Topic: The RAWK Film Thread

[rafathegaffa83]

Agreed on the point about popular movies being rejected by the Oscars; is Return of the King the last ‘mainstream popular’ movie that saw Academy recognition?

It's not that they are being rejected, it's that what is popular at the box office has dramatically changed. I think the issue that people are overlooking here is that the cinematic monoculture is broken, along with most of the components that allowed it to operate for decades. The franchise films, mainly the comic book ones, broke the last incarnation in the early 2000s during a time when it looked like independent studios were the way of the future. A lot of films made today are largely made with an existing intellectual property in mind that gives them a built-in audience and they are designed to be as accessible to the widest audience possible. Look at the highest grossing films in the 1970s through the 1990s. Films catering to children and families generally got short shrift until about twenty years ago. And it was evident at the box-office.

In 1971, the highest grossing films at the U.S. box-office included the French Connection (3rd), Fiddler on the Roof (1st), A Clockwork Orange (7th) and Last Picture Show (9th). All four were nominated for Best Picture. Some of the other highest grossing films that year included Billy Jack, Dirty Harry and Carnal Knowledge, all films designed for an adult audience. Even films even more explicitly designed for an adult audience were popular. In 1972, Deep Throat, a pornographic film, was one of the highest grossing films in the United States. The most conservative estimate was that it made the equivalent of $619 million in today's money. The following year, the tenth highest grossing film in the U.S. was also a porn film (The Devil in Miss Jones). The arrival of the summer blockbuster (via Jaws and Star Wars) and home video becoming more cost-effective and simpler radically changed the box-office in the 1980s. High concept films often helmed by stars were in vogue.

I think you can mark the shift to where we are today started in the early 1980s. For example of the nominees for 1983, Tender Mercies made $8.4 million, The Right Stuff made $21.1 million (and lost money) and The Dresser made $5.3 million. Only Terms of Endearment  and The Big Chill made a lot of money and neither of those were among the top grossing films of the year. This is also the point in time when studios started releasing films that are likely to win an Academy Award later in the year, which skews their grosses for the calendar year.

The film market has radically changed in the past twenty-five years. The year 2000 was the end of the old era before franchises, back when stars not IP largely sold tickets, and genres like comedy still sold a shitload of tickets provided they were fronted by a name.

Spoiler

Domestic Grosses (In-Year)

1. How the Grinch Stole Christmas: $260 million
2 Cast Away: $233 million
3. Mission Impossible II: $215 million
4. Gladiator: $187 million
5. What Women Want: $182 million
6. The Perfect Storm: $182 million
7. Meet the Parents: $166 million
8. X-Men: $157 million
9. Scary Movie: $157 million
10. What Lies Beneath: $155 million
11. Dinosaur: $137 million
12. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: $128 million
13. Erin Brockovich: $128 million
14. Charlie's Angels: $125 million
15. Traffic: $124 million
16. Nutty Professor II: $123 million
17. Big Momma's House: $117 million
18. Remember the Titans: $115 million
19. The Patriot: $113 million
20. Chicken Run: $106 million

[close]

Like in that list alone Mel Gibson had three films based on an original idea that grossed more than $400 million just in the U.S, and Traffic and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon grossed more than $100 million each. Even a few years earlier, a film like Shakespeare in Love could be the ninth highest grossing film worldwide on the back of an Oscar win and strong reviews. But the death of the print journalism has also radically changed filmgoing.

