In 1975 Jaws was the number one film at the box office. But after Jaws, the film that sold the most ticketss that year was the eventual Best Picture winner, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. Can you imagine that? A movie that popular with audiences and Academy members alike? Here are the top ten films of ’75, from The Numbers:
Dog Day Afternoon brought in $46 million — at a time when movies cost two dollars to see. And look at that, Tommy at number 9. The only trace of a sequel was The Return of the Pink Panther. Hollywood had a problem; studios liked the idea of sequels but back then most moviegoers didn’t respond to sequels. Universal would have loved nothing better than to make Jaws take another chomp out of the box-office, and they tried 3 times, but good luck making that magic happen without Spielberg and the alchemy churned up by the original cast. All the Jaws sequels were dead in the water. In October 1975, Spielberg famously said that “making a sequel to anything is just a cheap carny trick.” As we know, he would change his opinion about that after he joined forces with George Lucus, who proved how to do it right with his followups to Stars Wars, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi.
Making money has always been part of the Hollywood dream machine because of course it has. But it wasn’t always the only dream they chased. So when did things really start to change? Part of the reason was the way the big five studios got quietly absorbed into multi-national corporations beginning at the end of the 1960s. At first nobody in the audience noticed much difference, aside from the fine print in the logos. (Paramount, A Gulf-Western Company. Shrug. MCA Universal? Whatever.) By the time MGM made Network in 1976, only insider observers like Chayefsky cared that the lion of Hollywood had to merge with United Artists to stay in the game.
So when did profit margins become such an overriding goal that Hollywood forever changed to make those margins more reliable? When did studios start to worry more about satisfying shareholders than they did about critics? It happened as soon as those shareholders became impatient with making millions and got their first taste of billions. Check the charts to find that tipping point.
1977. Cue the Star Wars theme:
Even then, things didn’t change immediately — although how voluptuous that first cushy billion must have felt. Blockbusters had been around for a decade or so but anything approaching 10 figures was rightly regarded as an anomaly. Mega-hits on that scale were still outliers, because the formula hadn’t yet been perfected. The landscape would remain unchanged for a few more years.
This is how peaceful things looked in 1979:
So how about 1980? Well, we’re getting there. Another trip to a galaxy far far away gave us a taste of the future:
At that point, nobody but George Lucas and Steven Spielberg seemed to know the secret of making blockbuster lightning strike repeatedly. But let’s give a little credit to audiences too, who were learning how adapt to must-see movie events. Airplane!, Mad Max, fuck, even Nine to Five at number 2. These were movies everyone wanted to see because nobody wanted to be left out of the cultural conversation. Word of mouth had always been the kind of advertising that money couldn’t buy, and especially so when combined with be there or be square.
Hollywood still knew the value of original stories — but those stories require a leap of faith to lure ticket-buyers because good reviews and word of mouth are beyond the studios control. Building a film around a great screenplay and star-power luster is a great way to make great movies but it isn’t a great way to guarantee profit. No, to get those big profits you have to look at a different kind of model — not the old-school Hollywood model of creating and producing art but rather, the corporate model of calculated branding. How do you build brands that customers trust? Well, you have to follow one basic principle: fewer choices, expectations met. Or as Harvard Business Review puts it, if you want to keep your customers, keep it simple.
And simple is what it soon became. Were we there in 1985? Not quite. But we’re starting to see it. Sequels were no longer just cash-grab knockoffs; they were turning into definable formulas. In the old days they would simply put a number next to the title. The fact that such an obvious marketing ploy would be mocked today is a tribute to how fast a sophisticated consumer caught onto it. But back then it still worked, because the whole idea was to sell them what they had before, because if they liked it once they’ll like it again.
From Boxofficemojo:
It wasn’t just movies. The reason we have fewer mom and pop stores, and family-run burger joints across America, the reason you can find the same stores in any town you visit from Portland, Oregon to Portland, Maine is the same principle of fewer choices, more familiarity. Why are we like this? Why do we fall for it? Because it works. I recently visited Portland — incidentally, a place where there are still hundreds of mom and pop coffee shops — and arguably the best coffee in the world. But what cafe was the most crowded? Starbucks. Why? Because consumers have become accustomed to trusting the brand that delivers and have become less willing to take a chance on a unknown quantity. Sad to say, you can’t train a puppy to obey without offering reliable rewards.
When I embarked on navigating motherhood with my daughter 20 years ago, I began to notice how all of her toys had to be brands. My Little Pony or Teletubbies. There were a handful of shows that all of the kids watched, like Sponge Bob. And so the toys and the birthdays and the Halloween costumes were also Sponge Bob. This is our tribe, they said, climb aboard or else miss the boat. Most of those kids have grown up surrounded by ads and signs and cues that make it easy to respond likewise to films that are trusted franchises brands. Big brands. Brands so big that they can block the view of anything unique and small.
So had this shift taken over at the multiplex in 1995? Look carefully and you’ll see sprouts but tentacles have yet to spread.
Was 2000 the point of no return? Not yet, but brace yourself.
The following year, yes, welcome to new reality. We now see what box office would come to be. 8 of the top 10 movies are either sequels or movies that would spawn sequels. Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings were both original stories made from original books. And it might have have ended at that. if neither had made much money. Hahaha, as if. They made a lot of money. A LOT, A LOT, A LOT of money.
Something really dramatic happened between 2000 and 2001 to shift the top box office earners away from adult fare to 100% kid and teenage fare. Just look at the profits. Because you can be sure that’s what the shareholders and studio execs were looking at. When it’s crystal clear that so much money can be made with sequels and franchises and brands, the easiest decision in every corner office is to greenlight more of the same. And what better way to spin off variations on a theme than to latch onto proven treasure troves. Marvel and Star Wars have all but owned the franchise market and they’re now owned by the same company. Disney. Disney cracked the code. Finally — full saturation deep into the brilliant and guaranteed consumer model of fewer choices, expectations met:
Of course, the studios still need to keep a close eye on shifts in audience taste, especially in the era of social media taste-makers. So they carefully beta-test new flavors, to see what works. One thing we know about kids and grownups who think like kids: rub them wrong and they can be fickle as fuck. So they wisely stroke millennials by embedding acceptable messaging, and they smartly tap into the previously neglected half the population by giving women leading roles for better representation. Doesn’t matter than not many actresses have been given the chance to build a star-power brand in their careers. In fact, it only serves to prove that stars don’t even matter any more. One of the lessons of old-school Hollywood has always been this: if they need a star, they can create one. What matters more than any of that is how it’s wrapped, the complete package, the fan experience.
