Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Hollywood only makes superhero movies"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Toyboy View Post
    When it did premier on Netflix it was in their Top 10 for a quite a while and the film got a lot of buzz. I'm guessing, although I can't find numbers, that a lot of people streamed that film. It was nominated for Oscars and Golden Globes and got tons of attention. While it didn't shatter box office records it was most definitely seen by many, many people. It existed and thrived in terms of response in spite of the times in which it was made.
    It certainly helped that it starred Adam Driver (Kylo Ren) and Scarlett Johansson (Black Widow). I know that's a cynical take, but I've always loved it when a popular actor starts appearing in more interesting films after they've entered the zeitgeist. That's why I saw young teens in the theater for COSMOPOLIS (Robert Pattinson), mother! (Jennifer Lawrence), THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES (Ryan Gosling) and so on.
    Why would anybody watch a scum show like Videodrome? Why did you watch it, Max?

    Comment


    • #17
      I hope I'm not just stating the obvious here, but it seems to be that the root cause of the lack of variety in multiplexes (and thus box office revenue) isn't so much a decline in the quality/viability of mainstream cinema - it's more just a result of a huge fall in the QUANTITY of films made by the big Hollywood studios.

      Just speaking in broad (& likely ill-informed) generalisations here, but my impression is that, up to the dawn of the 21st century at least, the studios were essentially run by people who saw their business as making lots of movies.

      Decades after the idea of everyday folk going to the pictures three times a week ceased to be a reality, they still proceeded on the basis that they needed to get a new set of attractions on-screen every couple of weeks.... and when financial trouble hit, they often responded to it by making MORE, different movies; taking risks in the hope that, say, one in every ten lower budget movies might strike a chord with audiences and turn into a hit.

      Now that the studios are more firmly integrated into big, corporate conglomerates though, they've realised that this approach is simply madness in economic terms (irrespective of how many great/culturally significant films it might have produced along the way).

      So, they've started behaving like sensible (ie, non-arts based) businesses, and responding to tough times by investing in a single, sure-fire proposition (ie, a blockbuster franchise movie once every three months), hoovering up the profits, and SITTING ON THEM (or funnelling them into other parts of the corporate super-structure or whatever they hell they do), instead of ploughing their dough into the multiple, low level risks represented by every weirdo who reaches their desk waving a script.

      Hence: "Hollywood only makes superhero movies".

      The flipside of this of course is that the kind of mid-budget genre movies we all love around here DO still get made - in greater numbers than ever before, more than likely. The only difference is, they tend to be nurtured into existence by a vast quantity of tiny production companies and arts subsidy organisations, the totality of whose logos cover an entire widescreen frame from top to bottom in 10-point type -- and 99% of the time, they don't muscle their way into the multiplexes no more.

      To be honest, the reality of every American film that's neither blockbuster nor Oscar-bait essentially being an indie movie is kind of a mixed blessing.... probably a lot more in the minus than the plus column for me personally, but perhaps that's a topic for another day.

      Suffice to say though, I don't think the feature film is a 'dead medium', any more-so than the novel became a dead medium as a result of everyone on earth seemingly reading Dan Brown or Jon Grisham or whatever.

      [And now we come to the point where someone ruins my argument by crunching the numbers and telling me that the Hollywood majors actually released 26 times as many films in 2019 as they did in 1972, or somesuch...]
      https://breakfastintheruins.blogspot.com/
      http://stereosanctity.blogspot.com/

      Comment


      • #18
        The reason I started this thread was because so many of the reactions I was seeing just felt knee jerk, so I'm glad to be getting some thoughtful discussion around the subject. Ultimately what I'm realizing on a personal level is that I don't particularly care about the cinema going experience anymore. Going to see INLAND EMPIRE was a real endurance test for me - not just because of the movie itself but the fact that I was in a room full of strangers, which in the current climate is stress-inducing enough, and in a sea of ambient noise. Endless plastic bag rustling, beer cans being popped open, coughing and multiple people moving up and down the aisles for the duration. It's no longer a pleasant experience for me so if cinema is dying I'm not all that heartbroken over it, to be honest.
        Now everyone can have a complete KRULL lifestyle.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by BW Haggar View Post
          - it's more just a result of a huge fall in the QUANTITY of films made by the big Hollywood studios..]
          I'm sure this is true but I have no idea how you put together the numbers on it.