 It's not that the Academy Awards is necessarily rejecting popular movies, it's that the release, marketing, reviewing and production of films has shifted to a point where things like critical opinion are no longer considered gospel that can make or break a film (since everyone with a Twitter and Letterboxd account is one now) and popular films have for a long time been marketed at getting repeat viewers from people with disposable income (males aged 16-35). If it's got a built-in audience, even better. Streaming is going to widen that gap even more, because studios will view prestige films like prestige television, as a way to get and retain subscribers (see Disney dumping Pixar releases on its streaming service). The pandemic made this worse, because non-target viewers (skewing older and women) largely stayed at home, which is part of the reason why films like West Side Story fared poorly. As a result, it's likely going forward that studios will take those smaller and medium-sized films they would have released for their non-target audience and release them on streaming services instead, even though there was some evidence just before the pandemic began that those sort of films were capable of making a significant amount of money (i.e. Crazy Rich Asians)

[Sheer Magnetism]

Rafa is partly right, but not about the monoculture. We have even more of a cinematic monoculture today than ever, it's just that the science of generating hit movies is far more refined and studios less willing to take risks. The 70's comparison is true but that period (really 1967 to about 1982) is virtually unique in Hollywood history, if you look at the biggest films of the 60s you see Disney movies, musicals, James Bond films, biblical epics and ensemble comedies, most of which never came near the best film Oscar. By the mid-80s, a lot of the nominees were already separated from the commercial centre: The Last Emperor, which won in 1987, didn't even breach the US box office weekly top five until it won the Oscar.

The real issue is that the present situation is the culmination of a cultural conservatism that's been increasing for years and that Pauline Kael was talking about as far back as 1980 or so, when Superman came out. The studios were taken over by larger companies, executives from outside the industry were appointed and films began to be sold like any other product while directors looking to innovate were largely sidelined unless they could be absorbed into an already strongly defined commercial archetype.

The end result is that the middle has dropped out of the market. There are no more highbrow prestige films there: even as recently as 2015, you had the likes of The Martian, The Revenant, The Big Short, Bridge of Spies, Steve Jobs and Straight Outta Compton, all of which had decent budgets, got critical acclaim and almost all of which were big hits, as well as lower budget films like Spotlight, Room, Carol, Ex Machina, Brooklyn and The Danish Girl which had lower budgets but were given decent commercial pushes by their studios and generally made money. Where is the equivalent of that in 2021?

[shy_talk]

The film industry have known there's a problem, they've tried to reintroduce 3D how many times? (I'm aware of 'the birds', 'jaws 3D', and whichever of the harry potter films to mark three iterations) because they don't like piracy. If the cinema wasn't as expensive as it is they'd perhaps see an increase in tix sold. The hype train that's setup to push whichever is the latest need-to-be-juggernaut seems to get lost in the hype of the last and so forth.
A microcosm of modern thinking, throw as much money at whatever it is to guarantee a success.

I'm unsure if it's due to this board totally but I can't shake the 'Poochie' episode of the Simpsons,

Homer: I'm the worst Poochie ever.
Lisa: No, it's not your fault, Dad. You did fine.
It's just that Poochie was a soulless by-product of committee thinking.
You can't be cool just by spouting a bunch of worn-out buzzwords.

The demand at Studio level appears to be counterproductive. Let the film makers do what they do, inventing a load of boxes to be ticked is restrictive, the golden age of 'stars' doing as they're told is done with. And that's another thing, there was plenty of hay made citing 'baddies' of German descent in the antagonist roles, ok sign of the times, then the cold calculating British accent got a turn. Now it's faceless whozits trotted out by the legion to be laid waste. They can't all be the dreaded 'foot clan'. (Cartoon example).
Remakes, ('Frankly my dear I love you') what is sacred? recycling ideas has been bad, ('barb wire'/'casablanca')('mortal engines'/'star wars') there's loads. Cynical cash grabs put people off and stain the memory of originals. For instance, I'd like to be able to buy the original star wars trilogy and enjoy Jim Henson's work untampered with.

There's always been shite, wrapped up and packaged as something it can't dream to be, audiences aren't stupid, and casual film fans know who to listen to and which of their pals/peers opinions to run with or not.

Junk Cinema is the same as Junk Food, crammed with rubbish and isn't particularly good for you, as an occasional "treat" (ahem) it's ok, but rarely anything more than an indulgence. Have we all become more discerning? Have attention spans been eroded so much that 'classic' storytelling is nigh impossible? I'm fairly sure audiences and humanity are not more patient or tolerant. Are producers catering to the lowest common denominator and to hell with the art and any message?  Sewn the seeds of their own destruction - poetic in its way.

