Jump to content
Eric Madrigal

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

11 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

The only thing Netflix has offered for newcomers is promise of wide distribution for films they buy after production is complete…


What they offer newcomers is that they’re literally an entity willing to produce or pay for production costs so they can get their movie made. That’s absolutely huge — and on the smaller scale of things, studios have gotten out of this game entirely. 
 

It’s insanely hard to get a movie made, on any level, and moreso today than it’s ever been (unless you want to make a movie for 10-20k and not pay anyone). There used to be tons of smaller companies that would finance these kinds of movies but those days are long gone. The ability to actually have a company willing to put up production money OR pay for production expenses after a film is finished…. that’s invaluable and an incredible resource if you’re able to make those connections, and I think most movie fans don’t even think about — because geek sites and film sites just focus on big-budget and/or Oscar stuff. 

Edited by Plain Old Tele
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, tell but streaming seems to be following the TV  model with easily digestable shows that people will forget a hour after they have been broadcast.but will tune in again next week.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Eric and the Ten Rings said:

. 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.

Power of the Dog is literally the only film like that Netflix made this year though? I guess Del Toro's animated Pinocchio wouldnt have been made with a traditional studio either. Universal/Focus has made more director driven mid-budget studio fares this year at this point.

 

Traditional studios are doing a shit job with these kinds of films too, but I don't think streamers are making things better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, lorddemaxus said:

Power of the Dog is literally the only film like that Netflix made this year though? I guess Del Toro's animated Pinocchio wouldnt have been made with a traditional studio either. Universal/Focus has made more director driven mid-budget studio fares this year at this point.

 

Traditional studios are doing a shit job with these kinds of films too, but I don't think streamers are making things better.

Streamer are just becoming like the TV networks, except they can get away with four letter words.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Plain Old Tele said:


TV series and movies are two very different animals. The current idea from the major studios seems to be “tentpoles for theaters, spin-off series for streaming” — which doesn’t really do anything except exacerbate the situation. When the studios start making and theatrically exhibiting lots of non-tentpoles, maybe we can revisit, but at this point that seems like the far-distant past. 
 

Meanwhile, the streamers are at least embracing the concept of making/buying/distributing a range and variety of movies… it’s unfortunate that they aren’t pushing for more theatrical exhibition (though there seem to be hints that might change, in part).

 

But I don’t see anything coming out this year (or the next, or beyond) that suggests the studios have any intent of making anything other than home-run swings (aside from perhaps kiddie content, though even that is heavily franchised at this point and almost exclusively animation now). 

 

Aren't the studios just responding to public demand and modern distribution methods?

 

We no longer live in a time where Goodfellas would make double it's budget in theaters then a ton from dvd sales. People are mostly willing to go see franchise films and watch everything else on streaming which makes the adult market highly saturated. So it's nearly impossible to release a Martin Scorsese film that is mainstream and popular.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Plain Old Tele said:


What they offer newcomers is that they’re literally an entity willing to produce or pay for production costs so they can get their movie made. That’s absolutely huge — and on the smaller scale of things, studios have gotten out of this game entirely. 

As I keep saying, most of the films from newcomers (like the example I gave before) are made before streamers buy them. Many of them premiere at film fests first and then bought. Streamers rarely actually finance those kinds of films.

 

The only good thing is that newcomers make more money now than they used from festival sales. But if you're a filmmaker who cares more about visibility than money then streaming isn't making a difference there. It's why the director of The Farewell said no to streaming.

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

As I keep saying, most of the films from newcomers (like the example I gave before) are made before streamers buy them. Many of them premiere at film fests. Streamers rarely actually finance those kinds of films.

 

3 minutes ago, grey ghost said:

 

Aren't the studios just responding to public demand and modern distribution methods?

 

We no longer live in a time where Goodfellas would make double it's budget in theaters then a ton from dvd sales. People are mostly willing to go see franchise films and watch everything else on streaming which makes the adult market highly saturated. So it's nearly impossible to release a Martin Scorsese film that is mainstream and popular.


Yes, because studios have spent the last 20+ years teaching audiences that’s the appropriate way to each those various films. 

 

3 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

As I keep saying, most of the films from newcomers (like the example I gave before) are made before streamers buy them. Many of them premiere at film fests first and then bought. Streamers rarely actually finance those kinds of films.

 

The only good thing is that newcomers make more money now than they used from festival sales. But if you're a filmmaker who cares more about visibility than money then streaming isn't making a difference there. It's why the director of The Farewell said no to streaming.

 

This is because you’re only following news from movie/geek sites which tend to only report on the “big” and “important” films that make it to major festivals. The people who have the opportunity to make that choice have already made it past so many hurdles, we’re basically talking about entirely different things. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Plain Old Tele said:


What they offer newcomers is that they’re literally an entity willing to produce or pay for production costs so they can get their movie made. That’s absolutely huge — and on the smaller scale of things, studios have gotten out of this game entirely. 
 

It’s insanely hard to get a movie made, on any level, and moreso today than it’s ever been (unless you want to make a movie for 10-20k and not pay anyone). There used to be tons of smaller companies that would finance these kinds of movies but those days are long gone. The ability to actually have a company willing to put up production money OR pay for production expenses after a film is finished…. that’s invaluable and an incredible resource if you’re able to make those connections, and I think most movie fans don’t even think about — because geek sites and film sites just focus on big-budget and/or Oscar stuff. 

 

So, what you're saying is...we need to flip the production model for smaller movies and have folks do a regional or national "CSA-type subscription" for these movies...

 

Filmmakers need to bond together and offer their services for 4-12 movies per year (quarterly or monthly) for folks to pay a fee to support their production and to then get the end product in distribution 1st (either through theatrical showings, streaming downloads, etc)...and like a CSA, you get what you get - if movie production has unexpected costs/hiccups, you might not get it in time...if it's cheaper/faster, maybe you get bonuses:)...

