tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post8519987379113678255..comments2024-03-28T21:56:51.675-04:00Comments on Face to Face: Movie trailers as serial drama (STAAAAARRRRR WAAAAAARRRSSSS)agnostichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-9692742742025145972015-04-29T16:21:06.341-04:002015-04-29T16:21:06.341-04:00"I don't know if that signals that the pe...<i>"I don't know if that signals that the people binge watching actually have too connected a social life to get interested in getting strung along, or that they have an empty enough one that they can just drop out of it for 12 hours or whatever and enjoy their "mega movie".</i><br /><br />It signals that there are technology and licensing agreements in place that allow people to do that. If Netflix was around in the 80s, people would have done the same thing then. I know I would have. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-78486307165602527652015-04-29T15:04:21.066-04:002015-04-29T15:04:21.066-04:00Other stuff:
There's a reasonable amount of t...Other stuff:<br /><br />There's a reasonable amount of these modern serial shows that end up being "binge watched", and end up de facto watching them in a few bursts at least rather than actually as a serial. <br /><br />I don't know if that signals that the people binge watching actually have too connected a social life to get interested in getting strung along, or that they have an empty enough one that they can just drop out of it for 12 hours or whatever and enjoy their "mega movie".<br /><br />Also re: knowing what movies are about from trailers - I kind of feel like most folk who are getting hyped up for Age of Ultron, or a movie adaptation of a book they've already read about and the like. Symptom of our adaptation heavy and milking heavy age.<br /><br />So maybe the aversion to spoilers is part of the fact that they *know* it's not going to surprise them, and don't want to be reminded of that. These trailers is trying to make people feel like something they already know and would find predictable isn't stale to them, rather than pitching it to an unfamiliar and by default apathetic audience.<br /><br />1950s movies trailers, even though they are from a socially reserved era, couldn't really do this because even if they weren't as creative (lots of adaptations), milking franchises and sequels wasn't as big a thing back then. There were a fair few but http://observationdeck.io9.com/the-sequel-is-dead-the-universe-is-where-its-at-1646495648 - <i>"In the '30s and '40s, there were numerous comedy and mystery series based around recurring characters... On the whole, though, they didn't drive the movie industry. That was reserved for the lavish, big-budget, AAA studio films like Gone With The Wind and Casablanca. And, with a handful of exceptions, like the Bond movies (1962-), that would remain the case until the early '70s, when The Godfather Part II (1974) kicked off a wave of high-profile, big-budget sequels that included French Connection II (1975), Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977), Jaws 2 and Rocky II (both 1978), and, of course, the movie that did more to redefine the longform franchise, The Empire Strikes Back (1980)."</i> It would have be incongruous to have some weird series of hype building teaser trailers for the kind of minor deal, light relief franchises that existed back in the Midcentury, like Charlie Chan and so on.<br /><br />Re: directors and generations, Christopher Nolan's surprisingly young for a director who's ever made anything halfway iconic (fuck the superhero movies, which were lame and derivative of the worst generation of American comics, but Memento was actually a decent film and The Prestige is good!). <br /><br />There are Xers, but just so few beyond around 1970. It might just take too much time to get a real flavour of what Gen X are actually like as directors. Nothing much like James Cameron making the Terminator at around 30 years old. John McTiernan was around 36 when he did his big iconic movies. <br /><br />Out of the Gen Xers who are younger the 1970 births or around that line, seems like how many of them may have came through by doing exploitative schlock that would be seen as untouchable by Boomers (the guy who did Guardians of the Galaxy started with Troma, some of the few known mid-late Xer directors do disgusting trash like Saw) or like Gareth Evans, born 1980, who managed to make The Raid, which is reasonably iconic, but he had to "schlep" out to Indonesia to make his mark doing a gig that couldn't be horned in on by an older director.Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-35084577968442081582015-04-29T14:48:46.502-04:002015-04-29T14:48:46.502-04:00Re: soap operas, over here (UK), I'm pretty su...Re: soap operas, over here (UK), I'm pretty sure soap operas were big in the 80s, actually... On TV I don't think they really existed until the 1960s, so I don't know about the Midcentury, radio there might have been some.