|
Who'd have been the obvious straightforward blockbuster directors in 1996? Tony Scott's Mission Impossible might have been fun to see.
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 20:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 21:20 |
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Huh. Hired on the strength of... Smokin' Aces? The executive producer on Narc, Paula Wagner was also the EP on Mission Impossible 3. So that is probably how that came about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Who'd have been the obvious straightforward blockbuster directors in 1996? Tony Scott's Mission Impossible might have been fun to see. Depends on how big a name you believe they were capable of landing for Mission Impossible with Cruise attached. I mean, obviously in 1996 you had guys like Spielberg and Cameron kicking around at the top of their game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Who'd have been the obvious straightforward blockbuster directors in 1996? Tony Scott's Mission Impossible might have been fun to see. Imagine if you will: John McTiernan's Mission Impossible. or hell, Michael Mann's Mission Impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 20:30
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Who'd have been the obvious straightforward blockbuster directors in 1996? Tony Scott's Mission Impossible might have been fun to see. I mean on paper it’s a perfect Renny Harlin movie. But that would have meant we wouldn’t have gotten The Long Kiss Goodnight, and gently caress living in that nightmare of an alternate universe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 20:30
|
|
|
Edit: Sorry, weird delayed double-post.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 20:35
|
|
|
Joel Schumacher's Mission Impossible would have been interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 20:36
|
|
|
Fart City posted:I mean on paper it’s a perfect Renny Harlin movie. But that would have meant we wouldn’t have gotten The Long Kiss Goodnight, d fuan I was gonna say Harlin, but I suppose he was probably still shooting the legendarily-disastrous-but-actually-very-entertaining Cutthroat Island while they were making MI. Jan de Bont would make a lot of sense. Maybe Phillip Noyce. McTiernan definitely. Would Kevin Reynolds be wasted without a lot of international, adventure film location shooting? Halloween Jack fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Jul 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
Dark horse suggestion: Andrew Davis. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 20:42
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Cruise was arguably calling the shots right from the beginning. Pretty sure he had a direct hand in seeking out and hiring De Palma when a lot of people were arguing that a more straightforward blockbuster director was needed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I've read that the 90s was the peak of stars having this kind of power over a production. Assuming that's true, what changed?  (Specific to Cruise himself, of course.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 20:48
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I've read that the 90s was the peak of stars having this kind of power over a production. Assuming that's true, what changed? Well, how many true-blue super megastars have risen since then? Jennifer Lawrence? The Rock, maybe? I mean even with something like Harry Potter, which was mega successful, I don’t think people were seeing it for Daniel Radcliffe. The industry has been moving towards a more brand-centric identity, rather than letting individuals carry a studio. Look what happened with Edward Norton on The Incredible Hulk: he tried to throw his weight around and Marvel didn’t think twice about replacing him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
Fart City posted:The Rock, maybe? Specifically this. The Rock has been carrying Brad Peyton around since Journey 2: The Mysterious Island, working with him on San Andreas, Rampage, and the upcoming San Andreas 2.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 20:55
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I've read that the 90s was the peak of stars having this kind of power over a production. Assuming that's true, what changed? These things rarely come down to just one cause, but you could make a strong argument that if one movie star ruined it for all the others, it was Kevin Costner. He had more clout than maybe any other actor has ever had in Hollywood after Dances With Wolves, Robin Hood(easy to forget that Robin Hood did huge business at the box office), and The Bodyguard in the early 90's. It led to the studio basically giving him blank checks for Waterworld and The Postman and I think the entire industry recoiled from those kind of deals where the actors are given so much power over every aspect of the project. Very few people even thought The Postman was a good idea, but they basically just shrugged and handed Costner a hundred million dollars just because he was Costner.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:the upcoming San Andreas 2. Eugh
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
Earlier in the year I saw a bit of discussion around Red Sparrow and whether it would signify whether "star power" really matters any more, i.e. whether Jennifer Lawrence's face on the poster is enough to sell the movie. I think the answer turned out to be, "No." Though for what it's worth, it seems to matter more outside America; when The Mummy came out and flopped last year, there was a bit of commentary about how it still did fairly well in other markets because Tom Cruise's name still carries a lot of currency in a way it doesn't necessarily do in America any more. If you look at the local film industries in India or China, I think star power still matters, but I'm not sure whether you get those blank cheque scenarios where the star effectively controls the production (I've seen articles suggesting that Aamir Khan can do this in India, but I'm honestly not familiar with Hindi cinema at all).
