Basebf555 posted:

It always surprised me how Contact seems to be not very well liked at all. I loved it as a kid and I still love it.

Lobok posted:

Am I missing a or are you unintentionally trying to invent League of Extraordinary Gentlemen?

feedmyleg posted:

Either way, a 20 year old is going to look at the trailer and think "Why would I want to watch this?" and compare it to whatever mediocre movie The Rock is making GBS threads out this month. And then they're going to go to that instead, because they know and like The Rock and they don't give a poo poo about a guy running around in green cloth in a world they don't have any connection to or interest in and probably only know about because of that English class they didn't pay much attention in.

e: That being said, please please please someone make a proper 1930s Doc Savage movie. It won't make money but I promise to never shut up about it for years after its release.

feedmyleg posted:

With pulp heroes and legends like Robin Hood, I feel like they're both facing the same uphill battle, but their problems are significantly different.

...Well, after trying to write out two different attempts at a post on this subject, I feel like I've come to the conclusion that the difference is actually pretty negligible. Both are IPs stuck in their respective time periods. Whether you want to update the time period or the sensibility, either way you're creating something that feels unauthentic, or at best feels like a twist on something that your audience isn't already familiar with.

Working through this idea I was struck by something else I read today. It was Tarantino reflecting on why Grindhouse was a failure:


I think this is the same problem facing both classic legends and pulp heroes. Film nerds are naturally cultural archeologists who have a ton more context on the place that these IPs have in cinematic or literary history. The general public just doesn't give a poo poo about a wealthy guy fighting 1940s gangsters or King Richard's socialist pal, regardless of their rich storytelling history. Either way, a 20 year old is going to look at the trailer and think "Why would I want to watch this?" and compare it to whatever mediocre movie The Rock is making GBS threads out this month. And then they're going to go to that instead, because they know and like The Rock and they don't give a poo poo about a guy running around in green cloth in a world they don't have any connection to or interest in and probably only know about because of that English class they didn't pay much attention in.

e: That being said, please please please someone make a proper 1930s Doc Savage movie. It won't make money but I promise to never shut up about it for years after its release.

GrandpaPants posted:

They should just make like a failure adventures with all the IPs that people apparently can't make successful. Green Hornet, King Arthur, and Robin Hood team up to, I dunno, adapt to a modern world?

feedmyleg posted:

With pulp heroes and legends like Robin Hood, I feel like they're both facing the same uphill battle, but their problems are significantly different.

...Well, after trying to write out two different attempts at a post on this subject, I feel like I've come to the conclusion that the difference is actually pretty negligible. Both are IPs stuck in their respective time periods. Whether you want to update the time period or the sensibility, either way you're creating something that feels unauthentic, or at best feels like a twist on something that your audience isn't already familiar with.

LORD OF BOOTY posted:

I mean, honestly, I think this is kind of a false dichotomy? You can totally make a movie that's both faithful to these old IPs, and still holds up next to other blockbusters. You just can't have "it's a faithful adaptation of this thing elderly people like" as your main hook.

Like, if they make a Green Hornet movie and the trailer is going hard on how it's exactly like the original, guys! obviously it's gonna bomb because nobody cares. If you, instead, just push it as a cool action period piece about a pseudo-Batman and a badass Asian guy in a mask beating the hell out of weird criminals, you'll probably get a decent audience. The problem is that these studios are all figuring the IP is a hook in and of itself, when that's really not the case, and you have to pretty much treat these movies like they're original IPs.

feedmyleg posted:

Adapting this stuff is such an exercise in futility. Either you do a faithful adaptation and the 700 fans praise the film but nobody else sees it because you've made something very niche, or you do an unfaithful adaptation and the 700 fans are mad and the blogs write scathing articles and the masses are either unaware of the IP's legacy or are actively turned off by it. Either way, nobody sees it. There are rare exceptions like the Banderas Zorro movies, but almost every other pulp adaptation has been a huge failure, either creatively, commercially, or both.

You can do a modern version of Batman or Superman or any of those early comic book heroes because there is a popular version of them that has continued to evolve and change and grow into modern times. There is a trial-and-error allowable in comic books because if someone doesn't like your reboot then you can go and retcon it a few years later, or just shove it down their throats long enough that a new creator will come along and iron out all those details and update it to a version that people do like. But updating The Green Hornet to modern times is going to be tough, because there isn't a modern day popular version of the character out there (outside of occasionally trying a modern reboot that comes and goes immediately and never stuck). So at that point you have to make the whole thing up from whole cloth, which doesn't feel authentic. And if you don't, then your characters are stuck in the past.

So if you're in these people's positions, you either divorce it from the IP and try something new (and wind up with Green Hornet 2011 all over again), or you do an authentic version that nobody cares about regardless of quality (John Carter, The Shadow, The Phantom, The Lone Ranger, The Legend of Tarzan, etc, etc). Not that I'd complain if we get an old-school film serial style 1940s-set Green Hornet, I just have a hard time imagining anyone financing that.

GrandpaPants posted:

They should just make like a failure adventures with all the IPs that people apparently can't make successful. Green Hornet, King Arthur, and Robin Hood team up to, I dunno, adapt to a modern world?

Alan Smithee posted:

https://twitter.com/RogerCorman/status/1250854219206160386?s=20

Chairman Capone posted:

I agree. Every single criticism I've seen about it seems to rest entirely on people either upset that we didn't see the aliens at the end or people somehow thinking the ending meant her dad was an alien the whole time.

Basebf555 posted:

I was 12 years old and I totally got that her dad was not actually her dad at the end. People can be so dumb about movies sometimes.

Alan Smithee posted:

https://twitter.com/RogerCorman/status/1250854219206160386?s=20

Alan Smithee posted:

imagine all the movies that notoriously bombed making a grand in 3 theaters like uh...Zzyzx Road? I don't know help me out

but yeah they'd be number now

AceOfFlames posted:

I can picture a bunch of those lovely Christian film companies seeing an opportunity to have their films be the #1 in the box office right now.

The MSJ posted:

What if the #1 movie is from this IFC list?

Alan Smithee posted:

oh no

oh

no

Alan Smithee posted:

imagine all the movies that notoriously bombed making a grand in 3 theaters like uh...Zzyzx Road? I don't know help me out

but yeah they'd be number now

The MSJ posted:

got any sevens posted:

Why does the pic show spiderverse

Also those cars are pretty close together, lol florida

feedmyleg posted:

If I see any hooks for a cinematic universe I'm going to actively avoid your film.

Looks better than that DTV Daphne/Velma flick, at least. That was a serious missed opportunity.

The MSJ posted:

What if the #1 movie is from this IFC list?

Big Mean Jerk posted:

Well folks, Neil Breen has been busy during the quarantine. Here’s a ten minute trailer for an upcoming 5-goddamn-hour-long retrospective about his own filmmaking process.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=MPYqcy9U-ME

Grendels Dad posted:

23 Hours to Kill a Netflix Comedy Special.