I guess I dont get it. Crypto has ebbs and flows. It always has in its history. Before BTC was real mainstream it went up to 20k in like 2017 and them promptly went down to around 3k. It will go to 50k eventually someday again. Zoom out on garf. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BWillie:
I guess I dont get it. Crypto has ebbs and flows. It always has in its history. Before BTC was real mainstream it went up to 20k in like 2017 and them promptly went down to around 3k. It will go to 50k eventually someday again. Zoom out on garf.
Thanks. I didn't know any of that. You're very smart. [Reply]
One of my all time favorite directors David Fincher (director of Se7en, Fight Club, Zodiac) offered some good interesting and surprisingly optimistic thoughts on the future of movies in an interview awhile back.
Originally Posted by : David Fincher Explains Why He’s Optimistic About the Future of Movies
“There’s this notion that the movies are dying. They’re not."
The film industry has been going through some significant changes over the past nine months or so, but in truth it’s been going through a transformation of sorts for a long, long time. As blockbusters and franchises started cracking $1 billion at the box office, studios started putting most of their eggs in those baskets, leaving less money on the table for mid-range dramas or comedies. The arrival of Netflix and other streaming services further disrupted the paradigm, and as studios began making less non-franchise fare, those kinds of films (and filmmakers) flocked to Netflix, Amazon, and Apple to make the kinds of human dramas that big studios used to tout — sans a major theatrical release.
David Fincher is one such filmmaker, as the Oscar-nominated director saw a big-budget sequel fall apart over budget and creative differences (World War Z 2) and immediately moved over to Netflix to make the kind of film a studio like Paramount or Warner Bros. would be nervous to touch these days: a black-and-white period piece about old Hollywood. That film is Mank, which uses every available technological advancement to recreate the experience of watching a film made in the 1930s or 40s, and it’s currently in the thick of the awards race.
As part of the promotion for the film, Fincher said in an interview recently that there are really two kinds of movies being made at major studios right now: “spandex summer” or “affliction winter” prestige films. And in a new interview with Rolling Stone, Fincher was asked if he feels like he’s a dying breed given that he doesn’t identify with either category.
Rather than blast superhero movies or Oscar bait, Fincher gave an unsurprisingly thoughtful and pleasantly hopeful answer, explaining why he’s actually pretty optimistic about the future of movies and moviemaking:
“There will always be people who are poking and prodding and digging and searching for new ways to do the same thing, and new ways to do things that we haven’t even yet imagined. Look, directing movies is a little like painting a watercolor from three blocks away through a telescope with a walkie-talkie and 90 people holding the brush. And as frustrating as that sounds, it’s also thrilling and invigorating when it comes off.”
Fincher went on to note that in the scheme of things, we’ve really only scratched the surface of what cinema can do: “Look, I believe that the tragedy of cinema today is that we’re only 100 years in and we think we know exactly what it is. We really don’t. What we’ve done is merely refined is an experience to a story, which is The Hero with a Thousand Faces over and over again. We beat this drum and we beat it fairly regularly, because it’s a scam that pays out. But if I was to believe that we have reached the limits of what cinema can do, make us feel, talk about, I would be inordinately depressed. I’m not. I’m emboldened and I feel that . . . I don’t need any more published screeds of me talking about how unfair it is that Marvel wants to make a profit. I don’t have an issue with that. I’ve never had an issue with that.”
The director concluded by acknowledging that things won’t stay the same because they’ve never stayed the same, and that’s what makes film and filmmaking so exciting: “There’s this notion that the movies are dying. They’re not. There’s still minerals to mine, there are still jewels to be found, and there are still different ways to be shocked, entertained, uplifted, terrified. They’re just changing. You change with them. I think anyone who, like me, is curious about how to impart their story, there’s going to be plenty more opportunities, at least in the short term. And depending on how long this pandemic goes on, there may be need for a lot more.”
