battlewraith
-
Posts
1075 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Articles
Patch Notes
Posts posted by battlewraith
-
-
10 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:
Oh that's standard procedure on forums, including this one, now days.
People will come into a thread, stir up trouble, and then when they get push back they move the goal posts "I don't believe you because your 'tone of voice' that I hear when I read your posts", "I don't believe you because you didn't cite sources", "I don't believe you because your sources aren't credible", etc, etc, etc. And then, when that doesn't work, they report a bunch of posts and cry to the moderators about [REDACTED] and then the mods lock the thread. Unfortunately this has the effect of allowing the crybullies to control what people are allowed to discuss because the moderators go along with it in order to decrease their workload.
I keep having these discussions because I'm hoping that if I present facts enough times that eventually some of them will sink in. I think that's what the kids refer to as "gatekeeping."
That's an interesting perspective. Here's mine:
I think that the previous thread probably got locked because it had more or less fizzled out in terms of making any actual points. It was dormant for a period of time, and then somebody started it up again, at which point some mod decided to put a stake into it. Then hilariously it was picked again here in a more toned down version that's more or less people aggrieved by studios pissing away money on bad projects. Oh the humanity.
I don't see a group of crybullies trying to control what you want to discuss. What I see primarily are an aging cohort of liberals (which makes sense for an old superhero MMO). I don't mean liberal in a political sense, as in liberal Democrat. I mean it more in the philosophical sense--as someone who takes the individual as the point of departure for viewing life in general. The liberals on the right complain about wokeness. The liberals that are more moderate or even left leaning complain about quotas, people checking boxes, etc. That is more typical of the posters here. A lot of people in general try to cite things and yes a lot of it is just garbage (i.e. opinion pieces by youtubers).
-
1
-
1
-
-
Recently I started dabbling in traditional media. I've been experimenting a lot with water soluble graphite. Here is a variation of the with piece done with water soluble graphite pencil, white charcoal pencil, and some brush pen.
-
1
-
-
Horrible person. Living absolutely rent free in so many people's heads for so long. lol.
-
2
-
-
On 2/18/2024 at 6:42 AM, ThaOGDreamWeaver said:
Found an extended interview with the MachineGames team. And while I'm not normally a fan of corporate EPKs, they do seem like genuinely passionate nerds who got lucky with this gig. I hope it plays out well for them.
MachineGames did the most recent series of Wolfenstein Games, which features tons of nazis and different time periods. I think they would be a logical pick based on those games which were really well done except for the last installment which featured some very unpopular gameplay mechanics (I didn't actually play that one myself).
-
It looks like most of the people here using Microsoft's (?) AI generator. These results look pretty good, honestly a lot better than I expected.
I've been subscribed to Midjourney for almost a year now. There are some features that are pretty essential to me in that application. I don't know which of these features are part of other applications, but it would be a good idea to look for them.
1. Image weights. So when I'm looking for a certain kind of result in MJ, usually I link images at the start of the prompt to help guide it towards what I want. So if I wanted something like Batman exploring a dark warehouse, I might have a link to an image of Batman and a link to an image of a dark warehouse in the style I like. The AI will then take cues from the linked images and the prompt. MJ uses tags at the end of prompts to vary parameters. In this case there is an --iw (image weight) tag that tells the prompt how heavily to weight the influence of the linked images. The tag is capped at 2 to prevent people from making revenge porn, etc. from images of real people.
So that prompt might look like: /imagine [picture of Batman] [picture of dark warehouse] Batman exploring a dark warehouse, pen and ink comic book style illustration --c 35 --iw 2
"--c 35" stands for chaos 35. The purpose is to guarantee some variety in the output so that you don't get 4 super similar results when it processes the prompt. I think it goes up to a hundred but most people use something around 35.
