battlewraith

Ok, so you're not going to tell me how studios are going way overboard to appease certain groups? I know virtually nothing about this movie. I have no clue why it's bombing. I suspect more than anything else that superhero movies are just played out. I was just curious about the repeated assertion that studio failures are because they are pushing "the message" instead of simply crafting good stories with good characters and production values. It's unclear whether some people here think that these things are somehow antithetical--a good film needs to be apolitical and have no message (which isn't true even for comics)--or if said people just don't like "the message" and would hate any movie that expressed it regardless of how well executed the film was. Side note: I asked one person a question and got responses from three more. Somehow that's me "arguing with everything being said." If the conversation bothers you, don't engage.

No, that's not the point. Earlier you said that well written and produced films do well financially and that history shows this. Here's a list of well produced, well written flops (including Citizen Kane): https://www.indiewire.com/gallery/best-films-box-office-bombs/ Up to this point, we've been talking about financial successes (now you've added critical to the description). The point is that being well written and produced does not guarantee that a film will be a success at the box office. Conversely, a film being financially successful does not mean that it was well produced and/or well written. High grossing bad movies: https://www.cbr.com/worst-box-office-hits/#alice-in-wonderland-was-the-kind-of-movie-no-studio-would-make-anymore

That's exactly the opposite of what I'm doing. I speak only for myself. You and Ghost seem to be speaking for the general audience and making assumptions for why they didn't turn out to see a movie.

No. It doesn't. A well written and produced film will probably do well financially. Being well written and produced does not entail that a film is going to do well. The film may be marketed poorly. It may be ahead of it's time. It may be ignored because of other films that are out at the same time. It may be too niche for a general audience. etc. Likewise, a lot of high grossing blockbuster films are absolute shite.

Lol no everyone complains about shit all the time. But this notion of a company owing me something I think is relatively recent or worse than it was in the past.

"They've gone way overboard to appease certain groups." Ok, explain. How have they gone way overboard? "What we don't want is to be preached to or at." Who is we? Everyone that is in line with your opinions? Does it occur to you that maybe some people have different backgrounds and some of the things you think are preaching is just a reflection of reality for them? You mentioned Philadelphia--it's hard for me to view that movie as anything other than preaching, that was the point. Preaching that there was an AIDs crisis and that gay people were human beings that deserved compassion. And I have no doubt that there were a lot of people that resented that movie for its preaching. Even a lot of old comic books are trying to use the medium to teach some perspective on the social issues of the time.

LOL ok, you are remembering a different past concerning the auto industry. People who had bought American cars were chastised. And at least one Chinese-American was beaten to death over being mistaken for Japanese. Regarding Twelve Angry Men. Yeah twelve guys in a room talking. Gosh we had it so good, what happened. Tastes changed. It's that simple. When Twelve Angry Men was made, there was probably people who had grown up with Buster Keaton movies thinking "what the hell is this drab shit"? They aren't entitled to our money. But I'm old school--if something doesn't look good I just don't go see it. That's it. I don't use it as an occasion to air my grievances about the industry, politics, or the world at large.

Exactly. I think they would. But here's where we diverge. You assume that these studio bosses are idiots and that they are not successful, or at least on the road to ruin. I think they do make dumb decisions fairly frequently but they understand the overall business far better than you. And they probably have tried to do what made them successful in the past. In fact, probably that's what they've done more than anything else--rehash old successes. And audiences don't want the same shit over and over. So they do a balance of safe, genre pap for the masses and a sprinkling of experimentation. And this is something that outsiders will point at and rail about what garbage these execs produce--but those outsiders don't see past their own narrow perspectives.

That's nonsense. It's silly. A well crafted story with a talented cast and crew might be successful. A lot of them fail. Some may achieve a cult following and be regarded as classics long after their run. Others might be hot garbage but make a lot of money based on spectacle or some other reason. Some of these movies that are being trashed now might have been seen as amazing if they had been done a few years sooner, or in a media landscape that wasn't saturated with a certain kind of film. Some that are acclaimed now will probably be forgotten fairly quickly. The assumptions being made here are the opposite: that well made, quality films do well financially. Particularly low budget films. Okay, well maybe instead of Christopher Nolan and Oppenheimer we should be lauding Tyler Perry and Medea, hmmm?

Yeah complete disconnect with my point here. Aiming at a wider range of demographics as a strategy does not mean that ticket sales are going to be up. Audiences are down for a number of reasons, fallout from Covid, competition from streaming, etc. Also, box office numbers are starting to take a hit from the rise of Chinese filmmaking starting to take more of the Asian market.

