After SuperHeroes , What Do You Think Will be the Next Big Thing in The Movies?

[BAYLOR]

I hope this means the superhero film era is coming to an end and we can look forward to some originality from Hollywood soon.

Avengers Endgame was the high point .

 

[Harpo]

Avengers Endgame was the high point .

Infinity War was the high point.

 

[BAYLOR]

Infinity War was the high point.

There's nowhere to go but down. The King Dynasty storyline that we see in Ant Man had possibilities but, they screwed it up badly.

 

[Harpo]

There's nowhere to go but down. The King Dynasty storyline that we see in Ant Man had possibilities but, they screwed it up badly.

It’s still coming. Secret Wars will be up there as a second peak, but not yet.
Until then, as I keep pointing out to those who say the MCU is dead, we are only halfway through the current saga.
To compare with phases 1-3, we are just past Thor The Dark World and Iron Man 3, neither of which seemed at the time to be part of anything bigger.

There are still six more films (spread across three years) to come before Secret Wars.

 

[Harpo]

The way AI is improving, I seriously think within a decade or so there’ll be hugely successful AI films, such as imagining well-known modern greats remade as if directed by the classic directors (and featuring the greatest vintage-era stars ) of many decades ago.

But so far, all we have is this sort of nonsense

 

[Bick]

The way AI is improving, I seriously think within a decade or so there’ll be hugely successful AI films, such as imagining well-known modern greats remade as if directed by the classic directors

Good grief, I hope not. What a dreadful world we're inexorably moving toward.

 

[Harpo]

Good grief, I hope not. What a dreadful world we're inexorably moving toward.

Indeed, but imagine somebody in the 1940s or 1950s saying the same about the idea of (for a few examples) Mad Max, or Jaws, or The Empire Strikes back, etc etc

 

[Astro Pen]

Escape into time. ?
I don't mean dipping in to 'correct history' but characters choosing a permanent time leap to a new life. With it's own survival stories
As our world becomes more controlling and totalitarian, audiences will be looking for 'escape' to places of personal freedom, opportunity and open space. Stories of hope.
A place where they can be pioneers and raise families, or function in richness and complexity of, say ancient Japan .
The great thing with time switch movies is that the canvas is almost infinite, from the wild west to early Africa, Kasbahs, Tibet or Ceylon.
Staying somewhere forever in a new life is a very different animal from the "change history" and come back formula.

(I doubt this will happen with contemporary Hollywood but it I'm giving myself some story ideas as I post. )

 

[paeng]

I think the superhero genre was used because of an international audience involving different cultures and languages. In which case, what will come out should be similar to it, i.e., using fantasy and sci-fi as subgenres but also focusing on comedy, romance, adventure, etc. One example's Barbie. Another's the recent feature about the Mario brothers. Other examples might include espionage comedy, or crime comedy, or crime-comedy-romance, and so on. Combinations of newly minted A-listers, vfx (more visual sets), and licensed deepfake tech (for older actors and estates that want to earn from selling likenesses) might be used.

In short, just like before.

 

[BAYLOR]

A Max Headroom future for the movies? ?

 

[KGeo777]

Martin Scorsese's new movie. He is doing a Frank Sinatra film starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Lawrence as Ava Gardner.

You have Scorsese's "brand"--and DiCaprio, Lawrence, and then Sinatra's legacy brand.
It's not like any single one of them is strong enough to carry a movie or get so much attention now. It's a kind of media merger--brand mashup.
They can't manage casting an unknown as Sinatra or Gardner. They need the big names (although there are lots of recent biopics on obscure political figures). I guess Scorsese needs the names otherwise he won't get funding.



Vincent Price: "Ava Gardner. Oh dear. Every time I think about her I go limp..well no not exactly that."

 

[Judderman]

It's a big budget when you have both Di Caprio and Lawrence in the same movie.
I'm sure Leo can sing, but would have thought an excellent singer who can act decently would be a better choice. Even if the drama is more of a focus than the songs.

 

[BAYLOR]

Martin Scorsese's new movie. He is doing a Frank Sinatra film starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Lawrence as Ava Gardner.

You have Scorsese's "brand"--and DiCaprio, Lawrence, and then Sinatra's legacy brand.
It's not like any single one of them is strong enough to carry a movie or get so much attention now. It's a kind of media merger--brand mashup.
They can't manage casting an unknown as Sinatra or Gardner. They need the big names (although there are lots of recent biopics on obscure political figures). I guess Scorsese needs the names otherwise he won't get funding.