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 21:08
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:These things rarely come down to just one cause, but you could make a strong argument that if one movie star ruined it for all the others, it was Kevin Costner. He had more clout than maybe any other actor has ever had in Hollywood after Dances With Wolves, Robin Hood(easy to forget that Robin Hood did huge business at the box office), and The Bodyguard in the early 90's. It led to the studio basically giving him blank checks for Waterworld and The Postman and I think the entire industry recoiled from those kind of deals where the actors are given so much power over every aspect of the project. Fart City posted:Well, how many true-blue super megastars have risen since then? Jennifer Lawrence? The Rock, maybe? I mean even with something like Harry Potter, which was mega successful, I don’t think people were seeing it for Daniel Radcliffe. The industry has been moving towards a more brand-centric identity, rather than letting individuals carry a studio. Look what happened with Edward Norton on The Incredible Hulk: he tried to throw his weight around and Marvel didn’t think twice about replacing him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 21:08
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:If you look at the local film industries in India or China, I think star power still matters, but I'm not sure whether you get those blank cheque scenarios where the star effectively controls the production (I've seen articles suggesting that Aamir Khan can do this in India, but I'm honestly not familiar with Hindi cinema at all). Hooooly poo poo yes Khan and another guy named Superstar Rajini call their own shots in ways that very very few American stars have reached. Fans are absolutely insane for their movies when they are released, it's 100% normal to have riots outside of theatres if the owner closes the doors and refuses to pack people in like sardines. People routinely are so overcome by their joy in watching one of their favorite star's films that they run up to the screen and dance along with the characters. It's like a midnight Star Wars premiere dialed up to 11. In a way though they're hostages to their own fans. The fans are so intense that the actors feel incredibly heavy pressure to delivery the same type of film that they've come to love over the years, and they are regularly quoted in interviews as lamenting the fact that they rarely get to actually challenge themselves as far as real acting goes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 21:12
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Huh, I never thought about it that way. It just never occurred to me to blame any particular actor's screwups for this, in the way that people blame Cimino for the demise of New Hollywood. What's more to blame for the demise of New Hollywood: the failure of guys like Cimino, Coppola, Friedkin and Bogdanovich for their failures; or the success of Spielberg and Lucas? Basebf555 posted:Hooooly poo poo yes Khan and another guy named Superstar Rajini call their own shots in ways that very very few American stars have reached. Fans are absolutely insane for their movies when they are released, it's 100% normal to have riots outside of theatres if the owner closes the doors and refuses to pack people in like sardines. People routinely are so overcome by their joy in watching one of their favorite star's films that they run up to the screen and dance along with the characters. It's like a midnight Star Wars premiere dialed up to 11. Get Kathleen Kennedy on the line - I've just had a brilliant idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 21:12
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:What's more to blame for the demise of New Hollywood: the failure of guys like Cimino, Coppola, Friedkin and Bogdanovich for their failures; or the success of Spielberg and Lucas? It was Cimino and Coppola, definitely. Spielberg and Lucas were considered examples of the success of the New Hollywood approach, and when things went sour they were just already so monumentally successful that they weren't effected by it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 21:15
|
|
|
I think the galaxy brain take is the industry coming to be dominated by investors who prioritized controlling risk. Spielberg himself has argued that the resulting business model is very precarious itself, but 
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 21:15
|
|
|
Spielberg seems like he's the last director who can decide he wants something to happen and then make it happen. Not as much as in the late 80s and early 90s when, for instance, he decided he was interested in animation now, and the result was An American Tail, Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, Tiny Toon Adventures, Animaniacs and Freakazoid, but still more than most others. There was probably a point where Cameron could have been that guy but it's probably passed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 21:24
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Spielberg seems like he's the last director who can decide he wants something to happen and then make it happen. Not as much as in the late 80s and early 90s when, for instance, he decided he was interested in animation now, and the result was An American Tail, Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, Tiny Toon Adventures, Animaniacs and Freakazoid, but still more than most others. There was probably a point where Cameron could have been that guy but it's probably passed. It hardly matters with Spielberg because he's had his own production company for decades. So yea, he does decide what gets made but that's because he's literally the studio at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:There was probably a point where Cameron could have been that guy but it's probably passed. He kind of is that guy, it's just that what he wanted was more Avatar.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 21:29
|
|
|
Cameron probably has even more clout now than a few years ago because people are so desperate for him to just give up on the Avatar thing that they'd just be like "you're gonna make something that's not an Avatar sequel? Hell yea here's a shitload of money go hog wild".
