DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Movies and TV => Topic started by: lordxizor on July 26, 2023, 02:04:46 PM
-
I am honestly starting to think that for some weird reason, studios intentionally make movies they know are bad. I can't figure out any other explanation.
I'm going to focus on Disney here, but this could apply to virtually all of the major studios. When I heard a synopsis of Strange Worlds, I knew it would be a flop and it was. When I first saw a previous for Elemental, I was quite confident it wouldn't do well, and it hasn't. When I first heard they were making a Haunted Mansion movie, I thought to myself, who wants this? It's going to flop. And all indications are that it is going to be another colossal failure for Disney this year. How can a casual movie fan look at movies and know they're going to lose money while studios continue to pump out expensive crap?
Do they reach a point where they know it's crap, but they might as well finish it and put it out there to make something rather than nothing? Are they banking on streaming revenue and other revenue sources to make a film profitable later on despite mediocre box office returns? Do they just flat out not know they movies are bad and/or don't have a significant audience? Is there some other benefit to a movie studio pumping out mediocre to awful movies knowing full well they're not going to make money?
-
Not to turn this into some P/R thing.....but Disney's recent struggles are directly related to the tone/direction/messaging of the movies and shows they're putting out. For instance, look up the synopsis and couple interviews that are out there surrounding the upcoming live action Snow White. That'll be a colossal failure as well.
But I highly doubt any of these studios are intentionally making bad movies. I just think that there 1) Aren't enough people in the early meetings/planning of these projects with the balls to say 'no' or that the idea sucks. 2) The folks in charge of these studios have egos the size of South America and believe they're sages and magic makers and that nothing they believe in will fail.
-
Look at Adam Sandler's filmography over the last 15 years. He's cranking out 3 or so movies a year. How many have people heard of? How many are good? They somehow make a ton of money, though. Pair him with Jennifer Aniston and it'll make 150 million+. I don't think for a second studios are losing tons of money on movies. That's not how the real world works. There might be setbacks, but if a movie sucks it probably didn't cost enough to really matter. Also, when it comes to Disney and some of the other major players, you've got to factor in cross-collateralization. Movies help sell their streaming platform. They help get people to the parks. They help sell merch. And vice versa all the way around. I honestly have no idea how all of this comes together, but I'm pretty confident that the studios know what they're doing.
-
They do not intentionally make bad movies.
They DO intentionally make movies for the wrong reasons. Take The Haunted Mansion for instance. This was intentionally made for the purpose of capitalizing on a bankable product. “People love this ride, so if we make a movie about it, it will promote the park, and a lot of people will make a paycheck.” After that, they simply don’t care if it’s “good” or “bad” because those were simply not the deciding factors in making the movie in the first place. Quality is simply not part of the equation. It *might* end up being good…but it doesn’t matter. Leave the “quality film making” to those who want to make quality films.
-
I do honestly think a huge part of Disney's box office revenue problems is Disney+. Why pay to see it in the theater when you can just watch it on Disney+ a couple months later?
Again, this was not meant to be a strictly Disney thread. Plenty of studios put out complete crap that people can see a mile away will be a collosal flop. I just don't get it. Maybe if 1/10th of them surprise and become a huge hit it makes up for the other crap?
-
Look at Adam Sandler's filmography over the last 15 years. He's cranking out 3 or so movies a year. How many have people heard of? How many are good? They somehow make a ton of money, though. Pair him with Jennifer Aniston and it'll make 150 million+. I don't think for a second studios are losing tons of money on movies. That's not how the real world works. There might be setbacks, but if a movie sucks it probably didn't cost enough to really matter.
You're probably right. Do those "bad" movies really lose money? scrolling through social media and seeing bad comments about a movie does not mean it loses money, maybe it's actually profitabile.
I'm not really an expert of what goes on in the highest spheres, but I'd be hardly surprised if the decision to greenlight movies has nothing to do with art and all with money and revenue and marketing forecasts. In the rooms of power I believe it's easier to listen stuff like "Ok, we have expectations that a comedy movie with this kind of tone will sell good and we should market it for the holiday seasons", rather than "hey, we haven't really had a decent movie about this cool and interesting topic in a good while, let's find a good director to tell a touching story".