2. Style ref. This is a new feature. It's very similar to image weights, but it's meant to take direction from the formal characteristics of an image but not the actual content of the linked image. So if I use an image weight of Batman and the picture has a coffee cup in the background, coffee cups will probably start showing up in my generations. If I use a text prompt that says "Batman in the style of John Singer Sargent", it will give me Batman in something like that style--but it will also start to throw in content related to Sargent's work. You might get a picture of Batman with a period hat for example. If I link an image of one of Sargent's paintings as a style ref, in theory it should only give me the influence of Sargent's style without bringing in associated content. The --sw tag tells the prompt how much weight to give the sref, all the way up to 1000. You can also use multiple images in the style ref (e.g. Norman Rockwell, Jack Kirby, H.R. Giger all in one ref).
3. Inpainting. MJ has a function called "vary region." So in many cases you do a prompt and it gives you a result that's great but there is one small detail that's wrong. Or a limb is posed the wrong way or something. You do a vary region, which allows you to select the problem area and then do the command. You get a text box that allows you to add or change information relating to the original prompt (only in the selected area, it doesn't change anything else). It's not perfect, and might take several tries to get a good result but people do routinely use it to fix things in their generations.
I'm not trying to be a shill for Midjourney here. I think these are going to eventually standard features of any AI image generator. If your using something else, or are just new to this type of software, check to see if the application you're using has a version of these commands.
-
12 minutes ago, Ghost said:
Saying an established trait is unimportant has me wondering if you’d apply that to all aspects of a comic book movie adaption.For example..
Northstar being a straight male - thus ignoring his roots as the first gay superhero.
Or
White Tiger being Asian, rather than the first Hispanic superhero
Or
Completely ignoring the fact that Dr Mid-Nite was the first disabled superheroYou ignored what I actually said. I mentioned foundational aspects of a character. What are the important traits they embody?
Nick Fury is the director of SHIELD, not a cook. He has an eye patch, not a sombrero. Does it matter that the character was originally white? Apparently not, most people seem comfortable with the dark skinned version, who seems to behave more or less the same way as the light skinned variation.
If the creator of Northstar specified that he was the first gay superhero--I would take that as a defining trait. Along with his superspeed and being Canadian. Does everything else have to stay the same?
Does Reed Richards have to be living in a 1960s New York and married to a woman 10 years younger than him? Are those essential characteristics that must be communicated in order to do Reed Richards?
-
2 hours ago, Excraft said:
First, I'm not an American. Second, you didn't answer the question. Why would it be weird? Because of "historical" reasons? Ok, then why would this be more weird than changing the race and gender of the Ancient One in Doctor Strange? Or race swapping Heimdall and Reed Richards? Historically, every one of those characters were shown as a different race and/or gender for decades since their inception. Why are those acceptable changes, but black Nazis wouldn't be? Are you suggesting actors like Denzel Washington aren't talented enough to pull off the role?
White supremacy is an ideological foundation of nazism. So it's weird to cast a black actor as a nazi for that reason. Maybe it can be done for satirical reasons or something, but it would need to be reasoned out. When you complain about Heimdall or Reed Richards being race swapped, you're implying that whiteness is a foundational aspect of their character. Which is silly and wouldn't fly for Nick Fury either. The ancient one is an even worse example. The character is an old, exotic mysterious sage. How is maleness as a characteristic important to the character?
-
1
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:
The reason that no one was upset about Samuel L Jackson playing Nick Fury is because people understood that he wasn't being picked to push "Current Year Ideology", he was picked because he has the right attitude and charisma to play Nick Fury. And people were ok with that because movie and comic fans ARE NOT evil racists despite what adherents to "Current Year Ideology" would have you believe.
No. Jackson was cast because Mark Millar decided to change the character in the comics and based it on the actor (without getting any permission to use his likeness). Apparently this was inspired by Colin Powell. I don't see this as substantially different from any other switch that goes on in movie casting. Why did comics fans not care? Probably because Nick Fury was a rather obscure character who was popular when Steranko was drawing the book in the 60s? And/or people just didn't care?
"Current Year Ideology" is not a thing, other than an indication that you are deep in an information silo. Movie and comic fans embody a range of political beliefs. Scandals happen, people get accused of something and then individuals clutch their pearls about the fans getting criticized--when it's really just them getting criticized. They don't represent the fandom.
