Page 25 of 42 FirstFirst ... 1521222324252627282935 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 375 of 620
  1. #361
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    Jaws, ET, Star Wars. has Scorsese ever had a flop? I am sure his movies makes the budget back.
    Internationally, over time and with Home Video sales, yes. But Scorsese has had flops definitely -- New York New York, Raging Bull, The King of Comedy, Kundun, Bringing out the Dead, The Age of Innocence, and most recently Silence.

    He's also had hits or movies which just about broke even relative to small budgets -- Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, The Color of Money, The Last Temptation of Christ, Goodfellas, Casino, and...every single movie he has made with Leonardo DiCaprio.

    On the whole Scorsese's average is about-par. Don't know how to measure Irishman. It seems to be doing well in its brief theatrical run, but it depends on the ratings it will get on Netflix.

  2. #362
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    1,299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pinsir View Post
    Any metric can be exploited and the MCU just so happens to break that system. Yeah, no MCU film has a rotten score, including Iron Man 2 and Thor 2...These are indefensibly bad films.

    Yes, the RT system overwhelmingly favours MCU films, really for variety of reasons, but the most predominate among them is the shared universe factor. If you watch Red Letter Media's review of Captain Marvel, Rich says that Captain Marvel is a mediocre film and does not recommend it, but Mike says you should because it's part of the MCU. This has actually been a trend for reviewing these films since the very beginning, with some reviewers noting the post-credits scene in Incredible Hulk as the most interesting part of the film.

    MCU films do get extra 'points' for simply being part of that shared universe and since the you simply have to 'like' a movie to give it a positive score on RT, that's really all you need.
    This make sense, the movies as a stand-alone are not good or even bad movies, but they are part of a bigger universe. The MCU don’t get judge as individual movies, they get judge by being part of a universe, from fans and critics.
    For the most part the individual movies suck, but it the shared universe is keeps fans and critics excited.
    Last edited by luprki; 11-15-2019 at 10:33 AM.

  3. #363
    Invincible Member Kirby101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    20,471

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luprki View Post
    This make sense, the movies as a stand-alone are not good or even bad movies, but they are part of a bigger universe. The MCU don’t get judge as individual movies, they get judge by being part of a universe, from fans and critics.
    For the most part the individual movies suck, but it the shared universe is keeps fans and critics excited.
    Not close to true. Winter Soldier, GOTC, Captain Marvel, Black Panther and on and on are all very good stand alone movies.
    There came a time when the Old Gods died! The Brave died with the Cunning! The Noble perished locked in battle with unleashed Evil! It was the last day for them! An ancient era was passing in fiery holocaust!

  4. #364
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirby101 View Post
    Not close to true. Winter Soldier, GOTC, Captain Marvel, Black Panther and on and on are all very good stand alone movies.
    Are they standalone though?

    In Winter Soldier, the reveal that SHIELD is HYDRA only works if you go into the movie knowing that Hydra=Nazis who Cap beat up in the war before going under the ice. You really need to have seen Captain America First Avenger to understand the emotional thrust of that. Likewise, Bucky=Winter Soldier. Also Arnim Zola aka the mousy sidekick of Hugo Weaving's character is actually some advanced computer program. I mean that's on the level of needing to have seen Captain America 1 to see Captain America 2 so it's not a big deal as say Captain America Civil War (which makes no sense if you haven't seen Avengers 1, Winter Soldier AND Age of Ultron on top of that).

    Captain Marvel assumes a lot of broad knowledge on the part of the viewer, namely about Nick Fury, the Tesseract (the source of Carol's powers whose mechanics aren't explained fully in the movie and you need to know from earlier movies that the Teserract is some weird McGuffin), and also Ronan the Accuser.

    Guardians of the Galaxy and Black Panther are relatively standalone, I'll grant you. I mean yeah Thanos in Guardians being our first impression of the great villain of the series but even if you didn't see the Avengers you sort of know from the movie who and what Thanos is/supposed to mean. Black Panther likewise.

    But even then on a stylistic level, all these movies look pretty samey. This video by Patrick Willems talks about this. and in all likelihood when Scorsese is saying these movies aren't cinema, this is what he's probably referring to.


