General movies/Hollywood thread.

[_JNavs_]

There's rumours going around that Disney wants to buy MGM. I pray to God that these are just rumours, the idea of Disney own Rocky,Robocop, Killer Klowns From Outer Space, Foxy Brown, Brain Damage, Invasion of The Body Snatchers, The Cannon Film Group and Empire Picture's catalogues, Roger Corman's Poe Films and thousends other sci-fi,horror,fantasy, action and exploitation films is genuinely making me feel sick!

Is there any particular reason why it makes you feel sick? I don't care for Disney's business practices, but I don't particularly hate them any more than any other soulless greedy mega corporation, who all seem pretty slimy to me. As long as whoever owns these films makes these films available periodically on physical media, I don't really care usually who owns them. Unless you're suggesting Disney wouldn't release them to protect their "family friendly" image or something?

There's all the slimy greedy degenerate corporations. Then there's Disney, the seemingly innocent mouse-masked Twilight zone-esque business that plays up their fun factor to hide their despicable amounts of greed. There is no reason as to why we should let Disney literally have it all.

It's an endless void with them, once a franchise gets swallowed up, say goodbye to that franchise until the Mouse is ready to make money off em, get in line behind the hundreds of other franchises awaiting a few releases.

Multiple companies means multiple franchises simultaneously, multiple ideas being put forward. With a mass buy out like this, it becomes less arthouse and more restricted. It's a terribly slippery slope.

[Vakanai]

There's rumours going around that Disney wants to buy MGM. I pray to God that these are just rumours, the idea of Disney own Rocky,Robocop, Killer Klowns From Outer Space, Foxy Brown, Brain Damage, Invasion of The Body Snatchers, The Cannon Film Group and Empire Picture's catalogues, Roger Corman's Poe Films and thousends other sci-fi,horror,fantasy, action and exploitation films is genuinely making me feel sick!

Is there any particular reason why it makes you feel sick? I don't care for Disney's business practices, but I don't particularly hate them any more than any other soulless greedy mega corporation, who all seem pretty slimy to me. As long as whoever owns these films makes these films available periodically on physical media, I don't really care usually who owns them. Unless you're suggesting Disney wouldn't release them to protect their "family friendly" image or something?

There's all the slimy greedy degenerate corporations. Then there's Disney, the seemingly innocent mouse-masked Twilight zone-esque business that plays up their fun factor to hide their despicable amounts of greed. There is no reason as to why we should let Disney literally have it all.

It's an endless void with them, once a franchise gets swallowed up, say goodbye to that franchise until the Mouse is ready to make money off em, get in line behind the hundreds of other franchises awaiting a few releases.

Multiple companies means multiple franchises simultaneously, multiple ideas being put forward. With a mass buy out like this, it becomes less arthouse and more restricted. It's a terribly slippery slope.

I'm also against monopolies on principle but why do you think we'd have to say goodbye to any franchise they'd buy out? I mean, if anything they seem to have proven that they want to push franchises and make money off what they have. We've more Star Wars than we can handle, the MCU is all encompassing of pop culture today (and Blade is getting a reboot and Deadpool a MCU entry), and Indiana Jones is getting an inevitable sequel. I'm sure Alien and Predator will still see use.

So yeah, I understand being sick from a morality perspective, but I don't think we'll be deprived of anything as fans (assuming the rumor proves to be true, and I'm with most in thinking and hoping it isn't).

[Terasawa]

I don't care at all what impact this has on modern movies, but I think it would potentially spell doom for a lot of the already-unreleased catalog titles MGM hasn't done anything with and which haven't been doled out to various boutique labels. The more studios with massive film libraries Disney acquires, the more catalog titles it will accumulate, and the more titles it controls, the more difficult it becomes to manage them all. Disney will end up with literally thousands and thousands of films under its control; how many of those will be forgotten by a media conglomerate that shows less interest in many of its own original catalog titles than MGM currently does its AIP et al. titles?

