Is Marvel President Kevin Feige The Greatest Producer That’s Ever Lived?

[Pinsir]

From the evidence available to us, movie theatre attendance has consistently declined since 2002 (source). The MCU hasn't refuted these trends at all, in fact there are arguments that the MCU is currently at fault for the decline in theatre attendance. Billion dollar movies don't actually contribute to the sustainability of the industry because they are so infrequent and the money they bring in isn't greater than those smaller budget films can produce. Two films that cost 100 mill to produce, but make 600 mill each has a greater value to the theatre industry as a 200 million movies that grosses a billion. But recently those lower budget films have been drowned out by larger productions.

[Rincewind]

From the evidence available to us, movie theatre attendance has consistently declined since 2002 (source). The MCU hasn't refuted these trends at all, in fact there are arguments that the MCU is currently at fault for the decline in theatre attendance. Billion dollar movies don't actually contribute to the sustainability of the industry because they are so infrequent and the money they bring in isn't greater than those smaller budget films can produce. Two films that cost 100 mill to produce, but make 600 mill each has a greater value to the theatre industry as a 200 million movies that grosses a billion. But recently those lower budget films have been drowned out by larger productions.

So the only movies people want to see in theaters are the reason people don't want to see movies in theaters?

OR

The theatrical window is now a fraction what it once was. People can simply wait less than 2 months to see a movie at home instead of the theater. Streaming services are also offering an alternative to the traditional movie format. The mid budget dramas, comedies, romance, et al didn't stop happening. Instead they debuted on steaming services. Rian Johnson can make just as much on Knives Out 2 going directly to Amazon as he did on Knives Out getting a theatrical release.

[Username taken]

From the evidence available to us, movie theatre attendance has consistently declined since 2002 (source). The MCU hasn't refuted these trends at all, in fact there are arguments that the MCU is currently at fault for the decline in theatre attendance. Billion dollar movies don't actually contribute to the sustainability of the industry because they are so infrequent and the money they bring in isn't greater than those smaller budget films can produce. Two films that cost 100 mill to produce, but make 600 mill each has a greater value to the theatre industry as a 200 million movies that grosses a billion. But recently those lower budget films have been drowned out by larger productions.

Actual box office revenues pre-pandemic have been trending upwards and not the other way around.

Studios and theatres make money from actual revenue. Real money.

The revenue the MCU makes isn't something one can just discount for the industry.

[Pinsir]

So the only movies people want to see in theaters are the reason people don't want to see movies in theaters?

OR

The theatrical window is now a fraction what it once was. People can simply wait less than 2 months to see a movie at home instead of the theater. Streaming services are also offering an alternative to the traditional movie format. The mid budget dramas, comedies, romance, et al didn't stop happening. Instead they debuted on steaming services. Rian Johnson can make just as much on Knives Out 2 going directly to Amazon as he did on Knives Out getting a theatrical release.

OR

The emergence of the mega franchises has created a culture among movie attendees where they only see these types of tent-pole films and have begun to value less and less movies that aren't blockbusters. People still have finite money, but if they are planning to see movies, sometime years in advance, then that money is already mentally locked up and they are less likely to be flexible with it on other movies.

Even if your snippity answer is correct by the way, you're not really addressing my central claim; that the MCU hasn't and won't save movie theatres. During the apogee of MCU hype a few years ago, movie theatres were still seeing declining attendance and one movie doing really well now isn't going to change that. Sure streaming probably is having an impact on the theatre industry, so, how does the MCU stop this trend? It doesn't, you need more films that people are willing to pay to see and that market doesn't seem to be here anymore.

[Pinsir]

Actual box office revenues pre-pandemic have been trending upwards and not the other way around.

Studios and theatres make money from actual revenue. Real money.

The revenue the MCU makes isn't something one can just discount for the industry.

