Studios years ago actually involved film directors who knew how to use camera tricks to make something look better on film than what it looked like in set.
These days, film directors are just big budget names who can rake in views/hype up marketing for the film and everybody just expects GCI to make everything look better post-production. So instead of having films look great after being filmed on set, they just have a bunch of GCI sparkles splashed on top of everything and say "that's the best we can do".
Older movies were on 4x3 TVs or even "just" 720p, so the move for 4K is "obviously" an improvement. It's bigger numbers, so must be better.
movies decades ago didn't need such positions as Cultural Trust Officer and Intimacy Coordinators pulling 6 figure salaries to make sure you don't get yelled at on twitter.
Probably a mixture of bloat both having too many people working on these films, having a massive amount of people who do nothing and just keeping everyone employed even when there are no movies being made instead of giving them contracts for the duration of production
It's like an elephant carryout twice it's weigh in parasites
Production budget is how much it costs to make the movie. After you're done, marketing and distribution will create additional expenses. Also, the profits of the movie must be split up between the studio and the movie theaters. Even if the movie seems successful, the studio might still be operating at a loss.
It's estimated that movies usually need to earn about 2.5 or 3 times their production budget in order to break even and start making an actual profit for the studio.
Top Gun, horror movies, Sonic, Mario, Puss in Boots and many other movies have been doing fine. Marvel shit, is just that, shit. Just like DC bullshit. Cape movies are losing their steam and Marvel made the mistake of having it so interconnected with their TV shows it's now a "you need to watch X to understand Y".
>Marvel made the mistake of having it so interconnected with their TV shows it's now a "you need to watch X to understand Y".
Yeah this is probably one of the biggest reasons people are being turned off of the MCU. I don’t understand how companies think the idea of "You’ll have to do homework to understand this movie!" is ever supposed to be appealing. Ironically you actually don’t have to watch the tie-in shows to know what’s going on in the Marvels. I saw this with my niece despite not having watched Ms Marvel and I was still able to understand pretty much everything thanks to context clues. Hell, sometimes doing the homework makes it more confusing, like I probably would’ve had a better time with Doctor Strange 2 if I didn’t see WandaVision beforehand.
I stopped watching Marvel movies for multiple reasons. That was one of them.
Another big reason is that Endgame gave an ending and closure to nearly every MCU character that I cared about. I was satisfied with their stories being done, and I'm not emotionally invested in seeing what happens next.
I'll be honest, I liked the movie. It wasn't groundbreaking but it was a fun time with cute interactions. The villain really was a nobody though.
>I don't understand how companies think the idea of "You'll have to do homework to understand this movie!" Is ever supposed to be appealing.
Well that's easy, audiences were making the choice themselves. There was this hype culture and obnoxious peer pressure of "wait you HAVEN'T seen [the latest Marvel movie]!!??" that helped put butts in seats. People LIKED watching the latest capeshit, and so when the next one came out they were excited to see what came next, and it's not like the general consensus then was "it'll just be more filler quipy schlock." Infinity War/Endgame helped kill that off threefold, by making a climax to the journey taken with the heroes, removing a fair deal of said heroes, and starting to spin out into shows you'd have to pay for subscriptions to keep up with instead of tickets. The "you've gotta see this" ended, the homework got too cumbersome, and the universal bubble that captivated people managed to both deflate and overexpand.
>Why the different narrative?
Napoleon and Killers were financed by Apple, who didn't expect these movies to break even anyway (Scorsese's biggest movie ever only grossed around 400 million) and can accept a loss since they're worth a trillion dollars. These movies were made for awards.
Disney on the other hand only makes media and has theme parks. Their film division can't take a loss of a billion dollars like they did this year. And we're talking at least 7 box office bombs in a row (Indiana Jones 5, Haunted Mansion, A Haunting in Venice, The Creator, The Marvels, Next Goal Wins, Wish)
>Napoleon and Killers were financed by Apple, who didn't expect these movies to break even anyway >who didn't expect these movies to break even anyway
Now that's some sour grape take if I know one.
>We need 2000 permanent positions for gay Black folk in charge of diversity of censorship in thoughts and ideas otherwise we won't be successful as a society even tho it costs out company millions of dollars and we are failing
You motherfrickers will ruin the biggest company in the world and then turn around and ignore a decades worth of evidence and say, you know what? It was your fault all along
How the frick are these movies so expensive to make when they actually look worse than the ones put out a decade ago?
Inflation
Crunch to exploit the workers labour power
Wow. Nearly every word in that sentence is a political buzzword. Congratulations.
Im gonna crrruuunch!!
>Crunch
Crunch bars were the best part of any Lunchable...back when things were good!
Laundering
Simple as
they outsource every little thing to speed up production so instead of 1000 people working the film there's 10,000 and you have to pay all of them
Studios years ago actually involved film directors who knew how to use camera tricks to make something look better on film than what it looked like in set.
These days, film directors are just big budget names who can rake in views/hype up marketing for the film and everybody just expects GCI to make everything look better post-production. So instead of having films look great after being filmed on set, they just have a bunch of GCI sparkles splashed on top of everything and say "that's the best we can do".
Older movies were on 4x3 TVs or even "just" 720p, so the move for 4K is "obviously" an improvement. It's bigger numbers, so must be better.
A large middle management sector that gets the lion's share but no one really knows what they're actually doing.
movies decades ago didn't need such positions as Cultural Trust Officer and Intimacy Coordinators pulling 6 figure salaries to make sure you don't get yelled at on twitter.
~~*They*~~ need that money to protect our freedom is Israel, biggot
Probably a mixture of bloat both having too many people working on these films, having a massive amount of people who do nothing and just keeping everyone employed even when there are no movies being made instead of giving them contracts for the duration of production
It's like an elephant carryout twice it's weigh in parasites
why aren't the budget points and the break even points the same point?
Production budget doesn't include shit like advertising and bribing people for good PR.
The time it took to make the movie versus putting that money in anything else.
Production budget is how much it costs to make the movie. After you're done, marketing and distribution will create additional expenses. Also, the profits of the movie must be split up between the studio and the movie theaters. Even if the movie seems successful, the studio might still be operating at a loss.
It's estimated that movies usually need to earn about 2.5 or 3 times their production budget in order to break even and start making an actual profit for the studio.
Distributors and production companies also take a cut.
Heh. Get shit on.
Cinema is dead, capitalism clearly doesn't work
Top Gun, horror movies, Sonic, Mario, Puss in Boots and many other movies have been doing fine. Marvel shit, is just that, shit. Just like DC bullshit. Cape movies are losing their steam and Marvel made the mistake of having it so interconnected with their TV shows it's now a "you need to watch X to understand Y".
>Marvel made the mistake of having it so interconnected with their TV shows it's now a "you need to watch X to understand Y".
Yeah this is probably one of the biggest reasons people are being turned off of the MCU. I don’t understand how companies think the idea of "You’ll have to do homework to understand this movie!" is ever supposed to be appealing. Ironically you actually don’t have to watch the tie-in shows to know what’s going on in the Marvels. I saw this with my niece despite not having watched Ms Marvel and I was still able to understand pretty much everything thanks to context clues. Hell, sometimes doing the homework makes it more confusing, like I probably would’ve had a better time with Doctor Strange 2 if I didn’t see WandaVision beforehand.
I stopped watching Marvel movies for multiple reasons. That was one of them.
Another big reason is that Endgame gave an ending and closure to nearly every MCU character that I cared about. I was satisfied with their stories being done, and I'm not emotionally invested in seeing what happens next.
I'll be honest, I liked the movie. It wasn't groundbreaking but it was a fun time with cute interactions. The villain really was a nobody though.
>I don't understand how companies think the idea of "You'll have to do homework to understand this movie!" Is ever supposed to be appealing.
Well that's easy, audiences were making the choice themselves. There was this hype culture and obnoxious peer pressure of "wait you HAVEN'T seen [the latest Marvel movie]!!??" that helped put butts in seats. People LIKED watching the latest capeshit, and so when the next one came out they were excited to see what came next, and it's not like the general consensus then was "it'll just be more filler quipy schlock." Infinity War/Endgame helped kill that off threefold, by making a climax to the journey taken with the heroes, removing a fair deal of said heroes, and starting to spin out into shows you'd have to pay for subscriptions to keep up with instead of tickets. The "you've gotta see this" ended, the homework got too cumbersome, and the universal bubble that captivated people managed to both deflate and overexpand.
>but these capeshit movies did kind of ok
lol, lmao even. Cinema really is dead and capitalism killed it
>cinema really is dead
That's good. Nothing those films offer are better than their predecessors.
Anon it helps if you actually read posts before you reply to them
>British copeaganda defaming the greatest European hero of the 19th century
So what Soviet Kino have you been watching, anon?
Art house movies don't perform well in theaters. Studios don't expect them to be big money makers in the short term.
Capeshit is supposed to bring in the money to fund those kind of movies.
Napoleon is basically capeshit come on now
>Art house movies don't perform well in theaters
>Anything Ridley Scott
Lol
Hasn't Ridley Scott lost his cred after Prometheus and Alien: Covenant?
>Why the different narrative?
Napoleon and Killers were financed by Apple, who didn't expect these movies to break even anyway (Scorsese's biggest movie ever only grossed around 400 million) and can accept a loss since they're worth a trillion dollars. These movies were made for awards.
Disney on the other hand only makes media and has theme parks. Their film division can't take a loss of a billion dollars like they did this year. And we're talking at least 7 box office bombs in a row (Indiana Jones 5, Haunted Mansion, A Haunting in Venice, The Creator, The Marvels, Next Goal Wins, Wish)
>Napoleon and Killers were financed by Apple, who didn't expect these movies to break even anyway
>who didn't expect these movies to break even anyway
Now that's some sour grape take if I know one.
Nice cope but they can get awards as well by not throwing $200m in the trash
The only good napoleon movie was the old one and the TV History Channel/A&E Tv show
Because Napoleon and flower moon didn't spend a billion dollars in marketing making it backfire when everyone knows it failed?
Because AppleTV+ bankrolled those movies for prestige reasons. They want to build up their service. Or get some awards.
and Marvel getting the female lead movie out of the way isn't a good reason by that logic?
>cinema is dead
Good.
that's why I pirate all my movies, frick capitalism
capeshit movies*
Because movies now have a much tougher competition against streaming. It has nothing to do with capitalism
committing what should be illegal business practices to kill cinemas before streaming inevitably kills itself is definitely capitalism eating itself
>Add a lot of anti capitalistic practices to your company
>It fails
>Capitalism as m is dead
>>Add a lot of anti capitalistic practices to your company
Like what?
Making bad movies that don’t make money?
>anti capitalistic practices
Lmao
>We need 2000 permanent positions for gay Black folk in charge of diversity of censorship in thoughts and ideas otherwise we won't be successful as a society even tho it costs out company millions of dollars and we are failing
You motherfrickers will ruin the biggest company in the world and then turn around and ignore a decades worth of evidence and say, you know what? It was your fault all along
>Implying this isn't the free market at work
L M A O
He was right.
Unfortunately video game adaptations and unnecessary prequels are gonna take over, so yes we will see a scarface prequel named face.
>bad video game adaptations
Aren't they just dying out after like, 20 years?
is it out on d+ yet