Topic: "This Is Fine" — Abbie and Teague Discuss Happy Trends in Filmmaking

Abbie and I stumbled into a fun conversation in the movie posters thread, which we carried over into a funner and totally dispiriting standalone podcast episode!

This Is Fine

Teague Chrystie

I have a tendency to fix your typos.

Thumbs up +6 Thumbs down

Re: "This Is Fine" — Abbie and Teague Discuss Happy Trends in Filmmaking

Totally agree on Batman v Superman and Justice League - the latter made me appreciate the former much more. Don't get me wrong, BvS is still quite bad, but at least it's a noble failure; Justice League is the most generic "superhero team" movie ever. Can you remember the villain's motivation in JL? Can you even remember his name? BvS was clearly Zack Snyder's attempt to recapture the feel of Watchmen (the lesson to be learned from Richard Kelly and Roland Emmerich is clear, Zack: don't try to remake your previous movie). JL is a panicked attempt to recapture the lighthearted feel of The Avengers by adding a few quips to a gloomy movie. Neither has worked, but BvS at least managed to be memorable (if only by being ridiculous at times).

(The only DC movies I've enjoyed lately are The LEGO Batman Movie and Teen Titans Go To The Movies; it's telling that both are affectionate parodies.)

Funny that you mentioned Venom - it's another Justice League-eqsue mess (as I mentioned here).

So honor the valiant who die 'neath your sword
But pity the warrior who slays all his foes...

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: "This Is Fine" — Abbie and Teague Discuss Happy Trends in Filmmaking

I heartily approve of Teague continuing to do podcasts featuring every single one of us.

Solid talk all round and it kept me up thinking instead of being sensible and going to sleep. The Top 10 Box Office comparison from today to 20 years ago made me go and check the worldwide Top 10 of every single year in the past twenty years and chart just how many originals, sequels, adaptations, remakes and such there were. Now, it was a bit of a rush-job - so it may not be entirely accurate

https://i.imgur.com/J1hSZhC.png
https://i.imgur.com/aJ1C7fj.png

Some Observations

- 1993, 1994 and 1996 are the only years without a sequel/prequel/interquel/whatever in the Top 10.
- 2011, 2012 and 2017 are the only years without a single original film in the Top 10.
- This year is looking like it will also be a year without a single original film in the Top 10.
- The last time at least half of a years Top 10 were original films was in 2000.
- Sequels have taken up at least half of a years Top 10 (apart from in 2005) since 2002.
- The Top 10 list for 2011 was full of sequels apart from one, a reboot of The Smurfs.

Last edited by Owen_Ward (2018-12-11 03:39:41)

Thumbs up −1 Thumbs down

Re: "This Is Fine" — Abbie and Teague Discuss Happy Trends in Filmmaking

Meanwhile, at the theater:

Boter, formerly of TF.N as Boter and DarthArjuna. I like making movies and playing games, in one order or another.

Re: "This Is Fine" — Abbie and Teague Discuss Happy Trends in Filmmaking

ha

Good delivery.

Teague Chrystie

I have a tendency to fix your typos.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: "This Is Fine" — Abbie and Teague Discuss Happy Trends in Filmmaking

heh

The difficult second album Regan

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: "This Is Fine" — Abbie and Teague Discuss Happy Trends in Filmmaking

Related to the "there's no artistic intention behind these framing/editing/etc. choices" portion of this conversation, Lucrecia Martel recently revealed that Marvel approached her to direct the upcoming Black Widow movie—well, to be more precise, half of it.

One unexpected option was Argentinian director Lucrecia Martel, whose latest movie, Zama, is an elaborate and slow-moving art film about 18th century Spanish colonialism. Basically, she’s about as far from the Hollywood studio franchise system as you can get, and she’s not particularly impressed by the MCU. Speaking to Daily Pioneer, she describes meeting with Marvel alongside other female filmmakers, where executives told her, “Don’t worry about the action scenes, we will take care of that.” [Source.]

There are, of course, people who are calling her "elitist" for wanting to direct the entirety of her own movie, which, well. Le sigh.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: "This Is Fine" — Abbie and Teague Discuss Happy Trends in Filmmaking

Look: "this some bullshit," etc..

But.