TLDR: I'd be worried about the MGM movies that already have a very short shelf life in 2021 as is. I don't think the answer for them is to join thousands more among those listed here.

[KManX89]

There's rumours going around that Disney wants to buy MGM. I pray to God that these are just rumours, the idea of Disney own Rocky,Robocop, Killer Klowns From Outer Space, Foxy Brown, Brain Damage, Invasion of The Body Snatchers, The Cannon Film Group and Empire Picture's catalogues, Roger Corman's Poe Films and thousends other sci-fi,horror,fantasy, action and exploitation films is genuinely making me feel sick!

The government probably won't approve their sale at this point.

[SoggyNoodles2016]

This sucks but makes sense. I was feeling Universal though. They need to make a lucrative studio purchase to compete with Warner and Disney Plus of course the incentive of No Time To Die being released with no money splitting

[LegendZilla]

This sucks but makes sense. I was feeling Universal though. They need to make a lucrative studio purchase to compete with Warner and Disney

What purchases are you thinking? If I were a Universal studio exec, I would eye Viacom.

[SoggyNoodles2016]

This sucks but makes sense. I was feeling Universal though. They need to make a lucrative studio purchase to compete with Warner and Disney

What purchases are you thinking? If I were a Universal studio exec, I would eye Viacom.

.....the potential one we've been discussing for the past page?

[KManX89]

This sucks but makes sense. I was feeling Universal though. They need to make a lucrative studio purchase to compete with Warner and Disney

What purchases are you thinking? If I were a Universal studio exec, I would eye Viacom.

.....the potential one we've been discussing for the past page?

Like I said before, I'll be shocked if they even have their sale approved by the government at this point.

Let Universal have them, or I guess WB since they already distribute some of their films.

[kingkevzilla88]

I was going to make a cat joke, but I don't want to get banned.

[Spuro]

I was going to make a cat joke, but I don't want to get banned.

Come on, man, don't be such a pussy.

[kingkevzilla88]

I was going to make a cat joke, but I don't want to get banned.

Come on, man, don't be such a pussy.

Well, I kitten think of one.

[Xx_The_Masquerade_xX]

Mortal Kombat Trailer Thursday! I'm excited as hell but fully expecting it to probably suck... Still fingers crossed

Sub Zero looks great with his ice sword though!

link - https://bloody-disgusting.com/news/3652 ... zero-kano/

[tbeasley]

Il Maestro
By Martin Scorsese
Federico Fellini and the lost magic of cinema

As recently as fifteen years ago, the term “content” was heard only when people were discussing the cinema on a serious level, and it was contrasted with and measured against “form.” Then, gradually, it was used more and more by the people who took over media companies, most of whom knew nothing about the history of the art form, or even cared enough to think that they should. “Content” became a business term for all moving images: a David Lean movie, a cat video, a Super Bowl commercial, a superhero sequel, a series episode. It was linked, of course, not to the theatrical experience but to home viewing, on the streaming platforms that have come to overtake the moviegoing experience, just as Amazon overtook physical stores. On the one hand, this has been good for filmmakers, myself included. On the other hand, it has created a situation in which everything is presented to the viewer on a level playing field, which sounds democratic but isn’t. If further viewing is “suggested” by algorithms based on what you’ve already seen, and the suggestions are based only on subject matter or genre, then what does that do to the art of cinema?

https://harpers.org/archive/2021/03/il- ... -scorsese/

Somewhat related -
Martin Scorsese: I Said Marvel Movies Aren’t Cinema. Let Me Explain.
Cinema is an art form that brings you the unexpected. In superhero movies, nothing is at risk, a director says.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/opin ... arvel.html

Personally I feel George Miller put it best -

“To be honest, in terms of this debate, cinema is cinema and it’s a very broad church. The test, ultimately, is what it means to the audience. There’s a great quote I saw that applies to all we do. It was from the Swahili storytellers. Each time they finished a story they would say, ‘The story has been told. If it was bad, it was my fault because I am the storyteller. And if it was good, it belongs to everybody.’

