|
Post by Fake Jesus on Oct 10, 2019 14:30:14 GMT -5
Now Jennifer Aniston is piling on. Are these people mad that their romantic comedies aren't making billions? They don't have to star in or see these movies. What's the point of badmouthing them? We had Superman in the 80s. Batman in the 90s. And Spider-Man and X-Men in the early 2000s. And not all of those movies were good. Superhero movies are finally pretty deep and meaningful these days. They don't have to like them, but to say they're not cinema or that they're ruining cinema is absurd. Marvel is directly damaging to the film industry. It is ruining it. You can like Marvel or not, but factually speaking it's damaging to cinema. What I mean by that is this, and I'll keep it simple for the benefit of everyone reading this thread: A studio can only release so many movies a year. We'll divide those movies into A) Franchise blockbusters, B) Oscar contenders and C) Film festival movies 10-15 years ago a director or artist could make a name for themselves releasing "C" films and quickly ratchet up into "B" films. These films have an audience, and can make anywhere from 200-500 million for a real hit. Studios also released "B" movies, but less frequently. These movies could gross 700 million or above for a real major hit. "A" films also frequently spawn franchises, but most of the sequel movies gross progressively less than the first movie, unless it's something like Harry Potter, Star Wars, or Marvel. Ever since Marvel figured out the formula (And it is largely formulaic) for repeated, increasing box office numbers for their franchise, other studios have been determined to do the same. This is what's led us into the current cinematic world where the money for "B" films primarily goes towards "A" films, which leaves us with only "A" and "C" films being made in any large number. The middle has dropped out and has been sacrificed to cinematic universes, franchises, and reboots galore. Again, there is an audience for the "B" films. But there's no point chasing that 300 million range when you can pump out an automatic blockbuster for quick billion. So they're harder to get made and inherently less risky, which means there's less opportunity for new directors to establish themselves along the lines of your Tarantino or Coen Brothers type figures. Now maybe you (a generalised you) don't care about that. Maybe you're content to watch Marvel and netflix, but here's the thing: Marvel can't last forever. It's gone on for a decade now, but there will eventually (soon) come a point where the principle actors are becoming too old to continue on believably, and the sheer volume of backstory movies is too dense for a new fan (Who might not have even been born when Marvel movies started) to penetrate. I predict this will happen around the middle of the next decade, whenever kids who get shown Iron Man by their parents balk at what will then be crappy CGI and the parents can't get them to sit down for 20+ hours of the angry purple man's story. So when that happens, what's left? There are no new "name" directors. There's not a spark waiting to drive the industry forward. There will be a crash and the studio system will probably come under immense strain. I think, ultimately, Hollywood will overcome it like it did the last time this happened, but it won't be pretty. This has been much longer than I intended, and I don't expect anyone to read the whole thing unless they really care, so: TLDR: The dominance of Marvel movies is creating a top-heavy industry bubble which eventually has to pop. Therefore people within the industry who think Marvel is damaging it are entirely justified.
|
|
|
Post by thechase on Oct 10, 2019 14:44:26 GMT -5
Now Jennifer Aniston is piling on.
|
|
salz4life
Grimlock
Prichard is a guy who gets that his job is to service his boss.
Posts: 14,045
|
Post by salz4life on Oct 10, 2019 15:10:06 GMT -5
To me, I feel like everyone else should do their own thing. Marvel has figured out what works with their connected universe. If someone else is good enough to do that down the road, that's tremendous. It just seems like no one is (hint: DC) right now. I think Harry Potter might've been able to do this and still could if they wanted to, however, since they are based on books, I wouldn't exprect a "shared universe" to happen. I love the MCU, but that hasn't killed my love for other movies. Maybe I'm in the minority. I just feel like studios should just continue to focus on what will make them money (maybe not the billions that Marvel is making) and do that instead of criticizing Marvel for what they have found that works for them. I'm no industry guy, so I'm sure I'm completely wrong.
|
|
|
Post by King Boo on Oct 10, 2019 15:10:13 GMT -5
Interesting discussion about the Marvel Effect (tm) on Hollywood, but I posit the following:
Is it Marvel's fault for their formula proving to be successful, or others in Hollywood cynically trying to replicate it for the sole purpose of making money as opposed to film for the sake of film?
|
|
salz4life
Grimlock
Prichard is a guy who gets that his job is to service his boss.
