|
What does "go Bluey" mean
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2025 16:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2025 13:35 |
|
|
bull3964 posted:Maybe we just need to bring back the mid budget movie that’s allowed to scrape by with making a few million over production/marketing costs? It's a financialization problem. Movies as investments compete with all other investments for capital. If you can get a safer return from stocks/bonds w/e over the same time-span then you have no financial reason to risk money on a movie that might flop. A big movie production has to perform outstandingly financially to motivate investing at all in today's grift-centered over-financialized economy. The problem is further compounded by long-term revenue-streams like VHS, DvDs and bluerays no longer existing. You hit big immediately or you don't hit big at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2025 16:41
|
|
|
Arist posted:What does "go Bluey" mean Not publically release the names of the child actors to somewhat protect them. Which obviously is a whole different game when that actor is on screen rather than just a voice, but I do think it has some merit as a safeguarding measure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2025 16:41
|
|
|
Arist posted:What does "go Bluey" mean Casting Australians
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2025 16:42
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:The main reason it's a remake/readaptation of the original books is because Rowling wants to distance the franchise from the three original leads. You can guarantee that she will be much more hands on with this new trio's development than she was previously. I dunno, I'm not persuaded by this argument. Maybe Rowling's brand of crazy is being motivated solely by taking back her baby from being connected with the original stars, but she'd have to motivate dozens of money men who, frankly, have no reason to care about her personal vendettas. This seems like a lot of effort when there's a very simple reason sitting right there. PriorMarcus posted:I've also heard that WB wants to go Bluey on the child actors and are looking into if that's legally possible, which I think would be wise in some ways. This is going to backfire, particularly given the nature of the British tabloid industry. Those kids are going to have bounties on their identities faster than you can say Baby Reindeer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2025 16:51
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:It's a financialization problem. Movies as investments compete with all other investments for capital. If you can get a safer return from stocks/bonds w/e over the same time-span then you have no financial reason to risk money on a movie that might flop. A big movie production has to perform outstandingly financially to motivate investing at all in today's grift-centered over-financialized economy. My point was these articles are always painting it as a problem with a the customer. If you poo poo out 10 movies in a month’s timespan that each need to make back half a billion to be considered a success, it’s not a customer problem. You can only squeeze so much out of a rock. These articles need to start calling it what it is, an end stage capitalism problem. The desire to have all the money, to have infinite growth forever, leading to an increasingly bloated product and pipeline that requires huge swings. Stuff like the Minecraft movie making bank are anomalies since they are cashing in on meme culture around a very specific hyper popular IP. That isn’t a business model you can reliably repeat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2025 17:01
|
|
|
It's never been fine to lose a lot of money on a production. It's a demand issue (and consumers are complicit in "late stage capitalism")
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2025 17:07
|
|
|
Yeah but it's all hollywood accounting on money lost. If it cost 100mil and they "only" made 150mil, it's a huge failure because it didn't make 300mil. also what the gently caress? those drat consumers not spending out their rear end
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2025 17:08
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:Maybe we just need to bring back the mid budget movie that’s allowed to scrape by with making a few million over production/marketing costs? How exactly do you expect anyone to make a billion dollars doing that
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2025 17:15
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:Not publically release the names of the child actors to somewhat protect them. Which obviously is a whole different game when that actor is on screen rather than just a voice, but I do think it has some merit as a safeguarding measure. I don't see how that's going to be at all possible with a live action performance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2025 17:26
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:I don't see how that's going to be at all possible with a live action performance. We just need everyone in the world to be like the guys on the train in Spiderman 2
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2025 17:28
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:I don't see how that's going to be at all possible with a live action performance. Blur the show.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2025 18:11
|
|
|
graventy posted:Blur the show. I will never turn off motion smoothing
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2025 18:14
|
|
|
I'm going to watch the tv show in the same way that I played the game, in a way that doesn't give Rowling any money. Personally I think it's a fun world and it would be a waste to throw it away just because Rowling is a major bigot, she's already got more money than god anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2025 19:01
|
|
|
I remember hearing about the possibility the new HP people were considering keeping the kids anonymous and thinking that’s got to be one of the stupidest Hollywood ideas I’ve ever heard. Definitely something they came up with after doing several lines.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2025 19:56
|
|
|
