|
SleepCousinDeath posted:I haven’t seen Avatar since it was released and the name Jake Sully still lingers in my memory for whatever reason. Late era Cameron writes characters saying other character's names far more than the bounds of reasonableness (count how many times you hear Jack! Rose! in Titanic).
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 10:26 |
|
|
Darko posted:Yeah, an original movie almost never makes as much as a franchise sequel; an original movie being the highest grossing film of all time is more impressive than that of a franchise sequel with a built in audience doing so.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 22:46
|
|
|
Darko posted:Late era Cameron writes characters saying other character's names far more than the bounds of reasonableness (count how many times you hear Jack! Rose! in Titanic). See also John/Sarah Connor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 23:02
|
|
|
Darko posted:Late era Cameron writes characters saying other character's names far more than the bounds of reasonableness (count how many times you hear Jack! Rose! in Titanic). I think that's basically the only way most people remember the names of movie characters. It was in subtitles a lot too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 23:15
|
|
|
Old Kentucky Shark posted:Before the last decade, franchise sequels almost always made less than the original entry. There were a few big league outliers -- Pirates of the Caribbean and Shrek being the big two -- but as a general rule, you almost always made less with subsequent outings of a franchise than the original: Empire made ~75% of what ANH made, Superman 2 made about three quarters of Superman, Batman Returns is about 60% of Batman 89, Harry Potter 2 made 80-% of the first film, Temple of Doom made 50 million less than Raiders, etc. Studios didn't greenlight sequels because they made more money, they greenlit sequels because they consistently made profitable, if diminishing, returns. I guess streaming made it easier to catch up on previous entries in order to make sequels more viable. Previously, I would imagine if you hadn't seen the first movie you weren't going to go see the second, so its unlikely your second movie would have more viewers than the first even if it was really good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 00:43
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:I guess streaming made it easier to catch up on previous entries in order to make sequels more viable. Previously, I would imagine if you hadn't seen the first movie you weren't going to go see the second, so its unlikely your second movie would have more viewers than the first even if it was really good. the internet lets companies and individuals create sustaining and expansive meta content, making a series essentially infinite. for the 30+ crowd, remember all the nonsense theories we had about yoda and the emperor and all that poo poo? now its a click away from wookiepedia for the Canon Answers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 01:11
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:I guess streaming made it easier to catch up on previous entries in order to make sequels more viable. Previously, I would imagine if you hadn't seen the first movie you weren't going to go see the second, so its unlikely your second movie would have more viewers than the first even if it was really good. Streaming didn't do anything Blockbuster didn't already do 25 years ago*; that's not what made franchises a big deal. The big driver is that studios largely stopped treating sequels as cheap, low-quality garbage cash ins which, eventually, led audiences to stop viewing sequels as cheap, low-quality garbage cash-ins. The reason you didn't used to have successful franchises was because franchises tended to peter out into your Superman IVs or Jaws 5's. so nobody took any of them seriously. The big sea change was probably the one two punch of the LotR movies and the Harry Potter movies: franchises planned as franchises and delivered with roughly the same quality level across the board. It took the stink off sequels for everyone. *For movies, anyway. It did essentially Blockbuster-ize television series, which was a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 01:41
|
|
|
Was lotr the first movie series intended to be at least 3 movies from the getgo? The only other thing I can think of is the three colors trilogy
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 01:53
|
|
|
Well if you want to get technical supposedly Star Wars has been 9 movies from the start Also Blockbuster was only sorta convienient. A single 3 night rental was $4.27 back in the day which is still a much higher barrier than say, Netflix or even Redbox
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 01:54
|
|
|