Let’s not overlook the way that history has always shaped America’s hopes and fears, our dreams and nightmares, and the fascinating way that movie screens are a both window and a mirror of the country’s psyche. As much as the movies of the 1970s rose to the top of box-office by tapping into America’s growing sense of uncertainty and paranoia, at least families of that era weren’t faced with mankind’s annihilation. It’s maybe no coincidence that the first year we started taking our kids en masse to see movies where superheroes could always save the day was the same year the twin towers of the country’s invincibility were destroyed. There once was a time when you could make a lot of money by making people afraid to go in the water. These days you can make even more money by helping people escape that fear and dread for two hours,
300 million dollars isn’t cool. You know what’s cool? A billion dollars. You can’t make that kind of coin anymore with movies like The Godfather or Apocalypse Now. You sure can’t do it with Taxi Driver or Raging Bull. To get there you have to be fast food, the universal comfort food. You have to be the same five fast food joints that you find at any truck stop off any interstate in America. Fewer choices, expectations met. Instead of exploring something unknown, we want to park someplace that looks like home base.
So don’t be down on Francis Ford Coppola and Martin Scorsese who remember what it was like when maverick filmmakers had a great original idea and do things nobody had ever seen before. They were part of a generation that went to the movies for the experience of blowing the minds of those who were unafraid see something that might kick their asses — not to be coddled by the fan experience that they felt they were owed.
I’ve heard complaints that this falls into the “old men yelling at clouds” thing — but to my mind it doesn’t. It might if the cloudscape wasn’t so artificially manufactured, so calculated, so reliable, so automated.
Blockbuster Hollywood can’t turn back now, because look at the profits. They couldn’t even if they wanted to because it’s want the fans want, it’s what the shareholders demand. People want to see these movies and enjoy the quickly digestible comfort of these movies, just as they enjoy their Big Macs. And In n’ Out and all of the branded candy and costumes at Halloween. This is the American religion: brand tribalism.
What the superhero movies sell at the end of the day isn’t new. To give a few humans a superpower boost, tantamount to gods, to defeat evil and triumph, live forever with super strength and wit? These updated and upgraded gods are the only heroes we can trust. Stories like this have been immensely popular since the days of Ancient Greece. At a time when most of us feel helpless to stop the train wreck that is human existence, what better way to escape that than to go back to the Dolby Churches, and the Cathedrals of IMAX every Friday night to worship at the alter of familiar, all-powerful gods?
I don’t blame fans for loving superhero movies. But no one should criticize Martin Scorsese for saying Marvel movies aren’t “cinema” if he’s one of the geniuses who helped America graduate from Herbie the Love Bug to Taxi Driver. If he didn’t have a higher bar for cinematic achievement he would never have endeavored to make Raging Bull, Goodfellas, The Departed, Kundun… and the world be less than it is. As for Coppola, here’s what he said:
“When Martin Scorsese says that the Marvel pictures are not cinema, he’s right because we expect to learn something from cinema, we expect to gain something, some enlightenment, some knowledge, some inspiration. I don’t know that anyone gets anything out of seeing the same movie over and over again. Martin was kind when he said it’s not cinema. He didn’t say it’s despicable, which I just say it is.”
I would not go so far as to say it’s despicable. I do find the corporate branding to be cynical and depressing. And to be confronted yet again with the ultimate truth that human desire is this easy to figure out and pander to — that certainly scares me. The limited choices we now have in our world, how wealth is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands scares me. I don’t blame people for opting out of this world and into one they better accept. I would just say this: enjoy yourself any way you want, but set aside time to think critically. Don’t be such an easy mark. In a capitalist system the consumer has the power. The second that people stop going to see these movies Hollywood will stop making them and start giving us new and hopefully more fulfilling.
Some of us are lucky enough to remember the bliss of what it was like to go to the movies when movies were cinema. Don’t be mad when we wish everyone could experience the same sensation. Viva Scorsese. Viva Coppola. If the current studio system has betrayed us, at least we have Netflix.
Pound for pound, the most pretentious comment thread on the internet. Congrats, everyone.
Marvel films are like McDonalds. It’s junk, teenagers love it and it’s the same everywhere you go, so in a way very safe choice as you get the same staff, in a way it never disappoints. But also it will never give you real culinary experience. It’s ok to get it every once in a while (well not me as a vegan, but that’s beside the point), but you’ll never gonna remember it as a special meal. No Marvel film is bad, but also none of them will be remembered as special – Black Panther notwithstanding, but that might be ruined as well as it gets mashed with the inevitable sequels of less quality. I have no problems with SH films, Logan was amazing and The Dark Knight is one of the best films of the century, but the genre could do with less. It would be refreshing to see two per year rather than a dozen.
you love the smell of your own farts, don’t you
Good article, I’ve been wondering if this site was going to tackle this “controversy.” I enjoy the Marvel movies as fun, workmanlike entertainment. Does it reach the heights of the greatest cinema has to offer? Not in my opinion. Does that disqualify them as cinema? I don’t think so either.
Although these films are greenlit by corporate suits, they are still created by filmmakers! Kenneth Branagh directed a marvel film as a shakespearean coming of age story and Ryan Coogler used the superhero template to pose a discussion on isolationism and revenge, among other solid films.Whether you love or hate these films, they ARE films and that’s why I think so many people take umbrage with these quotes (especially Coppola’s incendiary statement). Although I will agree with the sentiment that these films drive away challenging and daring original cinema that we all love.
Honestly I think the more heinous culprit are these bland Disney remakes. At least the MCU did something that has never been done before on the silver screen. Disney’s obsession with money has led them to churn out uninspired (and infinitely inferior) versions of their animated classics for no reason other than to line their pockets. You might say the same goes for the MCU, but all I can say is at least I had a bit of fun watching those.
Beautiful stuff, Sasha!…
To be honest, I do enjoy watching superhero/sci-fi films as much as I like other genres such as romantic comedies, animated fims, serious adult films, and the whatnot. I also believe that Marvel movies are cinema (good or bad depends upon which film).
That being said, I do empathize with Scorsese and Coppola criticizing Disney
for pimping out the Marvel catalog and milking it to death for the sake of the almighty dollar. For example, once Disney bought out Fox from News Corp, they shut down the Fox 2000 division which gave us mid budget crowd pleasers like Hidden Figures and Life of Pi. This is a disturbing trend to see filmmakers who have to choose between either making an indie movie or a blockbuster. I known people will say that Netflix can do that, but watching Roma on my flat screen TV is not the same experience as watching it at a theater.
I’m not saying superhero movies can be great cinema. Just look at Logan, Black Panther (even though you disagree *wink*), Wonder Woman, and Dark Knight. I think those four are the ones I think worthy of a Best Picture nomination. Unfortunately, more often than not studio execs stiffle directors artistic vision for playing the “safe, unchallenging” route. Jusk ask Lucrecia Martel on why she declined to direct Black Widow. I’m not saying every superhero/franchise film has to be Oscar-worthy, but these films need to step outside their comfort zone and also not saturate the market with like 12 such films every year.
Look, I enjoyed Pokémon Detective Pikachu as much as I enjoyed If Beale Street Could Talk. Avengers Endgame impressed me as much as Into the Spider Verse. Fanboys need to evaluate their lives if they feel threatened by folks like Scorsese and Coppola giving their honest opinions.
That’s my two cents.
