby if you're not interested in it anymore.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Eric and the Ten Rings said:

...or even just being one's own problem of just not being into new movies anymore. And that's fine. You're more than free to move away from a hobby if you're not interested in it anymore.


This has been brutal for me and I’m not even sure I’m processing what I actually like at this point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Plain Old Tele said:

Obviously quality is all over the place but streamers can and do make a ton of movies with up-and-comers. Honestly it’s either them or dirt-cheap indie stuff on the side, because (again) the studios aren’t in that production model anymore. They’re only making tentpole-y stuff and that does mean someone who’s proven to handle at least a basic production (even the “unknowns” Marvel brings onto their projects have a lot of either TV or indie experience). IMDB isn’t much help here, typically someone’s page only has a fraction of what they’ve worked on. 

The only thing Netflix has offered for newcomers is promise of wide distribution for films they buy after production is complete (and usually after they got some good festival buzz, which are films that another distributor would've bought anyways). But they make it incredibly hard for people to even find those kinds of movies on the service. Again, going back to the 40 Year old Version, did a Netflix release really make it more popular than if a studio like IFC bought it and gave it a limited release? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • 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.