    He has a three part video on this if you want to check it out for a longer argument. Here's part 1 where he expands on that (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6Bq_jK0Z1Y).

  5. #365
    Extraordinary Member Jokerz79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Somewhere in Time & Space
    Posts
    7,613

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Are they standalone though?

    In Winter Soldier, the reveal that SHIELD is HYDRA only works if you go into the movie knowing that Hydra=Nazis who Cap beat up in the war before going under the ice. You really need to have seen Captain America First Avenger to understand the emotional thrust of that. Likewise, Bucky=Winter Soldier. Also Arnim Zola aka the mousy sidekick of Hugo Weaving's character is actually some advanced computer program. I mean that's on the level of needing to have seen Captain America 1 to see Captain America 2 so it's not a big deal as say Captain America Civil War (which makes no sense if you haven't seen Avengers 1, Winter Soldier AND Age of Ultron on top of that).

    Captain Marvel assumes a lot of broad knowledge on the part of the viewer, namely about Nick Fury, the Tesseract (the source of Carol's powers whose mechanics aren't explained fully in the movie and you need to know from earlier movies that the Teserract is some weird McGuffin), and also Ronan the Accuser.

    Guardians of the Galaxy and Black Panther are relatively standalone, I'll grant you. I mean yeah Thanos in Guardians being our first impression of the great villain of the series but even if you didn't see the Avengers you sort of know from the movie who and what Thanos is/supposed to mean. Black Panther likewise.

    But even then on a stylistic level, all these movies look pretty samey. This video by Patrick Willems talks about this. and in all likelihood when Scorsese is saying these movies aren't cinema, this is what he's probably referring to.


    He has a three part video on this if you want to check it out for a longer argument. Here's part 1 where he expands on that (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6Bq_jK0Z1Y).
    Do you judge and enjoy Empire Strikes Back on it's own merits or being part of the Star Wars Saga?

  6. #366
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jokerz79 View Post
    Do you judge and enjoy Empire Strikes Back on it's own merits or being part of the Star Wars Saga?
    TBH, I don't. I think The Empire Strikes Back can't really be enjoyed unless you have seen the first movie or Return of the Jedi. I think A New Hope is overall the best Star Wars movie since it's perfectly standalone. Nobody really thought ESB was the best Star Wars movie until after ROTJ came out and all three movies were available on home video. Then people felt ROTJ wasn't a good follow-up to the stakes raised by ESB, or rather, the stakes they thought were raised by ESB. Having said that, The Empire Strikes Back is really weird as a sequel unlike others that came after and so on. The first movie is a big war movie, the second one is a simple thriller with horror elements, basically an extended chase sequence. It's also a movie with a good sense of psychology and pretty manipulative. Like for instance everyone says ESB is a pretty dark movie but in fact ESB is the only Star Wars movie without any major character deaths. Major characters die in every single prequel, and both the sequels and in Rogue One and Solo. ESB is pretty good at making things seem darker than it actually is. Lucas was quite cunning, he told everyone on set to watch horror movies like The Exorcist to get into the mood he wanted for the film. People took the wrong lessons from ESB, i.e. they think a sequel should be "more is more", i.e. darker/intense/edgier when in fact ESB scaled down considerably from the first. I mean you see the effect of that logic with The Last Jedi where they go overboard in killing major characters all because they have ESB-envy. When the thing to do is go small, narrow focus, and focus on a small bunch of characters and get a sense of them inside. Instead TLJ is this big mess that's all over the place.

    To get back to Winter Soldier, even as a standalone movie it's not satisfying. I mean the movie builds up HYDRA as this uber-threat that ultimately takes out SHIELD with it. The end of the movie sets up a quest to battle HYDRA, only for them to go down like jobbers at the start of Age of Ultron. That's like if ESB after setting up Vader has him taken out in the opening first 10 minutes of ROTJ.

    The MCU requires audiences to both remember and forget stuff. In that respects it's quite like the 616 Marvel Continuity. When you read a Marvel comic you need to remember some bits of continuity, but forget other stuff. You know the Avengers are Earth's mightiest heroes except for that time they sat back and watched Carol Danvers get raped, or that time they gaslighted Wanda Maximoff about her children, or that time Tony Stark decided to send his friends into an N-Zone Gulag. In the MCU you need to remember some bits from winter soldier, but forget others.