[Sheer Magnetism]

Having said all that, I don't think this is a particularly horrible time for movies, more of a bland period. It is important to remember that while there have been Hollywood golden ages, much of its history has been tainted by remakes, gimmicks, franchises, formulas and rank stupidity. This clip is from 1994, arguably the greatest year in cinema:


<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/Lu7PxhwDGqw" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/Lu7PxhwDGqw</a>

[Andy @ Allerton!]

The film industry have known there's a problem, they've tried to reintroduce 3D how many times? (I'm aware of 'the birds', 'jaws 3D', and whichever of the harry potter films to mark three iterations) because they don't like piracy. If the cinema wasn't as expensive as it is they'd perhaps see an increase in tix sold. The hype train that's setup to push whichever is the latest need-to-be-juggernaut seems to get lost in the hype of the last and so forth.
A microcosm of modern thinking, throw as much money at whatever it is to guarantee a success.

I'm unsure if it's due to this board totally but I can't shake the 'Poochie' episode of the Simpsons,

Homer: I'm the worst Poochie ever.
Lisa: No, it's not your fault, Dad. You did fine.
It's just that Poochie was a soulless by-product of committee thinking.
You can't be cool just by spouting a bunch of worn-out buzzwords.

The demand at Studio level appears to be counterproductive. Let the film makers do what they do, inventing a load of boxes to be ticked is restrictive, the golden age of 'stars' doing as they're told is done with. And that's another thing, there was plenty of hay made citing 'baddies' of German descent in the antagonist roles, ok sign of the times, then the cold calculating British accent got a turn. Now it's faceless whozits trotted out by the legion to be laid waste. They can't all be the dreaded 'foot clan'. (Cartoon example).
Remakes, ('Frankly my dear I love you') what is sacred? recycling ideas has been bad, ('barb wire'/'casablanca')('mortal engines'/'star wars') there's loads. Cynical cash grabs put people off and stain the memory of originals. For instance, I'd like to be able to buy the original star wars trilogy and enjoy Jim Henson's work untampered with.

There's always been shite, wrapped up and packaged as something it can't dream to be, audiences aren't stupid, and casual film fans know who to listen to and which of their pals/peers opinions to run with or not.

Junk Cinema is the same as Junk Food, crammed with rubbish and isn't particularly good for you, as an occasional "treat" (ahem) it's ok, but rarely anything more than an indulgence. Have we all become more discerning? Have attention spans been eroded so much that 'classic' storytelling is nigh impossible? I'm fairly sure audiences and humanity are not more patient or tolerant. Are producers catering to the lowest common denominator and to hell with the art and any message?  Sewn the seeds of their own destruction - poetic in its way.

it's not expensive if you commit to a monthly ticket - I think you can get them for most Cinema chains?

We've had ours for maybe 20 odd years and we love it because it makes us go and it is about £30 a month for the both of us - more than worth it for us as we tend to go 3-4 times a month (Sometimes more) - plus gives us money off ale and food and restaurants..

.. missed out a bit this month with the missus having had covid and I've got a cold, but looking forward to getting back to it soon

[Wild Romany Boy]

Some really brilliant analysis from Sheer, Shy, and Rafa in this thread. Thanks for posting it.

[El Lobo]

it's not expensive if you commit to a monthly ticket - I think you can get them for most Cinema chains?

We've had ours for maybe 20 odd years and we love it because it makes us go and it is about £30 a month for the both of us - more than worth it for us as we tend to go 3-4 times a month (Sometimes more) - plus gives us money off ale and food and restaurants..