Posts: 14,045
|
Post by salz4life on Oct 10, 2019 15:10:59 GMT -5
Scorsese is a guy who's opinion I respect. Jennifer Aniston, if offered a role in the MCU, would probably change her tune immediately.
|
|
|
Post by Fake Jesus on Oct 10, 2019 15:19:57 GMT -5
Interesting discussion about the Marvel Effect (tm) on Hollywood, but I posit the following: Is it Marvel's fault for their formula proving to be successful, or others in Hollywood cynically trying to replicate it for the sole purpose of making money as opposed to film for the sake of film? Disney know what they're doing. I mean, they even tried to redo it with Star Wars and succeeded in absolutely stymieing what could've been a three-generational franchise.
|
|
|
Post by King Boo on Oct 10, 2019 16:13:50 GMT -5
Interesting discussion about the Marvel Effect (tm) on Hollywood, but I posit the following: Is it Marvel's fault for their formula proving to be successful, or others in Hollywood cynically trying to replicate it for the sole purpose of making money as opposed to film for the sake of film? Disney know what they're doing. I mean, they even tried to redo it with Star Wars and succeeded in absolutely stymieing what could've been a three-generational franchise. I'm talking about everyone else who makes movies. Disney alone isn't the whole of Hollywood (for now haha).
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Oct 10, 2019 16:16:39 GMT -5
Marvel only got there first.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2019 16:32:14 GMT -5
Now Jennifer Aniston is piling on. Are these people mad that their romantic comedies aren't making billions? They don't have to star in or see these movies. What's the point of badmouthing them? We had Superman in the 80s. Batman in the 90s. And Spider-Man and X-Men in the early 2000s. And not all of those movies were good. Superhero movies are finally pretty deep and meaningful these days. They don't have to like them, but to say they're not cinema or that they're ruining cinema is absurd. Marvel is directly damaging to the film industry. It is ruining it. You can like Marvel or not, but factually speaking it's damaging to cinema. What I mean by that is this, and I'll keep it simple for the benefit of everyone reading this thread: A studio can only release so many movies a year. We'll divide those movies into A) Franchise blockbusters, B) Oscar contenders and C) Film festival movies 10-15 years ago a director or artist could make a name for themselves releasing "C" films and quickly ratchet up into "B" films. These films have an audience, and can make anywhere from 200-500 million for a real hit. Studios also released "B" movies, but less frequently. These movies could gross 700 million or above for a real major hit. "A" films also frequently spawn franchises, but most of the sequel movies gross progressively less than the first movie, unless it's something like Harry Potter, Star Wars, or Marvel. Ever since Marvel figured out the formula (And it is largely formulaic) for repeated, increasing box office numbers for their franchise, other studios have been determined to do the same. This is what's led us into the current cinematic world where the money for "B" films primarily goes towards "A" films, which leaves us with only "A" and "C" films being made in any large number. The middle has dropped out and has been sacrificed to cinematic universes, franchises, and reboots galore. Again, there is an audience for the "B" films. But there's no point chasing that 300 million range when you can pump out an automatic blockbuster for quick billion. So they're harder to get made and inherently less risky, which means there's less opportunity for new directors to establish themselves along the lines of your Tarantino or Coen Brothers type figures. Now maybe you (a generalised you) don't care about that. Maybe you're content to watch Marvel and netflix, but here's the thing: Marvel can't last forever. It's gone on for a decade now, but there will eventually (soon) come a point where the principle actors are becoming too old to continue on believably, and the sheer volume of backstory movies is too dense for a new fan (Who might not have even been born when Marvel movies started) to penetrate. I predict this will happen around the middle of the next decade, whenever kids who get shown Iron Man by their parents balk at what will then be crappy CGI and the parents can't get them to sit down for 20+ hours of the angry purple man's story. So when that happens, what's left? There are no new "name" directors. There's not a spark waiting to drive the industry forward. There will be a crash and the studio system will probably come under immense strain. I think, ultimately, Hollywood will overcome it like it did the last time this happened, but it won't be pretty. This has been much longer than I intended, and I don't expect anyone to read the whole thing unless they really care, so: TLDR: The dominance of Marvel movies is creating a top-heavy industry bubble which eventually has to pop. Therefore people within the industry who think Marvel is damaging it are entirely justified. You're not wrong, but bubbles burst all the time. I don't think cinema will die when it bursts, either. It'll just go through a transition phase. I would daresay that the new "cinema" is television, as television is in a golden era right now.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Oct 10, 2019 16:37:44 GMT -5
Interesting discussion about the Marvel Effect (tm) on Hollywood, but I posit the following: Is it Marvel's fault for their formula proving to be successful, or others in Hollywood cynically trying to replicate it for the sole purpose of making money as opposed to film for the sake of film? The film industry has been in this sort of "boom or bust" pattern for a long, long time. Longer than the MCU even existed. The entertainment industry as a whole (movies, TV, video games) has also been a shameless copycat industry for as long as it's likely existed. The MCU might have hastened the problem, but it certainly didn't create it. Not by a longshot.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Oct 10, 2019 16:44:12 GMT -5
Jaws did honestly.
