General discussion about movies and TV shows.
Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.
Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain
[spoilers]in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title's subject matter.
Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown as follows:
::: your spoiler warning
the crazy movie ending that no one saw coming!
:::
Your mods are here to help if you need any clarification!
Subcommunities: The Bear (FX) - [[email protected]](/c/thebear @lemmy.film)
Related communities: [email protected] [email protected]
Every time a sequel or a comic book movie lands on its face, someone rewrites an article about franchise/superhero fatigue. And that's been going on for over a decade.
People will show up to watch a good movie. Guardians 3 did really well. Spider-Man is the "same old stuff." This is all cherry picking examples. Movies don't do well when they're bad or the star is unappealing somehow.
Hollywood will stop making these movies when people stop paying to see them.
I think Guardians 3 and Spiderverse may be exceptions though. Spiderverse has a cool visual style that makes it stand out and is riding of the goodwill of the last film. Guardians 3 is the last guardians film and I've seen a lot of people say it was the last marvel film they were interested in. I think audiences might need more motivation than just a marvel logo now. Captain Marvel got over a billion dollars while marvel was on the hype train but I doubt the sequel does that well.
No, Indiana Jones is a terrible example to base those on. It's a franchise who's last good film was in the 80s and most people hated the last attempted comeback.
The only movie I was willing to see was the Mario movie and I still ended up torrenting it. Why should I go to a public theater, get ripped off at the ticket box and the food counter for some mild entertainment? Especially when I can cook up an entire meal at home and eat it in front of the TV.
Better food, more comfortable, private setting and most importantly, Cost effective. If you want to get people like me to go to a theater, the incentive better be worth it. I won’t open my wallet otherwise.
I don't think people are sick of the same old stuff. Indy flopped at the box office on the combination of a disappointing 4th movie and Disney's trend of virtue signalling over good characterization and storytelling.
The Flash has the baggage of an unlikeable lead actor, plus the DCU is still all over the place and constantly rebooted. I honestly have no idea what to expect from the Flash, given previous DCU movies.
Someone who says virtue signaling unironically is the dumbest fuck in the room, no matter what room they’re in.
Wait, is having a woman in the movie virtue signaling? I haven't seen it to know.
There are only two genders: male and political.
Maybe, I honestly love going to the movies but it seems the age of the generic blockbuster is done really. It's nearly all sequels or franchises. I want to wathc something not particulary groundbreaking but still interesting and not need to watch it's five previous movies.
The last movie I felt scratched that itch for me was the DnD movie which was relatively detached. I like movies like that and I wish there were more. Don't get me wrong I like a good franchise but when everything is a franchise it's maddening.
Genuine question, how do you know Indians jones flipped hard ?
I went on imdb and it is rated around 7 which isn’t bad at all.
Could this be the beginning of the end for franchise films?
We can only hope.
'The Flash' and Other Mediocre Movies Won't Stop Superhero Fatigue - Variety. Fifteen years (since Iron Man), for the love of Stan! As Scorsese said, "…that’s not cinema…the closest I can think of them…is theme parks."
Fun fact: did you know that the (then) new distribution strategy invented for the iconic film The Godfather gave rise of the Blockbuster (and thus "franchise movies") and the near-death of auteur cinema?
It’s annoying that some people are so small-minded that they only think one style of filmmaking counts as “real cinema”. Just like there are different genres of film (like comedy, horror, drama, etc.), there’s room for different styles of film as well.
Too many people seem to think that just because two things can be projected on a screen, it’s reasonable to compare them. Some also believe that one kind of film is objectively better than another.
No. Neither of those things are true.
Films provide room for a wide range of creativity, whether they’re loud, big-budget extravaganzas with broad appeal, or quiet, intimate, narrowly focused films intended for a smaller audience - or something in between.
I don’t understand why there’s even an argument about which type of film is best. If you’re like me, you enjoy several different things, depending on your mood.
I think the issue is mostly about what is art?
Some of the big budget movies feel devoid of creativity and are more a product than a work of art. While I do agree with you that there is some art in those big budget, I think the issue lies in how we communicate a movie.
What is a "good" movie? That's entirely subjective! A better approach would be to explain what you liked (or disliked) about it. Then we can have more productive conversations about it ahah