Sure, revenue has been going up (source), but those numbers require more interpretation because they aren't adjusted for inflation. A ticket bought in 2002 is the same item as one bought in 2022, so they are easy compare, but they are not the same price. This is why analysts prefer tickets sold over revenue and using that information, argue that theatres were in trouble before the pandemic.

Also, don't you think it is a little sus that revenue can increase, but attendance decrease? It's the industry drawing more money from a smaller pool of people by hiking admissions. The MCU being popular doesn't reverse this trend.

[Rincewind]

Sure, revenue has been going up (source), but those numbers require more interpretation because they aren't adjusted for inflation. A ticket bought in 2002 is the same item as one bought in 2022, so they are easy compare, but they are not the same price. This is why analysts prefer tickets sold over revenue and using that information, argue that theatres were in trouble before the pandemic.

Also, don't you think it is a little sus that revenue can increase, but attendance decrease? It's the industry drawing more money from a smaller pool of people by hiking admissions. The MCU being popular doesn't reverse this trend.

The MCU also didn't cause that trend.

[Rincewind]

OR

The emergence of the mega franchises has created a culture among movie attendees where they only see these types of tent-pole films and have begun to value less and less movies that aren't blockbusters. People still have finite money, but if they are planning to see movies, sometime years in advance, then that money is already mentally locked up and they are less likely to be flexible with it on other movies.

Even if your snippity answer is correct by the way, you're not really addressing my central claim; that the MCU hasn't and won't save movie theatres. During the apogee of MCU hype a few years ago, movie theatres were still seeing declining attendance and one movie doing really well now isn't going to change that. Sure streaming probably is having an impact on the theatre industry, so, how does the MCU stop this trend? It doesn't, you need more films that people are willing to pay to see and that market doesn't seem to be here anymore.

Are you honestly suggesting that the smaller theatrical window and convenience of streaming has no impact on going to the theater?

The idea that the MCU is some virus that infects people into losing their taste for other movies is ludicrous. All those non tent pole stories are still being told. People just watch them at home instead of the theater.

If the MCU stopped theatrical releases all together, theaters would be worse off, not better. Instead theaters attendance would be declining at a faster rate.

[Kieran_Frost]

I'm surprise how much of a hot button issue the Oscars are. There are so few Oscar stans out there, but the discourse surround them tends to get pretty heated. It's like people who aren't interested in them get angry that they still exist. Not everyone, but it seems like the conversation goes there more often than not. Some of it might have to do with certain segments of the population wanting their tastes affirmed, but I think it goes deeper than that.

It would be one thing if they were on every channel and you couldn't avoid them, but that's not the case. They're only on ABC from 8:00 - 11:00 one night a year and news stations might cover the ceremony and awards once or twice in the lead up and once or twice afterwards. They're not super pervasive.

I have never understood the rage some people have about the Oscars, and I think you hit it on the head. The type of films they like aren't winning, and it feels like a slap against their opinion. So they rage against it. Every year the BBC (when it says who wins) has it comments full of people saying "why is this even news, waaaaah, they pretentious films, waaaaaahhhh, now I know what films TO AVOID, waaaaaah". If you don't like the Oscars, don't watch it. Simple. I don't rage against the Super Bowl, I just never watch it.

It'd be one thing if they regularly "got it wrong." This is left a bit more up to opinion. Now, the Oscars are kind of in a tough position as they are voted in by large swaths of people. Most of them are experts in at least their slice of the film landscape, but there are over 9000 voting members. This becomes a problem when consensus gets involved. It does tend to fall towards the mean or at least films that are good, if not a bit inoffensive. Does this mean people would rather have a jury as opposed to a voting body>

The nominations are only chosen by the specific field, only actors vote on acting, writers on writing, etc. Once the nominations come out, everyone gets a vote. It's a good way of doing it, because it a) adds a critical eye and understand of the field in deciding who should be nominated BUT b) stops 'the popular one' of a segment always winning, by involving people from different fields, who won't know everyone as intimately as that grouping. If that makes sense?