<br /><br />But I'm not sure exactly how "serial" in flavour they were then - I feel like many people complained that they lacked character development over time, I think, which is kind of what you would expect if they were had an episodic bias.<br /><br />OTOH, looks from this article like soaps are a lot less popular today than in early 90s (91-92 is the comparison) in the USA - http://adage.com/article/media/tv-soap-operas-losing-viewers-marketing-dollars/145291/ - in terms of "daytime" soap operas <i>"An average of 6.5 million people tuned in to watch daytime dramas during the 1991-1992 TV season, according to Nielsen. By the 2009-2010 season, that average dropped to 1.3 million."</i>.<br /><br />Part of this looks like its linked to the composition of the labour market. <br /><br />The archetypal soap is aimed at a house wife who doesn't have *that* much social connection, and is home during the day, at times when her husband isn't - lots of interpersonal relationships that go on and on indefinitely and are good to gossip about, beautiful domestic interiors and are full of melodramatic grandstanding in the way women find exciting.<br /><br />More women in the labour market, the more women end up watching their fix in the evening, with the husband and family, who have less patience for that kind of thing, and the women today are probably less interested in the purely domestic sphere, since more of them work, etc. <br /><br />So those shows end up evolving towards or being replaced by the modern serials, which have a definite "arc" and being more focused at least in part on the wider social sphere outside the home and also on professional stuff, so more ostensibly detective, hospital shows, etc.<br /><br />Women at work has something to do with inequality cycle?Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-35937475486183753382015-04-29T03:25:05.384-04:002015-04-29T03:25:05.384-04:00Interesting argument for 1980 being the best year ...Interesting argument for 1980 being the best year in film since 1965. Interesting mostly for its attempt to compile ever A- film of every year starting with 1965. http://www.hitfix.com/news/why-1980-was-the-best-year-in-movie-historyTGGPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11017651009634767649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-47360713221830676862015-04-28T21:29:18.434-04:002015-04-28T21:29:18.434-04:00Interesting too that the HitFlix article has 1988 ...Interesting too that the HitFlix article has 1988 as the beginning of a dry spell. Seems like we're not the only ones who think that was the dawn of our current malaise.Ferylnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-2677930562328013662015-04-28T21:25:03.905-04:002015-04-28T21:25:03.905-04:00It's refreshing to hear a "sophisticate&q...It's refreshing to hear a "sophisticate" admit that the early 70's are overrated. Of course, they still are going to be hard on the mid-late 80's if for no other reason than the growing conservatism of the 80's. Homophobia, that's a a widdle too scawy.<br /><br />Admittedly, movies did start getting too ridiculous after about 1985 which I blame on growing levels of striving. Producers began demanding that the latest movies had to feature increasingly bombastic stuff so as to be "competitive". All the big shots wanted to make tons of cash and become household names. Look at Jerry Bruckheimer and the late Don Simpson who didn't survive the 80's<br /><br />Even though later 80's movies got to be a bit too much they at least were fun since people were unpretentious and wanted amiable entertainment.<br /><br />Music is a lot more personal and less contrived than Hollywood movies so the best music in fact came out from about 1981-1989. In fact, since good music sells itself the majority of artists were under very little pressure from the labels .The music industry experienced a huge boom in the New Wave/MTV era. Why the boom? Because the music was excellent.<br /><br />MTV played less and less videos in the 90's for a reason. Music got worse. Had MTV existed in the 70's, it probably would've been fairly popular but it would not have reached the level it did in the 80's.Ferylnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-17011542792666650942015-04-28T20:07:20.352-04:002015-04-28T20:07:20.352-04:00NZT, the OP didn't make any of the points you ...NZT, the OP didn't make any of the points you mention, many of which I agree with. I was never a comic book fan and am sick to death of super hero movies, which are fine for kids but frankly ridiculous for adults. I too long for the separation between kids' and adults' entertainment that was clearly present pre-1980s. I don't get the fanboy thing or the ComiCon phenomenon, even as I am a fan of a show like The Walking Dead, which is smack dab in ComiCon territory. But, in some way, not much has changed. My dad, a Boomer, loved the Lone Ranger as a kid, and continues to this day to love Westerns. If there was a series of Western movies, he'd probably be all over it. He's quite discerning about it and can quote endlessly from all the classics, The Good, The Bad and the Ugly, included. Is that so much different from comic book movies? I don't know, a little, maybe.