-
I'd be hardly surprised if the decision to greenlight movies has nothing to do with art and all with money and revenue and marketing forecasts.
This is absolutely the case for large studios. I don't blame them for putting making money over art, they are a business afterall.
I've got to imagine in many cases the studio knows a movie is bad, but it doesn't make financial sense to pour more money into reshoots and post-production. So they just cut their losses and release the movie as-is and hope for the best. Couple that with minimal advertising since they don't want to spend more money promoting a loser and you have a box office bomb.
I guess I'm just shocked by how many movies come out and I think "how did anyone ever think making that movie was a good idea?"
-
I'd be hardly surprised if the decision to greenlight movies has nothing to do with art and all with money and revenue and marketing forecasts.
This is absolutely the case for large studios. I don't blame them for putting making money over art, they are a business afterall.
I've got to imagine in many cases the studio knows a movie is bad, but it doesn't make financial sense to pour more money into reshoots and post-production. So they just cut their losses and release the movie as-is and hope for the best. Couple that with minimal advertising since they don't want to spend more money promoting a loser and you have a box office bomb.
Indeed. Plus there are tax advantages to a movie bombing. So sometimes they’ll release bad movies (maybe movies they thought would be good before it was done) knowing it’ll bomb and be a tax write off.
-
I don't know how movie contracts go, but my guess is that once it is signed, they're obligated to release the product, regardless of quality. But bad movies are not a new thing, the only difference now is that you hear more about them because of social media and what not. Also, I'm sure some of them feel the movie is great and then it flops, similar to how you hear musicians before an album saying it's the best they ever done, only for the fans hate the music.
-
I don't know how movie contracts go, but my guess is that once it is signed, they're obligated to release the product, regardless of quality. But bad movies are not a new thing, the only difference now is that you hear more about them because of social media and what not. Also, I'm sure some of them feel the movie is great and then it flops, similar to how you hear musicians before an album saying it's the best they ever done, only for the fans hate the music.
I don't think studios are obligated to release movies, at least not universally. A famous recent example is the Batgirl movie that was finished and then stashed away, never to be released.
But I guess the general thought is that if they feel a movie is awful, just don't advertise much, get whatever little bit you can upon release, and then use it as a write off.
-
If that's the case then ignore my post :)
-
If that's the case then ignore my post :)
But you made some other great points! I have no doubt that many movies that bomb are released in good faith.
-
I don't know how movie contracts go, but my guess is that once it is signed, they're obligated to release the product, regardless of quality. But bad movies are not a new thing, the only difference now is that you hear more about them because of social media and what not. Also, I'm sure some of them feel the movie is great and then it flops, similar to how you hear musicians before an album saying it's the best they ever done, only for the fans hate the music.
I don't think studios are obligated to release movies, at least not universally. A famous recent example is the Batgirl movie that was finished and then stashed away, never to be released.
But I guess the general thought is that if they feel a movie is awful, just don't advertise much, get whatever little bit you can upon release, and then use it as a write off.
As well as critics getting to see the movie before the release dates for reviews.
-
They do not intentionally make bad movies.
They DO intentionally make movies for the wrong reasons. Take The Haunted Mansion for instance. This was intentionally made for the purpose of capitalizing on a bankable product. “People love this ride, so if we make a movie about it, it will promote the park, and a lot of people will make a paycheck.” After that, they simply don’t care if it’s “good” or “bad” because those were simply not the deciding factors in making the movie in the first place. Quality is simply not part of the equation. It *might* end up being good…but it doesn’t matter. Leave the “quality film making” to those who want to make quality films.
That tactic worked for Pirates of the Caribbean.
-
They do not intentionally make bad movies.
They DO intentionally make movies for the wrong reasons. Take The Haunted Mansion for instance. This was intentionally made for the purpose of capitalizing on a bankable product. “People love this ride, so if we make a movie about it, it will promote the park, and a lot of people will make a paycheck.” After that, they simply don’t care if it’s “good” or “bad” because those were simply not the deciding factors in making the movie in the first place. Quality is simply not part of the equation. It *might* end up being good…but it doesn’t matter. Leave the “quality film making” to those who want to make quality films.
That tactic worked for Pirates of the Caribbean.