Riiight and have you done this? Like what makes you think that the people making these movies don't see what they are doing as exactly that? I love this hindsight mentality that armchair critics have--"Hey, the LOTR movies were huge hits because it had a great story, great actors, and so on. So just do that again." As if Peter Jackson was able to continue that level of quality for the Hobbit movies, when he presumably had more control and more resources to work with. Not. Untalented actors huh? Ezra Miller is a lunatic. But I saw that Flash movie and his acting wasn't the problem. He was cast in the part because of his previous performances in other projects, they didn't just randomly select some weird guy. Yeah they're probably doing that to a certain extant. It certainly helps that there actually oodles of xenophobes, racists, misogynists and whatnot on social media pissing and moaning about movies and trying to tank them before they even open. Godzilla: Minus One is a Godzilla movie. How many other well crafted and acted foreign films are doing those kinds of numbers? You really think that speaks to the point you're making? And the thing about Hollywood budgets is this: it's an industry. It doesn't matter whether spending all that money on a film pays off with respect to profit. The money is spent to keep the machinery running--to keep all those creative teams employed. Flops are not only expected, they use creative bookkeeping to act like high grossing films performed poorly.

That might be the case. It could be that SJWs have infected everything and are just trashing cinema. But personally I think this is all about money and that the studio execs actually know what they're doing despite complaining about bombs. The marketing strategy where you make a lot of films, particularly action movies, aimed at white guys was gold in the past but doesn't work that well now. Movies are expensive and there is a ton more competition from video games, streaming sports, etc. You can't float the industry on them any more. So the bean counters are packing in more demographics as the target audience and I actually think this is more successful and/or necessary than pissy youtube critics think it is.

Ok, so "the message" is things like multiculturalism, diversity, being supportive of lgbtq--stuff like that? It might seem clear to you, but it's kind of vague to me. Some douche snearing "the message" over this picture is not really that explanatory. But if I was trying to explain to the industry what they need to do in order to be more successful, it would be something like this: 1. Go back to stories and characterizations solely of straight white people. 2. The men do shit and the women look good and are supportive of the men. 3. Assume a white, north American (probably Christian) audience. Is that the strategy?

What do you mean by "the message"? What message?

I don't watch a lot of these shows but Legion from 2017 was really good, had three seasons, and I don't ever hear it brought up in these discussions.

Yes, but I think this is also part of the problem. There's such an impulse to have these films tell epic sagas and be taken seriously as dramas that they start to fall apart as actual comic book movies. I saw The Marvels and it was entertaining when it was the three main superhero characters goofing around together. But then you had to sit through this intrigue about the Kree empire and the skrulls and Carol having not returned to take care of Monica after the blip and blah blah blah. The first Captain Marvel movie was out 4 years ago. I barely remembered all that backstory. And they always seem to think that there needs to be this world ending threat for basically every superhero movie.

There might simply be a glut of too many superhero movies. It looks like The Marvels took in $197 million worldwide and was the lowest grossing MCU film. Blue Beetle took in $128 million and was the lowest grossing DCU film. We'll see how Aquaman does.

Thank you kind sir!

The numbers are saying that it failed at the box office. That doesn't tell you why it flopped. John Carpenter's The Thing is, in my opinion, one of the best films ever made and at release it not only bombed but was absolutely despised by critics. Dredd with Karl Urban kicked ass and it didn't even make it's money back.

I enjoyed the first Captain Marvel movie. Part of me really wants to get enthused by this one but I can’t. Because the last Dr. Strange movie sucked so badly. Because of that movie, I skipped Quantumania—which my wife and kid saw and claim sucked. So I am definitely burned on Marvel movies. Did you even read the article? It details reactionary attacks on female centered projects in general and Brie Larson in particular. But it mentions that the first Captain Marvel movie and Barbie, both of which were strongly targeted by he-man woman hater types, we’re both hugely profitable (also the Little Mermaid remake and Elemental did well). The article does not actually claim to know a “real reason” the movie is underperforming. It does relay the thoughts of cultural luminaries like Ben Shapiro and Tim Pool.

It looks like Festivus has come early this year. You've already started with the airing of grievances!

Yeah I don't think there was actually an argument here. Just a single intolerable downvote.

Midjourney prompt: "douchebag Superman"

When I saw the lion's drop of blood fall into Kraven's wound, I instantly thought of this: