“It’s so hard to get movies made, and in these big movies that get made — and it’s even starting to happen with the little ones, which is what’s really freaking me out — decisions are being made by committees, and art does not do well when it’s made by committee,” she added. “Films are made by a filmmaker and a team of artists around them. You cannot make art based on numbers and algorithms. My feeling has been for a long time that audiences are extremely smart, and executives have started to believe that they’re not. Audiences will always be able to sniff out bullshit. Even if films start to be made with AI, humans aren’t going to fucking want to see those.”

  • demesisx@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    I worked on that movie. I can tell you that the crew knew it was going to be a stinker for the entire time it was being made.

    It was GREAT money while it lasted even though Sony was unbelievably stingy at times. We (the crew) quickly came to look at it as a box office writeoff.

    As we always say,

    I don’t write em. I just light em.

  • Vespair@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    How many more of her films do we have to criticize before she agrees to quit the industry entirely?

    Because I’m willing to put in the work.

      • Vespair@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Yeah sorry I’m not gonna feel bad about criticizing Hollywood’s least charismatic nepo-baby whose presence is taking job opportunities away from actors who pursued the career the right way rather than merely having the right parents and connections.

        I think it’s important to make the distinction that not wishing fame, fortune, and incredible opportunities for somebody is not the same as wishing ill on them. I don’t want her to suffer some poor fate, I don’t want her to get in any way harmed, I don’t her to be miserable. I just don’t want undeserving stiff acting being rewarded with fame and wealth when other vastly more deserving people could be taking those roles. I hope she has a wonderful life as a regional manager at In & Out, for example.

        And yes, I feel this way about all nepo babies.

        And frankly, actors in general; once you’ve made your mark on the industry and secured a comfortable wealth for you and your family, retire and allow those opportunities to go to others, but obviously that’s vastly less egregious than people being raised to pinnacle of culture just for coming out of the right vagina.

        edit: typo

        • Bloodyhog@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          Strongly agree with nepotism being bad, but why would talented actors/artists retire? They live through their performance, and we the people enjoy watching.

          • Vespair@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Because the Rock is probably already half a billionaire; he doesn’t need any more fucking money.

            If they want to work for free, fine, whatever. Otherwise, let other people enjoy some opportunities for once.

            • Bloodyhog@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              We may have a very different opinion on who a talented actor is then. ) Talented businessman is not equal to a talented actor, just a popular one that can sell.

  • Margot Robbie@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Well, making a good superhero movie is harder than people think. At the end of the day, studios are risk adverse, and making a woman focused superhero movie is seen as riskier as it is more niche, which means they are more prone to interventions and design by committee, so it is a self perpetuating problem.

    Speaking of which, Lemmy plug “Birds of Prey” (also starring some crazy clown woman) here today, in my humble and totally unbiased opinion, it’s a pretty fun superhero movie that more people should watch.

    • WanderingVentra@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      I like that one, too! It’s no dramatic piece, like Dark Knight or Winter Soldier, but it’s a rocking good time. It knows what it’s trying to be, a silly Harley Quinn and company movie. I wish the little kid was less annoying in the movie, though lol.

      • Margot Robbie@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        It’s no dramatic piece, like Dark Knight or Winter Soldier, but it’s a rocking good time.

        You get it.

        But I still wish it did a bit better at the box office though…

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    I don’t know why studios keep meddling.

    She said the script she signed up for was way better, and what got released is completely different

    Like, I know some stuff will always change. But this comes up so often and it’s just producers fiddling with shit

    • FlumPHP@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I attended a conference where a former 20th Century-Fox executive talked about the way she meddled in the trailer process with technology. It’s all about numbers and metrics – if enough people, in the right demographics, didn’t watch the whole trailer on YouTube, they’d cut the next trailer to cater to that group. Even if it wasn’t a great representation of the movie; her bonus depended on people watching the trailer.

      • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        I can’t remember the last time I saw a movie trailer that made me more excited to see a movie than less, I generally try to avoid them at this point like most advertising and feel better for it.

        • CookieMonsterDebate@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Yes and that too bad, I’m not sure if it was the novelty or just the naive rose-tinted glasses of youth but trailers seemed Awesome when I was a teenager.

          Now? Eh.

          I feel like I’ve seen too many trailers with shit exploding and the one and only funny scene of the movie, that they don’t really attract me anymore.

          • Jarix@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            They used to be better. My prime example is This teaser for Thor Ragnarok.

            Watch from about 1:09.

            They just kept revealing the scene! How much better would that scene have been when you watch the movie if we didnt know who was going to come out that door?

            Would you show the hulk? I wouldnt. Thats an amazing scene everyone who left the theatre would have been gushing over if it was a surprise.

            This never would have been the trailer in previous years but today seems to be all about showing the juiciest parts of a movie just to get people talking about going to see it. Then the movie be utterly disappointing because you have already seen the best scenes and all the bits between just arent as interesting. Its like telling all of the best jokes in a movie before you go see it. Sure it gets butts in seats. Im just surprised it STILL gets butts in seats

    • zaphod@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I don’t know why studios keep meddling.