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
Honestly the only dude that I can think of that has successfully maintained his auteur mystique in modern popular cinema is Tarantino. He still sells tickets on name alone. Not even Spielberg could do that with the BFG, or to a lesser extent Ready Player One (which didn’t do poorly, but didn’t set the world on fire like it would have a decade ago).
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 21:36
|
|
|
I wonder how much of the decline in star power is due to the saturation of action movies that can deliver big budget spectacle year-round. Like when I was younger there was this sentiment of "oh drat, a new Cruise/Arnold/Whoever movie is coming out? That guy always delivers the huge explosions!" but now other than the death-defying stunts of Cruise in his Mission: Impossible series people seem to only get excited about plot or character developments. I think about all the visual effects of the recent Star Wars movies and how it's all taken for granted. When Battlestar Galactica was first airing I remember thinking "drat, a TV show can do this now?" Ditto with recent seasons of Game of Thrones. The memorable effects of Star Wars lately have been BB-8 and the wonky CG faces of dead actors. Whatever you want to do in a movie, you can, and you don't need Will Smith to guarantee a return on investment to justify a big effects budget. The dude from Parks & Rec is fine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 21:41
|
|
|
Speaking of Spielberg, I see Disney/Lucasfilm have pushed back Indiana Jones 5 to 2021. I'm increasingly unconvinced that it's actually going to happen because Harrison Ford is going to be 78 years old by the time they actually get on to it and there's no way they're going to recast it after Solo flopped. They might as well announce Dick Tracy 2 while they're at it. Maybe they can have it out in time for Warren Beatty's 85th.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 21:41
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Speaking of Spielberg, I see Disney/Lucasfilm have pushed back Indiana Jones 5 to 2021. I'm increasingly unconvinced that it's actually going to happen because Harrison Ford is going to be 78 years old by the time they actually get on to it and there's no way they're going to recast it after Solo flopped. Somewhere at ILM the software package that produced the Rogue One Tarkinbot boots up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 21:46
|
|
|
Fart City posted:Somewhere at ILM the software package that produced the Rogue One Tarkinbot boots up. There were lots of very fair criticisms of that stuff and how weird it was when the movie came out, but I still remember when Carrie Fisher died only a few weeks later, my dad (who's my benchmark for the "average moviegoer") immediately remarked when I went in to see him and told him the news, "Well, it's good thing they can bring her back with CG, isn't it!?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 21:53
|
|
|
Lobok posted:I wonder how much of the decline in star power is due to the saturation of action movies that can deliver big budget spectacle year-round. Like when I was younger there was this sentiment of "oh drat, a new Cruise/Arnold/Whoever movie is coming out? That guy always delivers the huge explosions!" but now other than the death-defying stunts of Cruise in his Mission: Impossible series people seem to only get excited about plot or character developments. I think about all the visual effects of the recent Star Wars movies and how it's all taken for granted. When Battlestar Galactica was first airing I remember thinking "drat, a TV show can do this now?" Ditto with recent seasons of Game of Thrones. The memorable effects of Star Wars lately have been BB-8 and the wonky CG faces of dead actors. Whatever you want to do in a movie, you can, and you don't need Will Smith to guarantee a return on investment to justify a big effects budget. The dude from Parks & Rec is fine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
It's sort of quaint in retrospect that the first movie that cost $100 million to make was True Lies of all things. Now, I think all that money absolutely shows on screen, but if you'd asked me before I looked it up I'd have guessed Jurassic Park or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 22:34
