6 ms·

A24's Empire of Auteurs

75 points by prismatic 1y ago

windowshopping 1y ago
https://archive.ph/ick6v https://archive.ph/ick6v
add-sub-mul-div 1y ago
So this is how I find out A24 is getting into the slop economy. Ironic title.
- goosejuice 1y ago
  You must have missed the swan
pyuser583 1y ago
This article makes me like the company a lot less. Never had that reaction to a puff piece before. I mean satanic parties? Not because some of their employees are satanists, but because they like the look? They know they’re going to miff some people, and one of them is me. I don’t care what religion their employees are. But when they’re endorsing one religious group to piss off another? I don’t have to like it, and I don’t. Plenty of movies coming out. Plenty I haven’t seen that came out years and decades ago. If they weren’t in such a competitive market, i probably wouldn’t care. But they’re so easy to avoid, why not?
- ViktorRay 1y ago
  What do you think about Monty Python and their religious mockery then? Is it the religious mockery that bothers you or something else? Religion should not be off limits to mockery, satire, etc
  - pyuser583 1y ago
    Depends on how well it’s done. Monty Python’s religious mockery varies a lot. Some is quirky and insightful, but much is just dumb. It’s a bit of an unfair question to ask, because the Pythons are competing with A Clockwork Orange, not to mention Oscar Wilde, Alexander Pope, and Chaucer. English religious mockery is a crowded market - even Thomas More took part. But this wasn’t even religious mockery. They weren’t actually mocking anybody directly. They were doing it very indirectly by supporting a group that is by itself is perfectly legitimate, but goes out of its way to offend others by its practices. But it doesn’t seem the group actually did anything offensive. They supposed to be edgy by their mere presence. It’s religious mockery by proxy, which isn’t funny or insightful. From the description, it doesn’t seem anybody was laughing. Certainly not the audience (us).
    - vlovich123 1y ago
      You’re being pretty confidently dismissive about the religious validity of Satanists for someone claiming religious offense. The Satan of the Bible isn’t that dissimilar from Heaphestus - a divine being that gave humanity something the gods reserved for themselves so we could better our lot in life ourselves. Just because Christians decided to make him an evil figure, doesn’t mean everyone else has to agree, especially since Satan is responsible for punishing the evil souls sent to Hell which seems like a righteous mission.
      - yahoozoo 1y ago
        > Just because Christians decided to make him an evil figure The Old Testament predates Christianity. > especially since Satan is responsible for punishing the evil souls sent to Hell which seems like a righteous mission The Bible doesn’t say anything about Satan’s responsibilities. You’re probably referring to fanfic works, such as Milton or Dante.
        bryanrasmussen 1y ago
        The Bible does seem to imply some responsibilities of Satan however, mainly to tempt people to deny God in some way.
- whateveracct 1y ago
  Christianity deserves mocking. Organized religion is dumb and toxic.
  - arduanika 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - whateveracct 1y ago
      not sure what Christianity did in the last 20 years to make it suddenly deserving of being taken seriously
  - yahoozoo 1y ago
    [flagged]
- adolph 1y ago
  Its all fake marketing. What kind of Satanists can't even get their own "pig’s head, for ritual use?" The negative reaction exhibited by the parent comment also figures into the game plan of negative marketing [0]. If this was 30 years ago Blackmore's document would unironically call it "synergy." Blackmore drew up a document enshrining their shared goal: “Create a narrative and controversy that transforms ‘The Witch’ into an iconic film.” The satanists planned the parties; A24 minded the guest list, and canvassed butchers in search of a pig’s head, for ritual use. 0. https://www.trimarkdigital.com/blog/what-is-negative-marketing/ https://www.trimarkdigital.com/blog/what-is-negative-marketi...
  - pyuser583 1y ago
    A very fake and controlled controversy, managed by the company making the controversial product.
    - adolph 1y ago
      They don't even make the product. They remarket stuff that already existed.
- yahoozoo 1y ago
  Me and my O9A friends pirate A24 movies because it is what Lucifer would do.
- biophysboy 1y ago
  I mean, its Eggers. All of his movies are about witchcraft and other dark folklore
- brookst 1y ago
