VHS and Betamax You Have Recently Rented

[hallicks]

23 hours ago, air_raid said:

Tetris - strong recommendation with the just the right balance between "genuinely interesting real life story" and "tarted up to make a story worthy of a movie." Although your brain may explode at the Welshman playing the Dutch/Singaporean bloke with an American accent living in Japan, trying to win the rights to a Russian video game for export to American reps of a Japanese company while trying to outwit the English media mogul born in Czechoslovakia. But it has nice 8 bit graphic bumpers between scenes and a kooky soundtrack.

Roger Allam is fantastic in this. Could have been 10-15 minutes shorter but a really fun film all the same. 

[Just Some Guy]

3 hours ago, hallicks said:

Roger Allam is fantastic in this.

And everything else.

Throughly recommend the radio shows Cabin Pressure & Conversations From A Long Marriage for his presence alone.

[Dr. Alan Grant]

5 hours ago, Mr_Danger said:

If Tom Cruise is the last great movie star in the classic sense

I was thinking about this recently. There really isn’t anyone, is there? Someone who can get people into the cinema on their name alone. A new Tom Cruise film just seems like a big deal. There are duds of course (The Mummy, Oblivion), but would Top Gun: Maverick and any future Mission: Impossible films be as successful if they had someone else in the main role? No chance. I miss movie stars. 

[Mr_Danger]

56 minutes ago, Dr. Alan Grant said:

I was thinking about this recently. There really isn’t anyone, is there? Someone who can get people into the cinema on their name alone. A new Tom Cruise film just seems like a big deal. There are duds of course (The Mummy, Oblivion), but would Top Gun: Maverick and any future Mission: Impossible films be as successful if they had someone else in the main role? No chance. I miss movie stars. 

There’s loads of great actors and there’s still a good few bankable stars but even The Rock isn’t getting bums on seats with his name alone. Adam Sandler pretty much took his entire enterprise to Netflix and no fucker is getting mainstream comedies grossing like franchise and action films. Who’s this generations Meg Ryan or Julia Roberts? 30 years ago Anna Kendrick would be one of the most bankable stars in Hollywood. 
 

Then again whilst I’m sure the studios are happy to let the algorithm lead their film making exploits you can’t blame them for moving from the old formula of having a studio built around one big star when nearly every man with an ounce of power turns out to be a massive creepy weirdo and more women are getting bigger opportunities behind the camera which has lead to one of the biggest films of the summer being as unique a blockbuster as I can remember.

[LaGoosh]

12 hours ago, Mr_Danger said:

even The Rock isn’t getting bums on seats with his name alone.

I feel like the bubble has burst with The Rock. Seems like everyone's realized no matter how much they like the man himself all his films are pretty crap.

[Factotum]

The problem is studios don't make films that make people Movie Stars anymore. You're instantly forced into a superhero suit. Chris Evans is a fine actor but he's not a star. Captain America is. It's the same with Directors now. You do a cool indie film and you're instantly catapulted into a mega IP machine. Some can manage it, but you're not getting Directors like Nolan or Tarantino again who can open a huge movie with just their name attached. Fucking Scorsese has to beg streamers for money.

I was thinking about this while watching the BARBIE movie. Gosling and Robbie are superb in nearly everything they're in. In a different era they would open movies on just their name alone. But this isn't an industry for them anymore. I mean Brad Pitt can't even open a movie anymore. I don't think it's being 'back in my day' nostalgia to say that the modern landscape of films is depressing. Hopefully things might change. Last weekend shows that actually good writer/director led movies that are well marketed WILL have people at the cinema. But you know the execs won't take that lesson from it

[DavidB6937]

While I think the notion of a cinema star isn't dead per se, we do have to accept that we're in a world now where TV and reality stuff and social media etc has changed the way fame is viewed. So when you look back at the big movie stars they were always seen as on another level but you didn't have loads of other routes to fame. These days kids get as excited about someone on TikTok as anything. The magic and magnitude of Hollywood and movies just isn't there anymore like it used to be. And that's a shame because I think it should and could be. You still get massive pop stars like Taylor Swift for example and music is a challenging area too compared to what it was.

As with wrestling - sometimes it just takes the right person to come along at the right time and captivate an audience. And I think The Rock had that for a while. It'll be interesting to see who's next.

[Mr_Danger]

It does feel like the suit and cape bubble has burst. I know box office numbers will probably contradict that but most of the last batch of Marvels have been average to shite. The ideas are tired and the audiences will follow suit. Interesting directors like Taika Waititi, Chloe Zhao and Ryan Coogler are churning out turds with mega budgets. Waititi was clearly fed up and just gave them any old shite.

[Hannibal Scorch]

19 minutes ago, Factotum said:

The problem is studios don't make films that make people Movie Stars anymore. You're instantly forced into a superhero suit. Chris Evans is a fine actor but he's not a star. Captain America is. It's the same with Directors now. You do a cool indie film and you're instantly catapulted into a mega IP machine. Some can manage it, but you're not getting Directors like Nolan or Tarantino again who can open a huge movie with just their name attached. Fucking Scorsese has to beg streamers for money.

I was thinking about this while watching the BARBIE movie. Gosling and Robbie are superb in nearly everything they're in. In a different era they would open movies on just their name alone. But this isn't an industry for them anymore. I mean Brad Pitt can't even open a movie anymore. I don't think it's being 'back in my day' nostalgia to say that the modern landscape of films is depressing. Hopefully things might change. Last weekend shows that actually good writer/director led movies that are well marketed WILL have people at the cinema. But you know the execs won't take that lesson from it

I don't think that's true. Stallone, Schwarzanegger and Willis were all big stars in the 80's and 90's, all of them also had massive flops released with them as the star name. Tom Cruise hit huge with Top Gun Maverick, but outside of Mission Impossible (and the latest of those opened soft and had the biggest 2nd week drop in the franchise since MI 2 thanks to Barbenheimer), he wasn't a draw with The Mummy, Oblivion and Edge of Tomorrow all flopping (and at least 2 of those films were pretty good). 

As for Scorsese, he should have to beg for money quite frankly. When you say it's going to cost you $200m to make a period drama, the studios want to see a ROI, and Scorsese films often don't. Just because they are often great doesn't mean the studios make a profit. He's never been a director that makes huge profits, at least not for the cinema releases.

However, marketing is key. The first trailer for Oppenheimer I saw last September, maybe earlier. They really brought in the hype, same with Barbie being marketed so well. Maybe that is the model that will work going forward, but another thing which needs to be addressed is streaming. Killers of the Flower Moon is being advertised as an Apple Original. It is getting a 2 week window before it hits Apple TV. What is the casual cinema goer going to do, pay to see it on the big screen, or wait 2 weeks to watch it for free on a streaming service they already pay for? Top Gun Maverick was famous for saying you want to see it, go to the Cinema because it won't stream for 6 months, and people went. People now have a choice of a short home release window.

[Factotum]

25 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

I don't think that's true. Stallone, Schwarzanegger and Willis were all big stars in the 80's and 90's, all of them also had massive flops released with them as the star name. Tom Cruise hit huge with Top Gun Maverick, but outside of Mission Impossible (and the latest of those opened soft and had the biggest 2nd week drop in the franchise since MI 2 thanks to Barbenheimer), he wasn't a draw with The Mummy, Oblivion and Edge of Tomorrow all flopping (and at least 2 of those films were pretty good). 

You get flops. That happens. But the name means they can bounce back. That doesn't happen anymore at all. Margot Robbie was being called potential box office poison there a while back but fortunately BARBIE has put that somewhat to bed BUT if her next film was marketed around her in a non IP role, would it hit? I doubt it now

 

25 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

What is the casual cinema goer going to do, pay to see it on the big screen, or wait 2 weeks to watch it for free on a streaming service they already pay for? Top Gun Maverick was famous for saying you want to see it, go to the Cinema because it won't stream for 6 months, and people went. People now have a choice of a short home release window.

Indeed, and it has self defeated the studios. But on the star thing, what has happened is you now have shit loads of straight to streaming movies that barely enter the public consciousness. Ryan Reynolds is really only known for Deadpool, yet has been in about 5 awful Netflix films. The 'star system' of Hollywood is fucked, and I doubt it returns.

Edited July 26, 2023 by Factotum

[hallicks]

17 hours ago, Just Some Guy said:

And everything else.

Throughly recommend the radio shows Cabin Pressure & Conversations From A Long Marriage for his presence alone.

As I’m such a cultural vacuum, the only previous work of his I knew was Sarah & Duck, which, while definitely a classic, made his effing and jeffing in this film particularly amusing to me.

[SuperBacon]

45 minutes ago, Factotum said:

Ryan Reynolds is really only known for Deadpool,

*sighs*

[Loki]

This is all part of why much of Hollywood is on strike.

 The streaming services are getting a lot of eyes and making a lot of income but how does that translate to actors, directors etc?  Many contracts are still drawn up based on cinema gates and that’s, as discussed, no longer a primary indicator of success.

 Adam Sandler is an interesting case because he’s clearly got a contract that works.  He’s incredibly well paid, his films do brilliantly on Netflix, and all that without ever bothering cinemas, critics, award ceremonies or any of the other traditional avenues.

It’s possible the film industry will end up where music is now.  If you’re a large touring artist you will be be extremely rich.  Underneath that though it’s a wasteland.  Nobody outside of the top artists make ANY money off streaming music services.  The industry hasn’t adapted at all, it’s just meant that music is no longer a viable career for many and tons of artists just do it as a side hustle for the love of it.

 

Edited July 26, 2023 by Loki

[FLips]

4 hours ago, LaGoosh said:

I feel like the bubble has burst with The Rock. Seems like everyone's realized no matter how much they like the man himself all his films are pretty crap.

I think The Rock is one of those people where the more you see of him the more apparant his flaws are, both as an actor and as a person. I don't think I've seen anything from him in the last several years where he doesn't come across as the most disingenuous meathead. I think as wrestling fans we can spot a promo miles off and it's shocking to me how quickly the movie industry and the public fell for a wrestler cutting promos and thought it was the person.

You know how Hulk Hogan spent so long in character he forgot how to be Terry Bollea?
I get the same vibes from The Rock. He spent so long trying to not be The Rock yet at the same time Dwayne Johnson is a faker personality and a bigger carny than The Rock was.

[Hannibal Scorch]

7 minutes ago, FelatioLips said:

I think The Rock is one of those people where the more you see of him the more apparant his flaws are, both as an actor and as a person. I don't think I've seen anything from him in the last several years where he doesn't come across as the most disingenuous meathead. I think as wrestling fans we can spot a promo miles off and it's shocking to me how quickly the movie industry and the public fell for a wrestler cutting promos and thought it was the person.

You know how Hulk Hogan spent so long in character he forgot how to be Terry Bollea?
I get the same vibes from The Rock. He spent so long trying to not be The Rock yet at the same time Dwayne Johnson is a faker personality and a bigger carny than The Rock was.

The Rock certainly suits certain roles (the Jumanji films and Jungle Cruise are good examples), but unlike people  like Batista, there just seems to be no range with him and he is absolutely limited to certain roles.