I think in many ways it's bad when that approach ends up successful. The execs get the wrong message about what made the movie successful. "People loved this movie based on a Disneyland ride, we better make more movies based on Disneyland rides" instead of people liking a movie that was exciting, had a fun story, and a compelling lead character.
-
They do not intentionally make bad movies.
They DO intentionally make movies for the wrong reasons. Take The Haunted Mansion for instance. This was intentionally made for the purpose of capitalizing on a bankable product. “People love this ride, so if we make a movie about it, it will promote the park, and a lot of people will make a paycheck.” After that, they simply don’t care if it’s “good” or “bad” because those were simply not the deciding factors in making the movie in the first place. Quality is simply not part of the equation. It *might* end up being good…but it doesn’t matter. Leave the “quality film making” to those who want to make quality films.
That tactic worked for Pirates of the Caribbean.
Indeed. Good quality is good quality, independent of source. The original 1986 Transformers movie is fantastic and it's just a big toy commercial. Clue is one of the best comedies I've seen and it's based off a board game.
Good writing mixed with good directing can make great films out of whatever.
-
They do not intentionally make bad movies.
They DO intentionally make movies for the wrong reasons. Take The Haunted Mansion for instance. This was intentionally made for the purpose of capitalizing on a bankable product. “People love this ride, so if we make a movie about it, it will promote the park, and a lot of people will make a paycheck.” After that, they simply don’t care if it’s “good” or “bad” because those were simply not the deciding factors in making the movie in the first place. Quality is simply not part of the equation. It *might* end up being good…but it doesn’t matter. Leave the “quality film making” to those who want to make quality films.
That tactic worked for Pirates of the Caribbean.
I think in many ways it's bad when that approach ends up successful. The execs get the wrong message about what made the movie successful. "People loved this movie based on a Disneyland ride, we better make more movies based on Disneyland rides" instead of people liking a movie that was exciting, had a fun story, and a compelling lead character.
But that's the case with most anything.
Squid Games becomes a success, let's all go frantically looking for other Korean series. Stranger Things becomes a success, let's all go looking for another teen show. And so on and on and on, a movie or series becomes a success, and everybody climbs on the bandwagon.
There is a reason why there are a lot of prequels, sequels and reboots. They know what sells. Heck, in a sense, it's like the music industry, "how come they release such shitty albums?".... well, they're shitty to us, because we are passionate about good music and we have a broad variety of tastes. A derivative, soulless, average pop album promoted the right way would still outsell 2/3 of Dream Theater's discography put together, so whatever actually sells, works.
-
Clue is one of the best comedies I've seen and it's based off a board game.
Yup it's a great film. However Battleship is one of the worst big budget movies I've ever seen.
-
Clue is one of the best comedies I've seen and it's based off a board game.
Yup it's a great film. However Battleship is one of the worst big budget movies I've ever seen.
Never saw it :lol
But it supports what I said. Good writing and directing is good writing and directing. Jurassic Park is an amazing movie. Jurassic World not so much. Logan is a great movie. X-Men Origins: Wolverine, not so much.
-
They do not intentionally make bad movies.
They DO intentionally make movies for the wrong reasons. Take The Haunted Mansion for instance. This was intentionally made for the purpose of capitalizing on a bankable product. “People love this ride, so if we make a movie about it, it will promote the park, and a lot of people will make a paycheck.” After that, they simply don’t care if it’s “good” or “bad” because those were simply not the deciding factors in making the movie in the first place. Quality is simply not part of the equation. It *might* end up being good…but it doesn’t matter. Leave the “quality film making” to those who want to make quality films.
That tactic worked for Pirates of the Caribbean.
I think in many ways it's bad when that approach ends up successful. The execs get the wrong message about what made the movie successful. "People loved this movie based on a Disneyland ride, we better make more movies based on Disneyland rides" instead of people liking a movie that was exciting, had a fun story, and a compelling lead character.
But that's the case with most anything.
Squid Games becomes a success, let's all go frantically looking for other Korean series. Stranger Things becomes a success, let's all go looking for another teen show. And so on and on and on, a movie or series becomes a success, and everybody climbs on the bandwagon.