.. missed out a bit this month with the missus having had covid and I've got a cold, but looking forward to getting back to it soon

Its not but then you're still talking £180 a year each, plus buying drinks, snacks etc. if you're going with Odeon. And Odeon tickets are about a tenner, so that's 18 films a year if you don't buy the season pass without being 'out of pocket' and I can't imagine there's 18 movies a year that normal people would genuinely think they needed to see at the cinema, particularly when they're released pretty shortly afterwards (and often just direct to TV like Disney+ or Netflix) AND peoples TV set ups are getting closer to replicating what you get at the cinema anyway. Vue don't do a season ticket.....they're just dirt cheap (fiver a ticket I think?) so that's 39 films a year and there sure as shit aren't 39 good films being released in a cinema in a year unless you're watching old movies. Cineworld I think is even more than £180 a year unless you live in Bolton.

3-4 times a month though....fucking hell you must be watching any old crap!

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Its not but then you're still talking £180 a year each, plus buying drinks, snacks etc. if you're going with Odeon. And Odeon tickets are about a tenner, so that's 18 films a year if you don't buy the season pass without being 'out of pocket' and I can't imagine there's 18 movies a year that normal people would genuinely think they needed to see at the cinema, particularly when they're released pretty shortly afterwards (and often just direct to TV like Disney+ or Netflix) AND peoples TV set ups are getting closer to replicating what you get at the cinema anyway. Vue don't do a season ticket.....they're just dirt cheap (fiver a ticket I think?) so that's 39 films a year and there sure as shit aren't 39 good films being released in a cinema in a year unless you're watching old movies. Cineworld I think is even more than £180 a year unless you live in Bolton.

3-4 times a month though....fucking hell you must be watching any old crap!

We tend to give most things a go and quite often we won't see things straight away. I get that some people are precious when it comes to watching films, but I just want to be entertained and it's a date night with the missus.

We don't buy any food or snacks (But I buy ale now and then if the missus is driving) but if someone is on a budget then they can openly bring in food and snacks to any cinema and they won't stop you (In fact they all confirmed that by law it's fine for you to do - you don't have to hide it and never did it turns out)


Looking at stuff that we would watch next that is on/on next shows that there are easily more than 3-4 films a month that are watchable

Stuff we won’t bother with (looks shit)

Ambulance
RRR (Foreign)
The Nan movie
X
The Bad Guys
Sonic the Hedgehog 2
M4J Rabbit Academy

Stuff we have already seen that’s showing

The Batman
Uncharted

Stuff that we’ve not seen that’s showing/showing soon and might give a go next

Umma
Phantom of the Open
The Duke
Sing 2
Morbius
Operation Mincemeat
Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore
The Lost City
The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent
Downtown Abbey - A new Era (One for the missus that one)



So of th eones showing now/next, we’ve seen two of them. We will probably gib 7 of them, but that still gives us 10 to think about seeing over the next couple of months

Every month there are easily 3 or 4 that are worth a go, and yeah, some are shite - but still enjoy going to the pictures. We love going - I have legal Netflix, Amazon Prime, Britbox, Disney+, Sky Movies and all the rest, but despite that we still go - because going to the pictures is something we love doing.

[mattD]

So here's the apology:

He ought to try telling that to his weirdo Scientologist mates.

[killer-heels]

So here's the apology:

God, that is some utter tripe by Smith not only that statement but his acceptance speech. Wish Chris Rock would have punched him in the face now.

[Sir Capon of Debaser]

Jim Carrey on Will smith aboot 2.30 onwards

<a href="https://youtube.com/v/33JrmO8dS7c&amp;feature=share" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://youtube.com/v/33JrmO8dS7c&amp;feature=share</a>

[rafathegaffa83]

Rafa is partly right, but not about the monoculture. We have even more of a cinematic monoculture today than ever, it's just that the science of generating hit movies is far more refined and studios less willing to take risks

To be fair, the monoculture I was referring to was the way people consume media. A monoculture largely existed until about twenty-five years ago. We mostly all watched the same television and movies, Musical experiences were largely shared too. We don't really have that now. Cultural reference points are more fragmented. However, I'd agree that studios are far less willing to take risks now. 

