Super Sweet Movie Discussion Thread

[Blizzard]

Yeah, I've seen this video, but I don't buy it.

Content is king. Always has been, always will be. If Hollywood produces a good a product, ie. good writing, good acting, etc., audiences will show up. Hollywood has lost it's way, beginning with execs.

Technology for the delivery of content may've changed, but, fundamentally, the process still exists. So, they don't sell DVDs/physical media, they stream instead. This is the case with music and video games now as well, ex. digital media sales have outpaced physical media sales since at least 2020.

By eliminating physical media, companies have greater control of their content (they can change it, adjust availability, etc.) and they don't have to deal with some of the licensing issues that exist with physical media.

That said, there's also a bit of a growing pushback against digital media for some of those very same reasons because people don't own the content the way they do with physical media.

 

[Box]

Here is another way of saying that from the CUSTOMERS point of view:

In the 1990's it was OK if your movie wasn't good enough to get a good box office draw when it was released...
- There wasn't a consumer option for alternative content back then so there was no real motivation to make better movies.
- All you had to do was add a few blooper reels, a few actors bio's, and few scenes from the cutting floor - BAM - more content
- Plus, you could sell the DVD for a lot more than the same persona paid to see the same movie in the theater

Then of course, there is always the raw fact that the public gets what Hollywood gives them - its like that now - it was like that "then"
It's why John Wayne made Rio Bravo in 1959 and then El dorado in 1966 and then Rio Lobo in 1970 and still got the same fans to put the same asses in the same seats for the same movie...
...because that was the John Wayne movie that was in theaters at the time.

It wasn't because of technology - or a run of cheap plastic to make cheaper DVDs - or because Napster made it too easy to download pirated videos - or because of the glut of online streaming services.
It was because fans wanted to go to the theater to watch John Wayne movies.

Messaging has ALWAYS been prevalent in Hollywood movies.
Hell - the only reason John Wayne didn't play the lead role in "High Noon" was because of the movie's political messaging in the context of the early 1950's.
...but the movie STILL made money - because it was a good story - and the story telling came first with the political messaging squeezed in to the places where it fit.

The REAL problem (in my opinion) is because modern day movie makers build a political message - and then try to squeeze in the story around their talking points.


Maybe I'm just an angry old bastard, Matt Damon is always right - and the "modern audience" just isn't smart enough to recognize "good storytelling"

Maybe the real answer is somewhere in between Maaaaatt Day-Mun and Box - who knows.

 

[SpongeBob*24]

I think places like 12-16 screen places like Alamo drafthouse or roadhouse cinema, where I can get dinner+beer+movie for under $40 per person, will become more common.

I would need to spend WAY MORE than $40 to fill up because I am a fattkiddd...

See also WAR ON EVERYONE

:-":blkeye:

Rewatched War on Everyone....man that was awesome!!!!!

 

[BlackSmokeRisinG]

Movies suck for the same reason most Americans didn't vote for Kamala. They just don't get it!

One bad ass movie I saw this year that shocked me was Horizon. THAT is an American movie, yet it was taken out of theaters and the series is probably not going to finish because nobody came to see it.

Maybe Kevin Costner can get people into the theater if he puts some strong DEI characters in the movie (there actually is). Maybe at an 1860s tranny?

 

[Devildoc]

I think the future should be streamed mini-series; i.e., The Mandalorian, Reacher, Jack Ryan, The Diplomat, etc. You can pack so much more into it.

 

[Blizzard]

I think the future should be streamed mini-series; i.e., The Mandalorian, Reacher, Jack Ryan, The Diplomat, etc. You can pack so much more into it.

I may take some heat for this, but be honest, those series aren't really that good.

For all practical purposes, those shows aren't mini-series, but just higher production versions of traditional broadcast network series shows just distributed through new networks.

There are some great mini-series, like 1883, but they're really the outliers. Others may be just good enough to bridge the gap until something actually good comes along...and many are just regular series thay we may want to be good, but really aren't (I put Jack Ryan and The Mandalorian into that category).

 

[Devildoc]

I may take some heat for this, but be honest, those series aren't really that good.

For all practical purposes, those shows aren't mini-series, but just higher production versions of traditional broadcast network series shows just distributed through new networks.

There are some great mini-series, like 1883, but they're really the outliers. Others may be just good enough to bridge the gap until something actually good comes along...and many are just regular series thay we may want to be good, but really aren't (I put Jack Ryan and The Mandalorian into that category).