There is a reason why there are a lot of prequels, sequels and reboots. They know what sells. Heck, in a sense, it's like the music industry, "how come they release such shitty albums?".... well, they're shitty to us, because we are passionate about good music and we have a broad variety of tastes. A derivative, soulless, average pop album promoted the right way would still outsell 2/3 of Dream Theater's discography put together, so whatever actually sells, works.
Like I said earlier, I can't blame studios for preferring movies that make big money over artistic ones. And I really don't have a problem with blockbuster type movies. Those tend to be the ones I go see in the theaters.
What is confusing to me are the movies that have minimal commercial appeal and are objectively bad movies. There seem to be a significant number of those made. Maybe the studio execs just significantly misjudged movie-goer interest in that type of movie. Or maybe they thought it would be so good that it would renew interest in a specific genre that doesn't typically draw much and the movie just didn't turn out very good. I'm just left scratching my head in wonder sometimes how certain movies get made in the first place.
-
If at the start of this year you looked at a list of movies to released in 2023 I don't think many would pick Super Mario and Barbie as the ones to make the most at the box office (yeah Barbie could still drop of a cliff, but nothing is suggesting that is going to happen at this point - it's sailing too over a billion). Marvel is generally underperforming for Marvel, DC is flopping, Indy Jones Flopped hard as did Dungeons & Dragons. Mission Impossible and Fast & Furious both underperformed too.
-
If at the start of this year you looked at a list of movies to released in 2023 I don't think many would pick Super Mario and Barbie as the ones to make the most at the box office (yeah Barbie could still drop of a cliff, but nothing is suggesting that is going to happen at this point - it's sailing too over a billion). Marvel is generally underperforming for Marvel, DC is flopping, Indy Jones Flopped hard as did Dungeons & Dragons. Mission Impossible and Fast & Furious both underperformed too.
I think you would have expected Super Mario Bros and Barbie to do well, but maybe not as good as they have. I think super hero fatigue is a real thing both for audiences (not racing to the theaters to see the movies like in the past) and the studios themselves (noticeable reduction in quality). DC shot themselves in the foot by announcing the DCU reboot, making anything coming out in 2023 kind of non-cannon or whatever you want to say. I think it's safe to say that franchises are not a sure bet anymore like they have been in recent memory.
Dungeons and Dragons is actually a good example of what I'm talking about in this thread. I haven't seen it, so I don't know if it's any good or not. But why would studio execs think a nerdy role playing game would translate to a large movie audience? I could have told them it wouldn't. They could have made a lower budget movie that was still profitable if it was good instead of going to a big budget blockbuster.
-
I think in many ways it's bad when that approach ends up successful. The execs get the wrong message about what made the movie successful. "People loved this movie based on a Disneyland ride, we better make more movies based on Disneyland rides" instead of people liking a movie that was exciting, had a fun story, and a compelling lead character.
Just read this story :lol
https://variety.com/2023/film/news/barbie-sequel-mattel-films-barney-hot-wheels-1235680302/
Don't know how true it is, but I would be very interested on what an UNO movie would look like
-
I think in many ways it's bad when that approach ends up successful. The execs get the wrong message about what made the movie successful. "People loved this movie based on a Disneyland ride, we better make more movies based on Disneyland rides" instead of people liking a movie that was exciting, had a fun story, and a compelling lead character.
Just read this story :lol
https://variety.com/2023/film/news/barbie-sequel-mattel-films-barney-hot-wheels-1235680302/
Don't know how true it is, but I would be very interested on what an UNO movie would look like
WTF... that's a lot of movies about toys :lol
UNO is the biggest head scratcher in there. How the hell do you make a movie out of that?
Who knew that Matchbox and Hot Wheels are both made by the same company? Aren't they basically the same thing?
-
I don't know how movie contracts go, but my guess is that once it is signed, they're obligated to release the product, regardless of quality. But bad movies are not a new thing, the only difference now is that you hear more about them because of social media and what not. Also, I'm sure some of them feel the movie is great and then it flops, similar to how you hear musicians before an album saying it's the best they ever done, only for the fans hate the music.
I don't think studios are obligated to release movies, at least not universally. A famous recent example is the Batgirl movie that was finished and then stashed away, never to be released.
But I guess the general thought is that if they feel a movie is awful, just don't advertise much, get whatever little bit you can upon release, and then use it as a write off.
There was a James Franco movie like that as well.
-
Who knew that Matchbox and Hot Wheels are both made by the same company? Aren't they basically the same thing?
Well, they are complimentary; Matchbox generally recreates established vehicles; ambulances, police cars, trucks and stuff. Hot Wheels are more fantastical; there have been "famous" collaborations with outside designers like Gas Monkey who built a real-life version of the Hot Wheels car. I think there's an actual performance issue too; I think the Hot Wheels are designed to work on the plastic tracks (which have gotten WAY complex; my grandson has these towers that are like five feet tall!! I used to just run the straight track from the top of my couch held down with a pillow!!) better; the Matchbox don't always do well on the tracks.
-
I don't know how movie contracts go, but my guess is that once it is signed, they're obligated to release the product, regardless of quality. But bad movies are not a new thing, the only difference now is that you hear more about them because of social media and what not. Also, I'm sure some of them feel the movie is great and then it flops, similar to how you hear musicians before an album saying it's the best they ever done, only for the fans hate the music.
I don't think studios are obligated to release movies, at least not universally. A famous recent example is the Batgirl movie that was finished and then stashed away, never to be released.
But I guess the general thought is that if they feel a movie is awful, just don't advertise much, get whatever little bit you can upon release, and then use it as a write off.
There was a James Franco movie like that as well.
Smart decision!
-
I think El Barto has it very right here. There are too many variables in play to just say "this cost x and we made y at the box office". And don't discount the welfare aspect of this; to make a movie employs hundreds of people for anywhere from six months to a year. I know I've worked at companies that have taken on work or projects that were nominally a "loss" but they kept people employed until the next "profitable" job comes in. Skilled tradespeople can't always sit around waiting for work.
-
I think in many ways it's bad when that approach ends up successful. The execs get the wrong message about what made the movie successful. "People loved this movie based on a Disneyland ride, we better make more movies based on Disneyland rides" instead of people liking a movie that was exciting, had a fun story, and a compelling lead character.
Just read this story :lol
https://variety.com/2023/film/news/barbie-sequel-mattel-films-barney-hot-wheels-1235680302/
Don't know how true it is, but I would be very interested on what an UNO movie would look like
I thought someone made this as a JOKE, but here we are...
(https://i.imgur.com/mbqcDGG.png)
-Marc.
-
As an MTG player, this feels kinda like what is going on in that game. A lot of crossover IPs and rapid releases. It feels comical.
-
I'm personally stoked for the UNO movie, LOL.
-
They do not intentionally make bad movies.
They DO intentionally make movies for the wrong reasons. Take The Haunted Mansion for instance. This was intentionally made for the purpose of capitalizing on a bankable product. “People love this ride, so if we make a movie about it, it will promote the park, and a lot of people will make a paycheck.” After that, they simply don’t care if it’s “good” or “bad” because those were simply not the deciding factors in making the movie in the first place. Quality is simply not part of the equation. It *might* end up being good…but it doesn’t matter. Leave the “quality film making” to those who want to make quality films.
I agree with this take completely.
I'd like to add that films are also being remade to appeal to a broader audience. Like it or hate it, all the lily-white films of yesteryear are going to be redone to be more inclusive. Some may flop, some may work. I personally don't really think highly of that remaking films to appeal more broadly to today's diverse audiences, but it'll lead to easy profit and less risk as those are established properties. So because it'll make money, and because it will appeal to a broader audience, it'll get done. Could bomb, could not bomb, but overall, there's an audience for it.
I'm of the mind that new films, about new characters and franchises with an emphasis on diversity (in all forms) should be created. But those are risky takes for movie studios, b/c they could easily fail with no established background. So they remake films from older franchises.
This whole toy culture market is huge. D&D, Barbie, Super Mario, etc., etc., etc. I'm a toy collector. The prices for stuff such as Robotech, TMNT, Transformers, and now Barbie, etc., are just over-the-top. There is a huge geek market out there, not just for Star Wars, but for every niche brand. Those brands have built in audiences, so even if the film flops, as long as it makes enough money to cover the expenses, you can deal with a flop and have the next one hit and make up for it. If you dial up something absolutely brand new, it's a much bigger financial risk. So all these films are being produced.