The real issue is that the present situation is the culmination of a cultural conservatism that's been increasing for years and that Pauline Kael was talking about as far back as 1980 or so, when Superman came out. The studios were taken over by larger companies, executives from outside the industry were appointed and films began to be sold like any other product while directors looking to innovate were largely sidelined unless they could be absorbed into an already strongly defined commercial archetype.

The end result is that the middle has dropped out of the market. There are no more highbrow prestige films there: even as recently as 2015, you had the likes of The Martian, The Revenant, The Big Short, Bridge of Spies, Steve Jobs and Straight Outta Compton, all of which had decent budgets, got critical acclaim and almost all of which were big hits, as well as lower budget films like Spotlight, Room, Carol, Ex Machina, Brooklyn and The Danish Girl which had lower budgets but were given decent commercial pushes by their studios and generally made money. Where is the equivalent of that in 2021?

Yeah I'd agree with that. I think today those movies are now being bought up by streaming services to entice/retain viewers. Interestingly of the films you mentioned Ex Machina, Room and Carol are all Film4 productions. And like those Film4 productions, the others mentioned all involve multiple production companies. I think those sort of films are now the domain of what would have been independents and majors thirty years ago. A telling thing for me is if you look at who the domestic U.S. distributors are:

The Martian/The Revenant - Fox
Brooklyn - Fox Searchlight
Straight Outta Compton/Steve Jobs - Universal
The Big Short - Paramount
Bridge of Spies - Disney
Carol - Weinstein Company
Ex Machina/Room - A24
The Danish Girl - Focus Features
Spotlight - Open Road

Two of the studios (Fox Searchlight and Focus Features) are indie white labels for their majors Fox and Universal, and three of those distributors are historical independents. There's also a few notable absentees of the major players, but you could argue the likes of Warner Bros. made a significant amount of money on mid-tier releases like Magic Mike XXL ($14.8 million budget, $122 million return), Black Mass ($53 million budget, $99.8 million return) and American Sniper ($59 million budget, $547 million return) around the same time period.

Now flip it to last year and the domestic distributors for the Oscar-nominated films (I'll take out the non-English language productions out for argument's sake) for the big six categories (film, director, acting awards)

CODA/Tragedy of Macbeth - Apple
Being the Ricardos - Amazon
Belfast- Universal
Don't Look Up/The Power of the Dog/Tick Tick Boom/Lost Daughter - Netflix
Dune/King Richard - Warner Bros.
Licorice Pizza - United Artists/MGM
Nightmare Alley - Searchlight (Fox)
Spencer - Neon/Topic
West Side Story - 20th Century (Fox)

Since 2014/15, Disney has bought out Fox and Amazon has bought MGM. The space that the independent distributors had even seven years ago is being taken over by streaming services which is going to radically alter what is "popular" as there is less incentive for them to release these mid-tier films theatrically. It's going to be very interesting to see what Amazon end up doing with MGM, because they have the ultimate legacy brand that nobody has been able to get right since Kirk Kerkorian bought and asset stripped it.

[Sheer Magnetism]

Yes, and the real danger with that consolidation and shift to streaming platforms is that the same kind of algorithm that makes Netflix's in-house TV shows to dull and samey could end up being applied to its films.

Even going beyond that though, it feels like things are getting very samey in terms of themes. Looking at the last two or three years of the Black List - purportedly the best unproduced Hollywood screenplays - it's dominated by twist thrillers and high-concept sci-fi and romcoms. A considerable weakness of modern Hollywood is that most of the films care far more about their concepts than about exploring three-dimensional characters, which is one reason why foreign films seem to be making signficant inroads in the Oscars (another being that most of the best American writers are moving to TV).