We’re 100% on the same page when it comes to this discussion, it seems. 🙂 As for the four movies you mentioned, I’d probably only nominate two of them, if I had a ballot of 10 (definitely TDK and likely also Wonder Woman, although that’s less clear – it’s exactly 10th in my list for that year, based on the one rewatch so far; although that’s the subjective list and, if I had to pick what I thought most deserved a nomination, instead, with as little subjective input as possible, I may leave it out; same goes for some, but not all, of the ones I mention below). In addition to Black Panther, I also didn’t like Logan. My one definite substitution would be Infinity War – I’d definitely nominate that. (But not Endgame, which I thought was much weaker.) I also really liked Captain America: The Winter Soldier, as well as Whedon’s original Avengers, although I’m not sure whether I’d nominate either. But they’re both close, for sure.
I meant Black Widow when I talking about Martel rejecting a Marvel film not Black Panther, by the way.
PS: I would like to see Detective Pikachu nominated for visual effects.
Ah – got it. I’m never up to speed with these production details, so I wouldn’t have known it wasn’t right anyway. 🙂
Anyone notice how Coppola and Scorsese haven’t said word about Lucas and Spielberg . Lucas for good or ill gave the Star Wars franchise . Spielberg gave us Jaws and was executive producer of The Men in Back franchise and the God awful Transformer movies and together they gave us the Indiana Jones movies . Film critic David Thompson in Esquire magazine wrote an article called The Men Who Killed the Movies back in the day . His main argument was before Jaws and Star Wars filmmakers set out to make the great American movie after the success of those two films everything changed .
Hi Sasha,
As a Brit who has been reading your excellent work for some years, can I just say this is one of the finest, most succinct pieces you have written. A passionate film enthusiast since 1977, I stopped being a regular filmgoer around 2001 – for exactly the reasons you describe. The criticisms aimed by people at Scorsese and Coppola are ridiculous: it’s only something like The Irishman that will get me out of the door these days.
‘Skywalker’ Pre-Sales Nearly Double ‘Avengers: Endgame’
https: //deadline. com /2019 /10/ star-wars-rising-skywalker-pre-sales-nearly-double-avengers-engame-1202765636/
I’d love to see a 2020 Best Picture lineup like this:
The 3 best reviewed indie movies vs….
Avengers: Endgame
The Rise of Skywalker
Frozen II (only if the latter 2 are great, as in 93 or higher on Rotten Tomatoes)
Now THAT would be an Oscar night for the ages.
Really…very helpful and informative post
Very intriguing analysis Sasha! But one point I think is missing in regards to the sea change of top grossers is the movie going experience. Because right now the mainstream multiplex movie going experience absolutely SUCKS. Here in NYC, a base ticket costs $16-17. That increases if you go to a Dolby equipped theater, if its in 3D, or if its in Imax. The latter two can combine to frequently make one ticket almost $30. Snacks are outrageously priced and frequently end up totaling more than the ticket (when the cashier at the Chelsea Cinepolis told me my bottle of water was $6 I couldn’t stop myself from shouting “That’s worse than Disney World!” in disbelief). And I usually only pay for myself. Imagine if you are paying for a date, or a parent buying tix and popcorn for your family of 5. And when you get past the prices, you have to deal with the general public. Folks are constantly texting and talking. I have to avoid the Regal Union Square now because I have witnessed no fewer than THREE physical brawls during a movie in the last year.
So of COURSE people will be more sparing in what they see. And if they are going to deal with the hassle and financial burden of the multiplex, they want it to be a movie that’s worth the time and money. For most folks, major action blockbusters are the only thing that check those boxes. Films that appear “smaller” (dramas, indies) or ones that aren’t guaranteed to be enjoyable become “wait for streaming” movies.
I’m quite lucky to cover the industry and get occasional screening invites and screeners. If I didn’t, I too would be waiting for streaming for most movies. Despite my love for them. It’s too expensive and too annoying at most theaters. Some small houses and chains like Alamo Drafthouse (with their strict phone rules) are great. But they have fewer screens and therefore fewer options. So I think we have to look at the deterioration of the movie theater experience as a major factor when looking at why one type of film is dominating that arena so fully. I believe there should be space for every type of film at the multiplexes (art house, drama, comedy, super hero, romance, foreign, sequel you name it). But I struggle to see a way back to that if the industry doesnt change to give customers a better experience.
The audience is just as much to blame. When it sleeps on films like Booksmart and Annihilation and goes to superhero films in droves, what are the studios supposed to do?
yeah, people who want to watch what they want to watch are the worst.
Saw the trailer for The Crown and is it just me or the guy playing Charles will probably steal the show? Charles is hot lol
What did we think of Watchmen? I though promising; needs to greatly improve how they shoot action set pieces and I’d be nearly there.
Fun enough.
Please help us find 5 TV things more fun?
Chernobyl! Also Atlanta back in fall 2020.
But the Good Place will be gone by Memorial Day next year.
Chernobyl is excellent, indeed.
P.S. I remember those days pretty well when I was a young kid and not allowed to play soccer outside because of the fallout – that damn east wind! 😉
There’s film as art and there’s film as entertainment. And when we’re lucky we get both at the same time… But this is the movie BUSINESS and if MARVEL movies and the like are what’s BEST FOR BUSINESS period.
I love comic book films, but I’d never consider them to be great award worthy films outside of their technical achievements usually… I’m a lifelong MARVEL fan, but I’m a movie geek first and my favorite time of year is ALWAYS OSCAR season for a reason.
I’m old and I love 1979 and the fact that Kramer V Kramer was #1. I still love that movie. I can still recall seeing it at a cinema. What a wonderfully diverse set of movies in 1979. Muppets and Amytiville Horror!
FWIW, a Hitchcock-like film played in my dreams last night. Sadly, all I can remember is that it was about an older lady killing her husband on a cruise ship and how she tried to make it look like she didn’t and evade the police, and how she was found out by some trace left on the dead man’s passport that washed up in the harbor.
Maybe I could just start from this premise and try to make up the rest. I should also try journaling my dreams, they’ve been getting more vivid and sensical lately, more pleasant also, featuring beautiful people in beautiful locations. Oh and sometimes names from this very site appear here and there.
More like this please.
Lol! Fun thing is I did have another confusing dream last night. I was staying at a charming hotel on the Riviera. The lobby walls (or was it the lounge or dining room?) were tastefully decorated with green and blue stripes and the ceiling had the form of a circus tent, maybe it was drapes I dunno but I believe the circus imagery was symbolic. Outside on the patio there was a white Trump golf cart under the pines with glimpses of the shimmering blue sea in the distance.
I was getting worried because Trump had been there for weeks and showed no sign of wanting to get back to work any time soon. But now I’m thinking maybe he was retired. It could be an omen. Last year, I did dream of Theresa May stepping into a helicopter called Brexit and crashing on departure, so you never know.
FWIW, a Hitchcock-like film played in my dreams last night. Sadly, all I can remember is that it was about an older lady killing her husband on a cruise ship and how she tried to make it look like she didn’t and evade the police, and how she was confounded by some trace left on the dead man’s passport.
