I love watching old B&W movies.
Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2)
- Thread starter Python
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
I love watching old B&W movies.
Agreed.
I’ve been going and watching the two day theater releases
Nice! Where at?
www.Fathomevents.com
They’ve been showing good **** all year. There’s probably a theater near you that’s in on it
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2006
- Messages
- 16,282
- Reaction score
- 437
The teacher of the first film history class I took liked to throw in average films of the period to add context to the Citizen Kanes. Things haven’t changed all that much IMO. Most movies get made because you can put popular names on the marketing, a few visionaries are supported by studios, some clever noobs rise to the top, lots of assembly line filmmaking that sometimes stinks, sometimes transcends the system, and lots of diverting fluff.
Situation normal!
Situation normal!
Agreed on all points (and that article is symptomatic of the tit-for-tat nature of the media today, though I noted that one because the number that fire back at the toxic media denigration of ALL SW fans is still pretty small.)
The difference between the 1980's/90's and today is that people don't seek out new/original stories in film anywhere near as much as they did. For a whole host of reasons, the THEATER-based film-going experience is dying: young people have Youtube to connect with what's cool/Zeitgeist in that moment (Breakdancing most had to go to a movie to learn about
), the visual/auditory theater experience has been usurped by 65" OLED home screens (that can be on-par with a bigscreen experience) and young people today - film's lifeblood previously - don't go out as much as young people did 30 years ago (they share experiences over devices from their bedroom.)And MCU? C'mon, that franchise sucks the air of out of the industry and theater experience with its Ant Man 5 model - no one ever stops to think of all the big "original" event films - the GB/BTTF/IJ stories - that could have been in the marketplace instead of Thor 3 or IM4.
There are still great films, but they aren't powered by young people anymore. They are powered by people over 25 (the average age of the Rogue One ticket buyer was 35,) which is very different to how it was in the 1980's. Star Wars films in the 80's were driven by under-25's. It's partly the reason why cinema today is powered by brands from the 1960's 70's and 80s, with near-endless recycling. Brands have always been around, as have sequels, but they weren't more than 2/3s of the output (it's something like 20% in the 80s vs 75% these days.)
Older people are what is keeping the theater-going experience alive for now (though yes, older people die out,) even as theater grosses haven't grown in years in real terms, viewership of solely-movie-related stuff like the Oscars is in perpetual decline, we have few new crops of true movie stars, and most of the kids who see SW movies today are taken by their SW fan parents. In truth, there is no "new generation of young SW fans" anything close to the scale of the 1980's, sky-high grosses more representative of the way the industry sells branded product (nobody talks about Minions' billion-plus gross.)
All of this is the reason we don't see as many "original" event films anymore like like in the 80's.
Ah, it is SO nice to be back here.
Thanks Jye for the invite.
Sixth Sense - an original screenplay - came out in 1999. In 1999, Disney made 22 movies, including originals. In 2017, Disney made 8 movies - none of them were original. Almost a decade ago, Disney made a choice to cut its output by 50% and solely use its own "branded content" for movies going forward which meant pretty much no original movies, and everything based on IP properties they owned.
So they produce half the amount (at yes, often double the budget) and all of it is branded - the only "original" aspect being stuff like Beauty and the Beast being live-action, not animated.
All of which means a movie like Sixth Sense couldn't happen at a studio like Disney any more.
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2006
- Messages
- 16,282
- Reaction score
- 437
By putting "original" in quotes I'm assuming you mean "nakedly derivative sequel generating"
Good point.
ajp4mgs
Super Freak
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2017
- Messages
- 2,305
- Reaction score
- 1,672
Agreed on all points (and that article is symptomatic of the tit-for-tat nature of the media today, though I noted that one because the number that fire back at the toxic media denigration of ALL SW fans is still pretty small.)
The difference between the 1980's/90's and today is that people don't seek out new/original stories in film anywhere near as much as they did. For a whole host of reasons, the THEATER-based film-going experience is dying: young people have Youtube to connect with what's cool/Zeitgeist in that moment (Breakdancing most had to go to a movie to learn about
And MCU? C'mon, that franchise sucks the air of out of the industry and theater experience with its Ant Man 5 model - no one ever stops to think of all the big "original" event films - the GB/BTTF/IJ stories - that could have been in the marketplace instead of Thor 3 or IM4.
There are still great films, but they aren't powered by young people anymore. They are powered by people over 25 (the average age of the Rogue One ticket buyer was 35,) which is very different to how it was in the 1980's. Star Wars films in the 80's were driven by under-25's. It's partly the reason why cinema today is powered by brands from the 1960's 70's and 80s, with near-endless recycling. Brands have always been around, as have sequels, but they weren't more than 2/3s of the output (it's something like 20% in the 80s vs 75% these days.)