“It’s a mistake and a kind of hubris if a film does well at the box office to dismiss it as clever marketing or something else,” Miller said. “There’s more happening there, and it’s our obligation as storytellers to really try and understand it. To me, it’s all cinema. I don’t think you can ghettoize it and say, oh this is cinema or that is cinema. It applies to all the arts, to literature, the performing arts, painting and music, in all its form. It’s such a broad spectrum, a wide range and to say that anyone is more significant or more important than the other, is missing the point. It’s one big mosaic and each bit of work fits into it.”

https://deadline.com/2019/12/george-mil ... 202802441/

[Spuro]

Somewhat related -
Martin Scorsese: I Said Marvel Movies Aren’t Cinema. Let Me Explain.
Cinema is an art form that brings you the unexpected. In superhero movies, nothing is at risk, a director says.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/opin ... arvel.html

-looks at Infinity War-

I dunno, that one did a fairly decent job of bringing the unexpected, if you ask me.

Seems like a very poor definition of cinema to my eyes.

[KManX89]

Somewhat related -
Martin Scorsese: I Said Marvel Movies Aren’t Cinema. Let Me Explain.
Cinema is an art form that brings you the unexpected. In superhero movies, nothing is at risk, a director says.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/opin ... arvel.html

-looks at Infinity War-

I dunno, that one did a fairly decent job of bringing the unexpected, if you ask me.

Seems like a very poor definition of cinema to my eyes.

Or The Dark Knight Rises (not the best example, I know, just run with it) with Bane breaking Batman's back. I guess nothing was at stake there, either.

Oh wait, that was ripped straight from the Knightfall comic panels, so I guess that doesn't count. Or the Mad Max movies for that matter, 'cuz you know Max is gonna make it through to the end in one piece.

[eabaker]

Guys, he's not talking about "suspense" or "plot twists" here; he's talking more about using the medium to find new visual/artistic means of exploring complex human emotional and psychological states, and crafting narratives in which the outcomes are genuinely emotionally overwhelming.

I'm not 100% on board with Scorsese on this issue, and I absolutely think he underestimates the ability of superhero spectacles to also address the human condition in meaningful ways, but just the same, Spider-Man Homecoming is not The 400 Blows. That's not a criticism, mind you; the two works simply have different aims and different cultural functions. But I would certainly say that these days (meaning, for the last 40 years or so) the balance of what is made readily available to mass audiences has skewed steadily more and more to one side of that equation, in some respects to the detriment of film as an artform.

EDIT: Oh, and I doubt Scorsese would classify the Mad Max movies as part of what he's criticizing. That's a pretty groundbreaking series rooted in the avant-garde impulses of the 70s.

[KManX89]

Guys, he's not talking about "suspense" or "plot twists" here; he's talking more about using the medium to find new visual/artistic means of exploring complex human emotional and psychological states, and crafting narratives in which the outcomes are genuinely emotionally overwhelming.

I'm not 100% on board with Scorsese on this issue, and I absolutely think he underestimates the ability of superhero spectacles to also address the human condition in meaningful ways, but just the same, Spider-Man Homecoming is not The 400 Blows. That's not a criticism, mind you; the two works simply have different aims and different cultural functions. But I would certainly say that these days (meaning, for the last 40 years or so) the balance of what is made readily available to mass audiences has skewed steadily more and more to one side of that equation, in some respects to the detriment of film as an artform.

EDIT: Oh, and I doubt Scorsese would classify the Mad Max movies as part of what he's criticizing. That's a pretty groundbreaking series rooted in the avant-garde impulses of the 70s.

"Cinema is an artform that brings you the unexpected. In superhero movies, nothing is at risk" I read that as "in superhero movies, there's no stakes because (in 95% of cases,) you know the good guy(s) is/are gonna win/survive". By that logic, I guess the original RoboCop, thick in all its social commentary and satire isn't cinema because you know Murphy is gonna take down Dick Jones and Clarence Boddicker after becoming RoboCop, that's hardly a spoiler. Same with the Mad Max movies: you know Max is gonna survive in the end.