<br /><br />I wouldn't worry too much about Homeland Security. Your attitude towards gays and Jews is odious, but not illegal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-9364809419186447592015-04-28T19:58:46.858-04:002015-04-28T19:58:46.858-04:00Interesting argument for 1980 being the best year ...Interesting argument for 1980 being the best year in film since 1965. Interesting mostly for its attempt to compile ever A- film of every year starting with 1965. http://www.hitfix.com/news/why-1980-was-the-best-year-in-movie-historyTGGPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11017651009634767649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-74105583020942355752015-04-28T19:49:03.193-04:002015-04-28T19:49:03.193-04:00How dense can a person be.
The point of the OP is...How dense can a person be.<br /><br />The point of the OP is teasers and trailers are now treated as major media events in their own right, with countdown timers preceding them and hundreds of articles and hours of video devoted to breathless reaction and analysis. Not just by some small clique of nerds, but by virtually every media outlet in the country, including national news networks. This is an emerging phenomenon that only ramped up in the last 10 years or so, how anyone could dispute this is beyond me.<br /><br />It's shameful for adults to act this way. Guilty pleasures are one thing, but it's sad and embarrassing to see how unabashedly grown-ups now embrace gaudy, juvenile entertainment, whether it's nerds cosplaying at a convention or CNN anchors feigning shocked excitement over a 30-second TV spot about magic space knights. It's a regression to childish escapism by people who can't or won't aspire to adult dignity, abetted by corporations who are happy to keep standards for their products as low as possible. When you were 10 years old, how would you have felt about it if your father cared deeply about who Black Widow was dating that month, or Han & Chewie's origin story, or the announcement of a new Pixar sequel? Is it "schoolyard misanthropy" to think bronies are pathetic for obsessing over a little girl's TV show? I mean, I'd hate to think I was being judgmental here...<br /><br />And before you snark about "well aren't you a fancypants", this is not an argument against pulpy, crowd-pleasing tentpole movies, which I like very much (3 of my all-time favorite movies are The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly, Heat, and Inception, none of which are remotely "arthouse"). It's me wishing we had separate movie cultures for small kids, older kids, and adults, and that people had the self-respect to at least be discreet when they liked age-inappropriate stuff for the sake of upholding social norms.<br /><br />Personally I don't go to the theater much anymore because everything either is either the 6th movie in a series I don't care about, a lame comedy starring fat Jews, or SWPL awards-bait about blacks or fags. But when I do go, yes, I'm cautious about getting burned by hype covering for a shitty product. Hollywood doesn't care if you hate their movie once you've bought a ticket, so God forbid anyone should be a little skeptical and skip the opening weekend crush (this is also a good way to avoid the most unbearable nerds).<br /><br />Finally, I realize plenty of people are perfectly happy we're getting these movies. I'm sure Avengers 2 and Star Wars 7 will make a skrillion dollars (though I do think audiences will eventually get tired of this assembly-line shit and a crash will happen, as Spielberg and Lucas have predicted). But when Homeland Security kicks my door down and drags me off to the FEMA camps for saying "fag" in the previous paragraph, I'll take solace in having dreamed of a better world instead of shutting up and shelling out for the crappy superhero retreads that fund Bryan Singer's underage twink orgies.<br />NZTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-70904294426981907982015-04-28T18:47:22.709-04:002015-04-28T18:47:22.709-04:00As an addendum:
The money-making for Star Trek w...As an addendum: <br /><br />The money-making for Star Trek was never the Big Opening Weekend or even the total sales of first run tickets, but the predictability of the box office gross combined with the success of the movie both being rebroadcast on TV during marathons (generating revenue for the studio that licenses it) + the DVD sales. Star Trek was a workhorse, not a thoroughbred. <br /><br />In short, Star Trek was not a blockbuster franchise, but a consistent major cult industry that a studio could bank on as regular revenue so long as the product was adequate. It was about nerds coming back again and again for more, not about a teenage girl showing up with her gay friends on opening night. <br /><br />That's how TOS made Roddenberry famous--not through first run success, but by syndication. That's how the TOS movies made money---decent box office + marathons. That's how TNG made money--through syndication and repeats. That's how TNG movies made money---decent box office + regular stream of marathons and DVD sales.