|
The MSJ posted:Spidey being a social media star just seems very a-pro-pro hahahahahahahahaha
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 16:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 21:29 |
|
|
SciFiDownBeat posted:hahahahahahahahaha i don't know what you're laughing at vee za vee that post
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 16:20
|
|
|
When is the Fortnite movie coming out
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 19:54
|
|
|
Movies are for olds
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
The only semi sucessfull game adaption as been tomb raider ( and i guess angry birds?maybe?), it will only take off after one random film makes a billion dollars.its probably the next thing after the superhero craze dies down (so never).i find it puzzling studios havent found a sucessfull formula to adapt video games to film, maybe its because the film strips all agency from the viewer and theres something in our brains that finds it weird? I dunno.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
Antifa Poltergeist posted:The only semi sucessfull game adaption as been tomb raider ( and i guess angry birds?maybe?), it will only take off after one random film makes a billion dollars.its probably the next thing after the superhero craze dies down (so never).i find it puzzling studios havent found a sucessfull formula to adapt video games to film, maybe its because the film strips all agency from the viewer and theres something in our brains that finds it weird? I dunno. Someone forgetting about the 1995 Mortal Kombat movie. $18 mil budget, $122 million BO. Granted, the well was poisoned by the sequels, but the first film was gangbusters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
Taintrunner posted:Oh my god why did I just google Extinction Michael Pena Spoilers that’s the worst idea for a movie I’ve ever seen holy gently caress I'd say it's pretty alright. The first half is the only bad section and that's mostly because you don't know what is revealed in the second half. I got close to giving up because I thought the casting was bad and the design work was bad and then I was "Oh, that works then". Not the greatest mind you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 20:37
|
|
|
Antifa Poltergeist posted:The only semi sucessfull game adaption as been tomb raider ( and i guess angry birds?maybe?), it will only take off after one random film makes a billion dollars.its probably the next thing after the superhero craze dies down (so never).i find it puzzling studios havent found a sucessfull formula to adapt video games to film, maybe its because the film strips all agency from the viewer and theres something in our brains that finds it weird? I dunno. Rampage managed to make half a billion dollars and got a lukewarm critical response. The Resident Evil franchise seems to do okay commercially. QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Aug 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
I think it's important to note that when comparing superhero movies to videogame movies, DC and Marvel are owned by movie studios. All the content is theirs to mine, rights have been sorted out, and creators have no veto or negotiating power over storylines. There have obviously been successful superhero movies done by other studios but they're also pressured to continue to do so or the rights will lapse and be transferred to competitors (or at least that was once true). It's a situation and process set up to produce lots of superhero films. It's different than videogames where the biggest IPs are held by myriad developers and publishers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 20:53
|
|
|
The solution is instead of taking an existing video game and making a movie adaptation, you take an existing movie and make a video game adaptation!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 20:55
|
|
|
Iron Crowned posted:The solution is instead of taking an existing video game and making a movie adaptation, you take an existing movie and make a video game adaptation! Or go the Mortal Kombat route and take an existing movie like Enter the Dragon or Bloodsport and remake it with the videogame characters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 21:02
|
|
|
Antifa Poltergeist posted:The only semi sucessfull game adaption as been tomb raider ( and i guess angry birds?maybe?), it will only take off after one random film makes a billion dollars.its probably the next thing after the superhero craze dies down (so never).i find it puzzling studios havent found a sucessfull formula to adapt video games to film, maybe its because the film strips all agency from the viewer and theres something in our brains that finds it weird? I dunno.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 21:05
|
|
|