  If we’re going down the “you won’t watch movies made by companies whose practices you disagree with” route. . . well, I hope you like books.
  - pyuser583 1y ago
    I love books!
- bryanrasmussen 1y ago
  >I mean satanic parties? Not because some of their employees are satanists, but because they like the look? as I understand the relatively clear text I was reading A24 wanted to market The Witch, so they made a deal with the Satanic Temple, part of the deal for marketing purposes was to have parties after some showings of The Witch, the person who seemed to like the "look" was mainly Joe Blackmore who was from the Satanic Temple and in charge of planning the parties. So yes it is true that they did it to generate controversy which would help get lots of free press for their movie which meant people went to see it which got them money to make more movies. >But when they’re endorsing one religious group to piss off another? of course the way they generated the controversy was because having Satanic parties would be guaranteed to piss off one particular religious group, which it seems really is the group the Satanic Temple exists to piss off. I guess making a deal with someone could be seen as a form of endorsement, but in the case of religions it generally isn't seen that way.
  - jijijijij 1y ago
    The Witch is actually a really good movie, by the way. One of those horror movies people not into horror movies may miss out on. In case anyone here thinks it's all just hype and controversy.
    - bryanrasmussen 1y ago
      yeah I've seen it, I liked it mainly for the language.
- Uehreka 1y ago
  > But when they’re endorsing one religious group to piss off another? This is a ridiculous take. The Satanic Temple is about as much of a “real” religious group as The Church of the Sub-Genius or Pastafarians. If you’re equating them with other organized religions… well honestly, they probably find it hilarious that someone is taking them this seriously. Y’know what, nevermind, carry on. Fight the good fight!
davidivadavid 1y ago
A24 is at the same stage of the hype curve Netflix was with House of Cards. They're going to commoditize their own aesthetic, expand until quality is mediocre at best, rinse and repeat.
- varenc 1y ago
  IMHO this is a play that happens across industries. For example: - Land Rover building reputation with their rugged Defender and then cashing in on that by pivoting to a far less capable luxury SUV. Same with most off road cars. - North Face making serious mountaineering gear to suburban fashion brand with reduced quality. - Blue Bottle going from a high quality local SF chain to scaling internationally under Nestle. (and quality taking a hit) etc, etc...
  - bjt 1y ago
    Krispy Kreme donuts is my favorite example of this. When they opened their Utah store and turned on the "fresh" light they'd get people lined up out the doors. Then they started putting their boxes of donuts in every gas station and no one cares anymore.
  - jryio 1y ago
    A trend I have noticed as well. I consider this pattern to ultimately be the forcing function of free market capitalism itself. Once a brand accumulates sufficient reputational capital through genuine quality, the profit-maximizing imperative inevitably drives extraction over quality. (I would extend this argument briefly outside of the domain of economic theory and into physics: we do not observe low entropy being temporally consistent anywhere in the universe.) The market doesn’t reward maintaining expensive quality standards when cheaper alternatives can temporarily coast on accumulated goodwill - shareholders demand margin expansion, private equity needs returns, and the competitive landscape punishes companies that leave money on the table by over-investing in product integrity. Less of a moral failure by individual companies and more structural incentive alignment: capitalism systematically rewards converting hard won brand trust into extractable rents until the reputation is depleted, at which point capital simply moves to the next target. The pattern you’re observing isn’t a bug but the logical endpoint of a system that treats reputation as just another asset to be optimized for shareholder value rather than a covenant with customers.
rurban 1y ago
A24 is a horrible company. They are so successful because their competitors in Hollywood are so full of shit. But nobody of the shitty majors is more corrupt and cheats more than A24. It's cheating marketing only. Buying good ratings, buying good reviews, creating a cult. Exploiting the broken markets.
yladiz 1y ago
> The story, set in the sixteen-thirties and scripted in Early Modern English, was a tough sell. Is there a reason they spelled out 1630s, like a style guide?