-
21 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:
You are correct.
Can you tell me why no one had a problem with Samuel L Jackson being cast as Nick Fury?
Um excuse me? No one had a problem? I can think of someone who probably had a problem with it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Fury:_Agent_of_S.H.I.E.L.D._(film)
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, ZacKing said:
Well no, you're the one arguing that this happens in theatre all the time and that "Shakespeare nerds are ahead of the curve". You're also criticizing others for asking the same question - what's the rationale for it?
No, as I've said, I am criticizing people who reject such practices in principle.
2 hours ago, ZacKing said:Please educate yourself.
Lol. I did. I just read the whole thing on the academy's website. There are four standards. For a film to be considered for one type of award--Best Picture--it has to check a box in two of the standards. Each of the standards has several individual criteria that can be met. Two of those standards don't even involve actors or characters in the film, they're behind the scenes jobs, training opportunities, or marketing. The ones that do involve performances are trivially easy to satisfy. For example, "At least 30% of all actors in secondary and more minor roles are from at least two of the following underrepresented groups." One of the underrepresented groups is women--half the population of the planet!
You have got to be shitting me. This is a concern for you? Most contemporary films are just going to fit within these guidelines. You would have to go out of your way to disqualify yourself by only involving straight white men. And the fallout would just be not getting a best picture award. That's it.
2 hours ago, ZacKing said:You don't like that the Disney princesses were all white? Ok, well there's other options out there for you now. They weren't made for you. Go watch something else.
Wait, is this intended to be some sort of rebuttal? Because that's exactly what I do. If something doesn't appeal to me, I do go watch something else.
Disney princesses were all white. Then the company decided they could make money by changing the formula. I'm not the one crying about it.
2 hours ago, ZacKing said:Right. And he and others like him won anyway.
Right so Poitier says that he's the only black actor consistently getting work in the industry. But it's all good because he got an award. Sounds exactly like what someone on the Daily Wire would say. If you can't see that, maybe take a step back.
2 hours ago, ZacKing said:Of FFS are you honestly going to say
You can go back and read what I said from the beginning. It's already all been spelled out. You just keep circling back to financial success--which it not the point. And you just gloss over counter examples. Pornographic films make a lot of money. Does this mean that they are well written and well produced?
I'm not asking you if they are financially successful, that's already assumed.
Can I say that they are poor quality films, despite the fact that they make a lot of money?
Or are we simply stuck with "the facts"?
-
1
-
-
32 minutes ago, Excraft said:
My response to this was that there were actors and actresses earning the highest awards and honors in the industry long before there were any "standards for inclusiveness" being mandated, and all of them earned those awards and accolades based on their talent. They didn't need "standards for inclusiveness". You trying to claim that's why they are able to win these awards, not because of their talent, is flat out wrong. Why don't you do some research and provide links to the "standards for inclusiveness" that existed in the industry when Sidney Poitier won his oscar? Good luck.
I already have. I quoted him. The standard of inclusiveness on the part of the industry back in his day was NOT to include minorities. People like him were trailblazers. They were struggling to get representations of minorities on the big screen. And even someone like Poitier who was immensely talented and successful, admitted to being severely constrained by what types of characterizations they could present to the white audience for fear of how those characterization would impact other black performers. Did you even read it? Here in 2024, you have your panties in a wad over progressives in the entertainment industry lecturing to you--so you wipe away the actual significance of Poitier's achievements and say "See! Talented black actors were getting awards and didn't need these politics!" Utterly reductive. Utterly wrong.
My previous post addresses (again) your conflation of commerce with quality. If you don't get it by now I can't help you.
-
2
-
2
-
-
23 minutes ago, ZacKing said:
That recasting happens in theatre all the time, so you shouldn't care.
Maybe I wouldn't care. What is the rationale for it? You're desperately trying to paint this as an either or situation. It's not.
I could be be in favor of some legal drug use--maybe alcohol or marijuana. That doesn't mean I'm committed to supporting legal use of all drugs.