      Movies get expensive. Studios are afraid of the risk and want to play it safe. They start meddling.

      • tias@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        And then they ruin it. They should understand their limits and realize they’re hurting the bottom line by not trusting the people who know this stuff better than them.

        • psycho_driver@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Having spent way too long in corporate middle management, I can tell you that there are a lot of people in corporate offices who think they’re geniuses when they are, in fact, fucking morons.

        • zaphod@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          It’s either that or try to make cheaper movies instead, but even then they need to trust the people who actually make the movies.

          • Lemmeenym@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            Cheaper movies are exactly what we need. There are 5 major studios (Disney, Paramount, Universal, Sony, and Warner Bros.) and between them they release about 20 movies a year with budgets over $100mil. They need to be releasing about 5. In 2023 14 movies were released with budgets above $200mil and only one (Guardians of the Galaxy vol. 3) broke even on box office sales.

            Throwing money at it doesn’t make a movie good. Some movies require big budgets to effectively tell their story but most don’t and the more money a studio throws at a movie the less control the actual film makers have. The story and a film maker with a coherent vision are the two most important elements.

            To prove it here are some iconic movies made for less than a million dollars: Mad Max, Napoleon Dynamite, Clerks, Paranormal Activity, Friday the 13th, Halloween. Between 1 and 2 million we pick up movies like Rocky and Saw. My Big Fat Greek Wedding cost $5 million.

            Studios need to focus on 1 big movie a year and then take lots of small budget risks. The box office profits from the $5 million Get Out would pay for 25 $10 million risks. Find a decent script with a passionate filmmaker behind it, give them just enough of a budget to get the film made and stay out of the way. The overall quality of cinema would be vastly improved.

            • lepinkainen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              There’s a great rant by Matt Damon about how we don’t do mid-budget films any more. We get cheap crap, we get AAA level blockbusters with 200 million marketing budgets, what we don’t get is 40 million movies.

              The ones big enough to tell big stories but small enough not to attract attention from mid level execs wanting a producer credit.

    • snooggums@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      This is often over looked when people wonder why someone might sign up to something that is a trainwreck, and it usually comes down to the final film being far different than the original vision. Hell, a movie can be destroyed during script rewrites, bad scenes, and even during the editing process! Bladerunner has multiple versions based on editing the same filmed scenes. The theatrical version was ruined by insistence on a voiceover and the final cut is the best version due to what they cut out or left in.

      This one sounds like the Bladerunner theatrical cut being ruined by execs, and that does suck.

      • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        The best known opposite example is Star Wars (A New Hope). When George Lucas screened it for Spielberg, Spielberg didn’t know how to tell George how terrible it was without ruining their friendship. George gave his steaming pile of shit to his wife and she and her editing partner literally built the classic we know today from it. George learned his lesson and gave Empire to someone else to direct and his wife to edit.

          • thefartographer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            It was a Will Smith movie about a Superman-like superhero who became reviled and then became a bum. It was exciting because this was during the height of Will Smith’s action career and it would have been the first high-budget serious superhero movie starring a person of color.

            The original script reads like pure art and adrenaline from what I remember. The actual movie turned into some shit-fest that made a white PR Rep the main character and then shoehorned some weird love triangle with ancient beings and super-amnesia.

            You read that right. Somehow, the first big budget gritty superhero movie starring a black man got turned into a milquetoast semi-rom-com starring a white man as a media specialist with no superpowers.

              • thefartographer@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                8 months ago

                Blade had a $45 million budget, Hancock was $150 million. Blade: Trinity had the highest budget of the blade series at $65 million, and each entry introduced more white heroes who reduced Wesley Snipes’s heroic screentime.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Is it some sort of scam where they have to make the movie or they lose the rights to them? I can’t think of any other reason for shit like Morbius.

      • Eyck_of_denesle@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yep. If you watched madam web you will clearly know how bad the movie looks. The spider lotus fan film is better than madam web. That’s how bad it is. Morbius atleast had decent visuals.

        • HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          How long will I have to wait before someone says “it’s webbin time” cause i don’t think I can handle that kind of disappointment

    • Crack0n7uesday@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      But when they get it right they really get it right. The whole Miles Morales storyline came out of no where and fucking exploded.

      • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        In my mind it was great because it was an animation and execs think anime is dumb, so they won’t meddle with it. If they ever make a live action Miles Morales story it’s going to suck.

    • Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      I was originally thinking about this while looking up some background actor.

      Like, for many of these folks, these shitty movies pay bills. Many aren’t living a life of luxury. And if you get chosen for a Sony superhero film, And the pay is good, why not take it?

  • Mac@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Sad to say but she’s wrong. The general populace doesn’t give a shit about authenticity in film. They want brainless films with lame, repetitive jokes and Minions and/or Groots.
    People will trip over eachother to watch a film by their favorite superhero company before even considering whether the last one they saw was worth watching or not.

    Just like car enthusiasts, keyboard enthusiasts, FOSS enthisiasts, et al. mainstream films are not made for the enthusiasts—they are made for the average consumer to make a profit.