zoux posted:It's never been fine to lose a lot of money on a production. It's a demand issue (and consumers are complicit in "late stage capitalism") Small movies make amazing returns in the digital age, so it's not a demand issue. But they're still not attractive to investors due to perceived big risk and that while based on margin alone their profits are high, they gross extremely little compared to Hollywood blockbusters. In a rent-seekers economy big safe bets is what sells to investors. Very few want to bet big on a movie, everyone wants to reap in tremendous revenue by rent-seeking the intellectual property of big I.P:s. That's how you get big institutionalized money and that being on the table makes smaller investments un-attractive to Hollywood studios.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2025 20:07
|
|
|
I actually liked the first Fantastic Beasts movie because it was in large part about a bunch of weird magical animals. They should have just stuck to that and made a couple movies about Harry Potter Dundee wrangling animals.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2025 20:15
|
|
|
Yeah same it was fun and had cool magic animals while having a somewhat interesting plot twist. They should have just been like wizard Indiana Jones but with magic animals instead of the holy grail, just kinda related adventures to save a magic pig or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2025 20:40
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:https://x.com/DiscussingFilm/status/1911769346151506194 I agree in the sense that the movies are great and just move on, but I'd love if we don't do the thing that actors daring to be in this thing deserve to be shamed. (I'm not going to watch it, but that is on me not giving JK any more money ever. I still rewatch the movies ever few years around Christmas)
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2025 21:07
|
|
|
swickles posted:I actually liked the first Fantastic Beasts movie because it was in large part about a bunch of weird magical animals. They should have just stuck to that and made a couple movies about Harry Potter Dundee wrangling animals. Yeah that first one was pretty good. But then the second one added like 7 concurrent plot lines. I remember a stretch where Newt, seemingly the main character, was off screen for so long that when he came back, I had forgotten he was in the movie. Way too much going on. And then the big reveal was that the villain was trying to stop the upcoming WWII, and that was....bad. It killed any enthusiasm I had for the series, and I still haven't seen the third one. And it's hilarious that I'm so not alone in that that they killed the fourth and fifth movies. That second movie is an absolute mess. "Wanna hear the back story of Voldemort's pet snake, and how she was once a human woman?" What the gently caress, no!
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2025 21:08
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:I agree in the sense that the movies are great and just move on, but I'd love if we don't do the thing that actors daring to be in this thing deserve to be shamed. They kinda do though
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2025 21:08
|
|
|
Oasx posted:I'm going to watch the tv show in the same way that I played the game, in a way that doesn't give Rowling any money. Basically same. I got the game used, (ironically I still haven't played it, it's in my long list of backlog) but I think it's a fun world. What really needs to happen is what happened with Tony Gilroy and Star Wars. Somebody who understands it's an interesting world/playground, but doesn't give a poo poo about her or the fandom, and makes something good with it. She'll never let it happen, but there is a good Harry Potter story set around now where some pissed off wizard hates Harry and gang and how lovely the wizards are in terms of helping the rest of the world as it goes to poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2025 21:12
|
|
|
I think it’s perfectly fine to criticize actors for what they choose to appear in. It’s not like any of them are being forced to do this against their will. For the adult actors, not the kids obviously.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2025 21:16
|
|
|
I think, being people of online, that the JK Rowling TERF stuff has a lot more currency in our discourse than the "irl" discourse. Most probably don't know, those that do don't care, we make stuff based on IPs written by excreable people every day. I mean there are probably a lot of people (I don't want to say most but I wouldn't be surprised) who don't know that there even is a HP book series, they just know about the movies and theme park and video games. All that to say, I don't know how much of an issue that is for the cast and crew. Obviously not much of one. zoux fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Apr 14, 2025 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2025 21:38
|
|
|
Haha I've seen people seemingly unaware there are LOTR books, just know them as movies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2025 21:41
|
|
|
zoux posted:I think, being people of online, that the JK Rowling TERF stuff has a lot more currency in our discourse than the "irl" discourse. Most probably don't know, those that do don't care, we make stuff based on IPs written by excreable people every day. I mean there are probably a lot of people (I don't want to say most but I wouldn't be surprised) who don't know that there even is a HP book series, they just know about the movies and theme park and video games. I mean, I know a number of folks in their 40's who are liberal, and have only heard one or two things JK has said and have had no problem with it, and they themselves are pro trans rights, because as soon as we talk about predators in bathrooms with "teens" (again, not what trans issues actual are, but how TERFS often frame it) they go, "oh that is bad." See also the sports issue. I know and I'm sure folks in this thread know it's bullshit, but the reason that TERFS focus on that thing is that it is an "effective" way of othering trans folks. And one of those 40 something's? Totally great librarian who is one of the nicest people you will ever meet. Online we have purity tests for folks that is just not realistic in the real world. Same thing goes for a lot of boycotts. I know we're boycotting Target, but plenty of folks I know who are just busy with their lives don't know about that kind of thing. Their social media is some Facebook to catch up with friends, a lot of instagram and ticktock for pop culture stuff, and that's it. When we're in the bubble, we often think it's much bigger than it actually is. See how even at its peak there were actually very few active members of twitter, and the biggest tweeters were on that website constantly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2025 21:47
