Jump to content

Deadlines? What Deadlines?

Members
  • Posts

    5,881
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Deadlines? What Deadlines?

  1. 14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

    It only is if your mind allows it to be so. Being an elected official should make it easier to send you to jail than if you or I commit a crime that would obviously mean we were going to do time if found guilty. There fucks do not deserve special protection and that goes for all of them regardless of party.

    Oh, an elected official can go to jail. Plenty have. But he won’t.

    He’ll pay a bunch of fines, He might even get sentenced to prison; but that sentence will be suspended and he’ll get a bunch of years of probation. He won’t spend a day in jail. I’m calling it right now.

    Goddamn I hope he flees the country. This could get entertaining.

  2. 17 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

    Trump shows how much of a wimp he is in these exact situations. He's dreaming for a plea deal. 

    He really only needs one night.

    It’s a practical impossibility to sentence a former president to prison.* He’ll end up paying a bunch of fines and probably get sentenced to a term of house arrest… at his massive luxury golf club in Palm Springs… 

    His “prison” tats will be hilarious.

    * Unless you want to lock up a dozen secret service clowns with him.

  3. 5 hours ago, Heartofice said:

    Anyway, I think Superheroes can still survive but it feels like almost every angle has been covered now. They did the clever thing of doing all the other genres, but with superheroes, but it's hard to see what else there is to do. They have subverted the tropes, subverted the subversions and it's all being wrung out for any drop left. 

    Yeah definitely this. And the most interesting stuff out there either subverts the genre or is animated.

    If DC had stayed on track and The Flash had come out when it was supposed to, it would have been the first live-action movie to exploit the “multiverse” concept in a real way. It doesn’t have the novelty of that anymore. 

  4. 8 hours ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

    So interest in superhero films doesn’t need to wane that much to prematurely kill its longevity.

    Exactly.

    8 hours ago, hauberk said:

    You make my point with Westerns when you say that some were highly regarded, though I may question “after the fact,” and then go on to talk about the number making no impact. The crux is the number of years that that volume of movies was being churned out and the number of screens available - which correlates to the number of offerings.  I very specifically remember seeing quite a few westerns as a child in the early 70s and there was still a presence on TV with Bonanza, Gunsmoke, Kung Fu and that most saccharine of all Little House on the Prairie. 

    Check out the Western offerings on Tubi. There’s page after page of shit I’ve never heard of.

    If you want to talk about live action, episodic TV, it isn’t even close. Between Arrowverse and adjacent shows, Netflix, MCU D+, The Boys on Amazon, Hollywood has managed to pump out well over 1,000 hours (probably closer to 1500) of superhero content in just the last decade. 

    Quote

    I didn’t start by suggesting that superhero movies were necessarily good movies, just questioning the assertion that they were a dead genre when other genres have, pretty clearly, had much longer lifespans. 

    Sure, some have longer lifespans. Some do not. Tastes change. Sometimes, rapidly.

    I never said it was a dead genre. I distinctly remember saying it still has “years” left in it. 

    ETA: OK I might not have said it here but I’ve said it elsewhere. At any rate, it isn’t done yet. Obviously.

  5. 2 hours ago, hauberk said:

    I think we’ll have to agree to disagree.  I’m not seeing box office data pre 1976, so pretty much ignoring decades of well regarded westerns which were the spectacle of the day. High art?  Maybe not but John Wayne wouldn’t have had a career if talent was a requirement. 

    Wikipedia has box office data going back farther than that. This would be a good place to start.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1930_in_film

    Westerns popular era comes from a time when the frontier was still a thing in living memory. That’s not a coincidence.

    Some westerns were highly regarded; mostly after the fact. And for every one of those there are probably 10 more that made no impact whatsoever. It’s like, “We have the sets, we have the wardrobe, and tomorrow the horses will be one day closer to the glue factory whether we shoot with them or not. Got a script? Got a few hundred grand? Let’s make a western.”

    it’s a bit like why Hollywood churns out half a dozen low budget horror films every year. They’re inexpensive to make and easy to market. The result is that they almost always make money. And when they don’t they don’t lose much. They also tend to be a good place to test new talent. Plenty of actors and directors who have a horror film early in their filmography.

    But why do westerns get to define the longevity of a popular film genre? In the ‘80’s we got a tons of Vietnam movies. By the ‘90’s they didn’t make them much any more. There’s no defined time limit in this stuff.

  6. 10 minutes ago, hauberk said:

    How many years of westerns, rom-coms, crime dramas?  Why are capes and tights on a more accelerated decline?  

    None of those genres ever had the kind of cultural dominance that CBM’s have. From the 30’s through the end of the’60’s, how many westerns made the box office top ten? How many received any critical praise?  And if CBM viability (box office) falls to the level of a typical rom com or crime drama, they are truly, truly fucked.

    in terms of pop culture relevance, a better analogue would be Disco. That collapsed utterly after about 5 years.

