9 ms·

How about hollywood starts making GOOD content again?

by hmsshagatsea 5y ago

mycodesucks 5y ago
Nah, more of the same super hero garbage please, uhg.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
jondwillis 5y ago
May I direct you to every single A24 film?
- kmlx 5y ago
  there are lots of a24 studios out there. but they’re tiny, they release few films with modest revenues.
kmlx 5y ago
not sure if this is coming back anytime soon: 1. games are a much bigger market than movies, which makes hollywood even more risk averse than usual 2. superhero movies make most income, sucking up all the talent 3. huge emphasis on TV series in the last decade, again sucking up all the talent for these three reasons i’m not sure if i’ll see another sin city/training day/etc in the near future
- tayo42 5y ago
  Tv is a better format for visual story telling then movies could ever be. now that we have streaming its not bound to time limits or irrelevant commercial pacing. The stories are longer and can be more in depth. Does TV get the best talent though? For some reason I thought they get paid less despite doing alot more work. All those actors from got went on to try movies afterwards.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    More likely, in my opinion, is the the stories can also be too long and all over the place.
    - tayo42 5y ago
      That's true, the potential is higher with TV I think think though. Story telling is a skill that anyone can screw up independent of the medium
    - lmm 5y ago
      Compare the size of the story to another medium with different constraints. A 13- or 26-episode TV series can usually make a decent adaptation of a novel. A movie always has to cut a lot of stuff out.
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        The pendulum swings both ways. Unfortunately, I have seen far to many instances of episodic products that are excessively drawn out and waste my time.
  - cronix 5y ago
    > For some reason I thought they get paid less despite doing alot more work. Are American TV shows as big of money makers globally as the movie industry? How much do American TV shows make in China vs Hollywood? Are they even shown? I don't know, but have never heard of it but have heard quite a bit about how much Hollywood makes in China. I don't think it's the amount of work that dictates lower salaries for TV acting, but more likely the size of the market that the respective products are sold in and where that market is located (locally vs globally).
  - theshrike79 5y ago
    > now that we have streaming its not bound to time limits or irrelevant commercial pacing The Mandalorian is a perfect example of this. The episodes varied from 25 minutes(!) to 47 minutes. Just take the time the plot needs, no more.
- theshrike79 5y ago
  > 3. huge emphasis on TV series in the last decade, again sucking up all the talent Some stories are just better when they are told in a serial format with more room to breathe. Even if they need to take a budget cut. A recent example being Tomorrow War[0]. It had WAY too much shit happening for the 2h 18min runtime. The same content as a, say, 4 hour miniseries? That would've been fucking amazing. Same budget, same plot, just add more character development (talky bits), a bit slower pacing. Perfect. [0] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9777666/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9777666/
legrande 5y ago
> How about hollywood starts making GOOD content again? Well I'm expecting a new surge of great movies coming out after everyone's vaccinated. Looking forward to the 2021 version of Dune, although I don't think that was spurred on because of the pandemic (maybe I'm wrong?). Expect some epic movies to come out in the next few years.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
  Dune isn't going to suck because of the pandemic. It's going to suck because of the pg-13 rating.
  - Slow_Hand 5y ago
    What element of Dune do you think would suffer by not having an ‘R’ rating? It’s not as if the book is reliant on anything exceptionally violent or obscene. Probably the darkest element is the reference to The Baron’s rape of young people. Frankly that’s better off as something to be implied and not depicted. I think you can get away with enough in a PG-13 to suit the tone of this story. Watching the recent trailer you can catch a glimpse of what appear to be prisoners of war strapped upside down on troughs that will collect the blood from their slit throats. That’s pretty dark. And seemingly it’s an addition by the filmakers. It’s not an element from the book.
    - hmsshagatsea 5y ago
      It’s not the R rating necessarily, it’s how they’ve sanitized the story. The whole book is rife with islamic/arabic and at least from the trailer they’ve anglicized everything, which doesn’t give me much hope. I really don’t see a reason for it.
      - Slow_Hand 5y ago
        Gotcha. I know that the first trailer substituted the word “jihad” with “crusade”. That rubbed me the wrong way as well. But as someone who has pored over every bit of available information about this movie, I’ve come across an interview with someone who saw a test screening AND was already familiar with the book. They were directly asked if the word jihad was used in the film and they said that it was. It seems that the ommission of jihad in the film’s marketing may have been a strategy to side-step any potential negative press in the lead-up to the film’s release. That seems wise given the way that American media likes to sensationalize every last detail that can be mined for potential outrage/eyeballs. I guess we’ll see it and find out for sure.
hotcold 5y ago
Absolutely not, the central theme of every movie, sporting event, advertisement, or news article must be DIVERSITY DIVERSITY DIVERSITY!
- MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
  It's almost as if Californian casting directors have never been to any part of the country besides SF, LA, NYC, or Seattle.