...if we're gonna have ten cooks in the kitchen anyway...

...and these movies aren't going to represent anybody's particular vision anyway...

...let's go whole hog! Have a good fight-scene director direct the fight scenes; and have a good drama director direct the dramatic scenes; and have a good comedy director direct the comedy scenes; and have a good alien-robot-spaceship-fight-battle director direct the alien-robot-spaceship-fight-battle scenes.

Makin' jobs!

We can even have a good fight actor play fighting Spiderman; and have a good drama actor play drama Spiderman; and have a good comedy actor play comedy Spiderman; and have a good... CG performance... play alien-robot-spaceship-fight-battle Spiderman!

Teague Chrystie

I have a tendency to fix your typos.

Thumbs up +2 Thumbs down

Re: "This Is Fine" — Abbie and Teague Discuss Happy Trends in Filmmaking

The DGA would fight that to the bitter end, but the WGA would shrug and say Why Not, because it's already exactly like that for writers.

Re: "This Is Fine" — Abbie and Teague Discuss Happy Trends in Filmmaking

Teague wrote:

We can even have a good fight actor play fighting Spiderman; and have a good drama actor play drama Spiderman; and have a good comedy actor play comedy Spiderman; and have a good... CG performance... play alien-robot-spaceship-fight-battle Spiderman!

Did you just re-invent Power Rangers?

"ShadowDuelist is a god."
        -Teague Chrystie

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

Re: "This Is Fine" — Abbie and Teague Discuss Happy Trends in Filmmaking

Trey wrote:

The DGA would fight that to the bitter end, but the WGA would shrug and say Why Not, because it's already exactly like that for writers.

Ha! I was just kidding around, but yeah — totally didn't think of that.

Teague Chrystie

I have a tendency to fix your typos.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: "This Is Fine" — Abbie and Teague Discuss Happy Trends in Filmmaking

Re: "Show-nothing marketing campaigns for tell-nothing movies"—

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D3KDZfEWAAAbqfZ.jpg:large

"Who cares whether Tom's ability to give a good performance is compromised, thus weakening the movie's ability to stand on its own when it no longer has the Disney marketing juggernaut behind it? At least this way the nerds will clap and cheer harder opening night when they're surprised by the CG blob he's punching."

Last edited by Abbie (2019-04-02 21:14:46)

Thumbs up +3 Thumbs down

Re: "This Is Fine" — Abbie and Teague Discuss Happy Trends in Filmmaking

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/918/126/241.gif

Sébastien Fraud
Instagram |Facebook

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: "This Is Fine" — Abbie and Teague Discuss Happy Trends in Filmmaking

Oh hey, Disney buying Fox is basically a holocaust for repertory screenings. Surprise surprise.

Joe Neff knew there was trouble when the horror films started vanishing.

Neff is the director of the 24-Hour Science Fiction and Horror Marathons that happen every spring and fall at the Drexel Theater, an independent venue in Columbus, Ohio. For this year’s Horror Marathon, Neff wanted to screen the original 1976 version of The Omen and the 1986 remake of The Fly, two of hundreds of older 20th Century Fox features that became the property of the Walt Disney Corporation after its $7.3 billion purchase of the studio’s parent company, 21st Century Fox, was made official this past spring. In the preceding few months, Neff had heard rumblings in his Google group of film programmers that Disney was about to start treating older Fox titles as they do older Disney titles — making them mostly unavailable to for-profit theaters. More and more film programmers and theater managers were reporting that they had suddenly and cryptically been told by their studio contacts that Fox’s back catalogue was no longer available to show. Some got calls informing them that an existing booking had been revoked.

When Neff’s requests to screen The Fly and The Omen were denied — via the Drexel, which handles the logistics of booking a programmer’s requested titles — he realized the rumors were true, and that he had to stop screening Fox films altogether. It was a devastating blow: Neff’s homegrown repertory festivals have shown many older Fox movies, including Beneath the Planet of the Apes, Zardoz, the original versions of The Day the Earth Stood Still and Suspiria, and Phantom of the Paradise. He asked the theater to double-check with Disney to make sure there hadn’t been some mistake. “Our Fox booking contact offered a very brief apology that she could no longer book repertory titles with the theater,” he says.

