|
Post by tntchamp on Nov 22, 2022 21:44:29 GMT -5
I completely get where Tarantino is getting at. The idea of actors themselves not being a box office draw on name brand value seems like a almost lost art unless you are Tom Cruise or The Rock. Also while the MCU is somewhat enjoyable and not at its core not the root but a symptom of the problem of movies now where studios are so franchise driven. A movie like Spider man no way home can get up to twenty to thirty showings in one day while a lower level movie gets at best maybe 4 showings a day. Those movies get all the publicity where as smaller scale movies (even ones that star Denzel Washington or Joaquin Phoenix) can barely get promoted or likewise studios don't these days take risk on something that isn't a big franchise or something they can sell off nostalgia.
|
|
|
Post by Fade is a CodyCryBaby on Nov 22, 2022 21:47:41 GMT -5
With all due respect how many people still to this day refer to Mark Hamil, and Harrison Ford as Luke, and Han? Confusing actors with the characters they played is nothing new. Hell, I did the same for Wayne Knight, until I was in my teens the guy was just Dennis Nedry to me. (I never watched Seinfeld until about 04/05) The crux of what’s being discussed isn’t actors and characters getting pigeonholed together. It’s the lack of drawing power actors and actresses have today in comparison to yesteryear. Similarly to how “WWE & WrestleMania are the draw, not any given wrestler”. This is fact with how well the MCU continues to do despite Evans, Johansson, Downey Jr etc exiting the franchise. This isn’t..like all on the MCU either (I’d say) but it’s the shape of the industry.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Nov 22, 2022 22:55:00 GMT -5
This makes me have to give a lot of credit to Daniel Radcliffe and how he was able to make himself into a big movie star. Almost all in spite of his massive role as Harry Potter.
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Nov 22, 2022 23:13:21 GMT -5
Let us not forget there were fewer celebrities once upon a time and it was easier to keep track of who's who. These days, I'll see a "celebrity" referenced and have no idea who they are only to learn they're from some Netflix/Hulu/Amazon/Paramount/Disney show I never watched. Or even worse, an influencer. *Shudder*
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Nov 22, 2022 23:37:06 GMT -5
He's talking utter shite.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Nov 23, 2022 1:17:18 GMT -5
Let us not forget there were fewer celebrities once upon a time and it was easier to keep track of who's who. These days, I'll see a "celebrity" referenced and have no idea who they are only to learn they're from some Netflix/Hulu/Amazon/Paramount/Disney show I never watched. Or even worse, an influencer. *Shudder* Indeed. We live in an age where an actor can star in a #1 rated TV show and still be exposed to a smaller audience than someone who plays video games on Twitch or somebody who makes videos on YouTube.
|
|
|
Post by The Thread Barbi on Nov 23, 2022 1:21:32 GMT -5
Seen something similar in Bollywood scrolling social media. Shah Rukh Khan is described as the remaining superstar.
The Bollywood audience no longer wants a lead actor playing a type cast role and there isn't a new superstar. The audience prefers seeing an actor in a variety of character roles, with the characters being prevalent over and above one big name actor.
Basically, the wheels turned in cinema across the globe and the old guard need to adapt to the new world. Much like when everything was a Western in the 60s.
|
|
TWERKIN' MAGGLE
Crow T. Robot
Black Lives Matter
Posts: 45,727
Member is Online
|
Post by TWERKIN' MAGGLE on Nov 23, 2022 1:44:58 GMT -5
I think journalists who purposely ask someone who's obviously going to get a clickbait answer from directors if they ask them about 'MaRvEl MoViEs" should be rounded up and all forced to work on one little website that's only accessible at 2AM on Sundays in Japan.
And never be allowed to contact the rest of the outside world ever again.
|
|
|
Post by ace on Nov 23, 2022 2:13:11 GMT -5
Let’s set aside now demeaning this is to the actors…and try to remember where Robert Downey Jr was before Iron Man and where he is after Iron Man. The role made him a movie star again and reclaimed what he threw away. Chadwick Boseman became a movie star because of Black Panther. Chris Hemsworth wasn’t anyone until Thor. Now he’s a movie star.
It’s asinine to claim otherwise.
And Jesus look at the movies QT wants to succeed that only get funded because an avenger signed on. Does Snowpiercer even get funded without Evans? Does it double its budget in box office? Does every indie ScarJo movie do well without Black Widow?
It’s all an asinine take from a man who got old and lost the pulse.
He hates that he can put Leo and Brad in a wildly commercially and critically successful movie and it doesn’t dent Avengers. It can’t be for any reason other than the characters are the stars. It can’t be because someone else made a movie with infinitely more global appeal. It has to be rigged
|
|
Killah Ray
El Dandy
You mad?