- Hammershaft 5y ago
  In a movie landscape of formulaic sequels, uninspired remakes, endless superhero flicks, and a total lack of original ips... why is more diversity the first factor you jump to?
  - hotcold 5y ago
    The new variable in the equation, and the only one I hear people complaining about. The things you mention have always existed and people were able to sift through them to find the gems. However the more recent subtle political messaging, sprinkled into most modern media, really turns people off.
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    The forced unreal diversity makes things unbelievable. The black and white couple with only gay Asian children under 10 with a Latino teenager makes everything into a farce. All of those things happen but not all at once all of the time. It's labelled as progressive but it's regressive and mocks each minority group along the way.
    - krapp 5y ago
      > The black and white couple with only gay Asian children under 10 with a Latino teenager makes everything into a farce. That doesn't happen. No one is writing movies where people who aren't Latino just have Latino children to score "progressive points" or whatever. Interracial couples do exist. Asians and Latinos exist, and their portrayal in media isn't any more "progressive" than portraying any other race or ethnicity, it's just realistic. And anyone of any race, including interracial couples, can have gay children. Most of the "farce" you've described is perfectly normal. >It's labelled as progressive but it's regressive and mocks each minority group along the way. I doubt there is anyone in any minority group who feels mocked by greater representation. But, as a Gay Black Asian Latino yourself, you can probably tell us what it's like.
yepthatsreality 5y ago
I remember when the first Avengers movie came out, a lot of my industry friends repeated some nonsense line about how we need to see Blockbusters so that the money can trickle down to independent filmmakers and riskier ideas. 10 years later and the market is saturated with super hero films, the independent directors are all directing Disney blockbusters, and the riskier ideas only get a spotlight during Oscar season (unchanged).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- takoid 5y ago
  > we need to see Blockbusters so that the money can trickle down to independent filmmakers and riskier ideas Did they ever expand upon how this trickle effect supposedly happens?
  - yepthatsreality 5y ago
    Yes, but it only works with the trickling of the validation of good movies. Big studios will buy up indie productions and/or take a chance on making something not-a-super-hero film only if they have the extra cash from the super-hero film. In which, this argument disregards the Internet and it’s effect on media distribution disruption in it’s entirety.
- amyjess 5y ago
  That's because all the riskier ideas are on television and TV-emulating streaming services (if you make a series divided into "seasons" and "episodes", I consider your series television even if it's straight-to-streaming). The traditional roles of TV and film have been inverted. Film is now mindless entertainment aimed at the widest possible audience, while television has become a medium for plumbing the depths of artistic possibility. I chalk this up to two things: 1) Film is increasingly internationalized in ways that television isn't. A movie has to appeal to a wide variety of cultures, all of whom have different mores. Ultimately, the only thing the whole world can agree on is that explosions are fun. 2) Television offers a more flexible format. You can only sit in a theater for so long without a break. Television lets you do sprawling, drawn-out epics with hours of content a year. Television lets you mix serialized and episodic storytelling as you please: your series can lean into one or the other, or it can offer a mixture of both with the showrunner using the balance of serialized and episodic content to carefully control the pacing, set up expectations, and then possibly subvert them. This has always been true, but television has historically been beholden to FCC regulations, network BS&P, advertisers who panic when faced with anything unconventional, rigid time slots, and linear programming. The rise of non-linear consumption (e.g. DVRs), premium cable, and direct-to-streaming series have completely blown the doors off what's allowed on television (or "television"), and showrunners are taking advantage of it in a huge way.
paulpauper 5y ago
I read that huge overseas revenues from reliable blockbuster franchises help to subside less profitable niches.
throwaway803453 5y ago
Or it will just come from outside of Hollywood. La Casa De Papel (aka Money Heist) is so good I am probably going to cancel Netflix since it's taking away from my nightly reading time and affecting the quality of my sleep.
dehrmann 5y ago
Disney still has more money to milk from its Star Wars, Marvel, and Pixar IP.
dehrmann 5y ago
I was definitely spoiled by movies when I was growing up. Because of industry circumstances, 1999 was a very good year for movies. I can't think of recent movies that would be considered this generation's "Fight Club," "The Matrix," or "Office Space." On the plus side, there's currently a plethora of adequately entertaining movies for long-haul flights. Some reading on 1999: https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a23803/1999-movies/ https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a23803/1999-mov...
- Vomzor 5y ago
  One of my favorites from 1999 is October Sky. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0132477/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0132477/
onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
When GOOD content sells, they will. The best films of the year regularly make less money in their entire lifespan than a mediocre Marvel movie.
- amelius 5y ago
  That's because "good" depends on who you ask. The free market produces for the masses.