I'm a little scattershot here. Sorry. To try and sum it up, none of this is surprising to me. A push to broaden audiences, streaming services that bring in new audiences, everything is wide open. I think the definition of "bomb" is pretty subjective though. These studios know exactly what they are doing, based on analytics. But what they are doing, is recognizing that the consumer base has broadened way more than it was 35-40 years ago, and they are pumping out a lot of different things to appeal to a lot of different people.
Edited because I was in a rush and didn't finish my thought. Added comments in italics.
-
Definitwly a separate issue, but I don't think remaking movie and changing race or gender of characters to be more inclusive is really helping anything. I'm not sure they're really making any extra money making Ariel or Snow White non-white. I read a good take a while back from a person of color who called it insulting that this is being done. They called on Hollywood to make movies with original stories about diverse characters. Changing established characters races is basically saying that there aren't any good characters of color worth making movies about. I tend to agree, but as a white guy I don't think I can really have an opinion on the matter.
-
Knowing studios' unwillingness to take risks, I really believe Samsara's take of two converging issues:
- Wanting to be more inclusive
- Wanting to seel what they know is a sure sell, hence all the reboots, remakes, prequels, sequels etc etc....
So they kill two birds with a stone, they sell you a movie you "already know", and on top of that they shoehorn in non white characters to pat themselves on the back, it's a win-win situation for them.
I agree however that there's soooo much potential in stories from non white cultures, if they'd only have the creativity to tap into that.... I refuse to believe that there aren't some african or asian legends that aren't worth of a blockbuster movie.
-
So they kill two birds with a stone, they sell you a movie you "already know", and on top of that they shoehorn in non white characters to pat themselves on the back, it's a win-win situation for them.
I'm not sure if it is a win-win though. These movies haven't been tremendously successful lately. I can't say how much of that is the race swap. I think a small group of people will see a movie just because of this and that is balanced out by a small group of people that won't see it because of this. I think the vast majority of people are indifferent or roll their eyes at it, but would see the movie if it was good. I think for the most part people are growing tired of remakes and sequels. I think you can see with Barbie (yes, based on existing IP, but an original story) and Oppenheimer that people were craving something new.
-
Definitwly a separate issue, but I don't think remaking movie and changing race or gender of characters to be more inclusive is really helping anything. I'm not sure they're really making any extra money making Ariel or Snow White non-white. I read a good take a while back from a person of color who called it insulting that this is being done. They called on Hollywood to make movies with original stories about diverse characters. Changing established characters races is basically saying that there aren't any good characters of color worth making movies about. I tend to agree, but as a white guy I don't think I can really have an opinion on the matter.
Yeah, I have an opinion on the matter, but I am with the person who made that take -- I think those of color would be insulted by that too. I think there are plenty of creative people who can make compelling characters of color. It's certainly a separate issue, but somewhat related in that the studios have to think more broadly about a much more diverse audience these days.
-
I get that it gets blurry. But not every time a minority is hired to play a traditionally white role, is it a diversity hire. It seems the conversation goes like this.
People: You should hire whoever is best for the job, without considering race or whatever.
Studio: Okay, we think this person is best for the job
-points to black or Asian actor-
People: GOD DAMN DIVERSITY HIRE!!
I won't defend the 7 dwarves thing, cause who knows? But why on earth couldn't they have thought Halle Bailey was the best choice for the role? There's a very unsettling double standard to demand they not consider race but then accuse them of it when the person isn't white.
Again, taking the 7 dwarves out of this because I have no idea what they're going for there, unless we have some strong evidence that it WAS just a diversity hire, then always accusing studios of that is rather distasteful.
-
The word "blurry" is a perfect adjective for the diversity issue in films. Honestly, I don't know what the "right" thing to do is. But I know that I don't feel good about taking established white characters and making them Black, or Asian, etc. But I do very much support new, original content and characters who are diverse, and showcase the reality that the world is not white. It is many shades of color. It's a difficult issue for sure.
-
The word "blurry" is a perfect adjective for the diversity issue in films. Honestly, I don't know what the "right" thing to do is. But I know that I don't feel good about taking established white characters and making them Black, or Asian, etc. But I do very much support new, original content and characters who are diverse, and showcase the reality that the world is not white. It is many shades of color. It's a difficult issue for sure.
