-
NEWS: Update on the catastrophic server crash: https://www.sffchronicles.com/threads/587701/
After SuperHeroes , What Do You Think Will be the Next Big Thing in The Movies?
- Thread starter BAYLOR
- Start date
Harpo
Getting away with it
It’s been done, twice
But that was a few years ago - is it time for the third part of a trilogy?
Vladd67
Stake Holder
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,163
So many names there lost to time.
Id like to have known them. It makes me wish Iid found this place alot sooner then I did.
ive nabbed rewatch the 1982 film Conan The Barbarian I had come from college, fished up my final exams for the year. I went home and and cut the Lawn , after I got though, I went to go see it. At that time in my life I don't own a car so, my mother gave me lift to theaters , she even me money for the film. It's one my of happy memories of those years as was watching that film in the theater . It's one my favorite films of all, Its a terrific film a grand sword and sorcery adventure and, it had the kind of magic and balance missing from many of today films. Yeah CGI and everything else , we can do better special effects but along the, way films lost something important .
Vladd67
Stake Holder
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,163
A kind of innocent magic?ive nabbed rewatch the 1982 film Conan The Barbarian I had come from college, fished up my final exams for the year. I went home and and cut the Lawn , after I got though, I went to go see it. At that time in my life I don't own a car so, my mother gave me lift to theaters , she even me money for the film. It's one my of happy memories of those years as was watching that film in the theater . It's one my favorite films of all, Its a terrific film a grand sword and sorcery adventure and, it had the kind of magic and balance missing from many of today films. Yeah CGI and everything else , we can do better special effects but along the, way films lost something important .
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,014
For me, it's two things: firstly, the use of practical effects instead of CGI, which seriously limited what could be shown. Part of the reason that the Alien in Alien is so frightening is that it's almost impossible to work out what it looks like until the very end, because has to kept in the shadows for maximum effect. It's ultimately just a man in a suit. Likewise, when the Thing appears, it's stop-motion and model work, and it's appearances are very carefully worked-out for maximum effect.
Secondly, when I grew up there were four TV channels and very basic video recorders. Because a film might only be shown once or twice per year, they achieved a sort of magic just through memory. Something like the powerloaders in Aliens would have lingered in my mind as incredible, because you'd never see anything like that on the screen any other way. Flawed films like Scanners and Marathon Man had a legendary reputation among my friends because of "that one bit". I think it's very hard to build up that sense these days, unless you see something very obscure and then forget what it was called.
Secondly, when I grew up there were four TV channels and very basic video recorders. Because a film might only be shown once or twice per year, they achieved a sort of magic just through memory. Something like the powerloaders in Aliens would have lingered in my mind as incredible, because you'd never see anything like that on the screen any other way. Flawed films like Scanners and Marathon Man had a legendary reputation among my friends because of "that one bit". I think it's very hard to build up that sense these days, unless you see something very obscure and then forget what it was called.
That's something that I can agree with. When I was young, one of my favourite parts of Xmas was watching The Great Escape. It seemed to be the only time it was on TV. The same with Biblical epics, which tended to be shown over Easter.
Also, I think we are going through a phase with CGI and it will eventually settle down (mostly) and be used with more subtlety.
The best analogy I can think of is the advent of home cinema and Dolby 5.1. Almost everybody I knew back then (including myself) would crank up the rears. They were there and we wanted to hear them. Subtlety and balance were alien to us. Now, of course, my system is balanced and it's audio impact is actually greater for it. Last year, I noticed something wrong and it turned out to be a faulty connection on a rear speaker. That's an example of the subtlety I mean- you don't notice it when it's there, only when it's gone. I believe as technology and directorial technique progresses in this area, and the tendency to push the envelope settles down, we will get a better use of CGI that possesses a subtly that allows it to fit better with reality.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,014
I think we've seen a bit of a push-back already, in the case of some superhero films. I recently saw Justice League, whose action scenes were like watching food in a blender. I've seen some of the recent Marvel films criticised for similar reasons. Ultimately, even if you're essentially making a computerised cartoon like Avatar, there's got to be some kind of core solidity to it, some level of realism or interior logic. I think that's one of the strong points of the Lord of the Rings trilogy: the wildness of the CGI is balanced out by a feeling of solidity in the other elements.
paeng
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2019
- Messages
- 559
I read that they focused more on practical effects for Fury Road, but that led to higher costs because of delays (it was raining in Australia, so they had to move to Namibia). And then when they realized that the effects were not spectacular enough, had to add CGI, anyway. The estimated loss for the film is around $20-40 million, and likely because of the delays.