It should be noted that Fincher has another Netflix movie coming out sometime at the end of the year (or probably early 2023) called The Killer starring Michael Fassbender.
plot: A man solitary and cold, methodical and unencumbered by scruples or regrets, the killer waits in the shadows, watching for his next target. And yet the longer he waits, the more he thinks he's losing his mind, if not his cool. A brutal, bloody and stylish noir story of a professional assassin lost in a world without a moral compass, this is a case study of a man alone, armed to the teeth and slowly losing his mind..
Its based on a French graphic novel and apparently its been a passion project that Fincher has been wanting to make for nearly 20 years. The screenplay has been written by Andrew Kevin Walker (who wrote Se7en). The budget is listed at $175 million.:-)
Originally Posted by Third Eye:
If the first movie was as terrible as the show, they wouldn’t have made two more.
Regardless of anyone's opinion of The Terminal List, it generated viewership. And that, not how Third Eye (or anyone else) thinks of the quality of the product, is what drives movie creation. Great movies that don't click with a large enough audience usually don't get a follow up, while shit movies that make box office get the sequels. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Just Passin' By:
Regardless of anyone's opinion of The Terminal List, it generated viewership. And that, not how Third Eye (or anyone else) thinks of the quality of the product, is what drives movie creation. Great movies that don't click with a large enough audience usually don't get a follow up, while shit movies that make box office get the sequels.
Speaking of this, surely we are due for another Transformers movie. [Reply]
Originally Posted by scho63:
Maybe it's more to do with Hollywood getting lazy and making shit movies.
"Hollywood" is not an entity. It is thousands and thousands of people all over the world. It can't collectively get lazy, plus shit movies take just as much effort to make as good ones. I think a more precise version of the result your theory seeks to understand might be that studios have all merged just like every other corporate endeavor. Like 5 studios are left, owned by fewer and fewer corporate titans. And the few studios have to meet projections annually that require tentpoles to assure profits, leaving fewer slots on limited slates for new properties.
But, this is all a transitional period. The business model is wide open for change. Every streaming service is flexing different models, and snapping up most of the smaller production company offerings at better rates than studios can offer for a theatrical release, (plus offering the important limited theater run in LA and NY to qualify for awards.) Yet even that seems to be changing alot too. I don't think you are going to be able to fully predict the feature and series future for at least a couple more years.
And sadly, a bunch of good stuff will get abandoned before the projects can mature to their potential, and some crap that seems financially viable (could just mean one rich investor that controls alot of money liked the idea) will get fully produced.
But people need to tell stories, and this will resolve eventually. It's inherent. [Reply]
Dumb movies get made because dumb people pay to see them. For instance, if people stopped paying to see one fucking superhero movie after another, studios would stop making them. [Reply]
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
Dumb movies get made because dumb people pay to see them. For instance, if people stopped paying to see one ****ing superhero movie after another, studios would stop making them.
This is my dream. I hate almost all superhero movies. [Reply]
Originally Posted by underEJ:
"Hollywood" is not an entity. It is thousands and thousands of people all over the world. It can't collectively get lazy, plus shit movies take just as much effort to make as good ones. I think a more precise version of the result your theory seeks to understand might be that studios have all merged just like every other corporate endeavor. Like 5 studios are left, owned by fewer and fewer corporate titans. And the few studios have to meet projections annually that require tentpoles to assure profits, leaving fewer slots on limited slates for new properties.
But, this is all a transitional period. The business model is wide open for change. Every streaming service is flexing different models, and snapping up most of the smaller production company offerings at better rates than studios can offer for a theatrical release, (plus offering the important limited theater run in LA and NY to qualify for awards.) Yet even that seems to be changing alot too. I don't think you are going to be able to fully predict the feature and series future for at least a couple more years.
And sadly, a bunch of good stuff will get abandoned before the projects can mature to their potential, and some crap that seems financially viable (could just mean one rich investor that controls alot of money liked the idea) will get fully produced.
But people need to tell stories, and this will resolve eventually. It's inherent.
How many studios and entities control 95% of all the films made today?:-)