They’re both happening. But the new and original films often have slim chance of succeeding.
Also haven’t white actors been playing non white roles since film began?
-
Also haven’t white actors been playing non white roles since film began?
They have. And this is widely believed to be wrong today. So do we make up for past wrongs by doing the same thing in the opposite direction today? I don't think that's the right approach personally.
-
Also haven’t white actors been playing non white roles since film began?
They have. And this is widely believed to be wrong today. So do we make up for past wrongs by doing the same thing in the opposite direction today? I don't think that's the right approach personally.
For historical figures, sure. Though white people are still playing Jesus.
But Ariel and whatever aren’t historical figures. Someone made them up. There’s nothing inherently white about about Ariel. She’s a mermaid.
-
Also haven’t white actors been playing non white roles since film began?
They have. And this is widely believed to be wrong today. So do we make up for past wrongs by doing the same thing in the opposite direction today? I don't think that's the right approach personally.
For historical figures, sure. Though white people are still playing Jesus.
But Ariel and whatever aren’t historical figures. Someone made them up. There’s nothing inherently white about about Ariel. She’s a mermaid.
A historically black fictional character being portrayed as white would receive massive backlash. Why is the opposite OK?
I honestly don't give a shit about Ariel. I'm asking in a more academic way.
-
Because the vast vast vast majority of historically made up characters are white. We’re not at a time right now where making up new ones goes very far. So we either keep 99% of it white, or we shake things up in ways that don’t ruin the character at all.
-
Because the vast vast vast majority of historically made up characters are white.
Are they? I've got to assume there are tons of stories made up by asian or african authors that are not white. We've just focused historically on european based stories in the west.
-
Because the vast vast vast majority of historically made up characters are white.
Are they? I've got to assume there are tons of stories made up by asian or african authors that are not white. We've just focused historically on european based stories in the west.
Probably. But we are, largely, talking about the American/European markets. China and African countries likely don’t care about classic European fairy tales and we have no idea what they’re doing. But while America and Europe have traditionally made almost everything about white people, the populations are now quite different and art is reflecting that. If a film maker makes up a story about an Asian or Black whatever, it has a very very very low chance to being shown in AMCs across the country. But little mermaid or Cinderella are guaranteed.
-
It's seems odd to me it's ok to have a white American or an New Zealander actor play the role of Robin Hood and no one really cares. Yet if a person of color (even if they were English!) Was cast a certain section of society would cause an outcry.
And yes I'm aware that swings both ways.
-
It's seems odd to me it's ok to have a white American or an New Zealander actor play the role of Robin Hood and no one really cares. Yet if a person of color (even if they were English!) Was cast a certain section of society would cause an outcry.
And yes I'm aware that swings both ways.
And don't get me started on people not named Paul playing characters named Paul!!
-
Definitwly a separate issue, but I don't think remaking movie and changing race or gender of characters to be more inclusive is really helping anything. I'm not sure they're really making any extra money making Ariel or Snow White non-white. I read a good take a while back from a person of color who called it insulting that this is being done. They called on Hollywood to make movies with original stories about diverse characters. Changing established characters races is basically saying that there aren't any good characters of color worth making movies about. I tend to agree, but as a white guy I don't think I can really have an opinion on the matter.
Yeah, I have an opinion on the matter, but I am with the person who made that take -- I think those of color would be insulted by that too. I think there are plenty of creative people who can make compelling characters of color. It's certainly a separate issue, but somewhat related in that the studios have to think more broadly about a much more diverse audience these days.
The problem with all of this is the same problem with the identity politics movement in general: We're trying to shoehorn what are inherently personal responses, based on our own experience, values and view of the world, and make them into grand, sweeping all-encompassing gestures. Having an African American say that casting "Snow White as black is insulting" is no grand racial statement. It's only ever the opinion of that guy (or girl) in the moment. And vice versa. And we need to start realizing that more than we do now.
SO MUCH of these arguments are predicated on the lenses of those observing, and generally speaking we are patently shitty at accounting for lenses that aren't ours.
-
Dungeons and Dragons is actually a good example of what I'm talking about in this thread. I haven't seen it, so I don't know if it's any good or not. But why would studio execs think a nerdy role playing game would translate to a large movie audience? I could have told them it wouldn't. They could have made a lower budget movie that was still profitable if it was good instead of going to a big budget blockbuster.