75 points by prismatic 1y ago

windowshopping 1y ago

https://archive.ph/ick6v https://archive.ph/ick6v

add-sub-mul-div 1y ago

So this is how I find out A24 is getting into the slop economy. Ironic title.

goosejuice 1y ago
You must have missed the swan

pyuser583 1y ago

This article makes me like the company a lot less. Never had that reaction to a puff piece before. I mean satanic parties? Not because some of their employees are satanists, but because they like the look? They know they’re going to miff some people, and one of them is me. I don’t care what religion their employees are. But when they’re endorsing one religious group to piss off another? I don’t have to like it, and I don’t. Plenty of movies coming out. Plenty I haven’t seen that came out years and decades ago. If they weren’t in such a competitive market, i probably wouldn’t care. But they’re so easy to avoid, why not?

ViktorRay 1y ago
What do you think about Monty Python and their religious mockery then? Is it the religious mockery that bothers you or something else? Religion should not be off limits to mockery, satire, etc
- pyuser583 1y ago
  Depends on how well it’s done. Monty Python’s religious mockery varies a lot. Some is quirky and insightful, but much is just dumb. It’s a bit of an unfair question to ask, because the Pythons are competing with A Clockwork Orange, not to mention Oscar Wilde, Alexander Pope, and Chaucer. English religious mockery is a crowded market - even Thomas More took part. But this wasn’t even religious mockery. They weren’t actually mocking anybody directly. They were doing it very indirectly by supporting a group that is by itself is perfectly legitimate, but goes out of its way to offend others by its practices. But it doesn’t seem the group actually did anything offensive. They supposed to be edgy by their mere presence. It’s religious mockery by proxy, which isn’t funny or insightful. From the description, it doesn’t seem anybody was laughing. Certainly not the audience (us).
  - vlovich123 1y ago
    You’re being pretty confidently dismissive about the religious validity of Satanists for someone claiming religious offense. The Satan of the Bible isn’t that dissimilar from Heaphestus - a divine being that gave humanity something the gods reserved for themselves so we could better our lot in life ourselves. Just because Christians decided to make him an evil figure, doesn’t mean everyone else has to agree, especially since Satan is responsible for punishing the evil souls sent to Hell which seems like a righteous mission.
    - yahoozoo 1y ago
      > Just because Christians decided to make him an evil figure The Old Testament predates Christianity. > especially since Satan is responsible for punishing the evil souls sent to Hell which seems like a righteous mission The Bible doesn’t say anything about Satan’s responsibilities. You’re probably referring to fanfic works, such as Milton or Dante.
      - bryanrasmussen 1y ago
        The Bible does seem to imply some responsibilities of Satan however, mainly to tempt people to deny God in some way.
whateveracct 1y ago
Christianity deserves mocking. Organized religion is dumb and toxic.
- arduanika 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - whateveracct 1y ago
    not sure what Christianity did in the last 20 years to make it suddenly deserving of being taken seriously
- yahoozoo 1y ago
  [flagged]
adolph 1y ago
Its all fake marketing. What kind of Satanists can't even get their own "pig’s head, for ritual use?" The negative reaction exhibited by the parent comment also figures into the game plan of negative marketing [0]. If this was 30 years ago Blackmore's document would unironically call it "synergy." Blackmore drew up a document enshrining their shared goal: “Create a narrative and controversy that transforms ‘The Witch’ into an iconic film.” The satanists planned the parties; A24 minded the guest list, and canvassed butchers in search of a pig’s head, for ritual use. 0. https://www.trimarkdigital.com/blog/what-is-negative-marketing/ https://www.trimarkdigital.com/blog/what-is-negative-marketi...
- pyuser583 1y ago
  A very fake and controlled controversy, managed by the company making the controversial product.
  - adolph 1y ago
    They don't even make the product. They remarket stuff that already existed.
yahoozoo 1y ago
Me and my O9A friends pirate A24 movies because it is what Lucifer would do.
biophysboy 1y ago
I mean, its Eggers. All of his movies are about witchcraft and other dark folklore
brookst 1y ago
If we’re going down the “you won’t watch movies made by companies whose practices you disagree with” route. . . well, I hope you like books.
- pyuser583 1y ago
  I love books!
bryanrasmussen 1y ago
>I mean satanic parties? Not because some of their employees are satanists, but because they like the look? as I understand the relatively clear text I was reading A24 wanted to market The Witch, so they made a deal with the Satanic Temple, part of the deal for marketing purposes was to have parties after some showings of The Witch, the person who seemed to like the "look" was mainly Joe Blackmore who was from the Satanic Temple and in charge of planning the parties. So yes it is true that they did it to generate controversy which would help get lots of free press for their movie which meant people went to see it which got them money to make more movies. >But when they’re endorsing one religious group to piss off another? of course the way they generated the controversy was because having Satanic parties would be guaranteed to piss off one particular religious group, which it seems really is the group the Satanic Temple exists to piss off. I guess making a deal with someone could be seen as a form of endorsement, but in the case of religions it generally isn't seen that way.
- jijijijij 1y ago
  The Witch is actually a really good movie, by the way. One of those horror movies people not into horror movies may miss out on. In case anyone here thinks it's all just hype and controversy.
  - bryanrasmussen 1y ago
    yeah I've seen it, I liked it mainly for the language.
Uehreka 1y ago
> But when they’re endorsing one religious group to piss off another? This is a ridiculous take. The Satanic Temple is about as much of a “real” religious group as The Church of the Sub-Genius or Pastafarians. If you’re equating them with other organized religions… well honestly, they probably find it hilarious that someone is taking them this seriously. Y’know what, nevermind, carry on. Fight the good fight!