  7. #367
    My Face Is Up Here Powerboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,725

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    I have mixed feelings of the first iron man movie. I disliked the screenplay for the predictability. the story was too straightforward. However, it was a nice introduction to a character no one had heard much about played by an actor RDJ, who was supposed to be washed up with a salary of $500000.

    It would have been interesting to see how the iron man sequels would have played out had Disney not bought marvel and marvel itself didn't become so driven with their MCU
    crossover.

    A part of me is disappointed with audiences, but again scorsese hit the nail when he said its a generation thing. I never expected audiences to be so attracted to crossover movies, that are less artistic driven and more of the same.

    Even if Scorsese didn't like comic movies, he never said anything about the genre until now.
    I remember one reviewer said something along the lines of: RDJ doesn't just star in this movie. He almost singlehandedly IS this movie.

    I mentioned first impressions before. One thing I find interesting is something Jon Favreau said when asked why they didn't just tell the story chronologically instead of having Stark start out joking with the troops and getting blown up then going to a flashback of a few days before that. He said that first impressions are the most important and let's face the fact that Tony Stark before the heart injury is pretty much a Grade A jerk. If you start that way, when he gets blown up, the audience may already so dislike him that they actually see him get injured and think, "Good. Rich jerk got what he deserved". So you need to start out with the audience liking him and then they'll dismiss what he was before because they meet him when he's starting to change. Which goes to my argument that leading off with RDJ as Iron-Man affected audience's first impression of the MCU on a huge scale and gave them room for mistakes that audiences would forgive.

    Yeah, IM2 definitely didn't really explore its own premise.

    And yes, getting hooked on crossover movies is sort of like getting hooked on a television show including a soap opera but it's not hard to understand that it might work in movies on a large enough scale.

    I remember when Robert Redford explained why he got involved. I got the impression that he approached them, not the other way around. One reason was to experience this new form of film making which he finds fascinating on a purely technical level. Another was just to do something his grandchildren would genuinely want to watch without be forced. But the big one was that he respected the fact that Marvel or someone at Marvel had a vision of doing something that had never been done before, a series of movies with different characters but all interconnected in one shared universe, not like the James Bond movies but different characters moving toward a conclusion and seeing the vision through.

    I got the feeling he wasn't all that impressed with it artistically but he wasn't going to be so unprofessional as to say that and, at that, he did get one of the best MCU movies.
    Power with Girl is better.

  8. #368
    Amazing Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pinsir View Post
    Any metric can be exploited and the MCU just so happens to break that system. Yeah, no MCU film has a rotten score, including Iron Man 2 and Thor 2...These are indefensibly bad films..
    Nonsense. They are eminently defendable sub-par MCU films. There are plot problems and tonal difficulties and they may well rank far down the list of MCU or comics films, but they are not objectively "bad".

  9. #369
    Amazing Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Midvillian1322 View Post
    There is an issue with Tentpole franchises leaving no room for smaller movies and Original movies. I mean we still get them but in much smaller numbers. The way we take in Media is changing. People dont look down on televsion(Where you can do alot more in depth chatacter development), or streaming apps anymore. With how much it costs to go to movies these days I understand why some people rather only spend money on huge big spectacle movies like Aquaman as opposed to seomthing like the Irishman..
    Right. So while there could be problems with big studios using their size to leverage their films into theaters instead of more niche ones... arguably that's what 'the public' is calling for. We don't all go to the cinema every week any more, so the field necessary shrinks - and it's going to coagulate around the big pictures that can make $1B rather than the smaller, niche-r ones that are not going to find as wide of an audience.

  10. #370
    Amazing Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    The idea about superhero movies used to be that this would be a gig you make retirement pay on and then make the real movies you care about without worrying about the future. Jack Nicholson made BATMAN and played Joker, and scored huge on that, even getting stuff off merchandise and after that he did stuff like As Good as it Gets, About Schmidt, A Few Good Men, Anger Management, The Bucket List, The Departed. Now it's basically becoming a full time career thing. And that sucks up talent. Sam Raimi's career as a director didn't improve from making Spider-Man you know.
    ...and Stan Lee was slumming in comics until he could write a great novel. Artist dither about until they can make a career in Illustration (or videogames, film).