Are you talking about the quality of the movies or their box office success? You seem to be conflating the two. Dungeons and Dragons is not a "bad" movie, regardless of how much money it made. And, I'd suggest that's true of several of the other examples given. Sometimes good movies don't find their audience for a variety of reasons, and sometimes "bad" movies are very financially successful.
And the reason they're making D&D properties right now is the game has seen huge growth in recent years, is more popular and more mainstream than it has ever been. There are popular YouTube channels, like Critical Role, where people are basically just watching other people play D&D.
-
Dungeons and Dragons is not a "bad" movie, regardless of how much money it made.
It was actually a pretty fun movie. Watching it with the kiddos.
-
I've been a D&D fan since 1985. Seen the ebb and flow of fandom. Really glad it is now at an all-time high (thanks, Stranger Things, and HBO for bringing George R.R. Martin's world to TV). I don't necessarily play any longer (I just have other priorities), but I am still a massive fan and reader of properties that started with D&D in mind (Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, etc.)
D&D (the film) is on my list to check out. Perhaps this Friday night.
-
Dungeons and Dragons is actually a good example of what I'm talking about in this thread. I haven't seen it, so I don't know if it's any good or not. But why would studio execs think a nerdy role playing game would translate to a large movie audience? I could have told them it wouldn't. They could have made a lower budget movie that was still profitable if it was good instead of going to a big budget blockbuster.
Are you talking about the quality of the movies or their box office success? You seem to be conflating the two. Dungeons and Dragons is not a "bad" movie, regardless of how much money it made. And, I'd suggest that's true of several of the other examples given. Sometimes good movies don't find their audience for a variety of reasons, and sometimes "bad" movies are very financially successful.
And the reason they're making D&D properties right now is the game has seen huge growth in recent years, is more popular and more mainstream than it has ever been. There are popular YouTube channels, like Critical Role, where people are basically just watching other people play D&D.
I am sort of mixing the two. I guess I mean do they make movies that they know will not make much money in the theater. These are not always bad movies I guess, though they typically are.
-
It's very easy to accidentally make a bad movie.
Step 1: Buy great script or rights to beloved IP.
Step 2: Demand re-writes and reshoots until it no longer resembles what you bought in the first place based on focus tested bullshit while dumping more millions into the project.
Step 3: Realizing the movie is a mess but you've sunk too much money to just outright can it so you release it anyway hoping for the best.
No Major studio goes out of their way to make bad movies but man do they know how to accidentally turn them into one.
Also just because a movie bombs doesn't mean it's bad or it doesn't have an audience for it. A lot of movies have been sunk by bad advertising. Whether it be misadvertising as a different kind of movie or just barely having any ads at all. Also there's shitty scheduling. I've heard D&D is a lot of fun but it was sandwiched between The Mario movie and John Wick 4. With theaters being the most expensive they've ever been you cant count on people seeing more than 2 in a month unless they have like A-list or something.
-
There definitely are movie studios who make bad movies intentionally, like those Asylum movies. You think about certain movies like Sharknado, it's definitely made to be a "funny bad" movie.
I don't think the same applies to other big studios like Disney, because a better movie means higher chances of making more money. So you want your movie to be good, I think the issue is that the MCU or Star Wars or their live action cartoon movies (Jungle Book, Lion King, Little Mermaid etc) are so 'assembly line' at this point that keeping the quality up is hard because you need to pump them out every few months to stay on schedule.
In the case of Disney with the MCU I think they really messed up by doing too much at the same time and also not having a strong enough plan after Endgame. They thought "We can just keep doing what we do because everyone loves us" but that has clearly backfired. These used to be guaranteed viewing experiences for me and I feel pretty done at this point. The movies are just all over the place and the tv shows are not worth watching. I know a lot of people who used to be equally as into the MCU, hyped about seeing every new movie in the cinema and now if the MCU is brought up in conversation its like a wet fart in the room and people are sort of awkwardly going "Yeah maybe I'll watch the next movie". I know there's also people who are still hyped but for me they tried to do too much and it wasn't as consistent as before. It also doesn't help them that there's other companies making bad superhero movies at the same time cause it all feeds into the same problem. :lol