|
My Freedom to Make 200 Million Dollar Lazer Fight Movie That People Don't Like And Loses Money
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:38 |
|
|
Hearry posted:My Freedom to Make 200 Million Dollar Lazer Fight Movie That People Don't Like And Loses Money If it loses money, it's perfectly fair that the artist doesn't get to make another one, or that financial backers would be hesitant to take a risk by backing future projects by that artist. No one's obligated to give an artist their money. Hearry posted:Why was Darth Vader a mopheaded 8 year old in the first movie? I get that there was the intention to show he was not always bad, and that's fine, but was the 8 year old thing just the best idea, or was it a decision made at least somewhat in an attempt to sell the movie to small boys and move more backpacks and juice boxes? Marketing executives at Lucasfilm and Fox were actually panicking and telling Lucas that making Anakin a 9-year-old was a horrible idea that would lose money. 9-year-old boys don't want backpacks and juiceboxes with a cute little cherubic child actor on them, they want backpacks and juiceboxes with badass Jedi and Sith on them. Have you ever actually been a 9-year-old? Cnut the Great fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Jun 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:If it loses money, it's perfectly fair that the artist doesn't get to make another one. No one's obligated to give an artist their money. Except apparently as soon as they "give" (invest) the artist their money they are then obligated to not say anything about it or interfere even if they believe he is throwing it into a toilet. Good luck selling that one
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:They literally are, actually, at least to an extent. I'm not saying it should be illegal, I'm saying that I find it philosophically repugnant. I don't see why you of all people would think that. Disney is the owner of this film and in some large way the creator, in that it created the impetus for the project, funded it, managed the choice of script and casting and director, etc. And you've vigorously and repeatedly argued that a person is free to poo poo all over a work of art as long as they are the legal owner and creator of it no matter what anyone else thinks, cf, your practice of appearing on Iraqi television in green fatigues and assuring us that cramming terrible CGI cartoon characters and creepy rapeface anakin was the plan all along and really a genius move.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWa0dZMHYeE
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Hearry posted:Except apparently as soon as they "give" (invest) the artist their money they are then obligated to not say anything about it or interfere even if they believe he is throwing it into a toilet. Good luck selling that one Yes, ideally, movie studios would accept that investing money into a movie and putting their faith in an artist is a huge risk, and do it anyway because they believe in the artist and the project. They don't, though, because they're a bunch of money-obsessed stiffs who don't care about things like integrity or the human spirit. That's kind of what the whole deal with corporations is, Tezzor. Of course it's their right to do be that way, just as it's your and my right to call them out for being capitalist vampires who diminish and degrade art and culture through their single-minded pursuit of the almighty dollar. Opinions are like assholes, Tezzor. They're meant to be aired to the world.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Marketing executives at Lucasfilm and Fox were actually panicking and telling Lucas that making Anakin a 9-year-old was a horrible idea that would lose money. I don't think this is true, actually, and frankly it is a shame that it isn't and nobody stopped him from nearly destroying his franchise and turning himself into a laughingstock. quote:9-year-old boys don't want backpacks and juiceboxes with a cute little cherubic child actor on them, they want backpacks and juiceboxes with badass Jedi and Sith on them. Have you ever actually been a 9-year-old? This, however, is true. George Lucas is an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
I don't think there's a more damning condemnation of Star Wars (or any franchise, really) than this argument that it needs to be "protected" lest it be sullied. It's just movies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Oiq-_jXvjQ
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Yowch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Hearry posted:I don't see why you of all people would think that. Disney is the owner of this film and in some large way the creator, in that it created the impetus for the project, funded it, managed the choice of script and casting and director, etc. And you've vigorously and repeatedly argued that a person is free to poo poo all over a work of art as long as they are the legal owner and creator of it no matter what anyone else thinks, cf, your practice of appearing on Iraqi television in green fatigues and assuring us that cramming terrible CGI cartoon characters and creepy rapeface anakin was the plan all along and really a genius move. No, I've vigorously and repeatedly argued that a person is free to poo poo all over a work of art as long as they have a legitimate claim to artistic ownership of that work. I don't believe Bob Iger or any of the executives underneath him, representing Disney as a corporation, can legitimately be said to have any genuine artistic interest in much of the work they finance. I believe theirs is primarily, if not completely, a monetary interest--in complete contrast to the situation as it once existed with George Lucas, who no reasonable person can deny was a full and genuine author on all six of the original Star Wars films, with a clear artistic investment. There are many practical reasons why such a schema would probably never work in reality, but that's why I qualified my view as being an unattainable ideal. You should really read George Lucas's 1988 Berne Convention speech, where he much more eloquently lays out a similar argument. Hearry posted:I don't think this is true, actually, and frankly it is a shame that it isn't and nobody stopped him from nearly destroying his franchise and turning himself into a laughingstock. Why don't you think it's true? By your reckoning, were all the Lucasfilm and Fox marketing executives idiots too? Is it your contention that George Lucas is just completely making poo poo up out of whole cloth again as yet another part of the sinister Lucasian conspiracy? Why do you think so in this case, when it's such a plausible scenario? BravestOfTheLamps posted:I don't think there's a more damning condemnation of Star Wars (or any franchise, really) than this argument that it needs to be "protected" lest it be sullied. I mean, it doesn't need to be protected. Disney can make all the mediocre Star Wars movies it wants. The only real consequence is going to be short-term disappointment on my part. The truth is, no one's going to care about The Force Awakens in fifty years (unless the sequels manage to somehow retroactively improve it to a miraculous degree), while the originals and prequels are going to continue to merit increasing public and scholarly interest (as far as such things go). These sorts of things are self-correcting in the long run. The list of works of art that were dismissed in their own time and yet praised in later times is huge, almost as huge as the list of works that were hugely popular in their time but later all but forgotten. Works that come from the heart tend to endure because they're an expression of honest humanity, which retains its resonance no matter how much time has passed since the work's creation. Works that are meticulously crafted to cater to a particular demographic of a particular audience at a particular point in time tend not to endure nearly as well, for obvious reasons. The legacy of George Lucas's Star Wars is secure. Cnut the Great fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Jun 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The best part is that the tonal contrast was reportedly the entire point of the movie. Did Luke ever go by the "Lars" name?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be nice if Tezzor's mom took her son's advice and revoked his access to her credit card, thus sparing us from his incessant bleating?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
I'm guessing the Star Wars prequels won't be redeemed in the future. We're 11 years from the last one and they're still widely considered huge misfires. A punchline. Shorthand for bad movies. It's unfortunate, but Lucas has forever sullied his once good name. The Star Wars prequels will forever be the albatross around his neck. People have correctly pointed out that TFA is a less interesting movie that was clearly made my committee whereas the PT is very obviously the vision of one man. For my money though, I'll take a wildly entertaining cash-in than those dull rear end prequels. YMMV.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Yaws posted:I'm guessing the Star Wars prequels won't be redeemed in the future. We're 11 years from the last one and they're still widely considered huge misfires. A punchline. Shorthand for bad movies. Oh no, not 11 years. That's the average lifespan of a human being.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Maybe Disney will take this as a note to go back and revisit the story of Cindel and Noah to get more of that "classic" star wars feel. A man can dream... People can malign Disney all they want for what they perceive as being "safe" but they've proven that with the MCU they can dial things in to make decent movies while being massively entertaining for a large global audience. As much as I would like to see star wars branch out to something directed by Paul Verhoeven with all that implies, it's simply not going to happen. G-III fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Jun 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:If it loses money, it's perfectly fair that the artist doesn't get to make another one, or that financial backers would be hesitant to take a risk by backing future projects by that artist. No one's obligated to give an artist their money. Lmao at the fact that you believe this, yet balk at corporate infringement on "freedom" of expression, as if there is a difference.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Yeah, the actual reason that Edwards should be allowed to make his movie with minimal studio interference is that he almost certainly knows better than they do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
Lucas, the original owner and creator of the property, had all of the control over it that any artist could ever want. He made a conscious decision to sell that control over to Disney, and they have hired Edwards. It sucks, but they do have just as much as a right to decide what the final product will be as he does. Did I mention it loving sucks?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Yaws posted:I'm guessing the Star Wars prequels won't be redeemed in the future. We're 11 years from the last one and they're still widely considered huge misfires. A punchline. Shorthand for bad movies. It's unfortunate, but Lucas has forever sullied his once good name. The Star Wars prequels will forever be the albatross around his neck. Ask the next 8 year old you see who their favorite star wars character is. Betting it's one of: - Ezra - Anakin - Chopper - Poe - FN No one but people older than 25 give a flying gently caress about ~~the prequels~~, star wars fans these days like the CGI cartoons (wherein Lucas played a large part) and TFA and probably can't stand the Original Trilogy