Vincent Price: "Ava Gardner. Oh dear. Every time I think about her I go limp..well no not exactly that."

Dicaprio is very good actor but , I just can' t see him as Sinatra . Jennifer Lawrence as Eva Gardner? That doesn't quite work either.

 

[Harpo]

Generally, an entire genre of biopics about the celebrities of last century would be splendid.

 

[KGeo777]

Dicaprio is very good actor but , I just can' t see him as Sinatra . Jennifer Lawrence as Eva Gardner? That doesn't quite work either.

He's shoehorned into things he is totally inappropriate for.

This is what I said before--Jonathan Frid would never have been cast as Dillinger or Tonto.
Warren Oates would never have been cast as Tonto or Barnabas Collins.
Jay Silverheels would never have been cast as Barnabas Collins or Dillinger.
And yet Johnny Depp was the right choice to play all three?

It's the merger mashup syndrome.
Instead of finding the right person for a part--they shoehorn in someone only because he has the name brand recognition--merit has nothing to do with it.
It's part of the brain-wasting state of Hollywood. It's cannibalizing itself as it shrinks.
If they made a Sinatra biopic 25 years ago they would have had more choices for the part. More variety--more names to consider.

There's no one left but DiCaprio.

The fact that Scorsese chose to use CGI to de-age actors instead of wanting to use young ones for his last movie--same thing--it's like they can't trust to recruit new talent and give them a chance.

I wonder if they will use some kind of CGI trickery to make them look more like the people just to have a sales gimmick to go with it.

It's such an ego-stroking project. They should have done a Sinatra film 20 years ago if they were going to take advantage of his name value.

 

[paeng]

Marvel Comics is coming up with a series featuring aliens (from the Alien movie franchise) vs. the Avengers.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

And yet Johnny Depp was the right choice to play all three?

I don't go for too much of what hollywood throws out there but I did find The Lone Ranger to be completely appropriate.

 

[BAYLOR]

Marvel Comics is coming up with a series featuring aliens (from the Alien movie franchise) vs. the Avengers.

Why not ? The Aliens have done battle with just about everyone else in the comic universe.

 

[KGeo777]

Jerry Seinfeld is finally a movie director with the upcoming premiere of his feature debut “Unfrosted.” Backed by Netflix, the star-studded comedy is a fictional account of the creation of Pop-Tarts toaster pastries. In a new interview with GQ magazine, Seinfeld reflected on his experience jumping into moviemaking for the first time so late in his career.

“It was totally new to me. I thought I had done some cool stuff, but it was nothing like the way these people work,” Seinfeld said. “They’re so dead serious! They don’t have any idea that the movie business is over. They have no idea.”

Asked to elaborate on a more serious note, Seinfeld continued: “Film doesn’t occupy the pinnacle in the social, cultural hierarchy that it did for most of our lives. When a movie came out, if it was good, we all went to see it. We all discussed it. We quoted lines and scenes we liked. Now we’re walking through a fire hose of water, just trying to see.”

So what, if anything, has replaced film? “Depression? Malaise? I would say confusion. Disorientation replaced the movie business,” he answered. “Everyone I know in show business, every day, is going, ‘What’s going on? How do you do this? What are we supposed to do now?'”

“I’ve done enough stuff that I have my own thing, which is more valuable than it’s ever been,” Seinfeld noted about his career outside the more-confused film industry. “Stand-up is like you’re a cabinetmaker, and everybody needs a guy who’s good with wood. … There’s trees everywhere, but to make a nice table, it’s not so easy. So, the metaphor is that if you have good craft and craftsmanship, you’re kind of impervious to the whims of the industry.”

“Audiences are now flocking to stand-up because it’s something you can’t fake,” he added. “It’s like platform diving. You could say you’re a platform diver, but in two seconds we can see if you are or you aren’t. That’s what people like about stand-up. They can trust it. Everything else is fake.”


**I think his point about live performance correlates with this general idea that film has become too artificial and divorced from the actor-writer basics with all the computer involvement and manipulation.

A live performance is the exact opposite of AI content.

 

[Harpo]

But surely audiences are used to visual artifice in films?
In the 90s everyone saw Jurassic Park, in the 70s everyone saw Star Wars, in the 50s everyone saw War Of The Worlds, in the 30s everyone saw The Wizard Of Oz, and those films were clearly fake.