[Sheer Magnetism]

Now flip it to last year and the domestic distributors for the Oscar-nominated films (I'll take out the non-English language productions out for argument's sake) for the big six categories (film, director, acting awards)

CODA/Tragedy of Macbeth - Apple
Being the Ricardos - Amazon
Belfast- Universal
Don't Look Up/The Power of the Dog/Tick Tick Boom/Lost Daughter - Netflix
Dune/King Richard - Warner Bros.
Licorice Pizza - United Artists/MGM
Nightmare Alley - Searchlight (Fox)
Spencer - Neon/Topic
West Side Story - 20th Century (Fox)

You know the other interesting thing about this list? Almost all these films were directed (and in many cases written) by veteran directors, most of whom made their name in the 90s or earlier, even the films that focus on young characters. It's all part of that same creeping conservatism.

[Zee_26]

You know the other interesting thing about this list? Almost all these films were directed (and in many cases written) by veteran directors, most of whom made their name in the 90s or earlier, even the films that focus on young characters. It's all part of that same creeping conservatism.

There's a huge marketing drive to win awards so maybe it's not a total surprise that Oscar contenders would be helmed by veteran directors. Studios probably want as sure a bet on what can win which lends credence to the conservatism argument, perhaps from a different lens.

You also have to account for the fact that a lot of the younger directors who have been nominated in recent years have been snapped up by the likes of Disney and WB to direct their blockbusters, or are involved in prestige television series by the big streamers and HBO. People like Zhao, Jenkins, Gerwig, Coogler have been attached to big productions which keeps them away from prestige dramas that could be nominated, while others like Eggers, Saulnier and Robert Mitchell are making genre films that wouldn't attract Oscar attention. Even A24 who produce some of the better films each year and hire really interesting directors don't have the budget to market and campaign for more than one film in reality.

[Ravishing Rick Dude]

Jim Carrey on Will smith aboot 2.30 onwards

<a href="https://youtube.com/v/33JrmO8dS7c&amp;feature=share" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://youtube.com/v/33JrmO8dS7c&amp;feature=share</a>

"We're not the cool club anymore"

Tbf you never were. I don't find artists to be the best examples of human beings. In fact, i always thought it's the opposite. Sure, they are good at what they do as a profession but not further than that.

[rafathegaffa83]

Bruce Willis has been forced to retire from acting after being diagnosed with aphasia

[Macphisto80]

Bruce Willis has been forced to retire from acting after being diagnosed with aphasia

Really sad to hear.

On the flip side, at least we won't get another Die Hard.

[shy_talk]

Really sad to hear.

On the flip side, at least we won't get another Die Hard.

With Willis.

[ScottScott]

Bruce Willis has been forced to retire from acting after being diagnosed with aphasia

Was rumoured over the last few weeks but was rumoured to be dementia. Makes sense now why he's been doing so many terrible films and I don't blame him at all. Make as much as possible for as little work and now he can retire and know his family will never want for anything

[lionel_messias]

You know the other interesting thing about this list? Almost all these films were directed (and in many cases written) by veteran directors, most of whom made their name in the 90s or earlier, even the films that focus on young characters. It's all part of that same creeping conservatism.

Good point, and you could argue it is pretty difficult to make your name today, in a medium that when it goes to streaming platforms gets lost into a kind of sludge of TOO MUCH CONTENT. Give you an example, there was an Adam Samberg movie on Amazon called Palm Springs - was really really good; a dark twisted romance with a Groundhog Day vibe to it. According to wiki, it cost $5 million to make, grossed around $100,000 in limited cinema release.

In the 1990s, that movie could have made $20-35 million at the Box Office, as a sleeper hit that gains in traction and ticket sales as more people hear about it. That would also make a bigger name of the director and off you go.

Nowadays the producers might make a little money from a fixed sale to Hulu and Amazon and of people I know, 1/10 have seen it.

Has anyone seen it on here?

