|
It's gonna be avengers, and not one person reading this is going to agree with that right now, but every kid who is 7 right now and is living their entire life soaked in avengers is eventually going to grow up and be adults that get to pick what the most important films are.
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 13:41 |
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:If that's the case then Cars is definitely one of those movies. Yeah, maybe, so many kids watching it so many times it's gonna mean SOMETHING to people in 30 years. People in the future will care about and elevate their childhood just as much as people today do, I'm sure. I'm not sure there will ever be a break and people will think of it as some masterpiece but it's not going to be this important to this many kids and have a generation grow up and decide it didn't matter at all.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
LORD OF BUTT posted:I don't think they're going to hold that much nostalgia for it in adulthood, though. Like, I was obsessed with the Land Before Time movies as a little kid, and now the first one is the only one I can even go back and rewatch (because it is legit the highlight of Don Bluth's career); Cars is probably gonna fall into that kind of zone in coming years. Yeah but read what you wrote, you loved a dinosaur movie as a kid then grew up and now you can talk about that movie as the apex of a specific director's career. You didn't forget about it or just stay at the same level of "yay! treestars! I loved cera!" baby stuff, you grew up and then now talk about it in terms of a grander thing like it's place in a director's career.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted:Hard to imagine what his would be for Avengers, because as a film it's just so unremarkable. It's pretty remarkable, the whole shared universe thing has rarely been done before and never ever to this scale and it seems pretty obvious even if it's a pretty bad movie that 40 years from now people will talk about it like they talk about jaws: a movie that changed everything about the industry forever. Add that to the fact kids are still super crazy about the hulk and iron man at a minimum and will eventually grow up and be the ones talking about what movies mattered and you have a real big chance of this being a thing that a slow shift turns favor on it as a big deal movie.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
Terrorist Fistbump posted:I also disagree that the shared universe thing is really as innovative as it's often held up to be. I mean, it's literally changing everything about how movies are produced, marketed and consumed. I can barely name a bigger change in big name hollywood movies in the last 20 years. Like maybe it's a fad and never will spread past the series messing around with trying their own hand at shared universe sequels but it's a really big deal. Honestly I bet 20 years from now there are still marvel shared universe movies coming out. They have at least 10 years of plans already and 20 years is long enough for them to get stale and resurge.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:"Shared universe" is marketing verbiage. The word for such films in the past was "sequel" and less commonly, "spinoff". I get that if you don't like the movie you don't want them to be important, but they figured out "one weird trick" to let them release TWELVE sequels in like 5 years with 11 more coming out in the next 5 without anyone complaining. It's clearly a major change to the hollywood formula and is influencing a ton of other stuff that wants to copy.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
Terrorist Fistbump posted:In all three of the fields you named, the Avengers model is merely the next logical step in the development of big, profitable franchises that dates back to at least the early 1980s. The Avengers itself is the inverse of a spin-off conceptually and was a safe bet given the contemporary tastes of the market. It's literally the format the avengers comics themselves have used for like 54 years. It's not an original idea at all, but it's also basically never been done in movies ever to this scale and is a really big deal that is going to probably make the way big budget movies are made be different forever and ever.I bet in 20 years barely any of the biggest movies will come out with at least a 5 movie deal to explore the backstory of whatever 50 dumb things can spin off and back in to the series.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:well in Japan it has Do you mean with godzilla and the kaiju movies? Because I can see that. Although I'd say the difference is that they used it as a trick to push out more low budget movies somewhat faster, and marvel is using it as a trick to create some of the highest budget movies ever pushed out at a rate no other series has even come close to. I think I'd say with no hyperbole that avengers is one of the most important movies ever even though it was a pretty nothing movie. It is changing everything and I bet there will never again be a time where big budget movies get released that don't have influence from it's formula. Like I bet in a few years a movie series like fast and the furious will just be unthinkable and a movie series that high budget will just be expected to be a wide network of movies focusing on the individual characters and the whole group/whole world weaving together into a much larger and more marketable format. I bet avengers spells the end for single thread blockbuster series probably pretty much permanently. No one is going to like the movie or think it's all that good of a movie but I bet in 50 years people will still be writing essays about how it's the template for modern big budget movies that everything after followed.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:all of this stuff I find extremely doubtful but I suppose time will tell. I think the shared universe thing will more likely be remembered as a fad, like 3D or disaster movies, and The Avengers in particular will be one of those movies that some people (the future equivelant of "90s kids") will have a whole lot of nostalgia for but others will be like "uhhh that movie wasn't actually very good." again, like Independence Day. I think it makes sense in the context of how films are watched that the world would move in this direction. In the pre 70s you either saw a movie when it came out or you didn't, maybe it'd be on tv eventually and maybe you could catch it but probably not. But movies came and went and were gone. Since then movies have gotten more and more accessible and you could buy any movie. Now every movie is accessible to almost everyone all the time anywhere. The concept of missing a movie is totally gone from culture, so it makes way more sense for movies to start interconnecting and not having any expectation they need to be stand alone, since anyone can watch any of the feeding movies at any time.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:There are still plenty of directors around who can get a blockbuster type movie made even if its not part of some huge planned universe, and I think those movies will continue to be made as long as authors are still writing really successful novels. Right now the novels hollywood wants are the ones you can turn into 3 parts with the last book being two movies. I bet hollywood is soon going to find itself very very interesting in the novels structured so you can turn it into 8 movies with movies feeding in and out of some main thread story.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:That kind of thing still takes time to write though, like a decade plus for even a prolific writer. I'm not sure even GoT really qualifies and Martin is limping to the finish line. I mean what's out there like what you're describing that isn't Marvel or DC comics? The Universal Monster thing I mentioned already but that's a failure. Who's going to write all this stuff? Well at least the argument has flipped from it being some nothing movie that wasn't even that big of an achievement to it being such a giant task and massive achievement that only the greatest writers working for decades could create such a universe as rich as the one that contains "ant man"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I'm talking about from a marketing perspective, we're discussing the future of blockbuster movies. Marvel and DC had a very long history already established and a fan-base that already loved pre-existing characters before the first dollar was ever spent on Avengers. That kind of thing is very rare and it happens organically over time, a long time. If they can make the hobbit 3 movies they can make it 6 movies with separate but interlinking narratives moving in and out of a larger main thread. Same with harry potter or twilight or whatever. Most stories in general have always had their side digressions chopped out to make a movie, now they can be put into multi million grossing shared universe side stories.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:That would still place Avengers as a evolutionary step, not a massive twist. Do non-evolutionary steps even exist in something like this? It seems like it'd be hard to name a single thing in movies (or any art) that formed totally out of no where with absolutely no precedence. Even things like "the first movie with color" and "the first movie with sound" all grew out of earlier achivements. It seems like it'd be nearly impossible to even conceive of a thing to do in a movie that doesn't have SOMETHING similar to some extent done before it. Like as I said before the avengers shared universe is literally the 60 year old model the actual comics use. But at the same time this shared universe thing is pretty drat rare in film and especially at budgets like this.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
TrixRabbi posted:How many fangirls went wild when Benedict Cumberbatch was announced as Dr. Strange for example? Wait, how many did? I don't feel like I saw even one person going wild or even talking about that at all ever even once. I didn't even know that was a thing. Was there really a super strong fan reaction from women somewhere? I barely remember it even getting announced who was playing him. Was it big somewhere at all?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 13:41 |
|
|
SciFiDownBeat posted:not to mention that every female character is a laughably cruel misogynistic caricature. That seems like a weird complaint on that specific movie. Isn't that sort of the point? People in that movie were literally terrible caricatures. Thematically but also In universe in many cases.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 17:43
|
|