 

Sorta different from the individual Kickstarted movies done for fans (the Veronica Mars one being the most famous, I think), since you do the CSA and let the filmmakers decide on genre/type (although ratings would have to be announced prebuy, since those would matter)...

 

This is me brainstorming, just like I was on making a streaming movie matter...this could be dumb, but you throw a lot of stuff out, and sometimes you find the diamonds:)...

Edited by TwoMisfits
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Patty Jenkins statement is ridiculous. I defend theaters as a better environment for an industry, and i agreed it's the best experience and need to be protected, but her thoughts are way worse than that.

 

There are good movies being released in streaming platforms and anyone who thinks these aren't real movies is stupid just like Patty speech. Good movies are good movies in any screen you watch, most of projects became classis because they manage to keep being watched and discussed, and not in theaters.

 

There are trash movies being released, just like trash movies came out on theaters too. Projects based on formulas or algorithym always existed and this doesn't proof anything. 

 

And of course there is an economic discussion inherent to this discussion, streaming platforms make movies way more easy to access than theaters and that's a fact, so that's a pro which can't be ignored. The industry needs to find a way to make access to movies easier years ago, and now it's more possible. 

 

Also, despite i agreed that streaming doesn't necessarily bring the spotlight to newer talents, there are data of more people working, which is always good. Different movies are becoming more common too, they have a problem to fix which is market this smaller and international movies, but the option is there. I watched many international movies on streaming that otherwise i would have to find a way to download them and find subtitles, this is a joy that theaters struggle to make possible, even if it's still not perfect, at least on streaming is becoming a reality.

 

The discussion around low and mid-budget movies and how they will survive in a time that most people and studios only care about blockbusters is worrying and necessary, but the answer surely isn't make streaming look like the devil.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Big giant blockbuster featuring Asians for the biggest franchise in the world coming out and Patty Jenkins gotta storm right in and make Tele do that Tele thing. :apocalypse:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 3
  • ...wtf 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MrPink said:

Big giant blockbuster featuring Asians for the biggest franchise in the world coming out and Patty Jenkins gotta storm right in and make Tele do that Tele thing. :apocalypse:


I’ll shut up for the rest of the weekend. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Plain Old Tele said:

This is because you’re only following news from movie/geek sites which tend to only report on the “big” and “important” films that make it to major festivals. The people who have the opportunity to make that choice have already made it past so many hurdles, we’re basically talking about entirely different things. 

In what world is a film like the specific example I gave before a big and important film? No one knew about it until after it released at Sundance (not before). A lot of films, especially foreign ones, that make it even to the big film fests are rarely reported about too. 

 

And do tell me about these filmmakers that no one knows about until only after Netflix finances a film for them because I can't think of any. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this is not the topic I expected for this weekend.

 

A bit bitter-sweet that this will be the first MCU film since GOTG that I will not see on OW and one as special as Shang Chi being the first Asian centric film. 

  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

She's both right and wrong. Streamers release great movies from time to time (Okja, You Were Never Really Here, Roma, The King, Mank, Pieces of a Woman IMO). 

 

That being said, she's right about the legacy. Where's the legacy? The ongoing conversation? Supposedly even the lowest-seen of their originals still garner 20 mil viewers. How is that possible given the complete dearth of awareness or lasting impact? 20 mil viewers in theaters is 200 mil dollars. A 200 mil-domestic-grossing movie garners conversation and a potential franchise. 

 

Hell, even if we accept that Netflix's numbers are skewed due to the silly 2 min threshold, you have to assume at least half those numbers are watching the whole thing. So a low-rated movie like Da 5 Bloods still likely received 10 mil viewers or more. Yet, it's like nobody outside of Film Twitter has seen it. There's a strange dissonance here that will only be clarified with hard numbers. And we won't get hard numbers from streamers until the media start using the lack of them against the company. Report negatively, as in, report as if no numbers = poor ratings, and maybe these companies will start doing the right thing. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Shang Chi is selling REALLY well here. Might hit 90% of BW at my theater, the only thing stopping it could be capacity, which would be super annoying but could mean better legs throughout the weekend. 

 

Also don't forget, I live in British Columbia, which is over-indexing big time here. So take what I say with a grain of salt. But yea. Big things. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if already mentioned somewhere but Boxoffice PRO projects 52M for SC (3-day weekend forecast).

I just want to remind people who just expect too much that especially after the disappointing run of TSS it was discussed if SC will even cross 100M (domestic total result). At this time that scenario didn't look too absurd and some members agreed (like me) and not too few said this will be close. Now it looks like SC will cross 60M+ over the long weekend. I hope for (even) more but I really don't understand how this result would not be satisfying.

Streaming movies: I appreciate that it causes opportunities for new and creative people (to become well known and start other projects). That's good and there's no need to change that.
But streaming becoming more important than seeing movies in theaters? Hopefully not!
That's of course just my opinion but streaming mostly feels just so random and irrelevant. And I don't really mean the quality, it's more how they are offered, they are just available. In contrast, to see a movie in theaters is a little event here. I also notice that I rate films better which I saw on the big screen, with audience reactions and later discussing the films and so on.
By the way, I was pretty sure that in Germany it will become a terrible summer box office-wise and that almost nobody still cares for movies in theaters  - and I was completely wrong. The lack of capacities is the problem and not the lack of interest. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MrPink said:

100 likes and I unleash CJohn's private pics to the world.

Fuck. I did not see this type of treason happening. All those private pics I sent you... :kitschjob:

  • Haha 5
  • Astonished 1
Link to post
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.