Maybe I could just start from this premise and try to make up the rest. I should also try journaling my dreams, they’ve been getting more vivid and sensical lately, more pleasant also, featuring beautiful people in beautiful locations. Oh and sometimes names from this very site appear here and there.
The Corleones were/are garbage.. Why should anybody give a shit about the Corleones and all their stupid guns? It’s a waste of brain cells I even know their names.
I have my criticisms regarding Coppola’s and Scorsese’s filmography, but I agree with them on this. It’s gotten harder and harder to find screenings for non-franchise movies – even The Favourite and Green Book were hard to find screenings of near where I lived.
Also, international distribution sucks. With so many simultaneous releases of big blockbusters, the delays for non-blockbusters have remained and for some films gotten worse. The Lighthouse is out in America, but for Australia? Not even a release date. I want to see that again, but I’ll probably have to wait deep into 2020. That’s why I reluctantly prefer Netflix’s global launch strategy. It doesn’t matter whether I’m in a small beach town or a big city, I can watch the movies on the same launch day.
Francis Ford Coppola is my favorite director . American film doesn’t get any better than The Godfather trilogy and Apocalypse Now . Martin Scorsese has also made some great films Taxi Driver, Raging Bull , Last Temptation of Christ and Silence . Regarding Coppola after he made Youth Without Youth , Tetro , and Twixt he was asked why he was making small personal independent films , his answer was no one does my kinds of films anymore. He is now trying to get backing to do his longtime dream project Megalopolis . So far no one seems to care . Maybe he should try Netflix it seems to have worked for Scorsese . Both of these men have the right to their opinion but something tells me they haven’t seen what they are criticizing . There was a time when genre films like horror ,science fiction and fantasy were not considered cinema . There was a time when western movies and gangster films were not considered cinema . Hitchcock for a long time was not taken seriously because he just made thrillers . Comic books were not taken seriously until Watchmen and now they are called graphic novels .
It’s computer generated special effects that have enabled superhero movies/animation to dominate.
One thing superhero films and Scorsese/Coppla films have in common is their disdain for interesting female leads, or even very many supporting characters. Are there any in the Irishman? Probably a mother/girlfriend or two.
Back in the day, with poor and expensive CGI, audiences had to rely on sharp storytelling to get their money’s worth. That meant stories that often included women.
Of course, movies like that are still being made. Studios rely on biopics for their awards bait more than ever. The prestige pics rarely bring in the money (and are cliche biopics, one after another – I think the general public is mostly uninterested these films, even if some of them like Bohemian Rhapsody do score).
I don’t care that superhero films rake in as much money as they do. It sucks that there are barely any women headlining the films, or people of color. These are films that rely almost entirely on good CGI, so the lead could really be any actor, but they turn to white guys more often than not.
If Disney really wanted to shake things up, they’d showcase the female superheroes in the X-Men over more of the same (Wolverine, Professor X, Magneto). I’m guessing they won’t, even though a Disney-released X-Men film is bound to make an incredible amount of money. Ladies like Storm, Rogue, Phoenix, Jubilee, Psylocke, Dazzler, Magik, Armor, Kitty Pryde, (and many more) would easily provide the fireworks. They also have enough of a backstory to contribute to a worthwhile and original plot.
If you want compelling drama or comedy, television is where it’s at. And the sexes are equally represented.
I’ve reverted to buying DVDs of earlier films and rewatching them vs. going to the movies. It’s hard to find a really good movie these days that’s worth $9/$10. The last one I saw and had interest in was Hustlers, it didn’t disappoint. But I’m afraid to spend on a movie with less than 95% RT approval. (I don’t have Netflix, darn it! and Netflix doesn’t release on DVD). Anywho, I just rewatched a darling movie, “Millions” by danny boyle. And I keep wondering, why hasn’t any remade this into an American movie? Maybe Danny has a tight grip on the rights and won’t let it be remade; anywho, I don’t want it remade. Or sequeled.
I’m going to next see Heat with Deniro.
Scorcesee and Coppola may be old in their thinking, but IMO movies weren’t supposed to be made into theme parks and high-flying acrobat superheroes. Make it one time, then leave it as it. Don’t sequel it to death. It’s one reason why I won’t go these comic movies, because they’re remade (re-cast with new actor) and sequeled to death.
I keep wondering, why can’t Americans just watch the British version? It’s not like they don’t speak English. And even if it was in a foreign language, it can’t do them any harm to try.
Why would anyone remake “Millions” ?!
It’s great as it is. It’s not like it’s a foreign language film like the incredibly good Infernal Affairs (remade as The Departed). Foreign language prevents many Americans from taking a chance, but British?! Rubbish!
Are you buying DVDs or Blu-rays?
I ask because the remastering done on most Blu-rays, especially of the older films, is quite incredible. Truly takes your breath away even, especially movies where it actually resembles film itself (Blade Runner is a key example).
TVs are most all HD nowadays (1080p or Ultra HD 4K). Do yourself a favor and watch a movie on Blu-ray or compare to DVD (just 480p). You’ll notice a big difference in visual and audio, too. (WOW! The audio!) Streaming is often HD, but the audio is not quite there, compared to many Blu-rays.
Star Trek The Motion Picture grossed more in its initial run than Alien?
Great, informative article. I support Coppola’s use of the word “despicable”. Fanboys may think these superhero movies are harmless fun, but when they block good films from being shown in the multiplexes, they are harmful.
do they even care that good movies are blocked? After all, Collider Frosty and Jeremy Jahns told them these movies are the best thing ever and they are certified critics so…
Just like there are art house movie houses, there should be fanboy “comic” theaters Only.
Feige to Coppola: “I was rooting for you! we were all rooting for you to direct the Squirrel Girl! How dare you?”
Newsflash: old people dislike young people stuff!
Disclaimer: I’m totally on board with them and I’m not even old.
Disclaimer 2: I actually prefer ‘Herbie the Love Bug’ to ‘Taxi Driver’, so I don’t really see the latter as an evolution but more as an attempt to sell grown-up Herbie fans an R-rated adaptation.
Yea..no talk about overcomplicated it..Sasha in order to put in perspective your view on this article …one has to remember your history on this debate..and history stands in years when there was an Avatar or Lord o the Rings before Return of the King dominated rightfully so, and even in the era of the Dark Knight who’s praises you were singing..it takes away from your credibility in relation to this debate that apallingly hollywood stil continue to have themselves.
Scorsese and Coppolla are great for the films they make but frankly they haven’t a clue about films genres they not touched..Conversely…full credit to disney and marvel franchise behemoths they may be buyt that make consistently brilliant (mostly) quality films.
Avengers Endgame pushed the boundaries of storytelling and filmmaking for it genre and it storytelling objectives just as much as Scorceses finest films.
Try telling the Russo brothers that there films are not what constitutes cinema..only in the eyes should be mentioned in the beholder in this case Scorsese and Coppola..NOT the masses and certainly not the TRUE PURIST film critics..Scorsese and Coppola know this all too well..they mention their views but what it also presents is egos that are incresingly unhealthy . They are effectively speaking the voice of their own generations influences and NOT what is a balance oif both popular and critically acclaimed.