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Yeah if people hated the PT you'd see a lot less Clone Wars merchandise sold.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
I''m genuinely curious if you two know anyone outside of this thread that unironically enjoys the PT. I'm sure you're going to lie and be all like "ACTUALLY I KNOW SEVERAL PEOPLE AND ONE IS A NEUROSURGEON!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
The reason the OT was so popular with kids for multiple generations is probably more due to how often they were on television than anything else. I grew up in a household that would never have exposed me to Star Wars purposely; I discovered it myself because there was a marathon every other weekend. In the early to mid 90's the entertainment landscape was so different, I imagine a Star Wars marathon on cable did big ratings. Now I'd expect every new incarnation of Star Wars will be The Popular Thing for that generation because none of it is going to get enough focus as time goes on to endure the way the OT did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
Yaws posted:I''m genuinely curious if you two know anyone outside of this thread that unironically enjoys the PT. I'm sure you're going to lie and be all like "ACTUALLY I KNOW SEVERAL PEOPLE AND ONE IS A NEUROSURGEON!" I enjoyed them. And I know many people who enjoyed them. And not for "ironic" reasons, either. They, and myself, enjoyed them as the popcorn movies that they were.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
My son loves the pt. So that's one. Oh and his friend too. So that's two. Ok.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
George Lucas likes them so that's three.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
(most) people wanted new star wars, not a new take on star wars. Also hollywood trade fodder is not a lot to go off of. Watch the final version, deleted scenes, and whatever the director ends up saying. It's also their first "side story" film and they've never done it before and has it even been done in film before? They want to ensure everything is on the same page and not like how the EU got out of control.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
The MCU has side stories I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
rear end Catchcum posted:It's also their first "side story" film and they've never done it before and has it even been done in film before? Yeah, there's been plenty of prequels.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
rear end Catchcum posted:It's also their first "side story" film and they've never done it before and has it even been done in film before? They want to ensure everything is on the same page and not like how the EU got out of control. it's been done a few times in animation. disney loves it. lion king 1 1/2, the beauty and the beast one, so on so forth
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
I hope the reshoots keep on introducing new and collectible secret Jedi
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
it's to put in new footage of felicity jones drinking pepsi brand star pop, the new star wars soda from pepsi
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
hiddenriverninja posted:I hope the reshoots keep on introducing new and collectible secret Jedi I hope they're doing the reshoots to put me in as a new and collectible secret Jedi
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/disney-orders-reshoots-star-wars-898562quote:“This is the closest thing to a prequel ever,” a source tells THR. “This takes place just before A New Hope and leads up to the 10 minutes before that classic film begins. You have to match the tone!” it leads up to the ten minutes before star wars but might feature young han solo? i look forward to nerd meltdowns about this but am also bummed to be proven totally right
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
It'll be fine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/disney-orders-reshoots-star-wars-898562 Han will probably be just arriving on Tatooine or something
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
directors should pretty much always get final cut, this is basic stuff, don't be a corporate stooge
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
Zas posted:directors should pretty much always get final cut, this is basic stuff, don't be a corporate stooge In that case directors shouldn't sign up to work on urge franchise works and instead pursue their own projects in which there won't be that much corporate oversight.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:38 |
|
|
That's not necessarily true, but the weight should be shifted more on the side of the director and editor and not on a studio that is suddenly deciding after several months of production and a development period that they don't like where things are going. That's why there's this slight stench of "filling in blanks" that I keep getting from these trade reports on it. Edwards had to pitch his vision. The studio had to approve the script over several revisions. At some point, with it being a real film shoot, there were dailies that the studio could look at. There's no way they could have been unaware of the tone before now. V Star Wars films don't get test screenings, they're screened for the studio releasing and that's it. Force Awakens didn't play in front of an actual audience uninvolved with the production of the picture until the premiere and critic's screenings. The Cameo fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Jun 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 01:19
|
|