They gave up on focusing more on practical effects for Furiosa, and thus were able to shoot in Australia, but the CGI wasn't that good, and they had additional issues, like cramming in too much conent in order to make the movie look "big". Some say the movie lost even more: around $50-90 million.
They're trying to bring back practical effects in the upcoming Alien: Romulus, but given the trailer, it looks like Evil Dead/Army of the Dead in space.
These imply that writing's still the most important part of movie-making, and after that directing. And that remains no matter what "next big thing" is imagined.
They gave up on focusing more on practical effects for Furiosa, and thus were able to shoot in Australia, but the CGI wasn't that good, and they had additional issues, like cramming in too much conent in order to make the movie look "big". Some say the movie lost even more: around $50-90 million.
They're trying to bring back practical effects in the upcoming Alien: Romulus, but given the trailer, it looks like Evil Dead/Army of the Dead in space.
These imply that writing's still the most important part of movie-making, and after that directing. And that remains no matter what "next big thing" is imagined.
I think my biggest problem with the superhero genre - particularly where there are multiple heroes involved- is that plotwise, they all begin to look the same...eg...Justice League battles alien invasion, Avengers battles alien invasion, the multiple Avengers spinoff movies leads to Infinity War (battling alien invaders on another planet as well as Earth), Endgame (where Thanos and his minions stage what is basically another alien invasion).
The writers are constantly repainting themselves into variations of the alien invasion corner because there are not really any other options to combat such a powerful array of superheroes.
The writers are constantly repainting themselves into variations of the alien invasion corner because there are not really any other options to combat such a powerful array of superheroes.
Badgersaurus
Member
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2024
- Messages
- 10
The only movies I've seen in theatres this year have been Godzilla X Kong (because I am a sucker for kaiju), Art and Life: The Story of Jim Phillips (art documentary I saw at a film festival), and The Bikeriders (drama about a 1970s motorcycle club.) I'd kind of like to see Fly Me To The Moon (alternate-history rom-com) but if I miss it while it's in theatres and watch it at home (or not at all) it's really no big deal to me. Trakt says I've seen a total of 27 movies this year. I don't claim to be representative of the general theatregoing public but the fact that I've been out to corporate cinemas only twice in these 7 months but have been watching movies fairly consistently says something about how compelling I find most of what's on offer, and I'm probably not alone. Granted, one of those is a big dumb action movie. But I feel like I've got my fill of those 'til next year.
I think it's also true that most people probably don't love to watch the big dumb action movies at home on their TVs or laptops or such. I adored Godzilla Minus One when I saw it in theatres late last year, and would love to watch it again since it's on Netflix now, but having seen it on the big screen with a cinema soundsystem I think it'd be underwhelming to see it again on the TV. So perhaps that's part of why the CGI-heavy blockbusters seem to dominate theatres and everything else vaguely interesting goes to streaming.
To lend credence to the 'new action/genre movies are just not worth seeing' theory, though, a lot of what I've watched at home has been dumb action/genre movies of decades gone by: The Craft, 'Ebirah, Horror of the Deep,' Charlie's Angels (the 2000 one), Death Race 2000, Q, Vampire's Kiss, The Devil's Advocate, The Mist... Some of these movies are good, some really quite bad, but I remember them all very clearly. Several of them use CGI to a considerable degree but never in a way that felt overwhelming or hard to parse for me. And all of them have unique premises at least, and many of them memorable characters or more specific moments. So they stick in my mind where the latest generic superhero film really does not, because I've seen men in spandex suits against greenscreens before, but 'cartoonishly violent post-apocalyptic Wacky Races' and 'teenage girls get magic powers and use them to speed past red lights and bully each other' and 'giant lobster fights Godzilla, set to a surf-rock soundtrack' are fun and new to me regardless of movie quality. (I did like both Ebirah and Death Race quite a bit! And The Craft was OK I guess.)
I think it's also true that most people probably don't love to watch the big dumb action movies at home on their TVs or laptops or such. I adored Godzilla Minus One when I saw it in theatres late last year, and would love to watch it again since it's on Netflix now, but having seen it on the big screen with a cinema soundsystem I think it'd be underwhelming to see it again on the TV. So perhaps that's part of why the CGI-heavy blockbusters seem to dominate theatres and everything else vaguely interesting goes to streaming.