And it's easy to interpret it that way because there is no real sense of danger without a threat and naturally, the heroes usually emerge victorious in superhero films. Infinity War was one of the few superhero movies where I ever truly felt the heroes were in danger because I knew any one of them could be decimated by Thanos at any given moment, that's made clear in the opening scene. There have also been a few surprises like Batman losing to the Joker in The Dark Knight, but in most cases, there is no shock ending and you're just along for the ride to see exactly how it ends.

Oh and the new Mortal Kombat trailer is finally here, and it's Red Band! YAY!:

[eabaker]

Murphy may "win" at the end of Robocop, but he doesn't get anything like a happy ending; the message that the movie sends overall is not a comforting one. In a contemporary Hollywood blockbuster narrative, you not only know the good guys are going to win, you also (usually) know that the overall emotional and psychological state the movie leaves you in will not be downbeat one, or a particularly complex one to navigate.

[Spuro]

Murphy may "win" at the end of Robocop, but he doesn't get anything like a happy ending; the message that the movie sends overall is not a comforting one. In a contemporary Hollywood blockbuster narrative, you not only know the good guys are going to win, you also (usually) know that the overall emotional and psychological state the movie leaves you in will not be downbeat one, or a particularly complex one to navigate.

That “usually” you speak of is where I took most issue with Scorsese‘s quote. I don’t even consider myself a fan of the MCU (despite currently being in the midst of a marathon, mostly for letterboxd purposes), but it struck me as being rather disingenuous. Infinity War (to use that as an example again) doesn’t exactly end on a traditional happy ending. Neither do the Phase One Thor and Captain America films, nor even Endgame.

At the end of the day, most MCU films are basically adventure movies with the hallmarks of a long running TV series. And I don’t think that inherently makes them “lesser”. Adventure movies have their place too. Are Star Wars (1977) and Raiders of the Lost Ark not cinema either?

[eabaker]

Murphy may "win" at the end of Robocop, but he doesn't get anything like a happy ending; the message that the movie sends overall is not a comforting one. In a contemporary Hollywood blockbuster narrative, you not only know the good guys are going to win, you also (usually) know that the overall emotional and psychological state the movie leaves you in will not be downbeat one, or a particularly complex one to navigate.

That “usually” you speak of is where I took most issue with Scorsese‘s quote. I don’t even consider myself a fan of the MCU (despite currently being in the midst of a marathon, mostly for letterboxd purposes), but it struck me as being rather disingenuous. Infinity War (to use that as an example again) doesn’t exactly end on a traditional happy ending. Neither do the Phase One Thor and Captain America films, nor even Endgame.

At the end of the day, most MCU films are basically adventure movies with the hallmarks of a long running TV series. And I don’t think that inherently makes them “lesser”. Adventure movies have their place too. Are Star Wars (1977) and Raiders of the Lost Ark not cinema either?

Yeah, like I said, I'm not 100% on-board with Scorsese here; he treats the superhero genre as homogenous, and doesn't give credit for the cases where it does achieve something more challenging. The Dark Knight would be the example that leaps to mind for me, since - even though it is part of an ongoing series - it functions as a pretty self-contained work, unlike Infinity War, the dark ending of which is explicitly a cliffhanger with a happier ending to follow.

And the issue isn't exactly that they're "lesser," so much as that they represent broad trends in the industry which have increasingly squeezed out the riskier ventures which defined the New Hollywood era from which Scorsese emerged.

With Star Wars and Raiders, it's worth noting that at the time they were exceptions to the trends of their time in many ways; that Star Wars was followed by the much more complex and textured The Empire Strikes Back; and that Raiders is actually a pretty cynical movie in its way. And. let's be fair, Lucas and Spielberg are often held up as sort of ironic figures who emerged from the New Hollywood scene while creating the trends that would ultimately shove New Hollywood aside in favor to make room for the increasing focus on toyetic, franchise-friendly spectacle.

Scorsese paints with far too broad a brush, but I think the concerns he's raising are at their core valid.