Does anyone know why ‘Return of the King” sept al before that? not just cos it was owed. to the mighty franchise. But cos it was briliiantly filmed loved by BOTH audeinces and critics.
Scorsese and Coppola did not criticize LOTR at all why? cos it was reminiscent of the ‘old style’ why they criticize ‘endgame’? cos it science fiction and it as simple as that folks.
PErhaps rather than Sasha seeking to validate Scorsese and Coppola’s limited understanding of todays generational engagement in cinema she is seeking to highlight their right to object express their view..but dont be fooled everyone i dont think Sasha means to suggest that it justified for academy to keep isolating the silent majority film public and side with obscurity or old white men.
Despite Sasha paraphrasing this ‘old white men’ truth is..that Scorsese and Coppola are incapable of breaking their own genre shackles so hence i take with a grain for salt their criticism.
I think it more important than EVER the producers and entire team behind the hugely successful and critically acclaimed ‘avengers endgame’ lobby academy hard to stand up for this generations expectations and of more educated balanced critics groups (rather than pandering to dated conservative block).
In many ways a lot of you should be exceptionally troubled if you care for academy future to have relevance to gen Y and beyond. that including last year comments by Spielberg,. now Scorsese and Coppola they all members of the academy voting bloc and hugely influential it not coincidence whenever the conservative voting bloc speak out their blind eye turned when oscar crunch comes down to it, that indeed oscar voters come final nomination results for oscar snub films like The Dark Knight, as they have since repeatedly films like Inception, Three Kings, to name a few as they will Avengers Endgame.
More vocal older generation are the more determined todays generation of filmmakers will seek to bring science fiction on the map.
As much as i respect Scorsese, Spielberg and Coppola as great filmmakers as they are..maintain their level of public admiration is not seeing new generation filmmakin and ideas and trends like the MCU as a threat to viable credible or their style of filmmaking..it actually quite a foolish ploy and if the academy were not bunch of gullible dimwits who unwilling and unable and simply dont care to vote outside their own voter demographic, it a ploy that would backfire on the older filmmakers generation.
These 3 filmmakers wont likle it but a science fiction film will win an oscar one day..nobody stays on top forever the academy membership is evolving demand is surging for newer generation younger voters..while that has massive problems of younger generations acceptance (from last year of inclusion of netflix and online streaming as part of cinema.) and fact some hard left wing loonybins infiltrate younger generaton membership i dare hold my breath and hope for greater focus nevertheless on more education self respecting part of young academyt membership to counterbalance old grey army that on balance gets its way with which films win oscar for far too long.
Those 3 filmmakers esp Scorsese amd Coppola fear change well my blunt message to them is change is inevitable. Sooner or later, this year or within a few (thought should be tyhis year no more delays anmd excuses)
None of Marvel movies come close to LOTR quality, c’mon. Don’t get Youtubers posing as critics who populate Rotten tomatoes tell you otherwise but those movies are nowhere near LOTR or TDK level. They are entertaining but unambitious.
They can reach TDK level because that is nothing special outside of superhero films. However, LOTR is one of the greatest films ever made and the greatest film trilogy.
yep, LOTR is the greatest. That said, they aren’t reaching TDK level because they a) can’t give up their formula (demand to appeal to lowest common denominator and insert set up for upcoming movies at every turn) and b) their movies are too obviously controlled by the committee to allow the level of artistic freedom for such outcome.
Superhero films weren’t that prevalent when the TDK was released so it was easier to allow a director to seek his own vision. Now that Disney has found the perfect formula for its movies, it will continue to churn out the same thing until audiences are sick of it.
TDK also isn’t Disney. Big difference, I’d say. it isn’t that assorted MCU directors aren’t capable of churning out a TDK, it’s that the studio stands in the way.
I do know that, but I don’t see the bloody difference. Anyway, I much prefer Disney to Warner DC films. I think they are better, even if it’s a low bar.
WB DC movies post-TDK trilogy have been abysmal save for:
Aquaman – basically if Black Panther had a charismatic lead and didn’t take its Lion King remake premise seriously
Wonder Woman – way better heroine journey than Captain Marvel thanks to the winning leading lady, actual characterization and refusing to pander to “romance makes women weak” crowd
Joker – Even RDJ on his best day didn’t reach Phoenix level of performance and I consider Marvel cast to be generally very strong
Interesting that you accuse Marvel of being too serious because that’ my biggest complaint about DC films. It’s all too dark and very apocalyptic. I don’t like superheroes, but I liked Black Panther a lot. I don’t think its premise was anything like the Lion King, and I thought it was the one of the few film that speaks about what is happening now. It was one of the few superhero films that didn’t feel like a superhero and felt more like a great drama. It was so different to me that it stands and I was not surprised by its success at Oscars and SAG.
The outsider coming to an idyllic kingdom and turning it upside down I thought was very on the nose in what is happening in the US. And that was before we have even seen how much damage a person can do to a system they don’t understand or care about respecting.
I thought Black Panther was laughable. Just really dumb stereotype packaged as quasi progress (they shake spears…but with laser beams!) . Also took forever to get going and I guess you have to be an American to understand what is was speaking about. Also, curious what great drama you are talking about. the movie couldn’t decide whether it wanted to be straight up Hamlet or some shit about evils of colonialism but oddly botched that by having the biggest war-mongering neo-colonialist organization CIA as a good guy. Mess. And yes, Boseman is an absolute bore. new RDJ he, Larson, Cumberbatch are not. Not even new Evans.
The good guy was the good guy, not the CIA. It was a family drama. It focused on the tension in the family and the great choices of each individual. Anyway, I do get your criticism, to be honest. I believe Black Panther is better than all the superheroes because it plays like straight up drama. That might not be to your liking. It certainly isn’t to most superhero fan and that’s why many of them don’t like. That’s why it did well at award shows
I like good drama but just didn’t think BP was a good drama. The main lead was a wet fart. The movie treated him with kid gloves, basically never to show him as less than perfect and everything about him was framed as such, even though, when you scratch the thin surface, you get the following:
he is a dictator because no one can oppose him thanks to his drug-induced powers. benevolent he may be but that’s easy when you know no one can beat you or even challenge you
he had no qualms overthrowing the legally elected king (that’s decided in a fist-fight lol) and don’t even start with “but but he was saving the world”. he couldn’t take anyone else on the throne even though he should have abide by the law that said N’jadaka won therefore he’s an undisputed king since our law does not dispute kings who won the MMA match.
Finding out that his father killed his brother had no consequence for daddy was immediately forgiven and son was immediately energized to oust his wronged cousin who won the throne by Wakandan law.
