Originally posted by Matt H.
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
"Hollywood only makes superhero movies"
Collapse
X
-
Now everyone can have a complete KRULL lifestyle.
-
Originally posted by Dick Ringeisen View Post
Also, to get back more on topic here. I don't care much for the Marvel, DC superhero movies, And as someone showed on the first page here, that's been a lot of what has been released, recently. Myself, I am not keen on them, so, I don't see them. That's led to lulls in myself going to the movie theatre. Some years I go more often than others. When i do go, I find that I prefer the surprise of how the experience with the audience will be.
The other side of that came not too long ago when I was going through YouTube and found a clip from AVENGERS that had been processed in some way that gave the image a very phony look. I can't quite describe it other than to say it was like the contrast levels had been boosted to an uncomfortable level and the FPS seemed altered to where the CGI just looked like garbage and the interactions between characters felt off. It was a gross presentation - like when you get a new TV and leave the factory settings on - and I thought about what it would be like for someone who hadn't seen the film before to run across that clip. Of course, they'd wonder how such shoddy filmmaking could pass muster with people and it would make someone hard pressed not to feel as though it was just plain shitty. I don't think these films work well on their own either, meaning you're either a die hard who sees each and every one of them or you're just going to come across one on cable and it'll seem like the worst kind of SYFY channel trash. I get that. They're not necessarily meant to work as stand alone films by design so it makes sense that if you're not someone who is invested in seeing all the pieces come together it's just not gonna work for you.
In terms of there being 5 or 6 superhero movies in the top ten moneymakers of the year, I still can't buy how that affects people's ability to see other films that don't fit that category. The most recent example given in the post you mentioned was 2017. If you excise the Marvel and DC comics-based movies from that list here's what the Top Ten would have been:
1) STAR WARS: EP VIII
2) BEAUTY AND THE BEAST
3) IT
4) DESPICABLE ME 3
5) THE FATE OF THE FURIOUS
6) DUNKIRK
7) COCO
8) GET OUT
9) THE BOSS BABY
10) THE PIRATES OF THE CARRIBEAN: FUCK FACE ISLAND (too lazy to correct that)
A sci-fi franchise entry (not a superhero flick), four animated family films, a scary clown movie, a car chase picture, a serious, Oscar-bait war movie, a smart, low budget horror movie with a primarily black cast, a "thrill ride" movie based on an actual thrill ride
Going through that list and comparing it with top tens from the previous 3 or 4 decades what're really missing there are comedy vehicles (no Adam Sandler or Jim Carrey style fare) and generic romantic comedies. It almost looks a bit like 1979, minus the boxing movie and a few lowbrow comedies with THE JERK and MEATBALLS, and substitute a 007 joint for the PIRATES thing. I don't know. My cinema going days are behind me anyway so I should bow out of this, really, but going back to Scorsese's claim that true, artistic cinema must take risks the only genuinely risky film in this top ten is APOCALYPSE NOW. Someone could argue ALIEN as well but that's a straight up, throwback monster flick for sure1 Superman $93,292,767 817 $134,218,018 Dec 15 Warner Bros. 2 The Amityville Horror $86,432,000 748 $86,432,000 Jul 27 American International Pictures (AIP) 3 Rocky II $85,182,160 780 $85,182,160 Jun 15 United Artists 4 Star Trek: The Motion Picture $82,258,456 1,002 $82,258,456 Dec 7 Paramount Pictures 5 Alien $78,944,891 757 $78,944,891 May 25 Twentieth Century Fox 6 Apocalypse Now $78,784,010 3 $78,784,010 Aug 15 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) 7 10 $74,865,517 706 $74,865,517 Oct 5 Warner Bros. 8 The Jerk $73,691,419 525 $73,691,419 Dec 14 Universal Pictures 9 Moonraker $70,308,099 788 $70,308,099 Jun 29 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) 10 Meatballs $43,046,003 7 $43,046,003 Jun 29 Paramount Pictures Last edited by Toyboy; 06-13-2022, 03:16 PM.Now everyone can have a complete KRULL lifestyle.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Toyboy View Post
....