This believe that the Oscars are illegitimate until the recognize the movies "people see" is a strange one. I feel like the people who say that tend to be the people who only see 5-10 new movies a year. Then I ask the question of whether it not its the Oscars that have changed the audiences, or the movies themselves. It used to be that the highest grossing films would regularly get nominations for Best Picture or be involved in a lot of key categories. I look at a year like 1971 where all but one of the nominees for Best Picture were in the Top 10 Highest Grossing films of that year. Maybe I'm part of the problem, but I find much more value in a Top 10 Highest Grossing movies that includes Fiddler on the Roof, The Last Picture Show, A Clockwork Orange and the French Connection. If 2019's highest grossing movies (a year that a lot of people say was a fantastic year for movies) predicted the Oscars, the only best picture nom that would have stuck around was Joker then we'd have to make the list up of Disney movies with the only other truly non-Disney movie to be Jumanji.

You are literally in my head!

I don't know how to fix the problem, but as of now, I see the Oscars (and the Independent Spirit Awards) as one of the last respites to franchise fare taking over everything. If you're not into it, don't watch.

AHHHHHHHHHH! It's like we share the same brain!!!!

I actually enjoy Shakespeare in Love far more than Saving Private Ryan, so it just goes to show how complex judging things that ultimately comes down to taste actually is.

Oh my god, same. STOP IT! This is getting creepy I think it's a far more interesting and original movie; and people forget IT'S ABOUT THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY! Which is why so many in the profession love it; it has so many delightful in jokes and shady commentary, on top of being gorgeous, wonderful acting, intelligent script, stunning music. It's a fantastic film.

People overexaggerate the MCU's Oscars push. They really just submit the movies they did but they don't actually campaign for Oscars. That's not something Feige or anyone at Marvel/Disney has shown any interest in doing

I mean... do you know how expensive it is to get a Oscar nomination? It's many millions. There IS an Oscar push, because the House of Greed doesn't chuck money into the ether, quite the opposite.

The Irving Thalberg award is giving to producers who we can say have reached legendary status. Also about 70-90% of the artists, who have won the Irving award would have won an Oscar for best picture years earlier or would have been nominated.
Also the academy gives the award based on who they think produced the best movie. reason the producer/producers win the award for [B]''Best Picture''. I was factually correct in saying the producers get the nomination and the win. it is not an opinion, it was a fact. here is the fact seen on this video.

No you are not, the producer recieves the award for best picture. But the Academy does not vote on the producer. The give the best actor to a person, they give the best director to the individual. The best picture Oscar is for the film, NOT the for the person who produced it. There are movies that have won with multiple producers, it doesn't matter, it's the movie that wins. They are not voting on the producer.
You are confusing who accepts the award with what the Academy is voting for.

You are BOTH right, you're just saying different things. YES, the Oscar for Best Picture goes to the producer, acknowledging their work. BUT Kirby is also right, truthfully people don't vote on Best Picture because of who produced it, it's purely about what film they loved most. So in that sense, Best Picture ISN'T a Best Producer award, because it's not about the producing.

[Castle]

I have never understood the rage some people have about the Oscars, and I think you hit it on the head. The type of films they like aren't winning, and it feels like a slap against their opinion. So they rage against it. Every year the BBC (when it says who wins) has it comments full of people saying "why is this even news, waaaaah, they pretentious films, waaaaaahhhh, now I know what films TO AVOID, waaaaaah". If you don't like the Oscars, don't watch it. Simple. I don't rage against the Super Bowl, I just never watch it.


The nominations are only chosen by the specific field, only actors vote on acting, writers on writing, etc. Once the nominations come out, everyone gets a vote. It's a good way of doing it, because it a) adds a critical eye and understand of the field in deciding who should be nominated BUT b) stops 'the popular one' of a segment always winning, by involving people from different fields, who won't know everyone as intimately as that grouping. If that makes sense?


You are literally in my head!


AHHHHHHHHHH! It's like we share the same brain!!!!