Semantics on whether they are mini-series or regular series.

But I think you can take an idea and flesh it into a multi-series streamed event and have a much better product than cramming several hours of content into a couple hours on a screen. I think some of the houses realized this (Star Wars, Marvel).

Can you imagine a Tom Clancy book like Red Storm Rising (his best book, IMO) in that format? Dude. That book cannot be made into a traditional movie.

 

[AWP]

Stories are just that and some are good for longer runtimes while others are not. I think the real problem is Netflix likes 8 episodes for whatever reason, when the story is perhaps better told in 6 or even 12 episodes. hat extra 90-120 minutes REALLY screws with the writing and plot development.

Some series will suck no matter what. but there are others that were shoehorned into the wrong length.

 

[Blizzard]

View attachment 46261

Semantics on whether they are mini-series or regular series.

But I think you can take an idea and flesh it into a multi-series streamed event and have a much better product than cramming several hours of content into a couple hours on a screen. I think some of the houses realized this (Star Wars, Marvel).

Can you imagine a Tom Clancy book like Red Storm Rising (his best book, IMO) in that format? Dude. That book cannot be made into a traditional movie.

Meh. I don't know. I think that's symptomatic of poor writing.

How many series have these character arcs that the collective audience just doesn't care about? Nearly all. They're filling space with stuff that doesn't move the story forward in any meaningful way. The Star Wars and Marvel universes are perfect examples of oversaturation of poor stories. There's plenty of fatigue out there as a result.

A good writer/story teller can convey a story succinctly. A more complex story can take a little longer to tell, but most of the time that's not the case.

Consider the John Wick series. We probabky all agree it was a good, entertaining action movie. Do we really need more? Is there more to learn or tell about John Wick? No. The story was pretty much done with the original movie. I'll take then 2nd and maybe even stretch to a 3rd, but that's it. Every version they make after that actually diminishes the original. An offshoot from the John Wick unvierse, The Continental, was made. It was good. Did it need to be tied to John Wick? No, it could've been done as a stand alone, but I'm fine with how they did it. It was a mini-story. Once and done.

What's more, not everything needs to be or should be a series. Top Gun didn't need another movie. What they did was good, but it wasn't necessary. Does Saving Private Ryan need a follow on? No. It was an amazing stand alone story. That's what I'm looking for...terrific stand alone shows that don't attempt to be more than what they are.

Edit: AWP's previous post basic says everything I post above more succinctly.

 

[Devildoc]

Meh. I don't know. I think that's symptomatic of poor writing.

How many series have these character arcs that the collective audience just doesn't care about? Nearly all. They're filling space with stuff that doesn't move the story forward in any meaningful way. The Star Wars and Marvel universes are perfect examples of oversaturation of poor stories. There's plenty of fatigue out there as a result.

A good writer/story teller can convey a story succinctly. A more complex story can take a little longer to tell, but most of the time that's not the case.

Consider the John Wick series. We probabky all agree it was a good, entertaining action movie. Do we really need more? Is the more to learn or tell about John Wick? No. The story was pretty much done with the original movie. I'll take then 2nd and maybe even stretch to a 3rd, but that's it. Every version they make after that actually diminishes the original. An offshoot from the John Wick unvierse, The Continental, was made. It was good. Did it need to be tied to John Wick? No, it could've been done as a stand alone, but I'm fine with how they did it. It was a mini-story. Once and done.

What's more, not everything needs to be or should be a series. Top Gun didn't need another movie. What they did was good, but it wasn't necessary. Does Saving Private Ryan need a follow on? No. It was an amazing stand alone story. That's what I'm looking for...terrific stand alone shows that don't attempt to be more than what they are.

Edit: AWP's previous post basic says everything I post above more succinctly.

There will always be a place for the 90 minute shut-down-my-brain-and-entertain-me, I do not deny that. I think there are stories that need more than that. Those stories need multiple episodes to tell those stories.

Can a good writer/story teller convey a story succinctly? Sometimes. Not all the time. Ronnie Howard certainly can. Scorsese can, but has admitted his movies would be better if they were longer, but then fewer people would go because who wants to see a 4 1/2 hour movie?

 

[BlackSmokeRisinG]

Horizon was a series...a four part series 2 1/2 - 3 hours each... and the character development was the whole first episode...why can't you MF'ers all just go watch the damn movie...

RIP Horizon

 

[Blizzard]

Horizon was a series...a four part series 2 1/2 - 3 hours each... and the character development was the whole first episode...why can't you MF'ers all just go watch the damn movie...