In terms of there being 5 or 6 superhero movies in the top ten moneymakers of the year, I still can't buy how that affects people's ability to see other films that don't fit that category. The most recent example given in the post you mentioned was 2017. If you excise the Marvel and DC comics-based movies from that list here's what the Top Ten would have been:
1) STAR WARS: EP VIII
2) BEAUTY AND THE BEAST
3) IT
4) DESPICABLE ME 3
5) THE FATE OF THE FURIOUS
6) DUNKIRK
7) COCO
8) GET OUT
9) THE BOSS BABY
10) THE PIRATES OF THE CARRIBEAN: FUCK FACE ISLAND (too lazy to correct that)
The funny thing, that actually left me chuckling, is even after you removed those superhero movies from 2017, I still managed to only see 1 movie on that list, and according to my records, I went to the movie theatre 11 times in 2017, lol.
There are other films out there, if somebody wants to see them. Not all of them are good times though, as sometimes the movie is just, shit.
I saw 3 re-released films in 2017. Some films I found stupid or boring such as It Comes At Night, Downsizing.... Not to drag on much, but probably the best films I saw in 2017 were Bladerunner 2049, Happy Death Day, and It. Mother! had some fun audience participation, lol. I recall at the end, as the movie wrapped up, and after it did, numerous people letting other's know what was on their mind. One guy was a bit more harsh on it than I would be when he said, "THAT WAS THE STUPIDEST MOVIE I'VE EVER SEEN!". lol, Mother! was not that bad, I'd rather watch it instead of watching Downsizing or It comes at Night, again....
So, yeah, it can be a bit bad out there, and some years are more slim than others for me when it comes to finding something I want to go to the movie theatre and see, however, even in 2017, I found some stuff that interested me.
Comment
-
Something interesting I noticed looking at the Box Office Mojo numbers by year: the amount of theaters/screens
In 1979 the largest number showing a particular movie was 1,002 (STAR TREK)
In 1989 it was 2,410 (GHOSTBUSTERS II)
In 1999 it was 3,411 (THE MUMMY)
In 2009 it was 4,455 (HARRY POTTER)
In 2019 it was 4,802 (THE LION KING)
Extrapolating off those numbers we see that there are about 5 times as many screens showing films than there were 50 years ago.
In 1989, arguably "risky" indie films DO THE RIGHT THING and SEX, LIES & VIDEOTAPE each made it onto 534 screens. The math would indicate that those two movies would make it onto at least 2,500 screens today. I attempted to find comparable films to see where those types of movies had ended up in the last decade or so and I'm not really finding any that fit the bill. However, looking at 2017 and finding movies playing on screens in the 2,500 range I'm seeing things like THE BIG SICK (romantic comedy), 47 METERS DOWN (shark flick), BOO! 2: A MEDEA HALLOWEEN (self-explanatory) and ALL EYEZ ON ME (Tupac biopic)
None of those are superhero movies but they've supplanted the kinds of smart, artsy indie films I feel like people are upset about not having access to on the big screen. I'm not sure what to make of that - I haven't seen any of the four movies I listed but I would be willing to bet none of them reach the levels of early Spike Lee or Soderbergh. My only guess is that the people that would potentially be making movies like that now are working in television. A modern day Soderbergh is likely to be trying to make the next Breaking Bad than trying to get a feature film on a fraction of the available screens for a few weeks.Now everyone can have a complete KRULL lifestyle.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dick Ringeisen View Post
The funny thing, that actually left me chuckling, is even after you removed those superhero movies from 2017, I still managed to only see 1 movie on that list, and according to my records, I went to the movie theatre 11 times in 2017, lol.
It's just going back to my original intent with this thread which is to combat the notion that the popularity of movies based on superhero comic books has ruined an art form. I'm not arguing that cinema is in great shape content-wise but the idea that a single genre's success is to blame for the overall quality of an artistic medium, and that a perceived lack of access for smart, risky creators is short-sighted on the part of people who seem to want to put the hammer down on Spider-man.Last edited by Toyboy; 06-13-2022, 04:24 PM.Now everyone can have a complete KRULL lifestyle.
Comment
-
Here's another crazy thing - looking at 1979, BUCK ROGERS IN THE 25th CENTURY was on almost 1,000 screens and was the 23rd biggest box office hit for that year. If that doesn't go a long way in explaining how we got to where we are now, I don't know what else will. People so desperately wanted another STAR WARS movie they spent $22M to see a fucking TV pilot on the big screen because it had robots and space battles in it. The general public has always wanted to see schlocky genre fare, even when it was a derivative, TV-grade reboot.Now everyone can have a complete KRULL lifestyle.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Toyboy View PostMy only guess is that the people that would potentially be making movies like that now are working in television. A modern day Soderbergh is likely to be trying to make the next Breaking Bad than trying to get a feature film on a fraction of the available screens for a few weeks.