It also doesn't mean that I approve of every casting choice done for some the sake of something of like inclusivity to the exclusion of all other reasons.
40 minutes ago, ZacKing said:That's exactly correct AND he did it without any "inclusivity requirements" or other such rules. That's a testament to his talent, and for you to be suggesting he and others only win these awards because of their skin color and "inclusivity requirements" is quite frankly disgusting.
I never said that. Stop getting disgusted over the strawman you keep knocking over.
And these inclusivity requirements that you keep complaining about--you know they aren't actual requirements. It's just people that don't agree with you that you don't support. You have other options. Maybe check out the content being developed by the Daily Wire. I'm sure you won't get any of that inclusiveness nonsense there.
49 minutes ago, ZacKing said:We all get it just fine. You've given plenty of examples based on opinion. You can't provide any measure that's based on facts.
No. Amazingly you don't get it, at all. Any assessment of quality is going to be based on opinion. You think that an objective metric--how many things were sold--can serve that function. Well I've given you a bunch of examples how ridiculous that standard is in application. The porn industry is undeniably a financial success. Show me someone that argues, based on those financial numbers, that this content is "quality film making." The point is not that McDonald's isn't a financial success because of the existence of Michelin restaurants. The point is that no intelligent person is going to seriously argue that fast food is comparable to a Michelin restaurant because McDonald's sells more food.
The irony is that your blanket dismissal of opinion is utterly self-defeating. The facts are these: People in the segments of film industry are progressive and applying their standards to the writing and casting of movies. You can't offer any convincing reason for why this is a bad thing because.....well that's just your opinion man.
-
1
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Ghost said:
Horrible analogy based on what my gripe is.It would be more like going to the 5-star restaurant and ordering a steak. Only to be served chicken and preached to about the dangers of cholesterol.
That response wasn't addressing you, that's why. You just don't like being preached to. Ok fine, but don't assume that everyone agree with you about what constitutes preaching or where it is appropriate in movies.
2 hours ago, Ghost said:
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, PeregrineFalcon said:
There's a reason why you can use google to see a ton of memes like this one. And it isn't because a handful of people on this forum are imagining this. It's because millions of people around the world have noticed this phenomenon.
Millions huh? I know Putin and Xi are pretty against this sort of thing.
-
1
-
2
-
-
33 minutes ago, Excraft said:
If you honestly believe there would be no public outcry over a film where all gay black actors were cast as Germans in a WW II film or a remake of The Color Purple with an all white cast, you're delusional. You also can't have this both ways. You've suggested people like and are drawn to familiarity, then belittle them when they complain about arbitrary changes to what they find familiar.
I said it depends on the context. What is the reason for it?
And what you're doing here is saying that the things that rankle you are on a par with making an all white The Color Purple. Some casting choices, some deviation from a formula and you act like the sky is falling.
47 minutes ago, Excraft said:This is absolutely positively 100% bullshit.
No you are just really confused. For example here's a write up of Sidney Poitier's career and what conditions were like:
And a quote from the man himself:
“If the fabric of the society were different, I would scream to high heaven to play villains and to deal with different images of Negro life that would be more dimensional,” said the actor in the interview. “But I’ll be damned if I do that at this stage of the game. Not when there is only one Negro actor working in films with any degree of consistency, when there are thousands of actors in films, you follow?”
People like him paved the way for others. They opened the door for other types of portrayals. What the hell do you think inclusion means? You're the one who's insulting his talent and legacy, not me.
1 hour ago, Excraft said:If you don't believe in facts, why don't you share with us what you believe is a better objective measure that isn't based on opinions or feelings?
Why? I've given you so many examples already and you just don't get it. Imagine I go to a quality restaurant to get a good meal. The ratings for this place are all 5 star and there's a waitlist to get a table but I finally get in. I ask the waiter for a recommendation and he says the steak is excellent. But then I say "the hell with that, way more hotdogs are sold than steaks! Numbers don't lie!" And then it occurs to me: I shouldn't even be in this place. McDonald's serves way more customers every day. That's a fact Jack. Who cares about what people think is good food. Those are just feeeeeelings.