Old Kentucky Shark posted:*For movies, anyway. It did essentially Blockbuster-ize television series, which was a big deal. This is a good take, but I don't think it's wholly separate from the rise in streaming. Not in the sense of accessing the content - yeah, you could rent movies from Blockbuster - but I think strongly serialized narrative in television in the early-2000's onward did a lot to change people's relationship to visual media in general. Television shows that you could see on-demand, streamed, or through DVR allowed for way more serialized storytelling, with way more in-depth work with plot or character. And I think mass audiences grew accustomed to more complicated and sprawling character stories in that vein, in a way that ultimately flowed back into cinema. Basically, I imagine shows like Lost or Heroes (or Sopranos or Breaking Bad as more niche options) had a hand in changing how viewers even consume media. So, franchise movies that capitalized on longer-than-one-feature storylines found a place commercially that they may not have in previous decades. I'm not sure exactly how, but I think it also connects to the rise of IP over acting talent in marketing a movie. In the 90's, an original piece of IP could make bank because Will Smith's face was on it. Now, the situation is totally flipped...even very famous actors aren't a guarantee of success, but specific IP can earn billions. RDJ's next movie might do ok...but it'll probably earn a fraction of Eternals or whatever new Marvel product comes out, even if audiences have no idea who's in it, because popular investment is in the world and the characters and the storytelling. Xealot fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Jul 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 02:22
|
|
|
Old Kentucky Shark posted:Before the last decade, franchise sequels almost always made less than the original entry. There were a few big league outliers -- Pirates of the Caribbean and Shrek being the big two -- but as a general rule, you almost always made less with subsequent outings of a franchise than the original: Empire made ~75% of what ANH made, Superman 2 made about three quarters of Superman, Batman Returns is about 60% of Batman 89, Harry Potter 2 made 80-% of the first film, Temple of Doom made 50 million less than Raiders, etc. Studios didn't greenlight sequels because they made more money, they greenlit sequels because they consistently made profitable, if diminishing, returns. .... which is why the MCU's model of building momentum in its IP and betting the farm on increasing its audience over time is just so goddamned unfeasible on paper and the fact that the managed to pull it off it just so  It just shouldn't work - if a franchise started out with a relatively popular and successful film like Iron Man you'd have to be a crazy person to float a business plan along the lines of "Hey let's make a sequel and a bunch of related films that maybe have a minor character in a cameo and in four years let's put a huge budget towards a massive crossover sequel, betting everything we have that the audience will not have only stuck around that long but will have increased significantly." Late edit: I guess they tried for a similar model with Star Wars in recent years where they had the massive "event" films interspersed with a bunch of smaller films but it all fell on its rear end. Snowglobe of Doom fucked around with this message at 05:30 on Jul 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 04:31
|
|
|
Well they were deliberately emulating comic books at first with the same business model that's crack for nerds even if the rest of the comic book business is suicidal. And it wasn't Disney at first.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 05:34
|
|
|
Ammanas posted:the internet lets companies and individuals create sustaining and expansive meta content, making a series essentially infinite. for the 30+ crowd, remember all the nonsense theories we had about yoda and the emperor and all that poo poo? now its a click away from wookiepedia for the Canon Answers. Haha yesss. Watching ESB as a kid I thought Yoda was a human being and that was just what a human being looked like if they were strong enough with the force to live to 900. Same with the Emperor I figured that's just how you look if you're like a centuries old evil person.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 14:41
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Haha yesss. Watching ESB as a kid I thought Yoda was a human being and that was just what a human being looked like if they were strong enough with the force to live to 900. Same with the Emperor I figured that's just how you look if you're like a centuries old evil person. Same.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 15:03
|
|
|
I'm still disappointed that Prequel Yoda wasn't a statuesque Atlas.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 15:06
|
|
|
What was the general consensus on Shazaam? Decent? Better than decent?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 15:07
|
|
|
Shazam is a fun good time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 15:09
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:What was the general consensus on Shazaam? Decent? Better than decent? It's all right. I'd put it on the level with Wonder Woman: not as good as MOS/BVS and not as interesting as Suicide Squad but much, much better than Justice League. Interestingly, all of the kids are much better than the adults. Mark Strong is doing his standard villain thing and Zachary Levi is fine, but the kids who play Billy Batson, Freddy and the rest of the family are legit very good. Luckily we get to spend a lot of time with them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Well if you want to get technical supposedly Star Wars has been 9 movies from the start They really weren't. Lucas didn't come up with that idea until planning Empire Strikes Back. And then he changed it to six while planning Return of the Jedi.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
The villain of Shazam is boring as piss and the majority of the jokes are horrendously unfunny but the central plot arc and theme about family is actually really genuine and sweet, especially with the pretty surprising turn it takes (Billy’s mom actually just not wanting him anymore.) I’ve heard they’re a thing in the comics, but I haven’t read any Shazam comics, so it was a very cool twist to me that he gave all his foster siblings superpowers too. Pirate Jet fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Jul 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 15:34
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Haha yesss. Watching ESB as a kid I thought Yoda was a human being and that was just what a human being looked like if they were strong enough with the force to live to 900. Same with the Emperor I figured that's just how you look if you're like a centuries old evil person. IIRC it was a hard Lucas rule that Yoda's origins and species remain a total mystery, so hey it might well be! Shazam has been called the most surprisingly pro-anarchist superhero movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 15:46
|
|
|
Pirate Jet posted:The villain of Shazam is boring as piss and the majority of the jokes are horrendously unfunny but the central plot arc and theme about family is actually really genuine and sweet, especially with the pretty surprising turn it takes (Billy’s mom actually just not wanting him anymore.) Fully agree. This was my take on it as well. It's the super hero equivalent of those schmaltzy family friendly 90's action comedies geared mostly towards kids imo, which is cool because it stands out from the homogeneous "MCU" mold that most cape movies end up in (including Aquaman and WW). I also really like the diverse cast, and I hope the sequels will explore them a bit more. I personally deeply disliked it, but again, I don't think I was the target demographic, and that's fine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 15:56
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:I'm still disappointed that Prequel Yoda wasn't a statuesque Atlas. The biggest disappointment was when he started doing all the bouncy ball monkey stuff in Attack of the Clones. With his expertise and age I was expecting him to be super still, only moving the absolute barest minimum required against foes who do all the flashy poo poo, e.g. the young versions of Obi-Wan and Anakin earlier in the film and in Phantom Menace. I didn't even imagine him using a lightsaber. He seemed beyond needing to use a sword.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 16:24
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:IIRC it was a hard Lucas rule that Yoda's origins and species remain a total mystery, so hey it might well be! Yoda the Yodarian.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 16:28
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:They really weren't. Lucas didn't come up with that idea until planning Empire Strikes Back. And then he changed it to six while planning Return of the Jedi. And at some point in between there was also a phase where Lucas was saying it would be twelve movies total.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 16:30
|
|
|
McCloud posted:the homogeneous "MCU" mold that most cape movies end up in (including Aquaman and WW) Aquaman felt more like James Wan making anought Fast & Furious movie, but with Aquaman trappings. But yeah, it and Wonder Woman are the most MCU-like of the DC films.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 16:31
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:The success of Avatar is very funny insofar as it's difficult for people to justify or explain. Comparing Avatar to the MCU movies is interesting to me, since they both found ways to monetize nerd poo poo incredibly well, but did it in very different ways. I feel like Avatar is empty and stupid on the level of Age of Ultron. Sam Worthington as Jake Sully is worse than every major casting decision in the entire fuckin' MCU, and I'm not sure it's even that close. You can point to plenty of garbage tier dialogue in both Avatar and your typical MCU movie, but Avatar is more just boring and generic vs. the MCU's quip overload. As a spectacle, though, Avatar is infinitely better, and I don't think it's particularly close either. MCU movies promise this all the time, but rarely stick the landing, plus everything is color-graded to a gray haze. Cameron is just better at multiple facets of visual storytelling than anybody the MCU has hired to direct. I think that's obvious. The difference in rewatchability for me is that on a TV - even a nice big one - the shock and awe effect of Avatar is way less pronounced, and you're left with a humorless version of a dumb MCU film with a shittier lead. As a specifically big screen experience getting your eyeballs photon-bombed, Avatar is clearly better than anything the MCU has come up with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 17:02
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Haha yesss. Watching ESB as a kid I thought Yoda was a human being and that was just what a human being looked like if they were strong enough with the force to live to 900. Same with the Emperor I figured that's just how you look if you're like a centuries old evil person. https://twitter.com/shutupmikeginn/status/1145896723346149377 (I thought the same thing)
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
McCloud posted:It's the super hero equivalent of those schmaltzy family friendly 90's action comedies geared mostly towards kids imo What are we talking about here, like a modern Suburban Commando? For some reason my mind is coming up blank for this genre of movies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 18:15
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:What was the general consensus on Shazaam? Decent? Better than decent? Shazam is very fun and entertaining, although it has problems. The biggest problem is that Billy's character is inconsistent. Zachary Levi is excellent at portraying a kid in a superhero's body, and they do a good job of playing around with classic hero-fighting-crime tropes. Asher Angel is excellent at portraying a kid who is driven to find out what happened to his mother, and paying any price. The problem is that they are playing the same character, but their personalities don't jive. That makes Thaddeus Sivana a good character foil to kid Billy (kids and family problems), and Freddy to superhero Billy (kids and superheroes). The consequence of that is that it makes it hard to reconcile why superhero Billy doesn't use his powers to find his mother. There are some smaller issues. Dr. Sivana doesn't get much development. It's nigh impossible to tell the Seven Deadly Sins apart. However, they don't outweigh the entertainment factor of seeing Billy do superhero shenanigans, watch his foster family run through the Rock of Eternity while looking for a way out, or the climax of the final battle. All of these make it feel like a kick-rear end '90s action movie. Violator posted:What are we talking about here, like a modern Suburban Commando? For some reason my mind is coming up blank for this genre of movies. I'd say something like the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movies (probably closer to 2) or The Last Action Hero.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 19:01
|
|
|
Shazam! has two big cliches that really get on my nerves. The first is that it opens with a car wreck. The second is a trend I've been noticing a lot lately where the main character gets into a big argument with the other main character and they have this big falling out, but then the plot happens and creates danger so they just act like it never happened and that thread is never properly resolved. Good movie, overall though. Pretty sure Dark Phoenix has both of these cliches present as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 20:49
|
|
|
Shazam! is a pretty low-stakes movie, for better or for worse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 21:04
|
|
|
shazam isn't flawless but it's very sweet and earnest in parts and I'm sure at least one kid out there got real freaked out at the designs of the sins so there's two reasons I'm glad it exists e: oh and the post credits scene, natch
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 21:16
|
|
|
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/taika-waititi-direct-thor-4-1224464 Taika back for Thor 4. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 22:39
|
|
|
Mazzagatti2Hotty posted:https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/taika-waititi-direct-thor-4-1224464 Ugh. Don’t piss away your career in the MCU Taika.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 22:40
|
|
|
Brother Entropy posted:shazam isn't flawless but it's very sweet and earnest in parts and I'm sure at least one kid out there got real freaked out at the designs of the sins so there's two reasons I'm glad it exists That's what has me hooked for the sequel
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 22:46
|
|
|
I'm glad Waititi will almost certainly make another good film that will reach a wide audience, and also that he may yet avoid the Live Action Anime Adaptation black hole.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 23:08
|
|
|
sponges posted:Ugh. Don’t piss away your career in the MCU Taika. Don't worry, he's also doing Jon Favreau's Star Wars streaming show.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 23:14
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:Aquaman felt more like James Wan making anought Fast & Furious movie, but with Aquaman trappings. But yeah, it and Wonder Woman are the most MCU-like of the DC films. Yeah but Aquaman is about Aquaman making enemies into friends through communication and the MCU is about how it's bad for bad people to have drones
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 23:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 10:26 |
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:I'm glad Waititi will almost certainly make another good film that will reach a wide audience, and also that he may yet avoid the Live Action Anime Adaptation black hole. Alita is very good though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 23:59
|
|