Vanity Fair has an interview with an anonymous member of the Academy who claims that the new popular-film category as a response to the cut-throat politicking of the Weinstein era and an attempt to cut down on the amount of Oscar Bait.quote:“When you look at the best-picture nominees [now], they are all a bunch of movies that no one saw,” the board member explained. “In a way, this goes back to one of the many things that is the legacy of Harvey Weinstein. In addition to all of the terrible sexual stuff he did, he also figured out how to rig the system in terms of the Oscars. He created a type of movie which is not a well-known film by the general public, but gerrymanders the different voting blocks perfectly so they would win the Oscar for many years.” (Weinstein has denied all allegations of nonconsensual sex.) I'm supremely skeptical that a single Academy award is going to enable a massive cultural shift but I guess it's a better justification than "let's pander to those superhero movie fans?" QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Aug 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 21:58
|
|
|
quote:“In a way, this goes back to one of the many things that is the legacy of Harvey Weinstein. In addition to all of the terrible sexual stuff he did, Lol. How convenient that the rapist everyone hates is also the reason why movies suck. It's almost like his ousting was a ritual bloodletting instead of the tipping point towards lasting cultural change
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 22:12
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:Vanity Fair has an interview with an anonymous member of the Academy who claims that the new popular-film category as a response to the cut-throat politicking of the Weinstein era and an attempt to cut down on the amount of Oscar Bait. Surely if they're attempting to change the industry's culture to produce more high-quality movies for the masses and end the Oscar Bait crisis, the solution isn't to further entrench the pretentious culture of the Academy by making a condescending honorary award a la Best Animated Feature? If I were trying to accomplish their supposed goals, I'd overhaul the awards as a whole, throw out all of the lovely judges who favor Oscar Bait. But this - this isn't even "too little too late" - this is outright a step in the wrong direction; it encourages the weird industry elitists who only want to give out Best Picture to obscure movies the public hates that won't leave the slightest dent on the culture.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 22:40
|
|
|
21 Muns posted:Surely if they're attempting to change the industry's culture to produce more high-quality movies for the masses and end the Oscar Bait crisis, the solution isn't to further entrench the pretentious culture of the Academy by making a condescending honorary award a la Best Animated Feature? If I were trying to accomplish their supposed goals, I'd overhaul the awards as a whole, throw out all of the lovely judges who favor Oscar Bait. But this - this isn't even "too little too late" - this is outright a step in the wrong direction; it encourages the weird industry elitists who only want to give out Best Picture to obscure movies the public hates that won't leave the slightest dent on the culture. The justification of what they think they're doing is extremely funny to read. It's totally incoherent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 22:59
|
|
|
If that's what they are truly going for, a better solution seems like getting rid of Best Picture entirely.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 23:12
|
|
|
Thank God the most popular pictures will now get the recognition they deserve instead of just obscure highfalutin Oscar bait like The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King and Titanic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 23:19
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:The justification of what they think they're doing is extremely funny to read. It's totally incoherent. The number of justifications, too, is amazing, especially when you have the AMPAS literally saying that the addition of the Popular Film category came at the direct request of Disney, with the rationalization being that ABC's ratings keep dropping every year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 23:22
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:I hope Venom turns out OK. Not great and especially not spectacularly successful, just OK. Moderately positive reception, it doesn't make a billion dollars but the people that do see it come away satisfied. Hi, I'm kinda new to following all the business side of the comic book franchises. Why do you want Venom to come away with a "just okay" box office haul? And who exactly has the rights to make Spiderman movies?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 23:25
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:And who exactly has the rights to make Spiderman movies? Marvel and Sony now produce them together, though Sony has final say on certain things. Sony can still do whatever the gently caress it wants with characters like Venom and the zillion other characters they acquired back in 1998.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
Holy crap, aparently i've forgotten a shitton of video game movies. Yeah, Resident evil carved its own weird niche there for a while, and the argument about the rights being dispersed makes sense.still, you would think sony would try to turn uncharted and god of war into movie franchises , because they have gently caress all else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 23:55
|
|
|
Timby posted:Marvel and Sony now produce them together, though Sony has final say on certain things. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 00:00
|
|
|
