Hollywood Directors distate for the MCU...

[Revolutionary_Jack]

What is stopping them?
Where is this rule you HAVE to show your film in a theater?

There's a major difference between cinema and TV, even today when TV has higher production values. A movie made for the big screen with a huge image is going to have tons of visual detail, that will be reflected in the sets, the props, the locales, the VFX and everything. To best appreciate all that it needs to be shown in the biggest possible image.

A movie theater provided that, barring that, the only way to do it is if you have cash to burn to build your own private screen.

If those dinos have an issue with it-insulting Disney is not going to fix it.

Have you ever considered they tried fixing it, tried everything possible, and this is them going nuclear?

They need to have a talk with the PUBLIC.

That's what the entire op-ed is about.

[Username taken]

What is stopping them?
Where is this rule you HAVE to show your film in a theater?

Because as we have seen if you have to rely on the theater to get a film made let alone SEEN-you are going to get screwed depending on film content.
What have we seen used against POC & LGBTQ content in some films like Black Panther & Star Wars? The OVERSEA MARKET.

You have your new generation-they have choose to go a different route. They are using streaming and other markets.

And what Marvel movie is Tyler Perry doing? He seems to be doing fine on his own.
What Marvel movie is Adam Sandler doing? He's doing fine on Netflix. As is Marlon Wayans.

Also is that Disney strong arming or the THEATER choosing to do that? Remember movie theaters get to pick and choose what films they show at a given location. Sometimes a year or months in advance.

Maybe just MAYBE showing say Black Panther on 10 out of 15 screens might have something to do with folks buying up tickets in advance??? So YEAH I would take a movie that no one was going to see off and put the one folks wanted to see on the screen.

Also not all movies show EVERYDAY. Get Out was SUPPOSED to be yanked from showing at the theater I normally go to. That is why I went on an EARLY Friday to see it because I looked at the schedule for that theater and it was going to be GONE at least the next 3 weeks.

When it came out number one-guess what film suddenly had showings for those 3 weeks?


If those dinos have an issue with it-insulting Disney is not going to fix it. They need to have a talk with the PUBLIC. WHo are going to theses movies. Disney can only do what the PUBLIC allows.

This.

Theres so much great content out there that the "Disney is blocking stuff" argument falls apart under even the smallest scrutiny.

And these old guys complaining just shows how out of touch they are. Theres premium content everywhere but they wont see that because they are sad their time has passed (although Gilliam has become a bit crazy with the bs he's been spewing lately).

Theres a new, great young breed of film maker making great stuff out there. The industry has evolved to the point that theres room for a Get Out and a Wonder Wonder in cinemas. Rolling back progress just because a couple of old film makers isn't the way to go.

[lowfyr]

Do you work for Disney?

If you do, can you get Adam Sandler to direct Star Wars? I'll love you for life.

Hope I missunderstand your comment, but he does not share your opinion so he must be working for Disney? Even if meant ironic it leaves a taste behind.

And everyone knows, that the only Option for Sandler working on a Star Wars movie would be that Walt himself Shows up and wants that.

[Bunch of Coconuts]

If Disney is brain-washing folks into only liking their movies, isn’t trying to convince people they should like “real cinema” attempted brain-washing?

[basbash99]

The argument that Disney forces theaters on too many screens for too many weeks is reasonable, and does raise monopoly concerns. However, the idea that if it weren't for the mcu, people would be going to theaters to see lower budget movies instead seems incorrect to me. The people have spoken and for many, the only movies they want to shell out cinema money for are the special-effects laden blockbuster. Sure, all movies are better viewed on the big screen, but many are willing to accept the tradeoff of viewing on a smaller screen with a lesser audio system for all the conveniences that come with home viewing (not to mention cost savings).

I would actually wager that most people view more movies now than ever, overall.. just not seeing as many in theaters. Seems like for most films you only need to wait a few months before it becomes available on demand for a $5 rental, and if you wait longer you can rent for cheaper or potentially catch it on a streaming service or premium channel that you're already paying for.

Plus television series have become increasingly sophisticated and are debatably the superior format for exploring characters and events since they are not trying to do everything in 1.5 - 3 hours. Many people will watch tv series for "serious" content, but by and large just want a good popcorn flick when they go to theaters.

[phonogram12]

Even before the MCU, the mid-range budgeted movie guys like Scorcese long for were the one's I was least interested in. Indies and foreign movies are where really daring things happen. Not films made by a bunch of old guys screaming at kids to get off their lawn.