Sadly, Neff’s experience is indicative of a recent trend across North America, where it’s sometimes hard to tell exactly what Disney’s new policy regarding back-catalogue films is, beyond generally making it more difficult to show classic 20th Century Fox movies in theaters. The Transit Drive-In in Lockport, New York, which has hosted packed screenings of older Fox films like Alien, Aliens, Say Anything, The Princess Bride, and Moulin Rouge, says those films and others can no longer be screened there. The Little Theater in Rochester booked Fox’s Fight Club for August and was told by a Disney spokesperson mere days before the scheduled screening that a Digital Cinema Package (DCP) of the movie would no longer be shipped; then a Disney representative called the theater to apologize for the misunderstanding, and assured management that the film was still on its way; the reversal happened a day after a Los Angeles Times reporter called Disney asking them to clarify their repertory policies.

A recent Canadian Broadcasting Company story confirmed that even major first-run chains like Cineplex will now lose access to Fox repertory titles. That collection of movies is a gold mine for many commercial theaters — particularly art houses, regional chains, and big-city multiplexes that like to mix things up by sprinkling a few older works into their screening lineups. In addition to films that have already been mentioned, Fox’s holdings include hundreds of notable films in a variety of genres and modes, a layer cake of options which, taken together, give a sense of the richness of American cinema over the last 100 years: everything from Miracle on 34th Street, All About Eve and The Sound of Music to Deadpool, The Revenant, The Simpsons Movie, and Terrence Malick’s version of The Thin Red Line.

[. . .]

The decision to broaden Disney’s artificial scarcity tactic to include thousands of movies released by a onetime rival is a wounding blow to a swath of theatrical venues that used to be able to show them, and where film buffs were able to see them with an audience.

For such theaters, repertory screenings make business sense, too. “It may not seem like a big deal, losing access to movies that might only make the theater $600 or $1,000 once you deduct the costs attached to booking them,” said a film programmer who asked not to be named in this story for fear of angering Disney. “But over the course of a year, it all adds up. A lot of these movies are what you’d call ‘steady earners’ for theaters. You show them, and people turn up.” Speaking of steady earners: the steadiest of them all, The Rocky Horror Picture Show, appears to be the one title Disney isn’t cracking down on — perhaps because, according to Rachel Fox, “maybe Disney knows that if they pull Rocky Horror too, there’ll be a full-scale audience revolt.”)

What all of this does is erode the idea, beloved by cinephiles, that any film is new if you’re seeing it for the first time, and that movies exist in a perpetual present where different eras are in conversation with each other. This idea is still reflected on streaming platforms like Amazon Prime, Hulu, Criterion Channel, and Shudder, and to a degree, Netflix (although the latter has become notoriously unwilling to dedicate more than a fraction of its offerings to movies made before 2000). But there’s a special thrill in seeing an older title displayed on the marquee of a first-run movie theater like Cincinnati’s Esquire, which one weekend not long ago was offering Joker, Downton Abbey, Monos, and Aquarela, plus 1987’s The Lost Boys and 1968’s Rosemary’s Baby.

The silent erasure of many classic Fox films from mainstream commercial spaces is also unnerving because it invites the question, What will go away next? If you’re a fan of seeing repertory films in public spaces, and are lucky enough to live near a first-run theater that shows them at midnight, on weekends, as anniversary or holiday events, or in themed festivals like Joe Neff’s drive-in marathons, Disney’s gradual culling of the Fox catalogue is chilling — like the start of a horror film where the things you love begin to vanish from the places they once called home.

But why, exactly, is Disney doing this?

[. . .]

this is just how Disney does business. We’re now 11 years into the imperial phase of Disney’s expansion, which saw the company buy Marvel Studios and Lucasfilm (owners of Star Wars and Indiana Jones) and become the dominant player in theatrical exhibition. Last year, Disney claimed 40 percent of North American ticket sales (a number expected to jump to 50 percent once the Fox merger begins to deliver). It is able to demand and receive percentages of ticket sales far beyond those of its rivals, plus entire screens dedicated not just to near-surefire hits from Marvel, Pixar, Lucasfilm, and Disney’s animation department, but iffier prospects like the live-action remakes of Pete’s Dragon and Dumbo, A Wrinkle in Time, and nature documentaries like Monkey Kingdom.