You seem to be laboring under the delusion that garbage doesn't sell. It's quaint.
-
1
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, PeregrineFalcon said:
So you're saying that "It's ok to change characters and rewrite history and do other bad things because of stuff that happened 70 years ago." I thought the entire point behind being progressive was to not repeat the mistakes or bad actions of the past.
"It's ok when we do it!" Right?
No, it goes more like this:
You have an industry that's dominated by one demographic throughout most of it's existence. Minorities are either not represented at all, relegated to minor often stereotyped portrayals, or are portrayed by white actors. The general audience is perfectly fine with this. Gradually attitudes change, demographics change, economics change and the industry slowly catches up. Then suddenly somebody from the original demographic discovers racism when (gasp) a role that they think should be cast a certain way simply isn't. My heart breaks at this injustice, truly. The wounded party is going to have to....watch something else. Or just get over the casting decision. Meanwhile, the actor that lost out in the casting is going to have to wander out into the desert of other similar mainstream roles that they would be a fit for.
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Excraft said:
I wonder, would you have no issue at all were a film or films produced as period pieces during WW II where all of the Germans were cast with gay, black actors? How about a biographical drama on the life of Nelson Mandela with an Asian man in the lead role as Mandela? Would you be fine with a film set in Wakanda cast with all non-black actors? Or a bio-pic of Queen Elizabeth with a latino man cast in the role of the Queen? Do you honestly believe there wouldn't be massive backlash against movie studios were any of this to happen?
Depends on the context. I'm not like the people here complaining about casting as if it's this binary good or bad thing. You're the one complaining about it in principle, not me.
Colorblind casting is very common in theater. Part of the reason for this is that there are so many different productions of plays, and such a history of such productions, that nobody takes a representation of a character as some sort of historical document that must be accurate to some standard. Shakespeare nerds don't have a problem with it. Denzel Washington killed it as MacBeth. Lots of pop culture nerds are behind the curve in this regard sadly.
5 hours ago, Excraft said:I get that historically there wasn't as much opportunity for non-Caucasian actors and actresses, but that's not really true any more and hasn't been for quite some time. There is a long and growing list of non-Caucasian actors and actresses winning the highest awards in the entertainment industry. You talk about staples of the comic industry like Superman, Batman, Spider-Man and the like selling well because people want familiarity. Isn't it understandable then for some people to question why race and/or gender swapping needs to take place if they want to see the characters they're familiar with?
The thing is these awards and opportunities you mention here are the result of activists in the industry setting standards for inclusiveness. The ability to do non-standard casting is the culmination of this effort, not some unrelated and unnecessary thing.
Yeah it's understandable that people want the familiar. But that means we can't have anything else? Take the Little Mermaid. You have the original story and all the artistic depictions related to it. Then you have the original Disney version. Then you have the black version. If you don't like that version--don't watch it. You have all the other versions. All this pissing and moaning about companies selling a product boils down to people wanting that company to serve their interests in exactly the way they want, all the time. In other words, raw entitlement.
6 hours ago, Excraft said:The LoTR trilogy brought in around 3 billion in box office. The Hobbit trilogy brought in just over 2.9 billion. Seems they replicated the success just fine. You could argue that that the Hobbit films had a much higher budget for various reasons so all tallied it made less overall in terms of profit compared to LoTR, but it still brought in a ton of money. But there again, it had fantastic source material to work with.
Ok so those movies were trash. Now, you're probably thinking that numbers don't lie and that my subjective opinion doesn't matter.
Here's the thing: the recent Little Mermaid film was a financial success. Numbers don't lie. So by your logic, all the complaints about the casting don't matter.
You're sitting on a limb, furiously sawing away it's connection to the tree.
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Ghost said:
At the end of the day, you can believe the continued drop in ticket sales comes down to covid, streaming, homophobia, whatever you like.
Just as I can can think it comes down to writers being more concerned with checking boxes, than telling a good story.