To lend credence to the 'new action/genre movies are just not worth seeing' theory, though, a lot of what I've watched at home has been dumb action/genre movies of decades gone by: The Craft, 'Ebirah, Horror of the Deep,' Charlie's Angels (the 2000 one), Death Race 2000, Q, Vampire's Kiss, The Devil's Advocate, The Mist... Some of these movies are good, some really quite bad, but I remember them all very clearly. Several of them use CGI to a considerable degree but never in a way that felt overwhelming or hard to parse for me. And all of them have unique premises at least, and many of them memorable characters or more specific moments. So they stick in my mind where the latest generic superhero film really does not, because I've seen men in spandex suits against greenscreens before, but 'cartoonishly violent post-apocalyptic Wacky Races' and 'teenage girls get magic powers and use them to speed past red lights and bully each other' and 'giant lobster fights Godzilla, set to a surf-rock soundtrack' are fun and new to me regardless of movie quality. (I did like both Ebirah and Death Race quite a bit! And The Craft was OK I guess.)
And since my mom's passing it's become a more precious memory to me.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,014
I think a lot of superhero stories just tell the same origin story over and over again, with differences in tone: the "dark" origin story, the "mystical" origin story, the "normal guy" origin story and so on. To judge by films alone, a lot of superheroes don't do anything except become superheroes. Sometimes, the origin story is more entertaining than others, but it gets very samey.
I wonder if this could be a new trend
partly inspired by Deadpool although this sounds like a "what if MST3k fan filmmakers have a blair Witch encounter..."
"Jack Black and Paul Rudd are in early talks to star in Columbia Pictures’ re-imagining of “Anaconda” from writer-director Tom Gormican.
Gormican, who helmed the Nicolas Cage-starring meta movie “The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent” and penned “Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F,” co-wrote and will direct the new “Anaconda” movie, which is said to put a more comedic spin on the serpentine story. Kevin Etten is the co-writer.
Details about the project are hazy, but the film is not a remake of 1997’s “Anaconda,” which saw Jennifer Lopez, Owen Wilson and Ice Cube as a National Geographic film crew taken hostage by an unhinged hunter (Jon Voight) on his quest to capture the world’s largest and deadliest snake. The thriller was a surprise hit, earning $136 million at the global box office and spawning four sequels.
Gormican’s film takes its own meta turn: reportedly focused on a group of friends who are facing mid-life crises and set off to remake their favorite movie from their youth. But when they head into the jungle, things get real quickly. It’s not confirmed who Black and Rudd will play, but two of the lead characters are described as a director moonlighting as a wedding videographer and an actor whose career peak was a stint on a cop show.
Brad Fuller and Andrew Form’s Fully Formed is producing the project, which has been in development for some time. Earlier this week, Variety exclusively reported that Form (who produced all three films in the “A Quiet Place” franchise) inked a first-look deal with Sony division Screen Gems. Black and Rudd are also closely aligned with Sony thanks to the hit “Jumanji” and “Ghostbusters” franchises, respectively.
Black is repped by Sloane Offer. Rudd is repped by UTA and Lighthouse Management. Gormican is repped by CAA and 3 Arts Entertainment.
The studio had no comment on the casting news, first reported by Deadline and The Hollywood Reporter."
partly inspired by Deadpool although this sounds like a "what if MST3k fan filmmakers have a blair Witch encounter..."
"Jack Black and Paul Rudd are in early talks to star in Columbia Pictures’ re-imagining of “Anaconda” from writer-director Tom Gormican.
Gormican, who helmed the Nicolas Cage-starring meta movie “The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent” and penned “Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F,” co-wrote and will direct the new “Anaconda” movie, which is said to put a more comedic spin on the serpentine story. Kevin Etten is the co-writer.
Details about the project are hazy, but the film is not a remake of 1997’s “Anaconda,” which saw Jennifer Lopez, Owen Wilson and Ice Cube as a National Geographic film crew taken hostage by an unhinged hunter (Jon Voight) on his quest to capture the world’s largest and deadliest snake. The thriller was a surprise hit, earning $136 million at the global box office and spawning four sequels.
Gormican’s film takes its own meta turn: reportedly focused on a group of friends who are facing mid-life crises and set off to remake their favorite movie from their youth. But when they head into the jungle, things get real quickly. It’s not confirmed who Black and Rudd will play, but two of the lead characters are described as a director moonlighting as a wedding videographer and an actor whose career peak was a stint on a cop show.
Brad Fuller and Andrew Form’s Fully Formed is producing the project, which has been in development for some time. Earlier this week, Variety exclusively reported that Form (who produced all three films in the “A Quiet Place” franchise) inked a first-look deal with Sony division Screen Gems. Black and Rudd are also closely aligned with Sony thanks to the hit “Jumanji” and “Ghostbusters” franchises, respectively.
Black is repped by Sloane Offer. Rudd is repped by UTA and Lighthouse Management. Gormican is repped by CAA and 3 Arts Entertainment.
The studio had no comment on the casting news, first reported by Deadline and The Hollywood Reporter."
paeng
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2019
- Messages
- 559
Would probably watch it on streaming, together with the rest. But in theaters, at $20 for one viewing, I'd expect more.
Maybe that's something to think about: big thing means big prices to get big returns, but in return for that viewers will have big expectations.
Maybe that's something to think about: big thing means big prices to get big returns, but in return for that viewers will have big expectations.
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2018
- Messages
- 1,477
This could be odd but the next big thing in movie theaters could be old classic movies. I would think old movies would be 50 or more years old but as the article states, old can be as young as 15 years. Older movies have no production costs and are immediately available. The range of movies covers the entire spectrum.
Movie theaters need more movies so they can either show foreign films with subtitles or show old movies of which there is an endless number to chose from. The automatic rejection of viewing a movie because it is old is becoming a less common reaction. There are really good old movies and as the article points outs, the theaters are well designed to show any kind of movie in spectacular audio and visual displays. The play is that it is more exciting to watch an exciting movie surrounded by a bunch of equally excited people instead of watching it on a tv screen isolated in your own home.
Restaurants have recently started advertising that people can pay high prices in a fast food joint experiencing tiny tables or sitting in their car or they can pay the same price and sit at a real table in a comfortable environment.
Before the big blow out in the movie theater business there were movie theaters that showed old movies, art films, and foreign films. A lot of those theaters have been torn down or converted into new businesses. All of that material can be a source of cheap costing movies in modern movie theaters. The ticket prices could be the same as it is for new movies.
Movies that have been shown or will be shown include,
The Babadook, Coraline, Star Wars: Episode One – The Phantom Menace, Shaun of the Dead, Paris, Texas, Whiplash, Hoop Dreams, Interstellar, Seven Samurai, The Conversation, Lord of the Rings trilogy, Rear Window, Blazing Saddles, Mean Girls and The Fifth Element, Titanic, The Equalizer, Inside Man in 35mm, Sorcerer, Lawrence of Arabia, Inception, Schlock and Awe series of William Castle films, like The Tingler. Plus many other movies.
These movies were being shown during off hours or off days but have been making their way to mainstream times and days. Most of the movies aren't that old but there are a few from 50 years ago. There will be more of the older movies showing up as people begin to accept black and white movies instead of automatically not watching because they aren't in glorious living color. Going back almost a hundred years, there are plenty of well made movies, technically, artistically, subject matter, dialog and music. In 2020 the original 1933 King Kong movie was shown in 600 US theaters.
Movie theaters need more movies so they can either show foreign films with subtitles or show old movies of which there is an endless number to chose from. The automatic rejection of viewing a movie because it is old is becoming a less common reaction. There are really good old movies and as the article points outs, the theaters are well designed to show any kind of movie in spectacular audio and visual displays. The play is that it is more exciting to watch an exciting movie surrounded by a bunch of equally excited people instead of watching it on a tv screen isolated in your own home.
Restaurants have recently started advertising that people can pay high prices in a fast food joint experiencing tiny tables or sitting in their car or they can pay the same price and sit at a real table in a comfortable environment.
Before the big blow out in the movie theater business there were movie theaters that showed old movies, art films, and foreign films. A lot of those theaters have been torn down or converted into new businesses. All of that material can be a source of cheap costing movies in modern movie theaters. The ticket prices could be the same as it is for new movies.
Movies that have been shown or will be shown include,
The Babadook, Coraline, Star Wars: Episode One – The Phantom Menace, Shaun of the Dead, Paris, Texas, Whiplash, Hoop Dreams, Interstellar, Seven Samurai, The Conversation, Lord of the Rings trilogy, Rear Window, Blazing Saddles, Mean Girls and The Fifth Element, Titanic, The Equalizer, Inside Man in 35mm, Sorcerer, Lawrence of Arabia, Inception, Schlock and Awe series of William Castle films, like The Tingler. Plus many other movies.
These movies were being shown during off hours or off days but have been making their way to mainstream times and days. Most of the movies aren't that old but there are a few from 50 years ago. There will be more of the older movies showing up as people begin to accept black and white movies instead of automatically not watching because they aren't in glorious living color. Going back almost a hundred years, there are plenty of well made movies, technically, artistically, subject matter, dialog and music. In 2020 the original 1933 King Kong movie was shown in 600 US theaters.
Similar threads
-
The surprising cinematic origins of superheroes (and villains)- Started by AlexH
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