The quality of television is so much higher than film and they specialise in the kind of movies we're bemoaning them not making anymore. Over the last couple years there haven't been any movies that come close to the quality of stuff like Succession and Ozark. If I was just coming out of films school I know which medium I'd be angling for.
"Never let the fact that they are doing it wrong stop you from doing it right." Hyman Mandell.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dom D View PostThe quality of television is so much higher than film and they specialise in the kind of movies we're bemoaning them not making anymore. Over the last couple years there haven't been any movies that come close to the quality of stuff like Succession and Ozark. If I was just coming out of films school I know which medium I'd be angling for.
Why would anybody watch a scum show like Videodrome? Why did you watch it, Max?
- 3 likes
Comment
-
I think the Golden Age of TV has passed but people keeping speaking as if it was still going on.
Lots of TV series have good actors but are full of rambling subplots, poorly plotted and undermotivated. Concision and depth are usually missing.
Lots of gems but little that is going to have the staying power of The Wire, Deadwood, etc.Last edited by Randy G; 06-13-2022, 09:08 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Toyboy View PostIn terms of there being 5 or 6 superhero movies in the top ten moneymakers of the year, I still can't buy how that affects people's ability to see other films that don't fit that category. The most recent example given in the post you mentioned was 2017. If you excise the Marvel and DC comics-based movies from that list here's what the Top Ten would have been:
1) STAR WARS: EP VIII
2) BEAUTY AND THE BEAST
3) IT
4) DESPICABLE ME 3
5) THE FATE OF THE FURIOUS
6) DUNKIRK
7) COCO
8) GET OUT
9) THE BOSS BABY
10) THE PIRATES OF THE CARRIBEAN: FUCK FACE ISLAND (too lazy to correct that)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Randy G View PostI think the Golden Age of TV has passed but people keeping speaking as if it was still going on.
Lots of TV series have good actors but are full of rambling subplots, poorly plotted and undermotivated. Concision and depth are usually missing.
Lots of gems but little that is going to have the staying power of The Wire, Deadwood, etc."Never let the fact that they are doing it wrong stop you from doing it right." Hyman Mandell.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Toyboy View PostHere's another crazy thing - looking at 1979, BUCK ROGERS IN THE 25th CENTURY was on almost 1,000 screens and was the 23rd biggest box office hit for that year. If that doesn't go a long way in explaining how we got to where we are now, I don't know what else will. People so desperately wanted another STAR WARS movie they spent $22M to see a fucking TV pilot on the big screen because it had robots and space battles in it. The general public has always wanted to see schlocky genre fare, even when it was a derivative, TV-grade reboot.
You mentioned that in order to understand the Marvel movies you need to see them all. Yeah, that's why I'm never going to watch them all. I have seen the two Hulk movies and clips of an Avengers movie. The scene I watched had Iron Man and some other character having a fight. It started out as live action, with actors in suits (I think), but then became a CGI cartoon. Lots of sparks were flying and....well, I got lost. I'm not a big fan of CGI. It also bothers me that at least 3 actors have played Bruce Banner / The Hulk in different movies. Why they can't keep the same actor, I don't know.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dom D View PostThe sheer mass of great content is almost impossible to keep up with at the moment. There seems to be something new and brilliant every other week right now.
Why would anybody watch a scum show like Videodrome? Why did you watch it, Max?
Comment
-
Looking at 1981 you see that the number 2 film at the box office that year was ON GOLDEN POND, beat out only by RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK but doing better than SUPERMAN II.
How would that movie do today? Not a remake or re-release, but let's say the play hadn't been adapted before and somebody decided to get Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan together, and maybe a kid from Stranger Things, and basically made the same thing and put it in theaters. If you took superhero movies out of the equation where would a movie about an old man picking blueberries and teaching a teenager how to drive a boat through rocks end up in the box office charts in 2022?
Now everyone can have a complete KRULL lifestyle.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Toyboy View PostLooking at 1981 you see that the number 2 film at the box office that year was ON GOLDEN POND, beat out only by RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK but doing better than SUPERMAN II.
How would that movie do today? Not a remake or re-release, but let's say the play hadn't been adapted before and somebody decided to get Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan together, and maybe a kid from Stranger Things, and basically made the same thing and put it in theaters. If you took superhero movies out of the equation where would a movie about an old man picking blueberries and teaching a teenager how to drive a boat through rocks end up in the box office charts in 2022?Why would anybody watch a scum show like Videodrome? Why did you watch it, Max?
Comment
Comment