<br /><br />Abrams and co. removed the profitability of the franchise by making it Just Another Blockbuster. So it removes the repeatability factor for nerds, meaning it won't be a major seller for marathons + DVDs for the future, while the other Star Treks will be. That means a Star Trek movie now depends on being Just Another Blockbuster, and if it fails to deliver with good buzz, it will tank and never be saved by later nerd sales. <br /><br />This was a very short-sighted move by the studio in the Age of Netflix. As time goes on, a studio's library of good movies will become infinitely more valuable. Ted Turner's genius years ago was to recognize this and get a huge library early and make a cable channel out of it. <br /><br />In other words, which Star Trek movie do you think will provide its owners + stars more licensing fees merchandise sales, and convention buzz in 20 years: Wrath of Khan versus Into Darkness? Or First Contact versus the 2009 reboot? As a casual Star Trek fan, I've already forgotten everything about the 2009 reboot and haven't seen Khan or First Contact in a decade, but can still remember certain scenes, lines, and the general fun atmosphere. If one comes on TBS I'll stop to watch it; if Into Darkness or the 2009 reboot come on, I'm boredly switching channels. whorefinderhttp://whoresoftheinternet.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-51684358492336008022015-04-28T17:35:34.861-04:002015-04-28T17:35:34.861-04:00Completely OT: are we in the beginning of one Of P...Completely OT: are we in the beginning of one Of Peter Turchin's violence spikes? His theory says they happen every 50 years and the Harlem riot happened 1964 and the Watts riots in 65. lgnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-19455640508541767762015-04-28T16:11:24.389-04:002015-04-28T16:11:24.389-04:00"As for the guy defending teasers cuz now we ...<i>"As for the guy defending teasers cuz now we all know what Star Wars is, that's missing the point. The point is that people today ENJOY getting cockteased for years with tiny drops of vague detail about these movies, in fact they crave it just so they'll have something in their miserable lives to get excited about. "</i><br /><br />Ah, the sweet smell of schoolyard misanthropy. I remember it well. People are lemmings, they have miserable lives and are unthinking automatons who crave visual stimulation. But not you! You know the score, you're onto the media elite's ruse. Stay strong. Ha. I do, in fact, enjoy a nice cocktease from the makers of a series that I enjoy. I'm gay as hell for Walking Dead, for instance. I can enjoy it while knowing it's just that: a fun little diversion. If you can't separate the two, or if you're still operating under the idea that the unwashed masses aren't smart enough to know what's good for them, then too bad for you. You're probably not very happy.<br /><br /><i>"I suppose you also still go to every new M. Night Shyamalan movie, since Sixth Sense was so good? This soft touch attitude of "it's got the brand name on it and everyone will be talking about it, how could I possibly skip it?" is a Disney shareholder's wet dream. It is EXACTLY why the studios are doing what they're doing."</i><br /><br />I went to M. Night Shyamalan's second movie, Unbreakable, very much because I enjoyed the Sixth Sense. Unbreakable was mediocre with a similar twist ending structure. I waited to see Signs on video, it sucked and had yet another big twist ending. Haven't seen one of his movies since. See, it's not a zero sum gain. People can make distinctions because most of us aren't idiots. And yeah, no shit, the studios are out to make money. Most of us are fairly aware of that, yet still enjoy the occasional big tent picture because they can be fun. Hey, I also enjoy arthouse flicks. Gee, aren't people complex? Ha, not really, just people.<br /><br /><i>"At least wait until the initial media-gasm dies down and if people still seem excited about it days or weeks after the initial release, then maybe it's worth a damn."</i><br /><br />Firstly, why? Is that what you do? Good for you. Secondly, sometimes I wait, sometimes I don't. For Star Wars, I'm not waiting. For the Harry Potter movies when my kids were younger, we didn't wait. For just about everything else, we wait. Lots of people are the same way. We're all intelligent enough to pick and choose, even if our choices aren't yours. For chrissakes.<br /><br /><i>"I can count on one hand the number of directors I would watch anything they made just on the strength of their reputation, and even then they could easily drop off that list with poor output..."</i><br /><br />You truly hold the world in your hands. What's your next move? I gotta know. Ha. Yeah, I'm the same. Nolan is one of mine, too. So is Michael Winterbottom, Julien Schnabel, Linklater, and anything with Steve Coogan in it. So what?