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Oct 10, 2019 16:55:30 GMT -5
Way I see it, Marvel is making paying audiences happy and providing work for tons of people in the film industry. Any complaint is on the losing side of rationale.
|
|
chrom
Backup Wench
Master of the rare undecuple post
Posts: 85,087
|
Post by chrom on Oct 10, 2019 17:27:40 GMT -5
If I wanna watch a romantic comedy where a female pines after a guy who wouldn't realize her feelings for him if he got beat about the head and shoulders with it, I'd turn on the Hallmark Channel
|
|
|
Post by arrogantmodel on Oct 10, 2019 17:40:15 GMT -5
I feel like Netflix and stuff are worse for cinema. Because nobody has to go to the actual cinema anymore.
I don't have Netflix. I don't want it. I still like leaving my house and going to the movies. So it annoys me when I see an ad for a movie coming out that looks good, and then I see it's only on a streaming site.
These projects are excluding people who either don't have Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc. And people who actually want to go out to the movies.
|
|
|
Post by Tenshigure on Oct 10, 2019 17:48:59 GMT -5
Laughing and crying at a movie in an almost universal cinematic audience reaction around the world. It would be weird for example to see a comedy at a cinema and have no one laughing at all. Cheering, not so much. Seems more like a mostly American thing. Late on the reply here, but the US ain't got NOTHING on India...
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Oct 10, 2019 20:32:56 GMT -5
Way I see it, Marvel is making paying audiences happy and providing work for tons of people in the film industry. Any complaint is on the losing side of rationale. Eh, it depends; there's the whole question of whether or not more people could be making a better living if the cinematic world was more diverse right now in terms of styles of films being released into cinemas. That's not Marvel's fault, specifically, again they just happen to be the most obvious example, but it's arguable that the overall health of the movie making industry would be better off without the "constant tentpoles" model.
|
|
Fade
Patti Mayonnaise
Posts: 38,299
|
Post by Fade on Oct 10, 2019 20:52:17 GMT -5
Yeah, but as people have brought up that goes back to the Blockbuster and even “Jaws” was brought up. It was always going in this direction. I can’t fault Marvel for capitalizing on it. I’m not that old but I recall lots of people online fantasizing about a shared movie universe where stars would interact with each other in larger than life roles.
This has got me thinking about wrestling cause I don’t completely disagree with Scorsese but thinking about in terms of wrestling, I’m definitely on the side of “just be entertaining! Push the envelope! Try new things!” Whereas there are more conservative fans that like their realism or wrestling kept to its roots and fundamentals.
|
|
|
Post by The Legendary Ring Troll {BLM} on Oct 10, 2019 21:50:34 GMT -5
These projects are excluding people who either don't have Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc. And people who actually want to go out to the movies. So Netflix making a movie to release on their own platform is “excluding” people? A platform you can pay $10 for a whole months worth of watching that movie? Not to mention, doesn’t Netflix WANT to do theatrical release same day as their streaming releases PRECISELY for the people who want to go out, but theaters don’t want to show them if they’re streaming as well? That’s some entitlement right there.
|
|
|
Post by "Cane Dewey" Johnson on Oct 10, 2019 23:56:35 GMT -5
Interesting discussion about the Marvel Effect (tm) on Hollywood, but I posit the following: Is it Marvel's fault for their formula proving to be successful, or others in Hollywood cynically trying to replicate it for the sole purpose of making money as opposed to film for the sake of film?
|
|
|
Post by sabretooth on Oct 13, 2019 21:30:07 GMT -5
|
|