21 Muns posted:I'd overhaul the awards as a whole, throw out all of the lovely judges who favor Oscar Bait. But this - this isn't even "too little too late" - this is outright a step in the wrong direction; it encourages the weird industry elitists who only want to give out Best Picture to obscure movies the public hates that won't leave the slightest dent on the culture.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 00:13
|
|
|
Adapting Uncharted seems like a snake eating its own tail given that the series's entire appeal is its aping of action-adventure movies.21 Muns posted:Surely if they're attempting to change the industry's culture to produce more high-quality movies for the masses and end the Oscar Bait crisis, the solution isn't to further entrench the pretentious culture of the Academy by making a condescending honorary award a la Best Animated Feature? If I were trying to accomplish their supposed goals, I'd overhaul the awards as a whole, throw out all of the lovely judges who favor Oscar Bait. But this - this isn't even "too little too late" - this is outright a step in the wrong direction; it encourages the weird industry elitists who only want to give out Best Picture to obscure movies the public hates that won't leave the slightest dent on the culture. The interview contains the pretty lol detail that they were originally going to create some kind of sub-Oscar for the best-popular film category: quote:“It was unfortunate that [the award] was announced before we had the actual title of the award,” said the member, suggesting the category might get a classier moniker. “People saw the word ‘popular’ and got really riled up.” According to the member, the Academy had also considered other alternatives for awarding more mainstream films—even toying with the idea of introducing an honor that was not an Oscar.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 00:29
|
|
|
When I think of going to the Oscars and being honoured with something that isn't an Oscar I just think of the loot bags they hand out. Those things are like District 1 decadent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 00:37
|
|
|
What they should do is split Best Picture into "Best Picture - Drama" and "Best Picture - Comedy" and maybe do the same for at least the acting categories, like the Golden Globes and the Emmys. Movies like Working Girl and A Fish Called Wanda used to get nominated for Best Picture; a recent movie in the same wheelhouse which I think should have been nominated but wasn't would be The Big Sick.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 00:42
|
|
|
When did Oscar Bait come into effect? I'm looking at the Best Picture list on Wikipedia, and the early years was loaded with popular movies. I'm guessing it has to be the 1990s-early 2000s, because I can look at up to then and agree with a lot of the choices, at least in nominees. Not that the Academy hasn't made bone-headed controversies before (Art Carney beating out Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino for Best Actor, which lead to a cascade of erroneous wins as the Academy ends up giving the Oscar decades after the role actors should have won)
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 00:48
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:When did Oscar Bait come into effect? I'm looking at the Best Picture list on Wikipedia, and the early years was loaded with popular movies. I'm guessing it has to be the 1990s-early 2000s, because I can look at up to then and agree with a lot of the choices, at least in nominees. Not that the Academy hasn't made bone-headed controversies before (Art Carney beating out Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino for Best Actor, which lead to a cascade of erroneous wins as the Academy ends up giving the Oscar decades after the role actors should have won) A lot of it honestly can be tracked directly to Weinstein.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 00:52
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Not that the Academy hasn't made bone-headed controversies before (Art Carney beating out Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino for Best Actor, which lead to a cascade of erroneous wins as the Academy ends up giving the Oscar decades after the role actors should have won) Has there ever been a more obvious "career"/"We're sorry we haven't given you one yet" award than Al Pacino winning for Scent of a Woman? It's not a bad performance but a) he'd been nominated and passed over for the first two Godfather movies, Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon, ...And Justice For All and, er, Dick Tracy (maybe not that last one so much); and b) he beat Clint Eastwood for Unforgiven and Denzel Washington for Malcolm X.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 00:56
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Has there ever been a more obvious "career"/"We're sorry we haven't given you one yet" award than Al Pacino winning for Scent of a Woman? Scorsese getting Best Director for The Departed was absolutely a lifetime achievement award.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 00:57
|
|
|
Oh, yeah, that's a good one. I was thinking there'd be at least one director example. Reminder that Goodfellas lost to Dances With Wolves (and Scorsese lost to Kevin Costner) because the Academy, it seems, really likes actors who direct themselves (see also: Mel Gibson).