[ScottScott]

I've seen it, thought it was absolutely brilliant. Love Adam Samberg as well, think he's quality. It's a film I would never have went out to watch but having it on Prime was great, both me and the Mrs loved it

[bradders1011]

Good point, and you could argue it is pretty difficult to make your name today, in a medium that when it goes to streaming platforms gets lost into a kind of sludge of TOO MUCH CONTENT. Give you an example, there was an Adam Sanberg movie on Amazon called Palm Springs - was really really good; a dark twisted romance with a Groundhog Day vibe to it. According to wiki, it cost $5 million to make, grossed around $100,000 in limited cinema release.

In the 1990s, that movie could have made $20-35 million at the Box Office, as a sleeper hit that gains in traction and ticket sales as more people hear about it. That would also make a bigger name of the director and off you go.

Nowadays the producers might make a little money from a fixed sale to Hulu and Amazon and of people I know, 1/10 have seen it.

Has anyone seen it on here?

Yes, enjoyed it a lot and as you say it could have become a useful "date night" film if released in cinemas alongside Samberg's Brooklyn 99 finale publicity.

[stockdam]

Watched Riders of Justice the other night. It was pretty good and some funny moments. It’s nice to watch a “fucked up” movie rather than the predictable Hollywood tripe where you know what is going to happen.

[El Lobo]

Good point, and you could argue it is pretty difficult to make your name today, in a medium that when it goes to streaming platforms gets lost into a kind of sludge of TOO MUCH CONTENT. Give you an example, there was an Adam Samberg movie on Amazon called Palm Springs - was really really good; a dark twisted romance with a Groundhog Day vibe to it. According to wiki, it cost $5 million to make, grossed around $100,000 in limited cinema release.

I've seen it, thought it was absolutely brilliant. Love Adam Samberg as well, think he's quality. It's a film I would never have went out to watch but having it on Prime was great, both me and the Mrs loved it

Poor guy. If it'd got a proper cinema release it might have made people get his name right

[newrosswaterford]

Good point, and you could argue it is pretty difficult to make your name today, in a medium that when it goes to streaming platforms gets lost into a kind of sludge of TOO MUCH CONTENT. Give you an example, there was an Adam Samberg movie on Amazon called Palm Springs - was really really good; a dark twisted romance with a Groundhog Day vibe to it. According to wiki, it cost $5 million to make, grossed around $100,000 in limited cinema release.

In the 1990s, that movie could have made $20-35 million at the Box Office, as a sleeper hit that gains in traction and ticket sales as more people hear about it. That would also make a bigger name of the director and off you go.

Nowadays the producers might make a little money from a fixed sale to Hulu and Amazon and of people I know, 1/10 have seen it.

Has anyone seen it on here?

Great Film.. I wish there were more comedy like this about.

[ScottScott]

Poor guy. If it'd got a proper cinema release it might have made people get his name right

Typing it felt strange but I just pushed ahead anyway 

[Morgana]

Seeing the joke, I can see why he was incensed to be fair.

I think the joke was pretty tame to be honest. Losing your hair to alopecia is traumatic but it's not cancer. Chris Rock might not have known about her having the condition either... It's tame either way, esp. when you consider all the mad shit he could have said about them and their dysfunctional family. He went easy on them. Will Smith is just a big fat pussy. A total coward to boot.

And by the way, GI Jane is gorgeous.

[John_P]

Just watched Apollo 10 1/2 A Space Age Childhood on Netflix.

A new film from Richard Linklater using rotoscope animation.
Just an absolute delight of a film.

[rafathegaffa83]

Will Smith has resigned from the Academy. Jumped before pushed

[shy_talk]

Will Smith has resigned from the Academy. Jumped before pushed

Xenu be praised.

[Nitramdorf]

Just watched Apollo 10 1/2 A Space Age Childhood on Netflix.

A new film from Richard Linklater using rotoscope animation.
Just an absolute delight of a film.

Thanks for this tip mate 

I might have missed this otherwise.

[The G in Gerrard]

Saw the Adam project. The kid playing Ryan Reynolds steals the film. Was enjoyable enough to watch at home.