Posts: 7,899
Member is Online
|
Post by Killah Ray on Nov 23, 2022 2:13:46 GMT -5
Let us not forget there were fewer celebrities once upon a time and it was easier to keep track of who's who. These days, I'll see a "celebrity" referenced and have no idea who they are only to learn they're from some Netflix/Hulu/Amazon/Paramount/Disney show I never watched. Or even worse, an influencer. *Shudder* Indeed. We live in an age where an actor can star in a #1 rated TV show and still be exposed to a smaller audience than someone who plays video games on Twitch or somebody who makes videos on YouTube. I mean the last remaining "old school" type movie stars left are what The Rock, Tom Cruise, Leo, and Pitt? Those are the only names I could think of that still sell a movie just based on them being in it and said movies being reasonably successful...
|
|
|
Post by stoptheclocks on Nov 23, 2022 2:17:57 GMT -5
This makes me have to give a lot of credit to Daniel Radcliffe and how he was able to make himself into a big movie star. Almost all in spite of his massive role as Harry Potter. Really? He's a good actor and has made a career, but looking through his filmography it'd be a major stretch to say he was some kind of big box office star.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Nov 23, 2022 2:54:44 GMT -5
I mean the last remaining "old school" type movie stars left are what The Rock, Tom Cruise, Leo, and Pitt? Those are the only names I could think of that still sell a movie just based on them being in it and said movies being reasonably successful... Even with them just putting their names on the billboard isn't always enough to get people into the theatres, and of the four only Cruise and Rock really have their movies marketed on the star power of the leading man. Leo works almost exclusively in movies with ensemble casts of similar name value, and has done since the early-2000s, so it's hard to judge his drawing power. Pitt has taken a similar career path in the last decade, though he is generally the biggest star In his movies. Even then, he's generally been content to stay in the realm of modestly-budgeted movies that aim to draw modest crowds. World War Z was really the last time he swung for the fences. Top Gun: Maverick was Cruise's first movie outside the Mission: Impossible franchise to do blockbuster numbers since War of the Worlds in 2005. Pretty much everything else he's made in this century has topped out at about $200 million, which is respectable but far from guaranteed success in the days of $100+ million budgets. Rock's in a similar position to Cruise. His movies do, on average, make about double of what Cruise's do but those movies are also a lot more expensive to make, which has led to a string of financial disappointments. And, of course, Black Adam has just been dumped to digital stores two months early in a desperate attempt to avoid a $100 million loss.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Nov 23, 2022 2:57:40 GMT -5
Hasn't the MCU done a good job of producing a generation of stars though? Would Robert Downey Jr, Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth, Chris Pratt et al be as high profile without having played their respective heroes? They may not be golden age of Hollywood omnipresent stars but they get big roles in their work beyond those characters, and the popularity they've gained means they're popular enough with the public to shrug off more than a few flops.
Previously relatively minor actors and directors involved with MCU projects have their profiles raised by their involvement so I've never gotten the criticism that it's some kind of net loss when plenty of other projects are still being made.
|
|
Bo Rida
Fry's dog Seymour
Pulled one over on everyone. Got away with it, this time.
Posts: 23,528
|
Post by Bo Rida on Nov 23, 2022 3:05:47 GMT -5
They always seem to miss out the other side of the equation, even if there were no super hero movies many people still wouldn't go to the cinema due the cost, finding the modern experience miserable or perhaps covid. A lot of other Hollywood films are even more cookie cutter. Or just having more entertainment options at home. MCU is what some of those can justify as an exception.
If the MCU ended tomorrow there's not suddenly going to be queues and midnight launches for indy films.
There's also a whole lot you could say about the stars themselves, the likes of Ricky Gervais already have. Liking a character is a whole lot safer than liking a star.
|
|
|
Post by Non Banjoble Tokens on Nov 23, 2022 3:11:32 GMT -5
The excessive use of the word "shite" in this thread makes me uncomfortable.
|
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,049
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Nov 23, 2022 5:45:34 GMT -5
The big trend before the MCU was big, dumb action movies, the big disaster ones, the mid 2000s were already full of franchises, adaptations and sequels.
The MCU has just been able to use it's library to bring this all together, frankly at a higher quality than the big dumb blockbusters of it's immediate predecessors.
Actually, just going to check, the top 10 movies for 2003-2007 so the 5 before Iron Man.
So, out of the 50 films making up those top 10s for worldwide box office
3:3 4:3 5:3 6:3 7:1
Were not adaptations, sequels, reboots etc. and a large number of those were Pixar.