Oh my god, same. STOP IT! This is getting creepy I think it's a far more interesting and original movie; and people forget IT'S ABOUT THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY! Which is why so many in the profession love it; it has so many delightful in jokes and shady commentary, on top of being gorgeous, wonderful acting, intelligent script, stunning music. It's a fantastic film.


I mean... do you know how expensive it is to get a Oscar nomination? It's many millions. There IS an Oscar push, because the House of Greed doesn't chuck money into the ether, quite the opposite.



You are BOTH right, you're just saying different things. YES, the Oscar for Best Picture goes to the producer, acknowledging their work. BUT Kirby is also right, truthfully people don't vote on Best Picture because of who produced it, it's purely about what film they loved most. So in that sense, Best Picture ISN'T a Best Produce award, because it's not about the producing.

Actually I think it is my fault as I used deep film language here too loosely, that it may look too contrived or misunderstood to some.

when someone says ''best producer'' everyone knows in the film industry or in film studies you are also saying best picture too because they are interchangeable, although the official title of the award is best picture.

it is just like the official title for VFX is Best Visual effects, but I can loosely say best CGI in a comment or conversation and many will still know that means best vfx.

However any idea that the best picture award does not go the the official producers of what voters deemed the best picture film is inaccurate.

[Kieran_Frost]

saving private ryan I would argue broke the film sound barrier, and we have had many war films in the past based on world war 2, but saving private ryan was a watershed world war 2 movie. can we say the same for Shakespeare in love in terms of Shakespeare adaptions?

Errrr... I'm sorry, but Shakespeare in Love (1998) is NOT a Shakespeare adaptation, not really. YES, they are performing Romeo & Juliet, and mirroring the creation of the plot with that of the characters writing it, but... it's not a Shakespeare adaptation. They don't speak in the language (which is THE CORE of Shakespeare). It's more a homage of Shakespeare. The same way the Dresser (1983) is not an adaptation of Shakespeare, despite them doing Shakespeare plays, and mirroring some of the stock characters. Ran (1985) actually is an adaptation of Shakespeare, despite not using the language, because it follows the plot, moral, reason for existing as King Lear. Shakespeare in Love is Romeo & Juliet meets Twelfth Night and the Comedy of Errors, and his sonnets, all in a big melting pot; that actually has very different ending, and different moral of the tale. So it is actually (arguably) the best film inspired by Shakespeare I can think of; where as Saving Private Ryan (1998) wasn't even the best war film THAT YEAR.

But trying to put Shakespeare in Love in this narrative of 'adaptation' (to me) forfeits any opinion on the film, because you've missed the point of the film entirely.

I have not even seen The new Macbeth movie with Denzel Washington but heck I would not be surprised if that is a better film than Shakespeare in love. however i dont think it would be as easy to make a better and more detailed war movie like saving private ryan. so it was just more deserving on that kind of analysis.

Again... you cannot compare the Tragedy of Macbeth (2021) to Shakespeare in Love; one is a Shakespeare play, the other... is not. And no, the new Macbeth is not a better film, regardless of this fact. It's actually sadly very disappointing in the directing of the dialogue. Joel Coen has many wonderful traits, appreciating the language of Shakespeare is not one of them.

for making a commercially successful superhero movie template? nah. good for him for accomplishing his goals, though. but the entire MCU could disappear from the face of the earth, and film wouldn't be worse off. there needs to be more.

Ha, brutal but... I mean... actually you're right. It called all disappear and the loss to the art of cinema is... pretty nonexistent.

A ton of action movies and romcoms exist and all make significantly less that any MCU movie in the US. There hasn't been a franchise like the MCU in the history of cinema with multiple top performing blockbusters every year for more than a decade. I doubt that theater owners would be as confident something else could just fill the void.

Cinema existed quite happily for decades before the MCU Audiences would just watch something else.