          I don't know if you guys are watching The Offer (you should be, after a shit first episode its great) but it's focusing largely on Robert Evans and the crew at Paramount in the '70s. At the time it's set they are producing The Godfather, Love Stroy and Chinatown, not just as prestige pictures, but as their bankers that they expect to bring in the big dollars and fund the studio. You wouldn't even get those films made today let alone expect them to bankroll a studio. In order for films like that to make money they had to be good. If the films were no good there's no reason for anyone to go watch those movies. They were aiming to make classics and so they did. No studio exec these days is sitting at the first screening of Thor: Whateverthefuck and biting his nails, praying that the movies going to be good or he's going to lose his shirt. The movie sells itself. Whether it has quality or not is largely by the by. Way more important to hit the release date than make a good movie.

          In one of William Goldmans books from the 90s he has a lot of unpleasant things to say about the Hollywood Greenlight men but reading it a while back I get nostalgic for their attitude. He was talking about how each studio has a rolling slate of upcoming productions, a couple big movies that their banking on, a bunch of smaller productions that they hope break above even and then the one they "have hopes' for. They're making the other films to make money so that they can make this one for themselves. That one doesn't get made anymore.


          "Never let the fact that they are doing it wrong stop you from doing it right." Hyman Mandell.

          Comment


          • #20
            Something I didn't address in my initial post is the assertion that filmmakers such as Scorsese and Coppola have made that superhero films can't be classified as cinema, or some variation of that thought. That irks me as well and here's why:

            For the most part a superhero film can be alternately classified as SCI-FI/ACTION (or in the case of the more humor-tinged stuff like GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY and ANT-MAN, SCI-FI/ACTION/COMEDY). In a video store they'd likely be shelved next to ALIENS, TERMINATOR 2, GHOSTBUSTERS, THE MATRIX and JURASSIC PARK. Are those movies not able to be classified as cinema?

            Knowing I'll probably catch a little heat for this, I contend that the first two waves of MCU movies (barring maybe THOR:THE DARK WORLD and IRON MAN III) were as enjoyable and in some cases more so than what many would consider classics in the SCI-FI/ACTION category. I don't see much difference in terms of quality in something like Nolan's DARK KNIGHT or CAPTAIN AMERICA:WINTER SOLDIER as I do with any of the MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE films or a 90's film like FACE/OFF or even something slightly classier that has no SCI-FI like HEAT. People speaking intensely, car chases, big guns, big explosions. Is it the costumes that somehow devalue these movies in peoples' eyes? The marketing and the connectivity? Why do 007 movies get a pass but BATMAN doesn't? Does Scorsese hate Zorro and Robin Hood?

            I guess I just have a tough time wrapping my head around the general disdain for capes & cowls. Granted, I reached my saturation point with the stuff around the time of BLACK PANTHER and CAPTAIN MARVEL but like with zombie movies or vampire movies I just tend to avoid them now. I have zero desire to see THE ETERNALS and the Marvel shows on Dinsey+ have left me cold. The zombie craze was REALLY bugging me when it was at its height and I definitely got on here and bitched about it more than once but I had to step back and acknowledge that not only weren't there that many more zombie related films being made (although it sure felt like it) than any other time in history but that I could also just ignore them. These comments from old school filmmakers are being pulled from interviews where they're being asked to have an opinion on the spot about stuff they likely haven't even watched, but I do see a lot of derision online from people in the alt/indie comics realm as well. I'm happy to admit I've enjoyed more Marvel movies than I've actively disliked.
            Now everyone can have a complete KRULL lifestyle.

            Comment


            • #21
              I think it's also in human nature to want to play devil's advocate when something becomes cliche. I know I do it. It may be one of the reasons why you feel you want to defend superhero movies because it's certainly been cliche to say "Hollywood only makes superhero movies" for quite a while now. It's cliche to say "I hate CGI" so you're more often hearing people defending it nowadays, or at least giving more measured opinions: "CGI is effective when used properly" is something people say a lot now. Another example is when a movie is getting too much acclaim, there's always going to be a point when someone comes along and starts using words like "overrated" and then people will sometimes go in that direction for a bit, until someone feels like it's now become "underrated" and so on and so forth.
              Why would anybody watch a scum show like Videodrome? Why did you watch it, Max?

