After SuperHeroes , What Do You Think Will be the Next Big Thing in The Movies?
- Thread starter BAYLOR
- Start date
JunkMonkey
Lord High Vizier of Nowt
You mean like Barbenheimer?
Yea Barbenheimer A film in which a freak nuclear accident causes Barbie and Oppenheimer to switch places and begs the question of, can Barbie help America win the race flor the bomb and can Oppenheimer master the difficult physics of fashion sense and partying ?
Last edited:
Harpo
Getting away with it
It’s happeningYea Barbenheimer A film in which a freak nuclear accident causes Barbie and Oppenheimer to switch places and begs the question of, can Barbie help America win the race flor the bomb and can Oppenheimer master the difficult physics of fashion sense and partying ?
Barbenheimer Movie In Development, Tells Story Of Dolls Creating An A-Bomb (This Is Not A Joke)
Barbie is building a bomb.
screenrant.com
It’s happening
Barbenheimer Movie In Development, Tells Story Of Dolls Creating An A-Bomb (This Is Not A Joke)
Barbie is building a bomb.
Heaven help us all .
Movie infomercials with sweeping story arcs and reoccurring characters . I think they've done that on television . In fact, there is coffee coffee ran that series of commercials was back in the 1980's that did that .
I think they've done that on television . In fact, there is coffee coffee ran that series of commercials was back in the 1980's that did that . 
I remember that Gold Blend couple - Wikipedia Never got me to try the coffee though, cuase it's, like, instant.
I read that they are planning to have the casts of X-men and Spider-men together in the next Avengers movie. Instead of recasting them. I am guessing that either they do not plan to continue making another phase of films with the regular characters or they assume AI and CGI will allow them to keep "copies" of the original cast.
My spider-sense is telling me the superhero phase is over though.
But I don't think scientist bomb biopics and girl toy movie comedies are going to be a lucrative stream.
Hollywood backed itself into a corner because in addition to mergers and the desire to want to make media content (as they call it) aimed at the entire world, they threw out the baby with the bathwater because they first relied on stars for their box office draw--and they needed good writers to make the actors look good--and then in the 1960s they began a switch to technology. THE BIRDS was perhaps the first spfx-heavy major studio film that started the ball rolling because it needed a lot of innovative FX to make it work. And then other films (Fantastic Voyage, Planet of the Apes, etc) came along and the need for FX innovation kept growing.
I probably already pointed out that if not for Dick Smith, the Godfather and the Exorcist would have been impossible to make because advanced makeup was needed to make it believable for Marlon Brando to play the character and likewise for Max Von Sydow and the demon makeup. Just think how it would have been without the makeup. It would not have worked at all. Likewise for Planet of the Apes. If the masks were not articulate, it would have failed.
And these films were not aimed at specialty audiences--they were aimed at the masses unlike your regular horror or mafia film. The fX had to be good to get in audiences who didn't care for mafia or horror films. Your average horror film fan is not obsessed with FX quality.
Looking at the history of it--the star and the writing became less important--and by the 1990s-CGI came along to offer a new bag of tricks just as more media mergers were happening--and then in the 2000s the "brand" with spfx became the selling point to draw in the masses.
But after 2010, FX innovation had peaked, and brand interest had as well--and they don't have name stars to fall back on as a draw, especially since they are so focused on the globe.
The Avengers was allegedly a big deal because it combined a few film brand characters but, what can they do now? Barbie meets Gi Joe meets Lego?
Maybe they were hoping a de-aged Indiana Jones would spark a new gold rush but either the technology isn't good enough or it is just too mundane a trick to be of much interest to audiences--especially younger ones who don't care.
Would audiences really care if they did Dirty Harry and Rocky Balboa meet Godzilla?
I don't see how they can fix this because let's say they decided--we are going to groom new stars and have better writing--if they do that, they will lose the globe because films with a lot of dubbing or subtitle needs are alleged to be a poor international seller (though I assume Barbie and Oppenheimer are dialogue heavy).
The only way to generate some kind of interest would be to become more modest--and if they did that, they just won't have the global hoopla anymore.
Films like Fright Night or Robocop were not aimed at mass audiences--they were aimed specifically at horror and comedy fans, and action-comic book fans. I think both were R-rated as well.
Not mass audience films and yet both have a strong following. Both were sleeper films--that means they did not have big box office or media attention when they opened but stayed popular for weeks or months.
Modern Hollywood has the opposite view--they want a film to open big in 4000 theaters and the first weekend matters and nothing else.
It's bizarre. Like a betting game or something.
My spider-sense is telling me the superhero phase is over though.
But I don't think scientist bomb biopics and girl toy movie comedies are going to be a lucrative stream.
Hollywood backed itself into a corner because in addition to mergers and the desire to want to make media content (as they call it) aimed at the entire world, they threw out the baby with the bathwater because they first relied on stars for their box office draw--and they needed good writers to make the actors look good--and then in the 1960s they began a switch to technology. THE BIRDS was perhaps the first spfx-heavy major studio film that started the ball rolling because it needed a lot of innovative FX to make it work. And then other films (Fantastic Voyage, Planet of the Apes, etc) came along and the need for FX innovation kept growing.