Sorry but fuck this Mary Sue character. There was never any real drama. Everything felt forced. Kaluuya’s betrayal felt forced for they literally couldn’t come up with a better way for N’jadaka to come to Wakanda but by Kaluuya’s forced betrayal over King Mary Sue’s failing to catch his father’s killer that previous king failed to catch (and conveniently no betrayal). Also, it didn’t help that Michael B Jordan and Sterling K Brown gave way better, sympathetic performances than father/son duo T’Dulla and T’Duller and that N’jadaka taking the throne and acting like a king was by far the best part of the movie. by far. he left us too soon. I have no interest in T’Duller’s adventures as a UN ambassador.
Black Panther is about a clash of values. A clash of values between the two cousins T’Challa and N’Jadaka. It’s not just the values of two guys, but the values of different worlds. The cousins come from different world and Wakandan values are very different from the values of the world N’Jadaka was raised in. The actions of T’Challa and his father are in defence of themselves or others. You don’t just look at the act, but also the intent behind it. And knowing the intent is very important in helping us to establish whether the act was right or wrong, or at least to understand it. Almost every action T’Challa takes is intended to protect and preserve the peace. I don’t understand how you can blame the son for the father’s sins, as if the son should inherit his father’s sins.You might say he is a bloody do-gooder and a bit boring, but that’s not a character flaw. On the other hand, both Killmonger and his father are the clear villains as their every action is to kill anyone who stands in their way. And even when he gets everything he wanted, Killmonger is still not happy. He defeats T’Challa, but that’s not enough. He kills the other uncle and (he thinks) T’Challa, but that’s not enough. He becomes the king of all he surveys, but that’s not enough. It seems he will not be satisfied until he turns the world upside, or at least the Wakanda kingdom. Okoye (Danai Gurira) and Nakia (Lupita Nyong’o) have a fight about who they are loyal to and Okoye says her loyalty is to the throne no matter who sits on it. However, her loyalty vanishes when her values clash with new king’s values. In the end, Killmonger has little support as even W’Kabi (Daniel Kaluuya) gives up.
That’s a good breakdown. I just found T’Challa super dull and unengaging and his daddy was easily forgiven. basically, that he was a liar and murderer had no impact on his son who still viewed the cousin as the villain even though his father created the villain. In that regard, family dynamic (secrets and lies and vengeful relatives) was as shallow as Thor Ragnarok but that one never went for any depth but pure fun.
I am reminded of that the famous line from The Dark Knight “Some men just want to watch the world burn” when I think about the Killmonger character. It fits him much more than The Dark Knight’s The Joker. Did Nolan add that line later? It seems so as it doesn’t fit either Two-Faced or the Joker. He might have been influenced by No Country for Old Men. There was the coin toss thing in there too, which I felt was a bit too coincidental. It’s great line and makes a lot of sense in the real world, but it makes little sense in the film. The Joker and Two-Faced are a much more rounded and rational villains. I mean, that was the main plot in the film and it is laid out in the final moments of the film. The line is way off and kinda undermines the main point of the film. That’s not actually what Ledger’s joker is, and it’s a total mischaracterisation of him. And it happens to come from the guy who wrote it. Weird!
well said!
My other problem with BP is the same I have with SW ST – protagonist is dull and has no real motivation, while antagonist feels like he should be a protagonist for he carries real dramatic tension. Alas it weren’t so.
This goes into some wild places and way off-topic but my two cents on the whole superhero movies as cinema thing: I agree that superhero films are mostly very unimpressive, and making the same product over and over again in a way that feels very unique. And I think that for example the “movies” of the MCU are not movies at all. But to me these are two separate things. Instead what makes me personally say that MCU projects aren’t “movies” as I’d like to think that a movie exists as itself, with the notion: “Here is a story, and when you reach the end of it, you will have recieved a full story, you won’t need anything after this to feel closure” and where the story is directed by one person or one group of people. In this way I’d argue projects like the MCU are moreso series where individual films are episodes that take the story forward to where it wants to eventually go and where the main creative force is the showrunner or producer (especially based on what Lucrecia Martel said about when she met with Marvel). Thus I think they should be not discussed as films and should instead be eligible for Emmys
So for the most part I agree here but where does that then leave you with something like Lord of the rings? At the end of Fellowship you definitely don’t have complete closure even if it ends in a tidy manner – do you consider that a 9 hour movie or a series or would you consider the movies individual? I just say this because at some point with this logic there gets to be a blurring of the lines where there are a finite number of films that sit together. Totally agree at the ends where you get MCU or you get something like a Scorsese movie but in the middle between them there can be some blurring (and LOTR probably isn’t the best example, I am sure you could find something better).
I think it’s quite obvious. The LOTR trilogy was a singular vision and was created as one story divided over three films. That’s clearly how it also appears on screen.
I tend to define such things by directorial vision, there being a director or a singular group of directors who are the main artistic force behind the telling of the story and that control the story (the notion of the narrative ending is a secondary part of the definition of cinema for me, the main part is to have a director as the head of the project). This also gives me for example space to claim that such things as Twin Peaks: The Return, The Three Colors trilogy and Haynes’ Mildred Pierce are each one movie. In the case of Lord of the Rings I feel like those being one movie is particularly stated by the shooting process, since all of them were shot as one.
But we get into problems that I haven’t quite been able to figure yet with something like Star Wars: Star Wars is by this definition a movie. The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi form a non-movie duology since The Empire Strikes Back demands Return of the Jedi, even if the films have different directors. The prequels are one season. The new sequels are either a second season or a first season of a new series. The spin-offs are movies. That feels overly complicated, and is not even the only way of looking at them: if one were to listen to Lucas’ preferred order watching them, it would all form into one series with spin-off movies but who thinks about Star Wars in chronological order of events in the series?
Now that I’ve thought about it a bit more (I for some reason came up with the “Lucas order” point of view when I was writing the previous comment), George Lucas was the “showrunner” of Star Wars for those years so his work on it is the main artistic force, and hence his work defines it as a series. But it doesn’t make it any less complex for the theoretical situation where you have a few feature-length projects directed by different people forming an individual narrative inside a more traditional movie-sequel structure of a franchise. Two movies rarely feel appropriate to call a “series” but they can’t quite be movies by a director-approached definition of what a movie is
considering that most of them have TV-level effects (and by that I mean Sy Fy not HBO) and TV pilot plotting, despite 200-300M+ budgets, (Daytime) Emmy stands correct.
If a superhero film is going to win BP, it will need Black Panther level acting, Spider-man 2/ Logan level writing and The Dark Knight level directing. If I was a producer at Disney Marvel or Warner DC Comics, I would hire the guy who has made the best superhero film ever. That man is, of course, Brad Bird. Why haven’t they asked him to direct a live-action superhero? They probably did, and he refused them.
Brad Bird is too original for Marvel or DC. I would most certainly watch the critically-panned and BO flop Tomorrowland over RT-fresh and BO giant Endgame in cinemas.
Brad Bird did the best Fantastic Four film (The Incredibles), and it is obvious that the only thing preventing Marvel to hire him to direct the MCU Fantastic Four film, is Peyton Reed asked it first, and has a said to be wonderful script already.