  7. 7 hours ago, Heartofice said:

    There might be some power in shared universes, but evidence suggests it’s not much given how many failed shared universes there are. Marvel managed to make it work but mainly because they had created a solid standard for their movies.

    I think there are potentially a number of factors at play:

    It’s no secret that I’m bearish on capeshit  as a genre. We’ve had nearly a quarter century of rapid burn of this stuff; both in cinemas and live action TV. The point is fast approaching where this genre will be creatively tapped out. It makes sense that the cracks would show with some of the more feeble IP’s. We’re talking years, not decades.

    The pandemic contributed to this, as it arrested whatever franchise momentum a lot of these IP’s had and some of the pandemic era stuff wasn’t great. 

    Also, I think there’s less interest in the milking of existing film franchises or resurrecting old ones. Speaking for myself, the really interesting stuff seems to be not that. 

  8. 3 hours ago, RumHam said:

    Personally I appreciate the warning. Has he done anything good since his first two movies? 

    I saw something he did recently and I shut it off half way through. It certainly didn’t feel very “Guy Ritchie”

    I also thought Man From Uncle was criminally disrespected. It’s not great but it’s pretty good. 

  9. 1 hour ago, SpaceChampion said:

    I don't think there is any indication Blue Beetle won't be part of the new DCU.  It is post-Flash anyway.  Isn't the Flash storyline suppose to justify rebooting the DCU?  So BB could be part of it, but popular misconception could keep people away regardless of whether its any good.

    You’re assuming there’s logic and coherence to the release dates. Still, Blue Beetle probably only connects to the other DC films in the same way Shazam did. Easter eggs, oblique references, One meaningless cameo.

    blur beetle also comes near the end of a pretty crowded summer movie season. Maybe it’ll be good enough that word of mouth will carry it. Who knows?

  10. 47 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

    I worded that poorly to be fair … obviously there are entertaining stand alone movies. Top Gun sells itself as being an entertaining couple of hours, job done. But once you’ve started with a shared universe, those are the fans you’re attracting. Then a movie is both a movie, and another chapter in an ongoing saga. Shazam 2 has no momentum behind it because we know it isn’t going anywhere (even if Gunn said that, they can’t have planned for it in anyway). The same thing happened to the few X-Men movies that Fox spluttered out once we knew it was going to Disney; nobody cared anymore. 

    I think this goes beyond marketing and franchise dynamics. Maybe the stand-alone live action superhero film isn’t the solid bet it once was? How many times has that been done? Maybe don’t make it so goofy? Maybe make it good? 

    I also think maybe the first film was maybe overpraised or not received as well as the online aggregators would have us think. 

  11. On 5/31/2023 at 12:41 AM, Heartofice said:

    Watching Dan Murrells video about some of the shows being taken down off Disney and Hulu, my first reaction is ‘who the fuck did they think was going to watch these shows??’

    Yeah, I know. I literally haven’t heard of most of these.

    Even more shocking is that Lightyear has been pulled from D+. I don’t think it could have failed more comprehensively than that.

  12. 1 hour ago, DaveSumm said:

    People like to preach that movies are entertaining in their own right and shared universes shouldn’t matter, but the ticket buying public keep insisting otherwise.

    Avatar 2 and Top Gun Maverick would like to have word. Minions isn’t really part of a shared universe. Same for Miles Morales’ spider-man beyond a handful of trivial cameos. Mario is a non-sequel, non- shared-universe film that was largely shat on by critics, and it might be the highest grossing film of the year. 

    I could go on, but I still contend it makes little sense.

    Quote

    They announced the universe it belonged to was dead before it came out; that killed it. Combine that with Shazam 1 making no real impact (releasing alongside Endgame) and the aforementioned universe being a complete shit show … I’m not at all surprised.

    You mean “best film since TDK” didn’t cement its place in the pop culture firmament?

    Spider-Verse 1 was released the same year as Shazam! and did similar Business in cinemas. And Gunn is on record saying Shazam! Could survive the transition depending on the success of the sequel. 

  13. On 5/30/2023 at 11:56 AM, Myrddin said:

    I hear you Deadlines. There is (was?) something/someone messing up the movies at a studio level that can't be ignored. WW84, BA, BG, S2 show a pattern of poorly developed films.

    I'm also in complete agreement about Shazam 2. I really enjoyed the first one (only watched it once) as light fun movie. We started watching the second one last week and stopped it about halfway to go out or something. We didn't stop it because we were bored, but later I asked if anyone wanted to finish, and no one cared enough to see how it ended.

    It’s weird because the first film was so well received by audiences and critics. Word of mouth didn’t do this film any favors but why did it open so soft? It sometimes happens that a sequel isn’t as well received and doesn’t do as well commercially as the original; but -60%?!? That’s crazy. Zero buzz.

    People have suggested that Shazam 2 came out too late. There might be something to that, but it’s worth noting that the highest grossing live-action and animated films of last year were sequels to films that were much older than Shazam!. Into the Spider-Verse came out the same year as Shazam! and it’s sequel looks likely to do double the box office.

×
×
  • Create New...