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 00:57
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:When did Oscar Bait come into effect? From Wikipedia: quote:The Deer Hunter debuted at one theater each in New York and Los Angeles for a week on December 8, 1978. The release strategy was to qualify the film for Oscar consideration and close after a week to build interest. After the Oscar nominations, Universal widened the distribution to include major cities, building up to a full-scale release on February 23, 1979, just following the Oscars. This film was important for helping release patterns for so-called prestige pictures that screen only at the end of the year to qualify for Academy Award recognition.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 00:59
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Has there ever been a more obvious "career"/"We're sorry we haven't given you one yet" award than Al Pacino winning for Scent of a Woman? It's not a bad performance but a) he'd been nominated and passed over for the first two Godfather movies, Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon, ...And Justice For All and, er, Dick Tracy (maybe not that last one so much); and b) he beat Clint Eastwood for Unforgiven and Denzel Washington for Malcolm X. Scorsese winning for The Departed was sort of seen as a career award at the time, since he had long been perennially nominated for director, but had never won. Like The Departed is absolutely a good movie and deserving of the win, but I think the Academy was collectively like, "wait, we gave best director to Robert Redford for Ordinary People, instead of Scorsese for motherfucking Raging Bull?" edit: beaten Tart Kitty fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Aug 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 01:01
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Has there ever been a more obvious "career"/"We're sorry we haven't given you one yet" award than Al Pacino winning for Scent of a Woman? It's not a bad performance but a) he'd been nominated and passed over for the first two Godfather movies, Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon, ...And Justice For All and, er, Dick Tracy (maybe not that last one so much); and b) he beat Clint Eastwood for Unforgiven and Denzel Washington for Malcolm X. On the same note, Washington should have never won it for Training Day, it should have been for Malcolm X. That's why I called it a cascade, the politics behind it just kept producing these Oscar wins for okay, but not great roles, and cheating legitimate great performances and forcing the Academy to do gimme Oscars to actually recognize them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 01:01
|
|
|
I remember reading that Peter O'Toole never won for Lawrence of Arabia because Gregory Peck had been nominated but hadn't won five times in a row before he got it that year for To Kill a Mockingbird. As far as Washington goes, I wonder if he was passed over for Malcolm X because he'd already won an Oscar a few years earlier so it wasn't his "turn".
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 01:04
|
|
|
Antifa Poltergeist posted:Holy crap, aparently i've forgotten a shitton of video game movies. Yeah, Resident evil carved its own weird niche there for a while, and the argument about the rights being dispersed makes sense.still, you would think sony would try to turn uncharted and god of war into movie franchises , because they have gently caress all else. They tried with Ratchet and Clank as their launching point for some unfathomable reason and it tanked so hard it turned Sly Cooper movie into a TV show. I honestly think the Illumination Mario film will crush it if only because Rabbids+Mario game was unbelievably good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 01:07
|
|
|
I actually have a question about the Oscars: isn't there a rule that you can't be nominated for Best Director for two movies in the same year? But that exact thing happened with Soderbergh the year he won for Traffic; he was also nominated for Erin Brockovich.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 01:08
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:I remember reading that Peter O'Toole never won for Lawrence of Arabia because Gregory Peck had been nominated but hadn't won five times in a row before he got it that year for To Kill a Mockingbird. That's like...a tough choice. That's one of those where, even if I think there was some Academy politics involved that pushed Peck over into Oscar-winner, it was still deserved. Wheat Loaf posted:As far as Washington goes, I wonder if he was passed over for Malcolm X because he'd already won an Oscar a few years earlier so it wasn't his "turn". "Glory" was a few years before, but you're probably right, but I'd also chalk it up to institutional racism, with a controversial black director like Spike Lee directing a film of a controversial subject like Malcolm X not winning favors among the predominately old, white, Orange County-residing conservative members of the Academy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 01:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 21:29 |
|
|
Haha, I never realised that Richard Dreyfuss winning Best Actor over Woody Allen is the only thing that kept Annie Hall from winning all five of the "main" awards.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 01:31
|
|