Of course an important question would also be whether Bird is interested in making a Fantastic Four movie, why would he want to do another version of The Incredibles?
because it was quite obvious in both Incredibles films, that Bird LOVES the Fantastic Four and filled the films with references to Marvel’s First Family.
Yes but maybe he got all of that out of his system with the two Incredibles movies. Or maybe Brad Bird would find MCU to be a limiting partner and wouldn’t want to work with them. To presume that he would be desparate to do it just because he has done similar things in the past is to give Marvel highbrow credence and make it sound like directors can do whatever they want at Marvel in a way that I feel isn’t accurate (and that is probably part of the point of Scorsese, Coppola, Loach and Meirelles, that these movies aren’t high art yet the film discussion is so centered around them that they suck the air from more interesting projects).
think twice… you make The Incredibles out of frustration of not having the rights to adapt Fantastic Four (nor the technology), and you excel on that, plus trained well enough to see what works and what doesn’t, and you are given the chance to shoot the real thing…
… would you say no?
Maybe I would, maybe I wouldn’t. Maybe he would think about it from a career point of view (not wanting to be stuck doing the same thing over again or be known as the guy who can do Fantastic 4 really well). We should remember that this is the guy who was offered Star Wars and said: “Yeah, I might be interested. Buf Tomorrowland is my priority”. He might have some project he’s really passionate coming up at some point. If you had the opportunity to make something that you know you care about deeply and that is your personal dream or to do something that you love but have already done twice for another time, which would you choose?
… and they are just snobs.
Watchmen, Joker, even Avengers: Endgame (which heavily spins aroudn Post Traumatic Disorder), just show that Superhero movies are a blueprint in which you cand develop any idea or message you want to transmit, or satire itself (namely, Harry Potter is the most brilliant and ambitious example, as HP and his wizard friends are basicallly Dr Strange multiplied… they are superhero movies at heart… powers, earth shattering challenges, etc).
Seriously, Marty and Coppola are geniuses but they really neeed to double think what they talk about… Science-fiction, fantasy, horror, comedy, are supposedly minor genres, but I wish there was a drama such as sharp analyzing human paranoia and the desintegration of a human group as, say, John Carpenter’s The Thing. And this is not new… and it is funny that the same people that killed old Hollywood is complaining some other people is killing the Hollywood they created or dismissing a genre that gave us such a masterpiece as The Dark Knight, just to name an unquestionable film.
Has anyone done the demo data to see what the age group is for the joker?
Scorsese and Coppola aren’t really reducing genre films but Marvel movies only. Scorsese has done genre himself in Hugo, Shutter Island and Cape Fear and I love the first two to death. And I remember Coppola ambitiously tried with the misfired Twixt.
But your pefect example is the Harry Potter films and I would like to include the last two Fantastic Beasts which got less favorable critical reviews compared to the Potter films but no less humanistic in terms of tackling relevant human conditions.
I get where these two are coming from. Except for First Avenger, Winter Soldier and Black Panther (my favorite Marvel films), one really couldn’t tell the Marvel movies apart. Some scenes from Infinity War I thought was from Civil War. And you could also include the lesser and recent DC movies.
Case in point for me, the problem lies on the studio itself. Let us not pretend that the power is given to the director or the writers. The producer has the final say in Marvel movies and unless he gives it to the filmmakers themselves then it’s not gonna change. Well, they will always have the box-office.
I do not think they are reducing only Marvel but the whole genre. I think you haven’t seen Thor: Ragnarok which is probably, along Endgame, the best MCU film so far.
It is true that the MCU hasn’t delivered a single masterpiece but Ragnarok, Infinity War and Endgame come pretty close and, along Winter Soldier are must see films for any true cinephile. And I would dare to say that MCU hasn’t a single BAD film. My ratings for the whole MCU so far…
Iron Man **** 1/2 B+
The Incredible Hulk *** 1/2 C+
Iron Man 2 *** / C
Captain America: The First Avenger **** B
Thor **** B
Avengers ***** A-
Iron Man 3
Thor The Dark World *** C
Captain America The Winter Soldier ***** A-
Guardians of the Galaxy **** 1/2 B+
Avengers Age of Ultron *** C-
Ant Man **** B
Captain America Civil War **** B
Doctor Strange **** 1/2 B+
Guardians of the Galaxy vol 2 **** B
Spiderman Homecoming **** B+
Thor Ragnarok ***** A-
Black Panther **** B-
Infinity War ***** A-
Ant Man and the Wasp *** C+
Captain Marvel *** C
Avengers Endgame ***** A-
Spiderman Far From Home **** B
Basically a solid franchise, and people have seen forgotten that there were hero and superhero serials at the movie theaters back in the 30s and 40s…
I’ve seen Thor: Ragnarok and it sadly didn’t do it for me. It was corny and the comedy is trying so hard that it got tiring early on the film. I was hoping to like it but alas, I prefer the Branagh-directed Thor. At least he somehow was able to incorporate his Shakespearean leanings in it. With Ragnarok, the look and tone were the same as with GotG 2 and I could mistake it as the latter and vice versa.
Actually, the only Marvel movie I haven’t seen is Endgame and the Tom Holland Spider-man because I just got tired. Into the Spider-verse is of course a different topic and I love it! But I honestly don’t think it’s included in the Marvel movies that Coppola and Scorsese are criticizing.
Deserving of note:”Joker” has just reached 737M globally, with a domestic of 247M. “Parasite” has incredibly reached 1,8M, in only 33 cinema. Downton Abbey grossed 88M domestic and 164 globally. I think in a fair world, they all can live in peace together. For me, it is not the films to blame, but the industry. Industry don’t focus on an audience of 50-60 years for example. Maybe with the success of “Downton Abbey”, they can change their minds. Also, I miss very much the 80’s and the 90’s and their styles of film. “Ordinary People”, “Terms of Endearment”, “Working Girl” in the 80’s. And in the 90’s, the decade of the great spectacle cinema with films like “Dances with Wolves”, “The English Patient”, “Braveheart”, “Titanic”: all of them very profitable, all of them have made huge money. But the industry in general, think that they don’t fit anymore. Also, maybe you can desagree with me, but at one point, films started to fit a political agenda, with critics standing for them, flaging for them, some of them, very overrated, that sometimes people feel misguided and decided to make their own choices. Critics, for example, can’t say the audience that Clint Eastwood films are not good anymore, only because he is republican – this is just an illustrative example, but I think you can understand me.
Next, there will be a video game “Joker” and a TV series based on “joker”….watch.
“Also, I miss very much the 80’s and the 90’s and their styles of film.
“Ordinary People”, “Terms of Endearment”, “Working Girl” in the 80’s.
And in the 90’s, the decade of the great spectacle cinema with films
like “Dances with Wolves”, “The English Patient”, “Braveheart”,
“Titanic”: all of them very profitable, all of them have made huge
money.”
This. The 90’s are my favorite movie decade, and the 80s were great too.
LOL, sorry to be OT but, once upon a time, Oscar Isaac was hailed the Next Pacino because I don’t even know. Big eyes, maybe?