    Except that now it's no longer a sub-sub-genre for the backwards and childish. It's Big Business and - despite what certain esteemed figurea have claimed - DOES communicate the Big Themes and lessons that all great fiction does, is great entertainment for the masses and also makes money for everyone involved.

  11. #371
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ntnon View Post
    Right. So while there could be problems with big studios using their size to leverage their films into theaters instead of more niche ones... arguably that's what 'the public' is calling for. We don't all go to the cinema every week any more, so the field necessary shrinks - and it's going to coagulate around the big pictures that can make $1B rather than the smaller, niche-r ones that are not going to find as wide of an audience.
    Scorsese said that was a chicken-and-egg thing. He said if you keep showing the people one thing over and over again they're going to want that one thing.

    And it's not a case that the public won't go . Something like Tarantino's OUTIH for instance was a box-office success certainly it earned $336mn on a budget <$100mn. So in terms of profit margin, and subtracting marketing costs (which wasn't extensive for that movie as a superhero one), it was profitable but eventually even that movie would be hard to make. Scorsese's Wolf of Wall Street was also a commercial success, a big one. Jordan Peele's US also a big hit, some $255mn on a very low-budget. So it's not the case that the public won't go for these kinds of films.

    It's just that some executive somewhere in order to get a promotion or look good in front of shareholder would rather have one movie making 4 digits rather than several movies on a lower-budget high-return profit margin, even when the public does want to go and turn up.

  12. #372
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ntnon View Post
    ...and Stan Lee was slumming in comics until he could write a great novel. Artist dither about until they can make a career in Illustration (or videogames, film).
    Not comparable at all. RDJ was considered one of the best actors of his generation very early in his career. He appeared in many movies in the late '80s and early '90s, and worked with the likes of Robert Altman and Richard Attenborough, and got nominated for an Oscar for Chaplin. Well before he appeared in Iron Man, RDJ appeared in David Fincher's Zodiac, considered one of the best crime movies of the 2000s, and then Shane Black's Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. In the same year as Iron Man, he appeared in the comedy Tropic Thunder for which he got another nomination for Best Supporting Actor. A lot of people have exaggerated the idea of Iron Man literally turning RDJ overnight. It did in a lot of respects, but it was a crest of an ongoing resurgence. Even if RDJ hadn't made Iron Man, on the strength of Zodiac, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Tropic Thunder alone (which entered production and distribution with and without IM), he would have had equally strong career prospects going forward as without Iron Man. IM made him a mainstream blockbuster star, albeit only for one character and movie...unlike Tom Cruise and DiCaprio who can make any kind of role and movie bankable.

    When RDJ appeared in Iron Man, he already had a solid career unlike Stan Lee did. Stan Lee was a late-bloomer working out of a mid-life crisis whereas RDJ was a dude who had success then drug problems and then was already well on his way to recovering before hitting retirement payday.

    It's Big Business
    US Steel is bigger.

    ...DOES communicate the Big Themes and lessons that all great fiction does, ...
    "Big Themes" are just marketing buzzwords.

  13. #373
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,913

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    "Half-wracked prejudice leaped forth, "rip down all hate, " I screamed
    Lies that life is black and white spoke from my skull, I dreamed
    Romantic facts of musketeers foundationed deep, somehow
    Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now"
    -- Bob Dylan, My Back Pages

    Gatekeeper used to mean stuff like gamergate i.e. a bunch of obnoxious fans trying to say some people i.e female critics and developers do not have a right to express an opinion on a medium because they haven't played so-and-so games or do not know such-and-such lore. The idea that there are "true fans" and "casual" fans don't have a right to form an opinion.

    By the original definition, MCU fans are being gatekeeper. Scorsese offers an outside view on their stuff, in very mild terms. And in response fans say he's got no right to say that, unless he is totally immersed in comics' lore and so on. The MCU fans are gatekeeping as to what is the right and best opinion and acceptable means of criticism.