Now I'll do 2015-2019 before Covid made things weird, the number of original films, and in brackets the number of Marvel ones.
15: 2 (1 MCU) 16: 2 (1 MCU) 17: 0 (2 MCU) 18: 1 (2 MCU) 19: 0 (1 MCU)
I didn't count Spider-Man because that's a different studio, but that'd bump up a couple of years by 1.
Pixar is the only studio over the last 20 years regularly putting out new content and even they are going towards more sequels.
Every studio is doing the same thing with lots of properties and has been for a long, long time. Marvel happen to be the most successful brand now, but they're hardly the cause of the issue.
|
|
|
Post by dirtyoldman on Nov 23, 2022 7:17:40 GMT -5
Who cares. Watch what you like. If you love the MCU then great cause there's lots of stuff that's doing well so your on the winning team.
If you don't, that's fine. There's tonnes of other stuff that isn't going away.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Nov 23, 2022 7:26:36 GMT -5
I think there's a missing component in this argument, from the "anti-MCU" side (for lack of a better thing to call it, I realize Tarantino isn't actually saying he has anything against them), and it's that what they really mean is "they're the only thing being made with substantial money backing it" and/or "they're the only thing being made that makes a ton of money back." There are movies being made that aren't comic ones, aren't the usual theater fare as of late, but they're largely from smaller studios. And lately those larger studios put out, when it's a non-superhero film, a bunch of uninspired remakes and sequels. They want to blame the audience, but a lot of the blame for their complaints falls on the industry's shoulders. Ironically, the person who got this right the most was the guy who kicked this dumb thing off in Scorsese. What he was saying wasn't that the MCU shouldn't exist but that when the industry puts those films out and only those films out or tries to copy it, that's all we get in cinemas because cinemas want to make money. And that is where the industry is failing creatives outside of, what, Blumhouse and A24? That's two studios willing to take gambles over several that won't and it only feels like a matter of time before one or both ends up with one of the big three. And the point about The Rock is interesting because, well, Rock is a dude who is genuinely everywhere. He's got a show on NBC, he's doing documentaries, he's got a sports league whilst also making appearances for the big sports leagues, he's got a energy drink, he puts out Instagram posts with him working out and talking about going through the day, he's had two skins in Fortnite, there is a not 0% chance he appears at WrestleMania next year. He's one of the few people in a world where entertainment is spread out where you can't avoid the guy in any way. I'd argue all of that is why Black Adam did beyond expectations because people know what he is and what he's doing all the time.
|
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
Celestial Princess in Exile.
Posts: 46,106
Member is Online
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on Nov 23, 2022 8:05:44 GMT -5
This makes me have to give a lot of credit to Daniel Radcliffe and how he was able to make himself into a big movie star. Almost all in spite of his massive role as Harry Potter. He'll always be the Manny, the Swiss Army Man to me.
|
|
tirtefaa
Unicron
If you wanna know the truth, you gotta dig up Johnny Booth.
Posts: 2,830
|
Post by tirtefaa on Nov 23, 2022 8:40:18 GMT -5
At the end of the day, the studios aren't going to waste their time focusing on those kinds of movies if they don't draw money, and even if you don't like them, they do draw money.
Fact of the matter is, the business has changed, and it's not going to change back to the way it was due to wishful thinking. It's not an MCU issue, it's a streaming issue. People aren't going to theaters to watch a movie that can easily be streamed on a service they're already paying for, so even if you got rid of every big comic movie, nothing is going to fill that void. Watching an MCU movie in theaters is more of an experience than your typical standard movie is, and again people aren't going to go to movies to have an experience they can have at home.
This has been obvious for decades. When I was a child, a big reason that you went to see a movie in theaters is because you'd otherwise wait a year or longer to be able to rent it on VHS. The change to digital helped make that wait become shorter, many times being available within 6 months, or as I've seen in recent years 2 months.
Now? We're in an age of streaming, and there is such a large amount of product available that people don't want to take a risk at the theater when they can do it from the convenience of their couch. The MCU movies are so harmless that people know what they're getting when they go into them. If any film maker has an issue with this, then it's up to you to make a quality product that people will talk about. I can't tell you the last time that happened for me, maybe The Lighthouse? Tarantino of all people should know this since his name still holds a lot of merit for filmgoers. I can say with honesty that a lot of movies anymore do not take chances, and usually are forgettable by the next day.
So at the end of the day, if you want your movie in theaters that people are paying to see, then create a film that gets people taking, otherwise accept the fact that streaming services are the future.
|
|