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-87142559563398155222015-04-28T16:10:33.240-04:002015-04-28T16:10:33.240-04:00"We have no idea what any movie is going to b...<i>"We have no idea what any movie is going to be about before we actually see it -- that's the point of the trailer."</i><br /><br />We kinda know what the new Star Wars movie will be about, in general. And even if we didn't, it's perfectly legitimate and not part of some conspiratorial trend for a trailer to be vague about plot. It's a classic technique to whet the appetite, and not all that new. I remember seeing the trailer for the first Alien movie in 1979, it was quite opaque and ended with the chilling, "In space, no one can hear you scream." It was a brand new movie and everyone in that theater couldn't wait to check it out after seeing the trailer. Did Ridley Scott owe us a more descriptive trailer for some reason? Hell no. <br /><br /><i>"Then there's the blasphemous presumption that we're supposed to worship anything with the Star Wars name on it, just because the original movies 30-40 years ago were awesome."</i><br /><br />Again, you're not supposed to do anything, but the filmmakers are pretty certain that a sizable audience will check out the movie based on their fondness for the original trilogy. Myself included. You can blanche at that assumption and forego seeing it on principle, but that's pretty silly, to my mind. Understandable, as I felt the same way in my 20s. I'm different, you can't manipulate me! Meh. You'll either get over that or you won't. If the new Star Wars movie is awesome, you'll end up seeing it, maybe a couple weeks later than me, and you can stew in your superiority. Or if it sucks, you can feel vindicated in it. In either case, I'll have spent 40 bucks taking my family out to a fun event with similarly excited folks. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-22222224756942557092015-04-28T15:44:42.332-04:002015-04-28T15:44:42.332-04:00"No they didn't. The basic cable networks...<i>"No they didn't. The basic cable networks were around back then, but they did not attract huge audiences and "water cooler" conversations about what happened on last night's episode. Dallas, that was about it. Serial drama was not popular on cable, nor was it top-rated on TV."</i><br /><br />Not only Dallas, but Falcon Crest, Dynasty, Knots Landing, Hill St. Blues, etc. All very much water cooler shows. And daytime soaps were still very popular in the 80s. Aside from Hill St. Blues, those shows were very corny, but still popular and serial.<br /><br /><i>"Right, all those peer groups of kids running around the neighborhood, teenagers loitering around the shopping center / 7-11, adults in night clubs, and the senior citizens at the mall. And all those people making eye-contact and talking to each other in the coffee shops."</i><br /><br />Yes to all of the above, only add in smartphones. Where do you live that you aren't seeing those things? I will give you that there are less groups of kids running around outside, but they can be found in droves at the mall, for better or worse. Coffee shops are FAR more popular now with everybody than they were in the 80s. Far, far more, believe me. And just because people are checking their smartphones while talking to the person at the table doesn't mean they aren't socializing (although I still think it's rude, because I'm old). As for adults in night clubs, any city is lousy with them. In the suburbs, sports bars are hopping, and clubs within Indian casinos are insanely popular. I live 10 minutes from one, not my scene at all, but it's extremely busy 24/7.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-21954441140882034322015-04-28T10:50:54.115-04:002015-04-28T10:50:54.115-04:00"Dallas" wasn't sui generis. Just a..."Dallas" wasn't sui generis. Just among primetime soap operas, there was "Dynasty" (#1 show in 1984-85, top 10 between 1982 and '86, top 30 from 1981 to '87), "Falcon Crest" (top 10 for three seasons and top 30 for five), "Knots Landing" (top 10 for 1 season, top 30 for eight), plus others, although those were the big four. Between 1980 and 1985 the top rated television series in America was always a soap, either Dallas or Dynasty. (The Cosby Show dominated the latter half of the '80s.)<br /><br />Non-soaps like "Hill Street Blues" and "St. Elsewhere" also had serial qualities, although they weren't as popular, apparently because they lacked the sturm und drang of the "Dallas" type shows.Richardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-76371812363676086862015-04-28T01:27:04.039-04:002015-04-28T01:27:04.039-04:00I thought soaps like Dallas, Dynasty and General H...I thought soaps like Dallas, Dynasty and General Hospital were popular in the 80s.<br /><br />Snyder is a lousy director. He's basically a fanboy that somehow got studios to give him money.TGGPhttp://entitledtoanopinion.