Sure, everyone Is going to look at the situation from their own perspectives and biases. And you can read into what writers are doing any way you like. I suspect that in response to your comment they would say that for most of film history there was only a couple boxes. And in instances where there was a narrative reason for another box--they filled it with a white actor. And the aging generation that is now outraged. or at least their parent's generation, was completely fine with that. They didn't see these distortions as antithetical to telling a good story.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, ZacKing said:
You're using subjective opinions for excuses which is ok, but it's not a real measure of success or failure. Box office receipts and profits are the objective measure because numbers don't lie. Films that rake in big profits are successful which means most paying customers found them to be well written and well produced. That's a fact, whether you personally liked the movie or not. I didn't like "Titanic", but it raked in billions, so it's a success whether I think it was a good movie or not.
What is so fucking hard about this? I'm not disputing that these things are financial successes. What I'm disputing is this assertion that if something is a financial success that it means that film is well written and produced. And the inverse--that if something was not successful financial then it was NOT well written and produced.
19 minutes ago, ZacKing said:The Hobbit films raked in billions. What's your point? And Peter Jackson didn't want to do another trilogy. The studio basically forced him into it.
The point is this: some people here think that it's just a simple matter of doing well crafted stories with interesting characters. Peter Jackson's LOTR films are being held up as an example of this--instead of a lightning-in-a-bottle situation where things came together to make great films. Ok, well then be consistent. I don't give a crap whether Jackson wanted to do the Hobbit movies or not. He's a professional and according to your calculus he should have been able to replicate or exceed the success of the first trilogy with the second. That was not the case, and I think that most of Peter Jackson's output falls far short of the LOTR movies.
48 minutes ago, ZacKing said:Well sure, there's idiots everywhere but they're easily identified and just as easily ignored.
Ok so when it's actual racists, etc. spreading their views, that's easy to ignore. But the whining of some industry execs or performers is...intolerable apparently?
58 minutes ago, ZacKing said:This is really, really ignorant. Maybe I'm wrong, but I get the impression reading your post here that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow a far right evangelical radical. That's just not true. It seems to me you haven't done any research on your own and looked into why people rail against "the message".
Well, I still had to look up "the message." I'm not clear on whether this is something that developed on reddit or 4chan or something. Or if this was coined and/or popularized by some influencer like the Critical Drinker. There doesn't seem a hard definition of what "the message" is. On one end of the spectrum, it seems to simply be complaining about preachiness/soapboxing about generally accepted values (which assumes that they are generally accepted). On the other end, it seems to be taken as a conspiracy by leftists to squeeze out conservative or libertarian values.
I am ignorant of this nonsense. Thank god. I see a trailer for a movie and if it looks interesting I go see it. Then discuss with friends and family. The only opinions I care about are from the creatives involved. I give zero fucks about what studio execs or social media influencers have to say about it. My assumption is that people bothered by "the message" are reacting to both changing trends and online social media outrage peddlers that enflame and validate their anger.
Honestly, the most hilarious/disturbing thing taken from this conversation is the FIGURES DON'T LIE view of art.
But it makes sense. The global porn market made something like 100 billion dollars last year. People will pay for well produced, good stories with interesting characters!
-
14 minutes ago, Ghost said:
last part first - you’ve taken the time to go back and forth with everyone in this thread. Refuting everything. That’s arguing.
As for overboard…
Snow White not incorporating dwarfs in their live action remake because it may offend someone.
Changing the race of the Little Mermaid instead of, you know telling a new story with new characters.
Making sure every last demographic is represented in the final seasons of Sex Education - when they weren’t present at the start.
Kevin Smith He-Man show was about……a woman.
The recent L&O controversy.
Do we need to talk about the current gaming situation too?
Look, as I said before. I don’t care if a show is about straight, white, black, Asian, LGBTQ+ characters. If it looks interesting, I’ll watch it.
Stop trying to shoehorn them in.Stop using the time I watch a movie as a way to preach to me - If I want to be preached to, I’ll go to church.