Older people are what is keeping the theater-going experience alive for now (though yes, older people die out,) even as theater grosses haven't grown in years in real terms, viewership of solely-movie-related stuff like the Oscars is in perpetual decline, we have few new crops of true movie stars, and most of the kids who see SW movies today are taken by their SW fan parents. In truth, there is no "new generation of young SW fans" anything close to the scale of the 1980's, sky-high grosses more representative of the way the industry sells branded product (nobody talks about Minions' billion-plus gross.)
All of this is the reason we don't see as many "original" event films anymore like like in the 80's.
I think you make compelling points here about the generational differences and media format preferences. And movie studios have a business responsibility to adjust to the cultural shifts and offer movie-goers what they seem to respond to (pay for) most. Thankfully, different formats are providing different types of content to satisfy alternative tastes. When I was growing up, television seemed to be mostly for fluff and redundant entertainment, while film/cinema had a higher tendency to be more original and exciting. Now, it's sort of reversed: cinema is dominated by formulaic superhero movies, sequels, and remakes; meanwhile, TV/streaming services tend to offer more bold and innovative content (and often with large enough budgets to still offer strong visual presentation).
Even within the Disney-owned Marvel brand, this plays out a little bit. They've used their IP - and taken advantage of multiple formats - to satisfy multiple audience types and be somewhat innovative. Even though I don't really understand it, there seems to be a formula in place for MCU films that today's movie audiences aren't tired of yet. I'm tired of that formula myself, but Marvel brilliantly uses shows like Daredevil and Punisher on Netflix to still entertain me by making those shows dramatically different (and better, imo) than the films. Different types of content, with unique approaches to story-telling, while still using the same underlying IP to draw from.
I'd like to see Lucasfilm use the same approach with Star Wars. Maybe instead of Boba Fett and Kenobi movies that would likely cost a ton without any assurances of wide cinematic appeal, perhaps those character stories could be used for live-action episode TV/streaming content. Personally, I'd rather watch a continuing series of Boba Fett adventures in 45-minute or 1-hour blocks for maybe 6 to 10 episodes versus one single 2-hour film. That way, the self-contained set-up and build-up for a plot doesn't need to be rushed when the actual selling point for a Boba Fett story is simply the character of Boba Fett himself anyway.
For me, Star Wars movies work better when they're epic and grand in nature, and with broad-reaching implications for the larger SW universe. A movie series like the one planned for Solo would have had more appeal to me as an extended episodic series. Han Solo's pre-ANH story was never going to have heavy implications for the larger franchise; no big stakes. It was never going to be epic and grand. So, it might have worked better on a smaller scale with lower expectations.
You got some good ones there....no doubt....
But we are comparing to....
https://m.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/the-best-80_s-movies
You will have to tell me which one of these films compares to which on that list...
“The Shallows
Spotlight
Brooklyn
Hereditary
I, Tonya
Edge of Tomorrow
Birdman
Boyhood
The Imitation Game
Snowpiercer”
Sent from the inside of a giant slug in outer space.....
Mad Old Lu
Super Freak
That's fantastic! What a good idea!
Great, great post! Excellent observation about Movies/TV shows. I'll add that it's affordable home theaters that have also added to the decline of theater-goers. Who wants to pay $20 to see a rom-com if I can buy the movie 3-6 months later for even less, and watch it at the comfort of my own home on my huge flat screen TV with surround sound? Makes sense that the "spectacle" movies are the ones people want to see in a theater and are the ones that are succeeding. Theaters are scrambling to get butts in their seats by trying to make the experience of going out to the movies more exciting than watching the movies at home by adding the fancy reserved seating, Dolby Cinema, Imax, 3D, etc.
And the Solo as a series sounded like a great idea to me at first. But then I thought about how they could ruin the show by having terrible stories that just drag out the drama and more than likely spin their wheels forever. The series idea would work more if it was just a short-ish limited series with a planned out storyline. I'd just be afraid that the show would get formulaic. "What criminal boss is Han going to cross paths with this season? What smuggling job is going to go sideways this time? Who is going to double cross him now?"
I think that the fact that Solo ended with pretty much everyone wanting to see more stories with this cast will give it real longevity as an endearing gem. Thankfully it still ended satisfactorily and didn't come across as an incomplete partial trilogy like Terminator Salvation and Genisys. We're left to imagine what might have become of Qi'ra but I'm fine with that.
jye4ever
Broke and happy
I could watch an entire movie with Alden as Solo during his travels with the Empire.
I just want to see more of Alden as Solo period!
There’s still a chance to save Han!
I just want to see more of Alden as Solo period!
There’s still a chance to save Han!
Nice line....
As I have said. I believe we will definelty get another Solo.
Sent from the inside of a giant slug in outer space.....
You post that, then this...
Now this might be a good fit especially since it's a continuation of the original flick!
https://deadline.com/2018/07/roboco...des-ed-neumeier-michael-miner-mgm-1202424639/
Hopefully Weller returns.
A talented, original films guy like Blomkamp is doing an Alien franchise movie, errr no, now he's doing a Robocop franchise movie. Like a great filmmaker like Ridley Scott should only do Alien or Blade Runner movies (even though he's only got another 2-3 movies left in him.) Because that is what the film landscape is today.
This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. In the context of SIX Spiderman movies and EIGHT F&Furious in 15 years, we've also had a Robocop reboot and now an "actual sequel" within four years... what's next, a Total Recall or Ghostbusters remake? Or an Equalizer franchise or Death Wish branded movie? How about a reboot of Last Starfighter? Or better yet, a remake/reboot/sequel of EVERY SINGLE 70's or 80's horror or sci-fi movie that played in over 50 theaters?
I would say that in the past 15 years, we have probably seen remakes/reboots/sequels to half the higher-grossing genre movies made between 1970 and 1995. Maybe more than half.
Pointing to a few dozen great films from the past 4-5 years doesn't disprove the fact that the theater-going experience is dying, and that original movies (movies written first as movies) have faded to insignificance, replaced by Jumanji reboots and movies-based-on-the-phone-book ("well, I've vaguely heard of the phone book, so I'm interested...") like upcoming The Jungle Cruise.
As I said, the era of breakthrough big written-for-the-screen movies like Raiders, E.T., Terminator, Star Wars and Back to the Future are pretty much done - where movies written first as movies came from nowhere to surprise us.
Good points. The Netflix thing is interesting. A lot of their "series" tend to simply be a movie screenplay padded out to say 8-10 segments. Ozark could have been a thriller movie told in 2 hours.
What I've also noticed is how they are now carpet-bombing even genres that were traditionally "big screen" or at least cinema experiences exclusively - the last bastions. Like Atypical or the Meyerowitz Stories are "arthouse/independent" films, Bright is a $100m Will Smith blockbuster, The Crown targets what used to be called rent-a-castle movies, plus stuff like Hush and the Sandler comedies are very much cinema-type genre fare.
So even for older audiences or niche audeinces, Netflix is yet another nail in the coffin of the theater-going experience. Theaters will survive... only because older people (for whom the theater experience is ingrained) are still living. But what keep theaters in business today is mostly people 35 and older, who still go themselves and drag their kids, which is a bizarre turnaround for an industry which was often derided as catering to "fifteen year old boys" only until you realize those 15 year old boys grew up and are the only ones still going.
Yep and I easily stand by what I said. 80's films are spoken of in hushed tones around here (often for good reason) but let's pick a random year say 1989 and compare it to now. Batman, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Lethal Weapon 2, Ghostbusters II, Back to the Future Part II all in the top 10. A superhero movie and a bunch of sequels. Sound familiar? Yep, but with no Atmos sound, no IMAX, no (decent) 3D, no ordering burgers and beer and having them delivered to your seat, no stadium seating or skipping lines by preordering your exact seat in the auditorium weeks or months in advance.
Is this current era the "greatest" moment in theater going history? No, but it can definitely hold it's own with other great eras. And not just because of technology advances and amenities. I'd take the films of the last few years over many years of even yes the great 70's and 80's. Are you allowed to disagree and lament the "death of the theater going experience?" Sure, but don't expect me to agree that that's actually what's happening.
I'll continue to enjoy going to the movies the same 10-20 times a year just like I've done for decades. Sometimes I'll get excited for a brand new flick like The VVitch, sometimes a popcorn event movie like Solo or IW, sometimes a documentary about a trashy figure skater, and yes, sometimes a sequel to one of my favorite films of all time like the original RoboCop. Will Blomkamp deliver the goods? Who knows. Probably not based on his track record since District 9. But he still *did* direct the Best Picture nominated D9 (which was fantastic) and at least stylistically he's a good fit for a gory RoboCop sequel so I'll keep enough hope alive until he crushes it by dropping the ball with the finished flick (should that be the case.)
Last edited:
Similar threads