The emergence of the mega franchises has created a culture among movie attendees where they only see these types of tent-pole films and have begun to value less and less movies that aren't blockbusters. People still have finite money, but if they are planning to see movies, sometime years in advance, then that money is already mentally locked up and they are less likely to be flexible with it on other movies.

QUOTED FOR TRUTH!!!!

[Username taken]

Sure, revenue has been going up (source), but those numbers require more interpretation because they aren't adjusted for inflation. A ticket bought in 2002 is the same item as one bought in 2022, so they are easy compare, but they are not the same price. This is why analysts prefer tickets sold over revenue and using that information, argue that theatres were in trouble before the pandemic.

Also, don't you think it is a little sus that revenue can increase, but attendance decrease? It's the industry drawing more money from a smaller pool of people by hiking admissions. The MCU being popular doesn't reverse this trend.

I don't have numbers but I won't be surprised that audiences for various forms of entertainment begun splintering.

Most likely due to SO MANY forms of entertainment from streaming to video games to TV. A lot of movies that were shown in theaters now go straight to streaming and I can't see that trend reversing anytime soon.

The MCU isn't responsible for falling attendances and can't be the sole reason audiences come back into theatres. That being said, if the MCU is one the major reasons that people still come into theaters even during a pandemic, then their contribution to the industry at the moment is very, very important.

[Castle]

Errrr... I'm sorry, but Shakespeare in Love (1998) is NOT a Shakespeare adaptation, not really. YES, they are performing Romeo & Juliet, and mirroring the creation of the plot with that of the characters writing it, but... it's not a Shakespeare adaptation. They don't speak in the language (which is THE CORE of Shakespeare). It's more a homage of Shakespeare. The same way the Dresser (1983) is not an adaptation of Shakespeare, despite them doing Shakespeare plays, and mirroring some of the stock characters. Ran (1985) is an adaptation of Shakespeare, despite not using the language, because it follows the plot. Shakespeare in Love is Romeo & Juliet meets Twelfth Night and the Comedy of Errors, and his sonnets, all in a big melting pot; that actually has very different ending, and different moral of the tale.


Again... you cannot compare the Tragedy of Macbeth (2021) to Shakespeare in Love; one is a Shakespeare play, the other... is not. And no, the new Macbeth is not a better film, regardless of this fact. It's actually sadly very disappointing in the directing of the dialogue. Joel Coen has many wonderful traits, appreciating the language of Shakespeare is not one of them.


Ha, brutal but... I mean... actually you're right. It called all disappear and the loss to the art of cinema is... pretty nonexistent.


Cinema existed quite happily for decades before the MCU Audiences would just watch something else.


QUOTED FOR TRUTH!!!!

I was equating two different kind of genre with my comparison to shakespare in love and Macbeth and saving private ryan and other war films.

I dont feel shakespare in love has had any big influence on how to approach or do anything Shakespeare related. However many directors such as Christopher Nolan, who made Dunkirk has said saving private Ryan was a huge influence on how he approached world war movies.

Saving Private Ryan has also stood the test of time, Shakespare in love does not seem to have aged really well in terms of film critical commentary

Saving private ryan also leaves with a bigger grounded human impact, which I thought the Oscars loved the most. Reason I will always feel they dropped the ball in 1999, the only comforting thing was that Spielberg won the award for best director.

I really love and admire Spielberg, I hope he gets another Oscar soon though.

[Kieran_Frost]

I was equating two different kind of genre with my comparison to shakespare in love and Macbeth and saving private ryan and other war films.

I dont feel shakespare in love has had any big influence on how to approach or do anything Shakespeare related.

Out of curiosity, have you seen this film? (apologies, I don't know a politer way of asking that) Because you keep saying "Shakespeare adapted/related" and it makes me wonder if you have seen it? I'll say it but once more: IT'S NOT A SHAKESPEARE FILM. It's a 'clever mirroring of [insert literary/artist/ person's work] with their life'; which is a style of biographical film making that is very much still used today. The fact he is Shakespeare is quite irrelevant to what the film is actually doing; and what type of film it presents. Either you haven't seen the film, or you've never read Shakespeare to realise why this is not a Shakespeare film; because you're just not getting it.