davidivadavid 1y ago

A24 is at the same stage of the hype curve Netflix was with House of Cards. They're going to commoditize their own aesthetic, expand until quality is mediocre at best, rinse and repeat.

varenc 1y ago
IMHO this is a play that happens across industries. For example: - Land Rover building reputation with their rugged Defender and then cashing in on that by pivoting to a far less capable luxury SUV. Same with most off road cars. - North Face making serious mountaineering gear to suburban fashion brand with reduced quality. - Blue Bottle going from a high quality local SF chain to scaling internationally under Nestle. (and quality taking a hit) etc, etc...
- bjt 1y ago
  Krispy Kreme donuts is my favorite example of this. When they opened their Utah store and turned on the "fresh" light they'd get people lined up out the doors. Then they started putting their boxes of donuts in every gas station and no one cares anymore.
- jryio 1y ago
  A trend I have noticed as well. I consider this pattern to ultimately be the forcing function of free market capitalism itself. Once a brand accumulates sufficient reputational capital through genuine quality, the profit-maximizing imperative inevitably drives extraction over quality. (I would extend this argument briefly outside of the domain of economic theory and into physics: we do not observe low entropy being temporally consistent anywhere in the universe.) The market doesn’t reward maintaining expensive quality standards when cheaper alternatives can temporarily coast on accumulated goodwill - shareholders demand margin expansion, private equity needs returns, and the competitive landscape punishes companies that leave money on the table by over-investing in product integrity. Less of a moral failure by individual companies and more structural incentive alignment: capitalism systematically rewards converting hard won brand trust into extractable rents until the reputation is depleted, at which point capital simply moves to the next target. The pattern you’re observing isn’t a bug but the logical endpoint of a system that treats reputation as just another asset to be optimized for shareholder value rather than a covenant with customers.

rurban 1y ago

A24 is a horrible company. They are so successful because their competitors in Hollywood are so full of shit. But nobody of the shitty majors is more corrupt and cheats more than A24. It's cheating marketing only. Buying good ratings, buying good reviews, creating a cult. Exploiting the broken markets.

yladiz 1y ago

> The story, set in the sixteen-thirties and scripted in Early Modern English, was a tough sell. Is there a reason they spelled out 1630s, like a style guide?