I probably already pointed out that if not for Dick Smith, the Godfather and the Exorcist would have been impossible to make because advanced makeup was needed to make it believable for Marlon Brando to play the character and likewise for Max Von Sydow and the demon makeup. Just think how it would have been without the makeup. It would not have worked at all. Likewise for Planet of the Apes. If the masks were not articulate, it would have failed.
And these films were not aimed at specialty audiences--they were aimed at the masses unlike your regular horror or mafia film. The fX had to be good to get in audiences who didn't care for mafia or horror films. Your average horror film fan is not obsessed with FX quality.
Looking at the history of it--the star and the writing became less important--and by the 1990s-CGI came along to offer a new bag of tricks just as more media mergers were happening--and then in the 2000s the "brand" with spfx became the selling point to draw in the masses.
But after 2010, FX innovation had peaked, and brand interest had as well--and they don't have name stars to fall back on as a draw, especially since they are so focused on the globe.
The Avengers was allegedly a big deal because it combined a few film brand characters but, what can they do now? Barbie meets Gi Joe meets Lego?
Maybe they were hoping a de-aged Indiana Jones would spark a new gold rush but either the technology isn't good enough or it is just too mundane a trick to be of much interest to audiences--especially younger ones who don't care.
Would audiences really care if they did Dirty Harry and Rocky Balboa meet Godzilla?
I don't see how they can fix this because let's say they decided--we are going to groom new stars and have better writing--if they do that, they will lose the globe because films with a lot of dubbing or subtitle needs are alleged to be a poor international seller (though I assume Barbie and Oppenheimer are dialogue heavy).
The only way to generate some kind of interest would be to become more modest--and if they did that, they just won't have the global hoopla anymore.
Films like Fright Night or Robocop were not aimed at mass audiences--they were aimed specifically at horror and comedy fans, and action-comic book fans. I think both were R-rated as well.
Not mass audience films and yet both have a strong following. Both were sleeper films--that means they did not have big box office or media attention when they opened but stayed popular for weeks or months.
Modern Hollywood has the opposite view--they want a film to open big in 4000 theaters and the first weekend matters and nothing else.
It's bizarre. Like a betting game or something.
JunkMonkey
Lord High Vizier of Nowt
Yeah, it's called 'business'.
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public." -
― H. L. Mencken
“Nobody knows anything...... Not one person in the entire motion picture field knows for a certainty what's going to work. Every time out it's a guess and, if you're lucky, an educated one.”
― William Goldman
The rest is just details.
If that is so--why didn't they do it with Fright night or Robocop?
JunkMonkey
Lord High Vizier of Nowt
I don't understand. Why didn't they do what with Fright Night or Robocop?
You said it was "business" (presumably) to my comment that they want the biggest opening on the first weekend and not really caring that much afterwards. For some reason, it must get its biggest return on the opening weekend or it is deemed a failure. So I was wondering, if it is business, why did it not matter for films that were "sleepers?" The term refers to films that did not have a big opening but had good word of mouth and continued to draw in crowds weeks or months later. They often bypassed media attention and had modest marketing. Even Star Wars may have been a sleeper hit.
In that case it did not open in a zillion theaters at first--it opened in some and then due to demand they showed it in more.
If it is just business to want an all or nothing opening, then what is a sleeper? Is it a bad business philosophy to be satisfied with good word of mouth and accumulative box office rather than a big opening and a slow or fast burn out?
JunkMonkey
Lord High Vizier of Nowt
That's Neoliberalist Western Capitalism for you. Slash, burn, take the money, and run.
And how long ago was Robocop? it was released 36 years ago. The entertainment market has changed a lot in nearly four decades. Just as it had in the previous four.
Changing demographics, instant mobile phone pirating, streaming. The fact that I could torrent a copy of the Barbie Movie within a couple of days of its opening... That didn't happen back in the 1980s. sometimes it took months for pirated VHS tapes to appear on the market - and even then you eould have to know where to go Which end of the dodgy backstret market you would find the stall selling 'genuine knock offs'.
It's a different world.
No point wallowing in nostalgia.
It's not nostalgia it is history.
You don't think film history matters?
Really?
Do you feel that way about literature too?
JunkMonkey
Lord High Vizier of Nowt
Of course film history matters but you bemoan modern business models when compared to old ones. If there is one thing we learn from history is that society and technology changes. People are still the same greedy, self-interested short-termist, arseholes they always have been (for the most part) but the melieu in which they operate is never the same. Stuff that worked 40 years ago don't work no more.
I love film. I think the feature film is one of those pefect art forms. Even shitty ones are to be treasured. I am aware though that it is a dying art form. Its time is up. It's not going to vanish overnight; people will still make them, I mean, people are still writing and producing ballets and grand operas long past the time when there is any viable economic justification for them - but as an important driver and unifier of popular culture the movie's days are, sadly, numbered.
Hollywood is, to paraphrase the great Morty Feinman. "Just milking the cow till it is dry, then it will make hamburgers and wallets."
Like it has always done.
I can think of of lots of examples of this.
Similar threads
-
The surprising cinematic origins of superheroes (and villains)- Started by AlexH
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