So just casting a role as a different ethnicity is preaching to you?
The reason they "shoehorn them in" is simply to give those actors more opportunities. We've been through eras where was not the case, and it's pretty clear what that is like in terms of the roles available. You can always say well just make up new characters with new stories. To a certain extent, yes. But overall, people want the familiar. Why is it when you go to the comic books store there's still so much Batman, Superman, Spiderman, Hulk, etc. People want the same sort of thing. That's the reality.
-
2
-
-
5 minutes ago, Excraft said:
Both of those lists are meaningless as their based on the subjective opinion of the writer compiling them. How one person defines "good" and "bad" are entirely different than the next person.
I can remember way back in the day movie critic Gene Shalit calling Star Wars a "nothing movie" that would "go nowhere" when it first premiered. I'm sure you could find people out there that believe films like Gymkata, Ishtar and Battlefield Earth are the most underrated true masterpieces of cinema in human history. Those are all a matter of opinion though.
Ticket sales and box office numbers don't lie and aren't subjective. Whether someone likes a movie or not, if that movie brought in a ton of money to the studio and turned a hefty profit, it's successful and that means the majority of movie goers thought it was well written and well produced enough to spend their money on it. That's a fact and no matter how much you want to try and deny it, history proves that out.
All it shows is that these films sold tickets. That's it. So by your logic, 50 Shades of Grey is a better produced, more well written film than Citizen Kane or The Thing. If we look at album sales, a quick google search says that Mozart and Beethoven have each sold about 5.5 million each. Britney Spears has sold 150 million. Best selling car: Toyota Corolla. If sales are your objective criteria for quality...knock yourself out dude.
Part of the problem here is that you think a subjective opinion is worthless. All opinions are the same. They aren't. A plumber will give you an opinion. A doctor will give you an opinion. These opinions are more valuable because they are informed by knowledge of the field and experience. Same goes with the arts. There is a motion picture industry that encompasses actors, directors, critics, etc. There are general standards for things like acting, directing, writing, etc. None of these things simply default to what sold the best. Yeesh.
-
1
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Ghost said:
and you’ve made no assumptions?
okay, since we’ve clearly gotten off track - tell us EXACTLY why you think this movie is bombing. Please.
Because I honestly don’t know what you’re trying to say, other than to argue everything being said.
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.
-
56 minutes ago, Excraft said:
So let me get this straight - films that are both critical and financial successes are not well written and produced? Just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. If that's you're point, then you're way off base and yes, history does prove that out.
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
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Excraft said:
The general audiences, made up of people from all genders, races and orientations, who haven't been paying to go and see movies. You seem to be trying to lump everyone into one group or another.
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.
-
1
-
1
-
Madame Web
in Comic, Hero & Villain Culture
Posted
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_system_(filmmaking)
"The phenomenon of stardom has remained essential to Hollywood because of its ability to lure spectators into the theater. Following the demise of the studio system in the 1950s and '60s, the star system became the most important stabilizing feature of the movie industry. This is because stars provide film makers with built-in audiences who regularly watch films in which their favorite actors and actresses appear.[7]
Contemporary Hollywood talent agencies must now be licensed under the California Labor Code, which defines an agent as any "person or corporation who engages in the occupation of procuring, offering, promising, or attempting to procure employment for artist or artists."[8]: 167 Talent agencies such as William Morris Agency (WMA), International Creative Management (ICM), Creative Artists Agency (CAA), and many more started to arise in the mid-1970s. CAA created new ways of marketing talent by packaging actors, agencies are able to influence production schedules, budgeting of the film, and which talent will be playing each particular character. Packaging gained notoriety in the 1980s and 1990s with films such as Ghostbusters, Tootsie, Stripes, and A League of Their Own (three of which star Bill Murray). This practice continues to be prominent in films today such as Big Daddy, Happy Gilmore, The Waterboy, and Billy Madison (all of which star Adam Sandler). The ease of selling a packaged group of actors to a particular film ensures that certain fan groups will see that movie, reducing risk of failure and increasing profits."