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:These things rarely come down to just one cause, but you could make a strong argument that if one movie star ruined it for all the others, it was Kevin Costner. He had more clout than maybe any other actor has ever had in Hollywood after Dances With Wolves, Robin Hood(easy to forget that Robin Hood did huge business at the box office), and The Bodyguard in the early 90's. It led to the studio basically giving him blank checks for Waterworld and The Postman and I think the entire industry recoiled from those kind of deals where the actors are given so much power over every aspect of the project. I think Val Kilmer had a lot to do with it as well. Because you love Mission Impossible so much, and since it's on Amazon Prime with Starz, I'm going to give it another shot. And also watch the unpopular M:I2
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 22:53
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:It's sort of quaint in retrospect that the first movie that cost $100 million to make was True Lies of all things. Now, I think all that money absolutely shows on screen, but if you'd asked me before I looked it up I'd have guessed Jurassic Park or something. drat, you forget just how big a deal Arnold was back then.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 23:07
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:I think Val Kilmer had a lot to do with it as well. The movie has a motorcycle fight. It rules.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 23:12
|
|
|
Payndz posted:T2 was the first $100m budget movie, wasn't it? (Total Recall was also claimed to be $100m at the time, but looking it up now it's listed as $65m. I guess Arnold and the studio were boosting it for extra publicity.) I'd read it was True Lies, but I checked Wikipedia and it claims T2 was in the range of $94-102m. So who knows. The studios are never straight with where the money actually goes in any event. Blast Fantasto posted:The movie has a motorcycle fight. It rules. Tom Cruise and Dougray Scott facing off on motorcycles and revving their engines at one another is one of the best unintentionally funny scenes I've seen. Or maybe it was intentionally funny. It's a little hard to tell.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
Timby posted:Abrams also had the Hollywood wheels greased for him quite a bit because of his parents and his membership in the Propellerheads. What the heck are the Propellerheads?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
I watched Missions Impossible 2 and 3 last night as well, and they hold up too. 2 is so dumb and goofy, but the entire finale makes me grin like an idiot. Thandie Newton looks like a drat baby in it. I still really like 3 and I think Skwirl mentioned it in the Gen Chat Thread, but the in media res cold open is very good. PSH is the best villain in the entire series and all the action is nice and stylish. It's funny how much Simon Pegg must have made an impression on people to basically become the second lead in the next two films.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 23:20
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:I'd read it was True Lies, but I checked Wikipedia and it claims T2 was in the range of $94-102m. So who knows. The studios are never straight with where the money actually goes in any event. It rules. There's also a weird sad undercurrent to MI:2 knowing that it potentially killed Dougray Scott's career by forcing him to drop out of playing Wolverine. Or at least stopped his career from growing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 23:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 21:20 |
|
|
Payndz posted:Yeah, it used to be that big blockbuster action movies were relatively rare - because they were hard to do well and the necessary stunts and VFX were expensive - so when a good one came along it got attention, in the "wow, have you seen [X] yet?" sense. Now, it seems like every other movie costs over $100 million to make and 75% of its shots use CGI, but when was the last time audiences were genuinely blown away by a movie's jaw-dropping effects? Independence Day? The Matrix? Avatar? Not sure it reached the "blown away" level but half the discussion and zeal for Fury Road was because of the practical effects. Having said that, what was so appealing was not anything new that it pioneered (did it? probably) but how there's still nothing better than seeing things done for real.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 23:22
|
|