    Well that's part of the problem that Scorsese is talking about. Someone on twitter pointed out the argument seems to be that Scorsese cannot have an opinion on the MCU based on the 1 or 2 movies he claims to have seen...he needs to have seen every single movie to judge. So in that respects it isn't cinema anymore. It's basically a kind of theme park where the individual films don't stand alone. The MCU movies are solid, consistent, and well put together but it's also quite samey i.e. in terms of humor, attitude to supporting cast, and overall plot beats. Scorsese said they are "sequels in name, remakes in spirit".

    The MCU is the movie equivalent of the monthly comics. If you read Spider-Man now, and don't like the latest issues or the few you read and walk away no fan would make a fuss and gainsay that the reader in question is wrong to say he didn't like Spider-Man because it's not realistic to ask someone to read every Spider-Man run before making an informed opinion on the character.
    The term "gatekeeper" has been around for a while.

    It often refers to the establishment. And Scorsese is definitely the establishment.

    His points about Marvel don't seem to be about Marvel films not functioning as standalone films, although there has been a separate point that this is what makes them unique and difficult to compare to anything else.

    But his view was more about emotional stakes, where I do think he is mistaken.

    The main argument on whether it's fair to base an opinion on 1-2 Marvel films isn't about whether you can make sense of the universe from 1-2 films, but whether it's going to be representative.

    If someone said they didn't like Robert De Niro or Al Pacino as actors based on three films, it could be that they just saw the wrong films.

    Quote Originally Posted by XPac View Post
    And if Alam Moore read a comic book he didn't like and decided that it wasn't a comic book, he'd be wrong too and he'd be called on it. That's simply not how it work, regardless of how respected they are and should be.
    Yep.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pinsir View Post
    Any metric can be exploited and the MCU just so happens to break that system. Yeah, no MCU film has a rotten score, including Iron Man 2 and Thor 2...These are indefensibly bad films.

    Yes, the RT system overwhelmingly favours MCU films, really for variety of reasons, but the most predominate among them is the shared universe factor. If you watch Red Letter Media's review of Captain Marvel, Rich says that Captain Marvel is a mediocre film and does not recommend it, but Mike says you should because it's part of the MCU. This has actually been a trend for reviewing these films since the very beginning, with some reviewers noting the post-credits scene in Incredible Hulk as the most interesting part of the film.

    MCU films do get extra 'points' for simply being part of that shared universe and since the you simply have to 'like' a movie to give it a positive score on RT, that's really all you need.
    Red Letter Media doesn't seem to be included in the Rotten Tomatoes scores.

    The critics are generally people who comment on modern films, not Marvel geeks.

    https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/cap...arvel/reviews/
    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    Disney has a great marketing ploy, how many of their movies has the media called the greatest Comic movie of all time in recent memory that never holds any weight after a few months.

    Civil War, Black Panther, Endgame even spiderman homecoming was called the greatest spiderman film of all time though from the trailer it looks liked a Disney channel TV film compared to the grand quality Blockbuster scale of Raimi, I still remember myself as a teen when I jeezed after I saw the first spiderman 2 trailer, the film did not disappoint either. there is nothing about spiderman homecoming that gave me that feel but somehow, it was called the greatest Spidey movie ever in the few weeks after release. that's marketing not objective cinema.

    Once you start talking about screenplay, cinematography, acting, VFX, directing. MCU falls apart and I bet the few marvel films Scorsese has seen, it was obvious that marvel lacks all this things. Scorsese even said , he felt sorry for marvel actors that they are doing their best with limited material. Jennifer Aniston said something similar when she said its all about green screen with marvel, so marvel there is no drama or story or even any interesting VFX to attract people like scorsese or Aniston.

    I mean why isn't Scorsese or Spielberg attacking Avatar with the formulaic writing? because Avatar made it up with stunning VFX and is James Cameron personal vision he brought to life, Avatar is not cooperate or studio manufactured like mcu movies. scorsese had to ask help from Cameron with Hugo. So in the end, it is all down to individual art not industrialised products which is what mcu is.

    You also have to ask how did marvel get under Scorsese's radar this much that he needs to bash it 4 times in one month? the media suffocates us with mcu news coverage and its because Disney is powerful and can market their films so darm well. the hype machine is so High for the MCU, you can't escape it even if you claim to only look out for indie smaller films, which is scorsese's area.