|
|
|
wizardofloneliness posted:I think it’s perfectly fine to criticize actors for what they choose to appear in. It’s not like any of them are being forced to do this against their will. For the adult actors, not the kids obviously. Considering how so many things are getting canceled, everyone is freaked out about AI taking their jobs, and the general state of Hollywood/the arts, a lot of actors who have sacrificed everything to be an actor see a paycheck that will be good to great and say, hell yes. I'm aware a few of those folks on that list should in theory be fine finically, but you'd be surprised when it comes to character actors and how much they actually make. See also book deals. You see a headline for a six figure paycheck for a two book deal, but when the math breaks out, they make basically $20K a year for three years after taxes and agent fees.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2025 21:50
|
|
|
I don't have any issue with people boycotting HP or whatever to keep money out of Rowling's pockets, I myself boycott the Wizarding World stuff because it sucks and I hate it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2025 21:50
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:Maybe we just need to bring back the mid budget movie that’s allowed to scrape by with making a few million over production/marketing costs? They spent $80M on marketing but it's barely made its production budget back. There's also Black Bag, which starred two movie stars and cost only $50M, and was good, and it tanked hard. Outside of horror, people just don't go see movies casually, especially since they can watch a whole series on Netflix or Hulu or whatever for the same price as one movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2025 21:56
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:I mean, I know a number of folks in their 40's who are liberal, and have only heard one or two things JK has said and have had no problem with it, and they themselves are pro trans rights, because as soon as we talk about predators in bathrooms with "teens" (again, not what trans issues actual are, but how TERFS often frame it) they go, "oh that is bad." See also the sports issue. I know and I'm sure folks in this thread know it's bullshit, but the reason that TERFS focus on that thing is that it is an "effective" way of othering trans folks. And one of those 40 something's? Totally great librarian who is one of the nicest people you will ever meet. Online we have purity tests for folks that is just not realistic in the real world. Nah I'd rather mock and point out these views super suck
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2025 22:05
|
|
|
When all's said and done I feel like the Potter show is going to be seen as the poster child for the last gasp of a kind of mega-budget effects driven science fiction or fantasy show (especially if they cancel it partway through the adaptation). Disney knows the writing is on the wall which is why they're dialling back the live action Star Wars and Marvel shows. By the time the Potter series comes out Stranger Things will have wrapped up. Rings of Power will be wrapping up. House of the Dragon will be wrapping up. And I think the moneymen's assessment of shows like this will be that they didn't justify their enormous costs.
High Warlord Zog fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Apr 14, 2025 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2025 22:07
|
|
|
I'd hope that would mean they would go the Xena route and make cheaper shows with simple sets and reused costumes, but who knows how much of that there is to share anymore, heard Netflix often just tossed anything made for productions once it was done. I mostly expect them to stop making anything that isn't cheap reality shows.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2025 22:47
|
|
|
Assuming they adapt every book, the Harry Potter show's going to last well into the next decade. If it's the last gasp, it's going to be a very big gasp.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2025 22:58
|
|
|
With kids as leads I could see them trying to keep a really tight turnaround time between seasons, but I'm skeptical a production that big can maintain a yearly release.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2025 23:06
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:With kids as leads I could see them trying to keep a really tight turnaround time between seasons, but I'm skeptical a production that big can maintain a yearly release. The solution is simple: cast the biggest, swolest pro-wrestlers you can find as the kids. Big E as Ron you cowards.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2025 23:30
|
|
|
Ryan Seacrest films like 50 episodes of Wheel of Fortune a week. Get those drat kids to work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2025 05:55
|
|
|
wizardofloneliness posted:I think it’s perfectly fine to criticize actors for what they choose to appear in. It’s not like any of them are being forced to do this against their will. For the adult actors, not the kids obviously. Lithgow in particular really shouldn't need the money. Less well-known actors and kids, eh, I at least understand it. I do think we should bring back selling out being bad, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2025 11:08
|
|
|
IRQ posted:Lithgow in particular really shouldn't need the money. Less well-known actors and kids, eh, I at least understand it. I do think we should bring back selling out being bad, though. He's old, let him rake the final checks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2025 12:24
|
|
|
Maybe he just wants to do it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2025 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2025 13:35 |
|
|
I can't believe the star of the Pet Sematary remake, Daddy's Home 2 and Pitch Perfect 3 would sell out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2025 21:54
|
|