              Comment


              • #22
                I'm firmly in the Scorsese/Coppola camp.
                Out here on the perimeter we is stoned...immaculate

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Matt H. View Post
                  I think it's also in human nature to want to play devil's advocate when something becomes cliche. I know I do it. It may be one of the reasons why you feel you want to defend superhero movies because it's certainly been cliche to say "Hollywood only makes superhero movies" for quite a while now. It's cliche to say "I hate CGI" so you're more often hearing people defending it nowadays, or at least giving more measured opinions: "CGI is effective when used properly" is something people say a lot now. Another example is when a movie is getting too much acclaim, there's always going to be a point when someone comes along and starts using words like "overrated" and then people will sometimes go in that direction for a bit, until someone feels like it's now become "underrated" and so on and so forth.
                  That's absolutely part of it for me.
                  Now everyone can have a complete KRULL lifestyle.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by unclefred View Post
                    I'm firmly in the Scorsese/Coppola camp.
                    I realized that I never read the full quote from Scorsese to get the context and intent of his statement and in searching for it I found his follow-up editorial from the New York Times. To boil down his clarification he says that superhero films are not art because they do not take risks and are made to "satisfy a specific set of demands and are designed as variations of a finite number of themes"

                    He's describing exploitation and, in turn, the majority of film and television since the dawn of the mediums. I wonder if Marty took the time to see what exactly was playing in the grindhouses Travis Bickle drove past in TAXI DRIVER.

                    He's describing every Tarzan movie. Every teen sex comedy from the 80's. He's describing every Western where the sheriff has a showdown with a villain. Every slasher flick. Every Hong Kong martial arts period piece. Every porno.

                    Cinema has always had more showmen and money grubbers than artists. That's a fact, and not every artist delivers the goods with each effort, Marty included. Was CASINO a risky endeavor? Felt like a GOODFELLAS remake to me.

                    The biggest problem I have with his think piece is that he specifically calls out Marvel. The largest quantity of feature films Marvel has put out in a single calendar year is three.

                    Three.

                    Somehow, with some element of witchy magic those three films obliterated the art film market in each year they were released. This isn't me mistaking his use of "superhero movie" to mean "big budget popcorn flick". He's pointedly calling out Marvel Studios. For their 2 or 3 film a year output.

                    Right.
                    Toyboy
                    like a hole in the head
                    Last edited by Toyboy; 06-10-2022, 03:52 PM.
                    Now everyone can have a complete KRULL lifestyle.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      All I know is that I grew up obsessed with comics and I'm burned out on superhero movies.

                      It would be nice if other kinds of films got played in big theatres more often. I miss being able to catch a decent thriller in a theatre.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Toyboy View Post
                        The reason I started this thread was because so many of the reactions I was seeing just felt knee jerk, so I'm glad to be getting some thoughtful discussion around the subject. Ultimately what I'm realizing on a personal level is that I don't particularly care about the cinema going experience anymore. Going to see INLAND EMPIRE was a real endurance test for me - not just because of the movie itself but the fact that I was in a room full of strangers, which in the current climate is stress-inducing enough, and in a sea of ambient noise. Endless plastic bag rustling, beer cans being popped open, coughing and multiple people moving up and down the aisles for the duration. It's no longer a pleasant experience for me so if cinema is dying I'm not all that heartbroken over it, to be honest.
                        I rarely go to movies these days for this reason. I want to sit and absorb something. I know there's an argument to be made for a giant screen with darkness all around, but it's F'd in the A by phones lighting up, chatter, food, and people coming and going.

                        And don't get me started on those fuckin EXIT signs.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Toyboy View Post

                          Here's my take on that - Noah Baumbach's A MARRIAGE STORY was announced to be streaming on Netflix at the same time Netflix gave it an incredibly meager theatrical release. I'd say that content wise it's in the same ballpark as KRAMER VS. KRAMER. It tanked in theaters. Now, the argument could be that was because it came out around Christmas and had to contend with whatever "superhero" flicks were out then but it's more likely, I think, that nobody bothered to see it in cinemas because A) it's the holiday season and who the fuck wants to sit through 2 hours or relationship turmoil then, and more importantly B) everyone with a Netflix subscription knew they'd be able to stream it soon after so why pay for it. When it did premier on Netflix it was in their Top 10 for a quite a while and the film got a lot of buzz. I'm guessing, although I can't find numbers, that a lot of people streamed that film. It was nominated for Oscars and Golden Globes and got tons of attention. While it didn't shatter box office records it was most definitely seen by many, many people. It existed and thrived in terms of response in spite of the times in which it was made.

                          The fact is that a movie very similar to KRAMER VS. KRAMER did get released at the height of superhero-mania and lots and lots of people saw it and it was very much an acclaimed release. Did it make $400M? No, but there's a good chance that if you simply count viewings there's a comparable audience there. If the point is that people aren't seeing or are not wanting to see adult dramas with zero CGI or explosions, A MARRIAGE STORY proves that isn't so. Those types of films are being made, talked about and seen.