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-14224728580736165822015-04-27T21:54:25.733-04:002015-04-27T21:54:25.733-04:00"teenagers loitering around the shopping cent..."teenagers loitering around the shopping center / 7-11,"<br /><br />you still see this at Wawas in NJ.Curtisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-15204165128264622722015-04-27T21:15:59.362-04:002015-04-27T21:15:59.362-04:00Also with regard to drugs: If Sailer thinks that t...Also with regard to drugs: If Sailer thinks that these Millennial starlets are stone cold sober HE must be high. In their defense, being a touring musician of any kind is tough (hence the endless "road" songs that have been made). Let alone someone whose performance is a huge deal to a bunch of elites. God knows what the Taylor Swift's of this era are doing behind closed doors to try and keep their psyche intact.<br /><br />The mid century also had performers (esp. women) who were ground to a pulp by the corporate hype machine.<br /><br />I'd wager that 70's/80's performers were relatively well adjusted. Of course, artists in general tend to be off kilter no matter what.Ferylnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-72233519044759787312015-04-27T21:08:54.237-04:002015-04-27T21:08:54.237-04:00"It's all about getting people hooked, ge..."It's all about getting people hooked, getting them to feel like they HAVE to go see it, because they're already too invested in the franchise, and besides everyone else is going to see it and they'll be talking about it and THERE COULD BE SPOILERS! Learn to just not care, it's freeing and it's the grown-up thing to do. At least wait until the initial media-gasm dies down and if people still seem excited about it days or weeks after the initial release, then maybe it's worth a damn."<br /><br />Good point. When people stop clicking on these stories, stop retweeting hype, and for crying out loud, stop attending those damn conventions, maybe then we'll finally have some peace and quiet. Instead of wall to wall hype and teasing.<br /><br />In the 70's and 80's, the majority of movies quietly slipped into theaters and if people liked them, word got around and the movie did business. And thanks to the better quality of stuff on average, cool poster art, and people being less uptight it wasn't that uncommon for people to go into all kinds of movies regardless of the "brand" or the hype. There's a reason for all of the damn sequels, remakes, and re-hashing of established characters.<br /><br />Keep in mind also that the better quality of movies back then meant that some pretty good movies actually did fairly average to mediocre business. It was really tough to have staying power with so much competition. Which is also why the 80's had a lot of one hit wonders in music. <br /><br />i've heard Sailer blame cocaine for the large number of artists who came and went fast in the late 70's/80's but I don't buy it. Record companies back then didn't do much promotion of a given artist since there were so many artists doing good stuff. The art sold itself. Between weak label support and the high competition between so many good artists, it's not surprising that a lot of acts struggled to stick around.<br /><br />It seems pretty self-explanatory that the better art is, the less marketing is relied on. The likes of Taylor Swift are lavished with massive promotion and the best song writers and producers that money can buy. And there's hardly anyone out there doing anything interesting. So artists like Swift can stay in the spotlight essentially indefinitely. The only that will slow them down is some kind of injury or emotional melt down (see Maria Carey and Britney Spears).Ferylnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-81476712459560778122015-04-27T20:50:05.548-04:002015-04-27T20:50:05.548-04:00"As to JJ Abrams, he's effectively ruined..."As to JJ Abrams, he's effectively ruined the Star Trek movies as a franchise-moneymaker. They are no longer "Star Trek" movies, but action movies in space with the name "Star Trek" on them<br /><br />The last decent Star Trek movie was First Contact which grossed 92 million domestic. Adjusted for inflation to 2009 that is roughly 125 million. Star Trek (2009) grossed twice that. So as a money maker JJ Abrams clearly saved the franchise."<br /><br />The pre-Abrams movies came out just before the Big-ass tentpole arms race really got out of hand. By 2009, boring-but hugely (over) produced movies were able to make tons of money via extensive marketing (with huge levels of fan service) and endless scenes of effects heavy spectacle. <br /><br />I don't like the Next Generation movies all that much (the mid-late 90's were fairly boring) but Paramount didn't blow tons of money on the them (2002's Nemesis had a 60 million budget) and didn't market them to death. Meanwhile, the remake had a 160 million budget, "hot" young actors, and social media/convention pow wows in which the director and actors hyped the movie to kingdom come. And the aformentioned gimmick of trailers months in advance of the movie.