[Farealmer]

Hope I missunderstand your comment, but he does not share your opinion so he must be working for Disney? Even if meant ironic it leaves a taste behind.

First time in one of these?

[Zero Hunter]

The simple fact is movie going has changed. Most people these days go the the theater for spectacle movies or movies you have to see on the big screen. They would rather save the dramas to watch at home latter on than in a theater these days. I am one of those people who only goes to the movies maybe 5 or 6 times a year and those are always the big loud spectacle films because those are the best kind to watch on a big screen to me.

The old timers are mad because they can't get the money to make the kind of movies they want, but the biggest reason for that is they want to use the best actors and those cost money. You look at the cast for almost any Scorses movie and then just add up what the cost is in just the cast, and that tells you right there why they have a hard time getting the greenlight these days. The movie it self could be relatively cheap, but when you start having to have all those a list actors with the prices they demand the studio looks at that and thinks "we will be lucky to beak even on this". For the kinds of movies someone like Scorses makes he could get away with a 20-30 million budget if he would use lesser know actors that don't require as much cash.

[jetengine]

The simple fact is movie going has changed. Most people these days go the the theater for spectacle movies or movies you have to see on the big screen. They would rather save the dramas to watch at home latter on than in a theater these days. I am one of those people who only goes to the movies maybe 5 or 6 times a year and those are always the big loud spectacle films because those are the best kind to watch on a big screen to me.

The old timers are mad because they can't get the money to make the kind of movies they want, but the biggest reason for that is they want to use the best actors and those cost money. You look at the cast for almost any Scorses movie and then just add up what the cost is in just the cast, and that tells you right there why they have a hard time getting the greenlight these days. The movie it self could be relatively cheap, but when you start having to have all those a list actors with the prices they demand the studio looks at that and thinks "we will be lucky to beak even on this". For the kinds of movies someone like Scorses makes he could get away with a 20-30 million budget if he would use lesser know actors that don't require as much cash.

Theres also length. The Irishman ends up being nearly 4 hours including trailers and post movie clean up time. Unless its a dedicated sell out no one will want that

[CliffHanger2]

The simple fact is movie going has changed. Most people these days go the the theater for spectacle movies or movies you have to see on the big screen. They would rather save the dramas to watch at home latter on than in a theater these days. I am one of those people who only goes to the movies maybe 5 or 6 times a year and those are always the big loud spectacle films because those are the best kind to watch on a big screen to me.

The old timers are mad because they can't get the money to make the kind of movies they want, but the biggest reason for that is they want to use the best actors and those cost money. You look at the cast for almost any Scorses movie and then just add up what the cost is in just the cast, and that tells you right there why they have a hard time getting the greenlight these days. The movie it self could be relatively cheap, but when you start having to have all those a list actors with the prices they demand the studio looks at that and thinks "we will be lucky to beak even on this". For the kinds of movies someone like Scorses makes he could get away with a 20-30 million budget if he would use lesser know actors that don't require as much cash.

Ha The Irishman cost about 175 mil to produce and looks horrible. Yet Scorsese is still complaining. He's been given way beyond most ppl in the business but it's not enough. Yes these guys are showing their age and entitled attitudes.

[Maestro 216]

Why can't we have both exciting realistic films and silly spandex films? I don't see the need to make this an us vs them narrative when all parties just want people showing up to watch. It isn't like no one came to see Irishman.

[lowfyr]

First time in one of these?

No, but still surprised how low Things can get and giving People the Benefit of the doubt.

[Username taken]

Why can't we have both exciting realistic films and silly spandex films? I don't see the need to make this an us vs them narrative when all parties just want people showing up to watch. It isn't like no one came to see Irishman.

Exactly my point.

I think right now, there's room for both.

[Farealmer]

Why can't we have both exciting realistic films and silly spandex films? I don't see the need to make this an us vs them narrative when all parties just want people showing up to watch. It isn't like no one came to see Irishman.

Because when one side thinks that cape films are literally killing cinema(and that people who refuse to see that are comparable to climate change deniers) there isn't any real dialog that can be made that won't devolve into arguing. It's such a strong stance that there is no room for middle ground.

[XPac]

Do you work for Disney?

If you do, can you get Adam Sandler to direct Star Wars? I'll love you for life.

I don't think you need to work for Disney to understand that Star Wars and Marvel movies are profitable, so they will show up on a LOT more screens. It's simple supply and demand. That's not evil on the part of Disney or the theater owners... thats simply how business works.

If it's frustrating to some then it's frustrating, but there are no bad guys here. Merely business people doing exactly what one objectively should expect them to do in this given situation.