However many directors such as Christopher Nolan, who made Dunkirk has said saving private Ryan was a huge influence on how he approached world war movies.

Dunkirk (2017) was awful, so if Saving Private Ryan inspired it, ughhhhhh; yet another mark against its name.

Saving Private Ryan has also stood the test of time, Shakespare in love does not seem to have aged really well in terms of film critical commentary

According to whom? Everyone I know in the industry loves the film, because it's about their work environment and shared experience. And that's the point, it won because it's about making entertainment; which is VERY Hollywood.

Saving private ryan also leaves with a bigger grounded human impact, which I thought the Oscars loved the most. Reason I will always feel they dropped the ball in 1999, the only comforting thing was that Spielberg won the award for best director.

Does it, I felt it was self-defeating. Spielberg talked so much about 'not making war noble' (and ignoring the whole "I'll run to this tank, strapped with bombs, to save the dayyyyyyyyy, get him HOOOOOOMMMMMMEEE SAFFFFFFFEEEEEEEE" stupidity) it still failed in it's goal. It made the misery noble. It still added glory, but rather than the glory of war, it was the glory of sacrifice. He set out to make a film NOT glorifying war, and just glorified the soldiers instead. It was stupid.

[Colossus1980]

OR

Even if your snippity answer is correct by the way, you're not really addressing my central claim; that the MCU hasn't and won't save movie theatres. During the apogee of MCU hype a few years ago, movie theatres were still seeing declining attendance and one movie doing really well now isn't going to change that. Sure streaming probably is having an impact on the theatre industry, so, how does the MCU stop this trend? It doesn't, you need more films that people are willing to pay to see and that market doesn't seem to be here anymore.

The MCU was never going to save any movie theatres and I don't think anyone would claim that it would. If people don't want to see well acted dramas, rom-coms, animated films or whatever genre the blame can't be put on the shoulders of the MCU. I think the many streaming choices has done more harm to the smaller budget movies than the MCU.

[Castle]

Out of curiosity, have you seen this film? .

Yes, I saw it years ago so I dont deeply remember much about it. I think you are misunderstanding my views on the film. the film is indeed Shakespeare related because it is inspired by Shakespeare lore , it may not be a flat out Shakespeare adaption but it is steal a Shakespeare related film

According to whom? Everyone I know in the industry loves the film, because it's about their work environment and shared experience. And that's the point, it won because it's about making entertainment; which is VERY Hollywood.

On the contrary there was news that came out that said if the academy voters was to recast their vote, they will choose saving private ryan over Shakespeare in love for best picture. Shakespeare in love is a polarising film by todays standard.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...-would-773522/

Does it, I felt it was self-defeating. Spielberg talked so much about 'not making war noble' (and ignoring the whole "I'll run to this tank, strapped with bombs, to save the dayyyyyyyyy, get him HOOOOOOMMMMMMEEE SAFFFFFFFEEEEEEEE" stupidity) it still failed in it's goal. It made the misery noble. It still added glory, but rather than the glory of war, it was the glory of sacrifice. He set out to make a film NOT glorifying war, and just glorified the soldiers instead. It was stupid.

This was not my experience in the film, the experience i got in the film was human characters caught in a situation beyond their control and a character who realises just how much people sacrificed to keep him alive decades gone by.


As I said, the Oscars have a history of loving their stripped down human stories that hits you at the most objective cores. saving private ryan had that in abundance over shakespare in love, a film I saw only ones years ago but cannot even deeply remember now meaning I found nothing about it really memorable, i have seen saving private ryan many times and it all started with the movie having an impact on me on the first watch that made me watch it again over the years, Shakespeare in love? not so much.

Additionally the artistic technical film achievement of saving private ryan is stronger than that of Shakespeare in love.