How about hollywood starts making GOOD content again?

mycodesucks 5y ago

Nah, more of the same super hero garbage please, uhg.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

jondwillis 5y ago

May I direct you to every single A24 film?

kmlx 5y ago
there are lots of a24 studios out there. but they’re tiny, they release few films with modest revenues.

kmlx 5y ago

not sure if this is coming back anytime soon: 1. games are a much bigger market than movies, which makes hollywood even more risk averse than usual 2. superhero movies make most income, sucking up all the talent 3. huge emphasis on TV series in the last decade, again sucking up all the talent for these three reasons i’m not sure if i’ll see another sin city/training day/etc in the near future

tayo42 5y ago
Tv is a better format for visual story telling then movies could ever be. now that we have streaming its not bound to time limits or irrelevant commercial pacing. The stories are longer and can be more in depth. Does TV get the best talent though? For some reason I thought they get paid less despite doing alot more work. All those actors from got went on to try movies afterwards.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  More likely, in my opinion, is the the stories can also be too long and all over the place.
  - tayo42 5y ago
    That's true, the potential is higher with TV I think think though. Story telling is a skill that anyone can screw up independent of the medium
  - lmm 5y ago
    Compare the size of the story to another medium with different constraints. A 13- or 26-episode TV series can usually make a decent adaptation of a novel. A movie always has to cut a lot of stuff out.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      The pendulum swings both ways. Unfortunately, I have seen far to many instances of episodic products that are excessively drawn out and waste my time.
- cronix 5y ago
  > For some reason I thought they get paid less despite doing alot more work. Are American TV shows as big of money makers globally as the movie industry? How much do American TV shows make in China vs Hollywood? Are they even shown? I don't know, but have never heard of it but have heard quite a bit about how much Hollywood makes in China. I don't think it's the amount of work that dictates lower salaries for TV acting, but more likely the size of the market that the respective products are sold in and where that market is located (locally vs globally).
- theshrike79 5y ago
  > now that we have streaming its not bound to time limits or irrelevant commercial pacing The Mandalorian is a perfect example of this. The episodes varied from 25 minutes(!) to 47 minutes. Just take the time the plot needs, no more.
theshrike79 5y ago
> 3. huge emphasis on TV series in the last decade, again sucking up all the talent Some stories are just better when they are told in a serial format with more room to breathe. Even if they need to take a budget cut. A recent example being Tomorrow War[0]. It had WAY too much shit happening for the 2h 18min runtime. The same content as a, say, 4 hour miniseries? That would've been fucking amazing. Same budget, same plot, just add more character development (talky bits), a bit slower pacing. Perfect. [0] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9777666/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9777666/

legrande 5y ago

> How about hollywood starts making GOOD content again? Well I'm expecting a new surge of great movies coming out after everyone's vaccinated. Looking forward to the 2021 version of Dune, although I don't think that was spurred on because of the pandemic (maybe I'm wrong?). Expect some epic movies to come out in the next few years.

MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
Dune isn't going to suck because of the pandemic. It's going to suck because of the pg-13 rating.
- Slow_Hand 5y ago
  What element of Dune do you think would suffer by not having an ‘R’ rating? It’s not as if the book is reliant on anything exceptionally violent or obscene. Probably the darkest element is the reference to The Baron’s rape of young people. Frankly that’s better off as something to be implied and not depicted. I think you can get away with enough in a PG-13 to suit the tone of this story. Watching the recent trailer you can catch a glimpse of what appear to be prisoners of war strapped upside down on troughs that will collect the blood from their slit throats. That’s pretty dark. And seemingly it’s an addition by the filmakers. It’s not an element from the book.
  - hmsshagatsea 5y ago
    It’s not the R rating necessarily, it’s how they’ve sanitized the story. The whole book is rife with islamic/arabic and at least from the trailer they’ve anglicized everything, which doesn’t give me much hope. I really don’t see a reason for it.
    - Slow_Hand 5y ago
      Gotcha. I know that the first trailer substituted the word “jihad” with “crusade”. That rubbed me the wrong way as well. But as someone who has pored over every bit of available information about this movie, I’ve come across an interview with someone who saw a test screening AND was already familiar with the book. They were directly asked if the word jihad was used in the film and they said that it was. It seems that the ommission of jihad in the film’s marketing may have been a strategy to side-step any potential negative press in the lead-up to the film’s release. That seems wise given the way that American media likes to sensationalize every last detail that can be mined for potential outrage/eyeballs. I guess we’ll see it and find out for sure.

hotcold 5y ago

Absolutely not, the central theme of every movie, sporting event, advertisement, or news article must be DIVERSITY DIVERSITY DIVERSITY!

MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
It's almost as if Californian casting directors have never been to any part of the country besides SF, LA, NYC, or Seattle.
Hammershaft 5y ago
In a movie landscape of formulaic sequels, uninspired remakes, endless superhero flicks, and a total lack of original ips... why is more diversity the first factor you jump to?
- hotcold 5y ago
  The new variable in the equation, and the only one I hear people complaining about. The things you mention have always existed and people were able to sift through them to find the gems. However the more recent subtle political messaging, sprinkled into most modern media, really turns people off.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  The forced unreal diversity makes things unbelievable. The black and white couple with only gay Asian children under 10 with a Latino teenager makes everything into a farce. All of those things happen but not all at once all of the time. It's labelled as progressive but it's regressive and mocks each minority group along the way.
  - krapp 5y ago
    > The black and white couple with only gay Asian children under 10 with a Latino teenager makes everything into a farce. That doesn't happen. No one is writing movies where people who aren't Latino just have Latino children to score "progressive points" or whatever. Interracial couples do exist. Asians and Latinos exist, and their portrayal in media isn't any more "progressive" than portraying any other race or ethnicity, it's just realistic. And anyone of any race, including interracial couples, can have gay children. Most of the "farce" you've described is perfectly normal. >It's labelled as progressive but it's regressive and mocks each minority group along the way. I doubt there is anyone in any minority group who feels mocked by greater representation. But, as a Gay Black Asian Latino yourself, you can probably tell us what it's like.

yepthatsreality 5y ago

I remember when the first Avengers movie came out, a lot of my industry friends repeated some nonsense line about how we need to see Blockbusters so that the money can trickle down to independent filmmakers and riskier ideas. 10 years later and the market is saturated with super hero films, the independent directors are all directing Disney blockbusters, and the riskier ideas only get a spotlight during Oscar season (unchanged).

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
takoid 5y ago
> we need to see Blockbusters so that the money can trickle down to independent filmmakers and riskier ideas Did they ever expand upon how this trickle effect supposedly happens?
- yepthatsreality 5y ago
  Yes, but it only works with the trickling of the validation of good movies. Big studios will buy up indie productions and/or take a chance on making something not-a-super-hero film only if they have the extra cash from the super-hero film. In which, this argument disregards the Internet and it’s effect on media distribution disruption in it’s entirety.
amyjess 5y ago
That's because all the riskier ideas are on television and TV-emulating streaming services (if you make a series divided into "seasons" and "episodes", I consider your series television even if it's straight-to-streaming). The traditional roles of TV and film have been inverted. Film is now mindless entertainment aimed at the widest possible audience, while television has become a medium for plumbing the depths of artistic possibility. I chalk this up to two things: 1) Film is increasingly internationalized in ways that television isn't. A movie has to appeal to a wide variety of cultures, all of whom have different mores. Ultimately, the only thing the whole world can agree on is that explosions are fun. 2) Television offers a more flexible format. You can only sit in a theater for so long without a break. Television lets you do sprawling, drawn-out epics with hours of content a year. Television lets you mix serialized and episodic storytelling as you please: your series can lean into one or the other, or it can offer a mixture of both with the showrunner using the balance of serialized and episodic content to carefully control the pacing, set up expectations, and then possibly subvert them. This has always been true, but television has historically been beholden to FCC regulations, network BS&P, advertisers who panic when faced with anything unconventional, rigid time slots, and linear programming. The rise of non-linear consumption (e.g. DVRs), premium cable, and direct-to-streaming series have completely blown the doors off what's allowed on television (or "television"), and showrunners are taking advantage of it in a huge way.

paulpauper 5y ago

I read that huge overseas revenues from reliable blockbuster franchises help to subside less profitable niches.

throwaway803453 5y ago

Or it will just come from outside of Hollywood. La Casa De Papel (aka Money Heist) is so good I am probably going to cancel Netflix since it's taking away from my nightly reading time and affecting the quality of my sleep.

dehrmann 5y ago

Disney still has more money to milk from its Star Wars, Marvel, and Pixar IP.

dehrmann 5y ago

I was definitely spoiled by movies when I was growing up. Because of industry circumstances, 1999 was a very good year for movies. I can't think of recent movies that would be considered this generation's "Fight Club," "The Matrix," or "Office Space." On the plus side, there's currently a plethora of adequately entertaining movies for long-haul flights. Some reading on 1999: https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a23803/1999-movies/ https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a23803/1999-mov...

Vomzor 5y ago
One of my favorites from 1999 is October Sky. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0132477/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0132477/

onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago

When GOOD content sells, they will. The best films of the year regularly make less money in their entire lifespan than a mediocre Marvel movie.

amelius 5y ago
That's because "good" depends on who you ask. The free market produces for the masses.