Posted on 12/18/2017 9:57:14 AM PST by EdnaMode
In 2013, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas predicted the film industry as we know it would "implode" if/when, in the near future, too many wildly expensive blockbuster movies flopped. And if ever there were a year for an implosion on that scale to occur it would be 2018, the year when there are nearly as many major studio tentpole releases as there are weeks in the year. Well, here's the thing ...
Do you like big blockbuster movies? The kind that will make a billion dollars but will never be financially profitable, thanks to Hollywood's shady accounting practices? If so, here's the insane slate of blockbusters 2018 has to offer:
Avengers: Infinity War, Ready Player One, Pacific Rim 2, Aquaman, Toy Story 4, Deadpool 2, Black Panther, The Flash, How To Train Your Dragon 3, Ant-Man And The Wasp, Jurassic World 2, The Predator, Fifty Shades Freed, Jungle Book: Origins, Marry Poppins Returns, Tomb Raider, Alita: Battle Angel, Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them 2, The Secret Life Of Pets 2, an animated Spider-Man movie, Hotel Transylvania 3, The Wolf Man, Wreck-It Ralph 2, the Star Wars Han Solo spinoff, the Transformers Bumblebee spinoff, Maze Runner: The Death Cure, How The Grinch Stole Christmas, Gigantic (Disney's next hand-drawn animated musical).
(Excerpt) Read more at cracked.com ...
“Blockbuster” = LOUD, endless and boring CGI, lots of explosions, no plot, no character development, and crappy acting. No thanks.
All of that plus, frankly, unattractive “stars.”
Good movies require good screenplays. It’s easier just to feature a bunch of explosions and CGI crap. Of course if you did have a good screenplay, you’d need someone who could actually act, versus posing on a red carpet.
“Blockbuster” = LOUD, endless and boring CGI, lots of explosions, no plot, no character development, and crappy acting. No thanks.
—
...and half the dialog will be the F bomb.
The cast will be politically correct.
Some director will come forward and re-discover the art of making low budget blockbuster movies.
I’ve had a sense that they have dumbed down movies and TV in recent years. They do seem to rely on computer graphics and explosions, and not on plot or character development.
I would rather watch old Star Trek episodes from the ‘60s, rather than today’s sci fi. Even though the special effects then were primitive by today’s standards, the overall storylines had more depth to them. Just my opinion.
Good point. Frankly I love the story lines on many of the old movies and TV shows and watch them almost exclusively.
Terrible actors in many movies today who have not come even close to mastering their craft......too many re-makes.... And too much cgi etc. looks cartoonish.
““Blockbuster” = LOUD, endless and boring CGI, lots of explosions, no plot, no character development, and crappy acting.”
you forgot “bad dialog” and “bad acting”, but i suppose those might fall under the category of “no character development”. also, let’s not forget zero creativity, zero suspense, zero originality.
we quit going to the movies for those very reasons nearly two decades ago. the only movie i MIGHT go see in the future is The Irishman done by Scorsese with a reprisal of the cast of Goodfellas.
original TV series via cable channels and streaming is where the truly original and engaging entertainment has moved to ...
I’m surprised few have addressed this factor:
Really, how many people are keen on seeing new movies _opening_day_ or _opening_weekend_?
“Blockbuster” currently is defined in terms of the first few days of release. That made more sense in a day when seeing good movies at all was an effort, but now with the inundation of media (flat-rate on-demand 4K content to the home, nearly full access to anything anytime for <$6), the sense of urgency is waning. A growing number would rather pay $4 to watch all but the very latest on demand, and while waiting for the very latest to work its way around to Redbox, iTunes, or Netflix. Heck, many would rather pay $20 to own it opening day than >$30 to go see it in a theater.
Theater-centered movie releases are passing. There’s a growing audience for first-day on-demand streaming, replacing the “opening-day blockbuster” fans.
The typical Rockford Files episode has more in depth writing than most stuff today.
One exception I’ll grant is Dirk Gently. It’s so bizarre and intricate.
I’m looking forward to the next round of The Man In The High Castle on Amazon.
There is a trailer or two out.
OG Smith is my favorite character. Totally ruthless. I like the Japanese trade minister guy too.
I happened upon one on TV a few says ago, tired to watch some of it. So stupid I gave up after about three minutes.
Like I’ve often said, sixty years ago such a film would be filmed in B&W on a very cheap budget, to play the bottom half of a drive-in double feature under Hercules and the maidens from Mars.
Now they are given top budgets, CGIs, glorious color(if you can call it glorious) and each one seems be a variation of the last superhero movie.
Our young people are truly living in an age of fantasy.
The good news is that just as box-office flops used to see early release on DVD, we should start to see them showing up on streaming shortly after their "release". That means that more people will watch them at their own convenience, and in the comfort of their own home.
I took my 95 year-old mother to see the last Star Wars movie. She hadn’t been to a theater in decades. I thought she would be wowed by the special effects. Afterwards I asked her if she liked it. “No,” she replied. “Please, next time let’s stay at home and re-watch one of the oldies. The Star Wars movie moved to fast to follow, and there was little to like. No romance.”
“The kind that will make a billion dollars but will never be financially profitable, thanks to Hollywood’s shady accounting practices?”
This is so misleading it is incorrect. The thing is that NO Hollywood movie makes money. On the books. They find a way to lose money on EVERY movie, for tax reasons. They can always dump more on marketing or some other thing so that the movies always ‘lose money’. The reality is that everyone got paid and many of the people involved made millions. The only one that really lost out is the tax man. This has been going on for years. So the idea that having more movies that lose money will be a problem for Hollywood is false because they all, technically and legally, lose money.
You might be thinking, oh but I heard of one that did well. Nope. You probably heard quoted a comparison of the box office take and the cost to make it. That might look good but that is not the whole story. At least not as far as what the studios tell the tax man. The rest of the money that would be profit is ‘lost’ in marketing and other ‘expenses’ which mostly go back into the pockets of whoever the studio wants to pay. So the studio ‘loses’ a tiny bit for tax reasons, everyone gets paid a huge amount and life goes on.
So if you ever somehow get offered a movie deal for a book or something, never never never sign a deal to get a percentage of the net profit.
Blockbusters are international. Explosions and chase scenes translate well. Heavy dialog and complex plots don’t.
I’ll likely go to see Infinity War and Tomb Raider.
Glad to see Maze Runner is back on track, enjoyed the first two.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.