[KillieRed]

Fresh on Disney+

Pretty good, not stereotypical for these kind of movies: 7/10.

[Tonyh8su]

Good point, and you could argue it is pretty difficult to make your name today, in a medium that when it goes to streaming platforms gets lost into a kind of sludge of TOO MUCH CONTENT. Give you an example, there was an Adam Samberg movie on Amazon called Palm Springs - was really really good; a dark twisted romance with a Groundhog Day vibe to it. According to wiki, it cost $5 million to make, grossed around $100,000 in limited cinema release.

In the 1990s, that movie could have made $20-35 million at the Box Office, as a sleeper hit that gains in traction and ticket sales as more people hear about it. That would also make a bigger name of the director and off you go.

Nowadays the producers might make a little money from a fixed sale to Hulu and Amazon and of people I know, 1/10 have seen it.

Has anyone seen it on here?

It was absolutely brilliant. Would've been a brilliant cinema watch, I think it would've had a release if it wasn't for Covid to be honest. Isn't it the biggest advance sale in Sundance history? Red Rocket is getting a national cinema release at the moment and that had a similar rise through Sundance etc. But, your point is very valid. Currently directing my first feature and, although it is exciting the amount of different avenues your film can go down and land on now, it's also annoying that "traditional route" is pretty much dead.

[Peabee]

Rafa is partly right, but not about the monoculture. We have even more of a cinematic monoculture today than ever, it's just that the science of generating hit movies is far more refined and studios less willing to take risks. The 70's comparison is true but that period (really 1967 to about 1982) is virtually unique in Hollywood history, if you look at the biggest films of the 60s you see Disney movies, musicals, James Bond films, biblical epics and ensemble comedies, most of which never came near the best film Oscar. By the mid-80s, a lot of the nominees were already separated from the commercial centre: The Last Emperor, which won in 1987, didn't even breach the US box office weekly top five until it won the Oscar.

The real issue is that the present situation is the culmination of a cultural conservatism that's been increasing for years and that Pauline Kael was talking about as far back as 1980 or so, when Superman came out. The studios were taken over by larger companies, executives from outside the industry were appointed and films began to be sold like any other product while directors looking to innovate were largely sidelined unless they could be absorbed into an already strongly defined commercial archetype.

The end result is that the middle has dropped out of the market. There are no more highbrow prestige films there: even as recently as 2015, you had the likes of The Martian, The Revenant, The Big Short, Bridge of Spies, Steve Jobs and Straight Outta Compton, all of which had decent budgets, got critical acclaim and almost all of which were big hits, as well as lower budget films like Spotlight, Room, Carol, Ex Machina, Brooklyn and The Danish Girl which had lower budgets but were given decent commercial pushes by their studios and generally made money. Where is the equivalent of that in 2021?

The execs at WB thought Superman should go back to Krypton at some point in a sequel (to Man in Steel). I kid you not.

https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/man-of-steel-krypton-change/

It was also the execs who didn’t want time travel in Justice League (fuck knows why?). That’s why the Wheddon version had some weird scene with Russians being rescued from an abandoned wasteland instead. 

It must be frustrating getting something made for the fans when the execs don’t have a clue about the material but also want their own opinions to influence the production.

[Pistolero]

Watched The Godfather Part II again last night...probably the 6th or 7th time I've seen it in its entirety, and it still blows me away....a thing of beauty, a work of art, a masterpiece.

[Red Ol]

Watched The Godfather Part II again last night...probably the 6th or 7th time I've seen it in its entirety, and it still blows me away....a thing of beauty, a work of art, a masterpiece.

Agreed. Unbelievably good! I watch 1&2 just about every 2 or 3 years but part 2 is my favourite.

[KillieRed]

I went to see The Godfather at the cinema recently for the anniversary release, though I’ve seen it many times it was still gripping. The opening wedding scene(s) just put a big smile on my face.

[PaulF]

Just popping in to mention escape from Mogadishu.  Had its faults but decent if you can get to it .