<br /><br />These turgid tentpole movies are basically guaranteed to make at least adequate money unless:<br /><br />- They're based on a dead brand or really bad idea (see the Lone Ranger)<br /><br />- They've received a lot bad publicity for a "troubled" production while the makers are too busy or embarrased to defend and promote the movie adequately (again the Lone Ranger<br /><br />- The movie just, uh, sucks in spite of it's budget and the skill that such money brings.<br /><br />In the later 60's - 90's movies were made and marketed much more modestly. Basically they were on a diet. Sometimes if the script wasn't happening or if the director or lead actor were in over their head the movie would turn out bad. Yet at the same time, not blowing tons of money and not prepping a movie months or years in advance also meant that the creators had to rely on talent and gut instincts. And relying on genuine spontaneous inspiration could produce great stuff. <br /><br />Today's culture is so constipated and neurotic everything has to be agonizingly over thought. It's like they think that sheer technical razzle dazzle and having 700 people working for eons on every aspect of the movie is going to compensate for a lack of anything to say.Ferylnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-14365705457999924472015-04-27T20:40:06.163-04:002015-04-27T20:40:06.163-04:00Good OP. I'm already sick of the ubiquitous ch...Good OP. I'm already sick of the ubiquitous cheerleading for these corporate franchise movies (should almost say "entertainment products"), and it's clearly going to get a lot worse before it ever gets better.<br /><br />re: the new Star Trek movies, they drew bigger audiences than the old ones by turning them into broad, generic action sci-fi and throwing an avalanche of marketing cash at the public. Score a big opening weekend and a decent multiple the next one, pay a bunch of websites to call it a bold new direction for the series, then move on and flush it down the memory hole before everyone figures out it was mediocre and forgettable. Finally let the franchise rest for 9 months or so until it's time to start teasing the next EPIC NEW DEVELOPMENT one drop at a time. This is the template for all these franchises. The reason they now put so much focus on teasing what's coming NEXT is to distract you from the fact that more often than now what you're watching NOW is shit. Find me one person who will say that Star Trek: Into Dorkness is one of their all-time personal favorite movies (or Thor 2 or Wolverine 2 or Fast & Furious 6 or Spider Man 2 or Iron Man 3...). In future years no one will ever watch these things outside of nerd marathons. Yet I'm not even a Star Trek fan and I can still watch Wrath of Khan today and enjoy it. At least it had personality and felt like the people involved gave a shit about telling that particular story.<br /><br />For the record, Zachary Quinto and Chris Pine are flaming queers and are completely implausible as womanizers or even straight men period (Quinto barely seems human).<br /><br />As for the guy defending teasers cuz now we all know what Star Wars is, that's missing the point. The point is that people today ENJOY getting cockteased for years with tiny drops of vague detail about these movies, in fact they crave it just so they'll have something in their miserable lives to get excited about. If the studios said "OK, here's the new thing we're releasing next month, here's the cast and the basic plot, hope we'll see you there!" they would screech about "neglecting the fandom" and then screech louder about spoilers. That is well deserving of mockery.<br /><br />Lastly, this line bugged me:<br /><br />"hell yes, I'm excited for the movie purely based on my love of the original 3. I hope it's good, might not be, but I'm willing to pay my 8 bucks to find out."<br /><br />I suppose you also still go to every new M. Night Shyamalan movie, since Sixth Sense was so good? This soft touch attitude of "it's got the brand name on it and everyone will be talking about it, how could I possibly skip it?" is a Disney shareholder's wet dream. It is EXACTLY why the studios are doing what they're doing. "You mean you're not going to see the new Star Wars movie? Why not just stab your own childhood in the back while you're at it!" Sorry, George Lucas already did that 15 years ago.<br /><br />It's all about getting people hooked, getting them to feel like they HAVE to go see it, because they're already too invested in the franchise, and besides everyone else is going to see it and they'll be talking about it and THERE COULD BE SPOILERS! Learn to just not care, it's freeing and it's the grown-up thing to do. At least wait until the initial media-gasm dies down and if people still seem excited about it days or weeks after the initial release, then maybe it's worth a damn.