    I think it would be best for marvel to just do a small else world story than has nothing to do with the MCU.
    I would guess Scorsese didn't mention Avatar because it was one movie, rather than 20+ blockbusters.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  14. #374
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    It often refers to the establishment. And Scorsese is definitely the establishment.
    The Walt Disney Corporation will always be "the establishment" far more than Scorsese ever will be. Scorsese's movies are on par in terms of hits/flops so in terms of power dynamics, Disney/Marvel is in a position of power over him and other film-makers. The directors of the MCU whether it's James Gunn, or others, despite their youth now have a greater level of power than he does. And yeah that applies to Gunn even after Disney temporarily fired him. When Gunn got fired, he immediately got a huge gig and big pay for The Suicide Squad...when Scorsese as a young man was fired from The Honeymoon Killers he had to go through four years of "director jail" before he got his break.

    Scorsese would be "the establishment" as an American mainstream film-maker to say a director out of film-school, or film-makers from other countries like Argentina, China and others who Scorsese at various times has helped. Just this year, he helped the director of The Current War (https://variety.com/2019/scene/news/...in-1203379557/), the Mexican born Alfonso Gomez-Remon regain final cut from Harvey Weinstein who tried to cut the film (because Weinstein likes to rape movies too). To them Scorsese has been a friendly establishment but that's only a small amount of power he has.

    His points about Marvel don't seem to be about Marvel films not functioning as standalone films, although there has been a separate point that this is what makes them unique and difficult to compare to anything else.

    But his view was more about emotional stakes, where I do think he is mistaken.
    Well it's hard for there to be true real emotional stakes once you make it clear that no matter what the movies will keep churning, the setting will remain standing in such a way that nothing sticks and lasts. In that respects, the MCU is quite like the comic books. For anyone schooled in cinema which for the vast majority of history and the vast quantity of movies has always meant one-and-done standalone stuff whereby movies end with changes that last stick and are undone...this stuff would look jarring. As Scorsese said, "they are sequels in name but remakes in spirit". In that the story will always be wiped clean in the next movie or one after and start from scratch again.

    When the MCU came out, it had a charm of seeing an approximation of comics continuity in live action and it was refreshing but now it looks like one of the advantages and virtues a superhero movie had which was a sense of definite resolution and change, is being removed. Look at Batman 1989 where Joker dies at the end, or Norman Osborn dying at the end of Spider-Man 1 or Ock in Spider-Man 2. Now you aren't going to get that since studios will want to do a Sinister Six movie or something eventually. So in that respects superhero movies went from cinematic takes on comics to becoming less and less cinematic.

  15. #375
    My Face Is Up Here Powerboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,725

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Scorsese said that was a chicken-and-egg thing. He said if you keep showing the people one thing over and over again they're going to want that one thing.

    And it's not a case that the public won't go . Something like Tarantino's OUTIH for instance was a box-office success certainly it earned $336mn on a budget <$100mn. So in terms of profit margin, and subtracting marketing costs (which wasn't extensive for that movie as a superhero one), it was profitable but eventually even that movie would be hard to make. Scorsese's Wolf of Wall Street was also a commercial success, a big one. Jordan Peele's US also a big hit, some $255mn on a very low-budget. So it's not the case that the public won't go for these kinds of films.

    It's just that some executive somewhere in order to get a promotion or look good in front of shareholder would rather have one movie making 4 digits rather than several movies on a lower-budget high-return profit margin, even when the public does want to go and turn up.
    T

    That's highly questionable because the popularity of these movies has made them prolific and one could argue the opposite, that if you simply don't offer people a certain type of movie (the MCU), other movies will surge in popularity be default (OR people will just go to fewer movies). Those other movies are still there albeit less often. But, having a choice, they keep spending their money on these types of movies. Remove the MCU and maybe the next big thing will be back to action movies albeit not superhero movies (although I consider action movies with heroes doing impossible superhuman things as superhero movies, just with way less entertainment value).

    But I tend to oppose any solution that amounts to, "Say, let's give the audience what they need rather than what they want because, in our superiority, we know what's best for them and what's best is what we define as art rather than what they really want. So let's not give them a choice and only offer the movies we want them to like".
    Power with Girl is better.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •