TV/Movies Megathread

[Oexmelin]

They are one of the few studios (actually, maybe the only one*) that routinely come up with great original material though. Coco was great, and there are no sequels (yet) in their upcoming schedule. I see the sequels as sure-fire cash grabs to keep the Disney people happy.

I don't follow this too closely, but I am under the impression that strong personal choices / personality in studios is a thing of the past? I see small independent units that do a few things, and then executive-driven behemoths plus distributers.

I think A24 does good things. Not all great, of course.

[mongers]

Is 'What's Eating Gilbert Grape?' worth persevering with?

Because I'm 20 minutes last night and it was awfully slow going.

[Eddie Teach]

I saw the movie and don't remember anything about it.

[mongers]

I saw the movie and don't remember anything about it.

Thanks Eddy, I'll take that to mean definitely not worth watching.

[celedhring]

They are one of the few studios (actually, maybe the only one*) that routinely come up with great original material though. Coco was great, and there are no sequels (yet) in their upcoming schedule. I see the sequels as sure-fire cash grabs to keep the Disney people happy.

I don't follow this too closely, but I am under the impression that strong personal choices / personality in studios is a thing of the past? I see small independent units that do a few things, and then executive-driven behemoths plus distributers.

I think A24 does good things. Not all great, of course.

A24 is mostly a distributor though, they buy films off festivals rather than participate in direct production (they do some of it, but they just can't afford to do much of that outside of some few projects). Their batting average isn't that great, but they do pick up some brilliant stuff from time to time.

And personalities still play a big part in modern Hollywood. Executives have personalities, you know  - I'm not being flip, Kevin Feige is essentially the guy driving the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Same with Lassetter at Pixar - one wonders what will happen now that he's been fired.
WB tried to do the same with Zach Snyder being the mastermind of their superhero films, but that turned out... not well.

[Malthus]

Good Omens was pretty good.
Shame there's no sequel.

I enjoyed it!

They even had a bit of a sequel hook - that [spoiler] next time the big battle will be heaven and hell together versus humanity and its supporters [/spoiler]

There will never be a sequel (at least not a proper one) because, sadly, Terry Pratchet is dead, and the original was a collaboration between him and Neil Gaiman.

[Oexmelin]

And personalities still play a big part in modern Hollywood. Executives have personalities, you know  - I'm not being flip, Kevin Feige is essentially the guy driving the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Same with Lassetter at Pixar - one wonders what will happen now that he's been fired.  WB tried to do the same with Zach Snyder being the mastermind of their superhero films, but that turned out... not well.

I should have said "interesting personalities"...  Lasseter is a good choice: he certainly wasn't Pixar's strongest director, but his input on the choice of projects was great.

While I recognize that the MCU certainly had commercial/serial vision (and can't even foresee the time when people will have enough of superhero movies), most of the movies seem, to me, to lack... personality? With the choice of projects being dictated by characters developed elsewhere.

Other studios? The other execs I know (granted, most of them at Disney) strike me more for their commercial ambition than the soundness and sensibility of their aesthetic judgment.

[celedhring]

And personalities still play a big part in modern Hollywood. Executives have personalities, you know  - I'm not being flip, Kevin Feige is essentially the guy driving the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Same with Lassetter at Pixar - one wonders what will happen now that he's been fired.  WB tried to do the same with Zach Snyder being the mastermind of their superhero films, but that turned out... not well.

I should have said "interesting personalities"...  Lasseter is a good choice: he certainly wasn't Pixar's strongest director, but his input on the choice of projects was great.

While I recognize that the MCU certainly had commercial/serial vision (and can't even foresee the time when people will have enough of superhero movies), most of the movies seem, to me, to lack... personality? With the choice of projects being dictated by characters developed elsewhere.

Other studios? The other execs I know (granted, most of them at Disney) strike me more for their commercial ambition than the soundness and sensibility of their aesthetic judgment.

That lack of strong producers and studio vision in places like Sony, Fox (not anymore!), Paramount, etc... makes it easier for interesting stuff to happen, though. Not by chance the - imho - best superhero movies of the current era were not made at Marvel. There you have a super-strong (and incredibly successful) vision coming from above that flatlines director and writer freedom. You associate Disney, Marvel, Warner, to a very distinct brand and style, which comes from above. You can't say the same for the other studios except some small units like, say, Blumhouse.

That's how it worked in Golden Age Hollywood though, all studios had strong producer-dictated visions.

[HVC]

Good Omens was pretty good.
Shame there's no sequel.

I enjoyed it!

I wanted to like it, I like both of the leads, but I just couldn't get into it

[Admiral Yi]

Thanks Eddy, I'll take that to mean definitely not worth watching.

Bad call.  Totally accurate depiction of very small town American life with some very strong performances and a sweet story line.

[Eddie Teach]

If it's an accurate depiction of small town life, I probably fell asleep. 

[The Minsky Moment]

Other studios? The other execs I know (granted, most of them at Disney) strike me more for their commercial ambition than the soundness and sensibility of their aesthetic judgment.

The budgets on these movies are high and ever increasing.  Not a lot a room for risk-taking.  The more the process can be commoditized and regularized, the better from the POV of the company.

[Oexmelin]

I know. Doesn't prevent me from lamenting the fact, though. We are kind of stuck between high-profile, high-budget teenage/YA fare, and great TV that is unfortunately weakened by serialization.

[Iormlund]

It's the same thing in the videogame industry.  The big AAA names spend hundreds of millions per title, and thus milk the same franchises over and over again. CoD, AC, the entire EA lineup ...

In addition all companies try to launch their own game in a new exploding genre (eg MOBAs or Battle Royale). This more often than not ends up in tears, as they lose whatever made their games unique, and cannot compete against established titles. Just like the obsession with churning superhero movies instead of, you know, making good movies that may or may not have superheroes.


Fortunately digital distribution has made outsiders able to get their foot in the door. So there is constant innovation. And eventually those successful enough are usually bought by the bigger distributors, often only for their souls to be consumed (by say EA). At which point the cycle of life begins anew.

[celedhring]

I know. Doesn't prevent me from lamenting the fact, though. We are kind of stuck between high-profile, high-budget teenage/YA fare, and great TV that is unfortunately weakened by serialization.

Yeah, the mid budget "adult" (for lack of a better word) film fare is mostly defunct in the US. One has to look elsewhere. I.e. the South Koreans are doing amazing stuff right now.