<br /><br />I can count on one hand the number of directors I would watch anything they made just on the strength of their reputation, and even then they could easily drop off that list with poor output (Christ Nolan needs to step up his game after Interstellar). The huge majority of movies are shit, so it's on Hollywood to sell me on the next new thing, and I want to be nice and clear on what exactly it is and why I should care, not get blue balls just trying to discern who the main character is.NZTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-67981959938786080172015-04-27T19:23:57.102-04:002015-04-27T19:23:57.102-04:00The Russo brothers ('71 and '75) have dire...The Russo brothers ('71 and '75) have directed some solid stuff. Captain America 2:The Winter's Soldier, Arrested Development, Community, some other stuff. And they have been tapped to direct Captain America 3, and succeed Joss Whedon on Avengers 4 and 5.<br /><br /><i>As to JJ Abrams, he's effectively ruined the Star Trek movies as a franchise-moneymaker. They are no longer "Star Trek" movies, but action movies in space with the name "Star Trek" on them</i><br /><br />The last decent Star Trek movie was First Contact which grossed 92 million domestic. Adjusted for inflation to 2009 that is roughly 125 million. Star Trek (2009) grossed twice that. So as a money maker JJ Abrams clearly saved the franchise.<br /><br />In fact, whenever I think about Star Trek, I hope somebody like Netflix or Amazon picks up a 13-episode run. Because they get lured in by the $$$ he put up.WillBestnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-70999604769241196162015-04-27T19:05:22.165-04:002015-04-27T19:05:22.165-04:00"Obviously, moviegoers had no idea what Star ..."Obviously, moviegoers had no idea what Star Wars was about"<br /><br />We have no idea what any movie is going to be about before we actually see it -- that's the point of the trailer. Even if our assessment after seeing the movie is, "Meh, it was just another movie like X, Y, and Z," we can't know that beforehand.<br /><br />No two movies are the same, so we need to know the rough contours of what this one is that you're advertising.<br /><br />Removing all hints of what makes this particular movie distinct is treating movies like they're fungible globs of stuff. No need to know what makes this Star Wars story compelling -- it's the next blob of product that got shat off some Hollywood assembly line, Star Wars division.<br /><br />Then there's the blasphemous presumption that we're supposed to worship anything with the Star Wars name on it, just because the original movies 30-40 years ago were awesome. It's supposed to be such an automatic pilgrimage to the theaters that we don't even have to know what the story will be about.<br /><br />And in any case, trailers in the old days spelled out the plot overview even for well-worn genres like the rogue cop movie. Here's the original trailer for Die Hard:<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TQ-pOvI6Xo<br /><br />That voice-over sounds like he's reading the plot synopsis at Wikipedia! Who hadn't seen one of those kinds of movies by 1988? Nobody. So why all the detail about plot, characters, and motivation? Because they had to convince the audience that *this particular* rogue cop vs. the terrorist movie was compelling enough to see in the theaters.<br /><br />That used to be the main question people asked when browsing the selection at the video rental store -- you're in the horror section, and you pick one up wondering, "Hmm, what's this one about?" "Sounds awesome / sounds boring." Not, "OMG, sequel to Poltergeist -- must be epic, must rent tonight, don't tell me what it says on the back of the box!"<br /><br />Nobody wonders what a movie is about anymore. It's just "Action / Horror / Cartoon movie #643897 of year 2015, tags: STAR WARS / TOY STORY / MARVEL SUPERHERO"<br /><br />The audience wants interchangeable chunks of "content," so that's what Hollywood serves up, advertising it as fungible "product".agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-6383613682803788362015-04-27T18:48:00.158-04:002015-04-27T18:48:00.158-04:00"I honestly see zero difference in the freque..."I honestly see zero difference in the frequency of people socializing."<br /><br />Right, all those peer groups of kids running around the neighborhood, teenagers loitering around the shopping center / 7-11, adults in night clubs, and the senior citizens at the mall. And all those people making eye-contact and talking to each other in the coffee shops.<br /><br />Just like yesterday.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-68247251668436854142015-04-27T18:45:43.994-04:002015-04-27T18:45:43.994-04:00"Even before Netflix, in the 80s even, people..."Even before Netflix, in the 80s even, people watched serialized drama while also somehow sustaining a healthy social life."<br /><br />No they didn't. The basic cable networks were around back then, but they did not attract huge audiences and "water cooler" conversations about what happened on last night's episode. Dallas, that was about it. Serial drama was not popular on cable, nor was it top-rated on TV.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.com