                          The thing you are missing is that the theatrical release was the bare minimum required for Oscar consideration. Nobody saw it in theatres because Netflix DIDN"T WANT THEM TO. Netflix wanted the hype from Oscar noms, and possibly wins, to draw in new subscribers to their service.

                          Also, NOTHING Maher says is worth listening to, and it all falls really fucking short of being worthy of repetition.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by BW Haggar View Post
                            I hope I'm not just stating the obvious here, but it seems to be that the root cause of the lack of variety in multiplexes (and thus box office revenue) isn't so much a decline in the quality/viability of mainstream cinema - it's more just a result of a huge fall in the QUANTITY of films made by the big Hollywood studios.

                            I get that POV, and it's easy to blame "Hollywood" -- but, the reality is that it's on AUDIENCES. "Hollywood" follows the money. Pure & simply. AUDIENCES only go to a few blockbusters and ignore most everything else? Guess what kinds of films don't get made and released in theaters??

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Mark Tolch View Post

                              I rarely go to movies these days for this reason. I want to sit and absorb something. I know there's an argument to be made for a giant screen with darkness all around, but it's F'd in the A by phones lighting up, chatter, food, and people coming and going.

                              And don't get me started on those fuckin EXIT signs.
                              At the Alamo Drafthouse chain they make a HUGE deal out of silencing your phones and not talking, but because they have a full menu that you can order from for the first half of the movie (or at least that was how it was a few years ago) you get employees running around bringing people their food and drinks, checking your orders under the lights in the tables and later processing credit cards. It's absurd.

                              I've probably told this story before but when I saw MAD MAX: FURY ROAD at the Alamo I ordered a chocolate chip cookie. The wait person came and grabbed my ticket, looked at it and asked if I wanted the chocolate chip cookie milkshake, something I didn't even know they had. The trailers were going at that point and I didn't quite catch the "milkshake" part so I just responded with a "Yes" and of course ten minutes later a milkshake gets dropped in front of me by a person who quickly dashed back to the kitchen. Now I'm thinking about this fucking milkshake instead of the movie and keeping an eye out for another staff member so I can correct the mistake. Once I get somebody's attention they went and got the person who originally took my order who came back, pissed, and said he'd asked me if I wanted a milkshake and I said yes so what's the problem. The whole thing was frustrating and embarrassing as I'm sure the people around me weren't happy with having to hear my bullshit.

                              But I was in the CINEMA watching art on the SILVER SCREEN so it was all glorious!
                              Now everyone can have a complete KRULL lifestyle.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Toyboy View Post

                                At the Alamo Drafthouse chain they make a HUGE deal out of silencing your phones and not talking, but because they have a full menu that you can order from for the first half of the movie (or at least that was how it was a few years ago) you get employees running around bringing people their food and drinks, checking your orders under the lights in the tables and later processing credit cards. It's absurd.

                                I've probably told this story before but when I saw MAD MAX: FURY ROAD at the Alamo I ordered a chocolate chip cookie. The wait person came and grabbed my ticket, looked at it and asked if I wanted the chocolate chip cookie milkshake, something I didn't even know they had. The trailers were going at that point and I didn't quite catch the "milkshake" part so I just responded with a "Yes" and of course ten minutes later a milkshake gets dropped in front of me by a person who quickly dashed back to the kitchen. Now I'm thinking about this fucking milkshake instead of the movie and keeping an eye out for another staff member so I can correct the mistake. Once I get somebody's attention they went and got the person who originally took my order who came back, pissed, and said he'd asked me if I wanted a milkshake and I said yes so what's the problem. The whole thing was frustrating and embarrassing as I'm sure the people around me weren't happy with having to hear my bullshit.

                                But I was in the CINEMA watching art on the SILVER SCREEN so it was all glorious!
                                Funny you should say that, on the new VS Thriller disc there's an intro and Q and A with Christina Lindberg from an Alamo where they go through the rules, including leaving complaint slips about other patrons out for their staff to pick up, and all the time there are food servers ducking in and out. I'm all for shutting people the fuck up during a screening, but even I felt it was all ridiculously draconian. Seems like the only people who can break the rules at an Alamo screening are their own staff in pursuance of more cash.
                                I'm bitter, I'm twisted, James Joyce is fucking my sister.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X