It’s true that there’s a sort of fast food culture in Hollywood but… last time I checked McDonalds hasn’t really put that many gourmet restaurants out of business, in fact foodie culture is more robust than ever. It’s kind of the same way with cinema, we’re only really in a cinematic wasteland if you’re someone who only ever sees the top grossing movies, there are tons of other options if you’re willing to seek them out just a little.
this though I think that lament is that these other movies don’t make the kind of money that movies that cost north of 175M do. not that they don’t make money but that kind of money.
You know what they say? you are what you eat. The worse culture you are consuming, the worse off society becomes.
The saddest thing is the executives who greenlight junk movies are often cultured people themselves. It says a lot about how they view the masses that they think they should give them junk.
I worked in TV programming in France once, and the decision makers were Tolstoï readers, old movie buffs and classical music listeners, but they wouldn’t be caught dead watching their own silly programs. It never crossed their minds they could maybe use their platform to try to elevate people’s minds and tastes through quality entertainment.
I think that you can make that kind of coin with the right movie. Bohemian Rhapsody made that kind of coin especially overseas but maybe Freddie’s spandex was mistaken for Marvel one? 🙂
American Sniper made that kind of coin domestically.
Joker may be a SH movie but it strives to be more like Scorcese movies and less like CGIfests often associated with the genre. And it only cost 55M with its biggest money shot being its star’s performance.
I think that what stands in the way is studios going after what’s the easiest buck. That’s why Leo is the king of “thinking people’s” blockbusters. he makes challenging movies that tap into audience that wants that kind of content but are rarely getting it, or such content mostly ends up in limited release in big cities thus unavailable to everyone. His name brings it to wide release.
Leo is just an actor that got lucky with titanic. It gave him exposure and leeway to get budget for any movie he wants. He trapped waning scorsese to make movies for and stayed relevant at boxoffice and awards season. Then he started working with other directors. He deserves zero credit for his success. Ask him why people come to see his movies and he will point to directors. So he is no king. He is a man baby pu$$y. Give the credit to directors not that baby faced man child.
Joker is not striving to be anything. it is copying scorsese movies. So your whole comment is useless because that statement indicates how dimwitted you are.
There is no right movies in the current market. Audience are habituated to IP. That IP can be in different forms and shapes. It is marvel IP or ex-soldier chris kyle IP or AIDS patient freddie mercury or a chris Nolan movie Ip or tarantino movie IP. Even leo “thinking man’s blockbuster” my a$$. If it appeals to you then it is no thinking man because as i pointed out earlier your whole message makes you look like a dimwit and dimwits don’t think. Even his movies are a brand. Audience think that he is somehow responsible for the quality of the movie but he is not. Replace tarantino with another director and see how much money the movie makes. So don’t come down here talking like you know stuff because you dont. You sound delusional and i am pretty sure dimwitted. And also once upon a time flopped. Without china release the movie is a flop because they have to make more than 400 million to break even because of marketing costs.
So what you’re saying is that it’s wrong that people see movies because of the film’s topic, director or actors? These “IPs” have in this case existed always, as your definition allows things like the star system of classic Hollywood to be counted in the list
But star system used to be broader back then and now its very very small as you can count them on one hand. I mean, real star power where in people will watch anything you do. Its Nolan,Cruise,Leo and tarantino. Even scorsese is big among critics circles. The problem with this is that audience who don’t show up to any of the other original movies will show up to their stuff with the intent of liking it and as long as it’s not atrocious and it has their signature style the movie will do just fine. If OUTIH didn’t have the bloodbath in the end, the fans would have flipped.
But star system used to be broader back then and now its very very small as you can count them on one hand. I mean, real star power where in people will watch anything you do. Its Nolan,Cruise,Leo and tarantino. Even scorsese is big among critics circles. The problem with this is that audience who don’t show up to any of the other original movies will show up to their stuff with the intent of liking it and as long as it’s not atrocious and it has their signature style the movie will do just fine. If OUTIH didn’t have the bloodbath in the end, the fans would have flipped.
But aren’t franchises in certain ways like the old star system, you have certain people making certain kinds of movies, often somewhat similar, and they play to a “type” that their fans love? So if you just have Nolan, Cruise, DiCaprio and Tarantino on the traditional scale, don’t the MCU and Star Wars among other things apply as well, just that instead of seeing three films a year starring their favorite actor, people see three MCU movies a year
I think you may be overreaching in your comparison. The same actor isn’t the same as the same movie. Even if the character is similar, the films aren’t the same.
Perhaps but I think franchises take up a certain headspace that previously was reserved for actors in the public’s mind, some sort of a promise of quality and steady amount of films each year to see
Yes, but I think franchises are more than just IPs, they are giving audiences the same thing with just few differences.
I am not denying that. I’m just saying they are not the same. There are no longer movie stars except Di Caprio. He is the only one whose films continue to be sell outs. It might be because they are always of high quality as he works only with top directors. But he seems to be the only exception.
Kevin, you OK?
do you need some help putting it ?
no but you do.
Whoa! Rude, rude, rude. I pity you, you sound miserable…
here comes a bozo to the defense..get a life
This just proves how DC is superior to Marvel
Factoring in my comments..taking into account unfortunately the acceptance old dated conservative grey army division in academy still way too dominant also taking into account growing younger demographic of academy membership, combined with film trailers i have seen here is my list what i like to be nominated that earn our respect for academy back and what will unfortunately likely make final cut for top ten according to oscads delusional thinking:
What i think should be a contender: (in no particular order)
1. Ford Vs. Ferrari
2. Judy
3. Avengers Endgame
4. Top Gun Maverick
5. Joker
6. The Operative
7. The two Popes
8. The Irishman
9. 1917
10. Midway
How unfortunately it will be according to oscar
1. Dollarmite is my name
2. Once Upon a time in Hollywood
3. Joker
4. Parasite
5. The Irishman
6. US
7. The Two Popes
8. Ford vs. Ferrari
9. The Lighthouse
10. The Hustlers
I don’t understand this post.
I think there’s some Google Translate happening.
People are being too sensitive regarding this topic. They say, “if you don’t like them, don’t watch them.” But being filmmakers, it’s not that they have a problem with them being made in and of themselves. It’s that because of their success, other type of films aren’t getting the shot at getting made, or if they do get made, they do poorly at the BO because of all these superhero films. Then the supporters will say, “well that’s the nature of supply and demand. it’s what the people want.” And to that I say….look at who is president. He was what the people wanted. Does it mean he’s not detrimental to democracy?
“other films” are going to Netflix….like the Irishman.
What are you suggesting, that there should control on what the masses can buy or who they can vote for? I don’t think that’s the way to go, but it’s obvious the two are linked. I think few things have more power to influence than movies and that’s why it matters what people watch. What by this is positive influence, less so negative influence.
No, I’m saying people want it both ways. They accept supply and demand when it fits their viewpoint and deny it when it doesn’t. That’s all.
Yeah, but I think it’s right to point out things that are harmful to art and society.