RIP Horizon

I did watch and agree with you. It was set up to be a good series and was looking forward to the next movie; it's already done.

At one point, what I heard is, because of disappointing box office returns (audience ratings were good though), they pushed back the release of Part 2, which was supposed to be in Aug(?) to allow the fan base to build once it went to streaming. That date was supposedly Nov, but here we are. So, I don't know what will happen with it. Parts 3 and 4 probably won't ever be made at this point.

 

[Box]

There is a reason that El dorado, Rio Bravo, and Rio Lobo made good money at the box office even though they were all pretty much the same movie...
...because it was a good story line and people of that era loved to watch John Wayne

The themes and messaging were still there - but it was part of the story. You didn't need a story line that said, "the heroine is gay, lets get on with the show"
...and there is nothing new about pandering to "modern audiences"

Way back in 1998 - Eric Cartman tried to tell us - independent films are nothing more than hippie movies. "They’re always about gay cowboys eating pudding"

Was he making fun of Brokeback Mountain?
NO
...Brokeback Mountain didn't come out until 2005
...but his appraisal seemed pretty solid

We see it all the time.
Captain Marvel was bashing the main demographic of goofy comic book movies - goofy men that like comic books.
...then when men decide not to go to her movie - SKREE SKREE - toxic masculinity killed my movie ratings

It's becoming more and more common place. Somebody in Hollywood spills the beans on the new edgy social messaging they are building into their reimagined plot line - "the force is female" yada yada yada blah blah blah"
we dont need men coming to this movie
we don't want people that think like "you" coming to this movie
this movie wasn't made for people that don't like woke story lines
...wah wah wah: our movie didn't make a billion dollars - SKREE SKREE SKREE - why do male movie goers hate women ??

 

[ThunderHorse]

Note that Star Wars movies or shows that do great have the diversity shit dialed back to the 1970s/80s. But the new ones that are shit are just choose your own adventure sjwdei plots.

 

[Kaldak]

I think the future should be streamed mini-series; i.e., The Mandalorian, Reacher, Jack Ryan, The Diplomat, etc. You can pack so much more into it.

 

[AWP]

Note that Star Wars movies or shows that do great have the diversity shit dialed back to the 1970s/80s. But the new ones that are shit are just choose your own adventure sjwdei plots.

When criticism of Rey's character first surfaced, I was a bit critical; I try to not make a knee jerk rection.

It was quickly evident the character was there to push a narrative, doubled down upon by Disney's wish to push a far Left message.

I think my only reason to temporarily renew Apple+ is for a handful of movies or series this summer. Even then? Pirate Bay is looking good right now.

 

[Devildoc]

I'm looking forward to seeing Tom Hiddleston in Palpatine. Unless they fuck it up. Then I will be pissed that I saw Tom Hiddleston in Palpatine.

 

[Box]

There is a reason that El dorado, Rio Bravo, and Rio Lobo made good money at the box office even though they were all pretty muich the same movie...
...because it was a good story line and people of that era loved to watch John Wayne

The themes and messaging where still there - but it was part of the story. You didn't need a story line that said, "the heroine is gay, lets get on with the show"
...and there is nothing new about pandering to "modern audiences"

Way back in 1998 - Eric Cartman tried to tell us - independent films are nothing more than hippie movies. "They’re always about gay cowboys eating pudding"

Was he making fun of Brokeback Mountain?
NO
...Brokeback Mountain didn't come out until 2005

Is the force female?
Who cares?
I just want to see a bunch of lightsaber battles and maybe some green boobies every so often.
The problem is when a studio not only decides that they are going to trash DECADES of source material as a "fuck you" to the fan base - and then fails to even follow their own preachy woke drenched messaging as they SHAMELESSLY try to pander to what's left of the fan base...
...well just fuck ne running backwards

I get it - Rey "doesn't need to be a Skywalker" to have powers - she has Grrrl Power - she doesn't need the PATRIARCHY of the force.
Unitl disney saw that they were fucking up by the numbers...
so was her force power really just Grrrrl Power?
nope
it was Palpatine Power
go figure

 

[Devildoc]

I don't care if it's a single movie or a streamed series or just a show on the networks, writers and directors make the difference. I think we all acknowledge that.

If it's a good movie, I will watch. I have walked out of a lot of bad movies.

 

[Locksteady]

When criticism of Rey's character first surfaced, I was a bit critical; I try to not make a knee jerk rection.

lol