More than one exhibition professional contacted for this article speculated that Disney’s overall goal is to claim as many screens at a theater as possible for its newer titles, even if some of them are packing the house but others are selling just a handful of tickets per show. A former theater manager for a major chain, who asked not to be identified in this piece, says, “It seems short-sighted, you know? But they do it, I think, just to keep a Sony title out, to keep a Universal title out.” The Fox freeze out, he speculates, may be an extension of that tactic: Disney considers any screen that’s taken up by an older movie, even one that’s owned by Disney, to be a screen that could be showing the new Marvel or Star Wars title instead. Or showing Orangutans 4 to an audience of three.

It might seem as if the wars being waged by international conglomerates over screen space would have little bearing on whether a movie lover in Montreal or Minneapolis can see a weekend screening of a Fox comedy like How to Marry a Millionaire, Mrs. Doubtfire, or Big. But as an ancient proverb states, when elephants fight, it’s the grass that suffers.

The economic effects could be especially devastating for neighborhood landmarks like the Plaza in Atlanta — the oldest and last remaining independent theater in the city. Its owner, Christopher Escobar, also the executive director of the Atlanta Film Society, estimates that 25 percent of the Plaza’s yearly revenue comes from Fox titles. Half that take is The Rocky Horror Picture Show, which they’re still permitted to screen; but once they lose other guaranteed Fox moneymakers like Alien, Fight Club, and The Sound of Music, he estimates they’ll lose 10 to 12 percent of their yearly income. “Why would a distributor make it harder to be in the movie theater business now?” Escobar asks. “In an era when there are a dizzying amount of streaming platforms launching, and there are all these fights happening about availability windows, they should be working to get people to see movies in the best possible way first.”

There might be a tendency to see all this as a niche issue, one that only affects nostalgists and people who are still enamored with the theatrical experience. But Escobar and other theater owners interviewed for this piece point out that the estimated 600 independent first-run theaters left in the United States are the only reliable incubators for independent filmmakers who are unlikely to have their work screened in multiplexes dominated by Disney and other major distributors. Many of them are international filmmakers, documentary filmmakers, and filmmakers of color who are going to lose access to these venues unless they’re subsidized by other events such as repertory screenings of old movies that can be relied on to draw crowds. “These kinds of theaters are the only places where women filmmakers and other members of underrepresented groups can go and see themselves, the last frontier space,” Escobar says. “The more the means of making, distributing, and exhibiting films are controlled by a handful of companies, the fewer entry points those voices are going to have.”

Access to multiplex screens has become even harder for independent filmmakers in recent years, now that a version of “block booking” — the supposedly illegal practice of withholding likely hits from a theater unless it agrees to take a probable flop from the distributor as well — has become commonplace once more. Distributors are increasingly practicing “clearance” — refusing to book films in small theaters if they’re already playing at a big multiplex, even one that’s an hour away. The Rio’s Rachel Fox says her theater only shows new major studio films when they’re basically played out, because big multiplexes in the area always get first dibs and hang onto them until they’re old news. “I mean, we didn’t even get A Star Is Born until weeks after the Oscars,” she says. But that hasn’t helped her make her case to Disney. The Disney representative she spoke with said those distinctions didn’t matter, because their theater was considered first-run regardless of what films it shows and when. She says she’s starting to suspect that Disney “makes the distinction of what kind of venue you are to be based, probably, on your box-office return, which really sucks.”

Even at the upper echelons of theatrical exhibition, the business is being worn down by a confluence of forces, including the relative cheapness of streaming services; shorter windows between when a movie plays theaters and when it goes to home video; more aggressive rental terms by major distributors; shoddier service (at chains, mainly) due to cost-cutting; and ticket prices, which have steadily risen with inflation over the past 40 years even though wages have remained roughly the same. Audiences have been conditioned not to leave their homes except for spectacular, special-effects-laden, heavily advertised entries in a big-name franchise like James Bond, DC adaptations, The Fast and the Furious, or, well, everything else that seems to be owned by Disney these days — from Marvel, Pixar, and Walt Disney Animation to Star Wars, Die Hard, and Alien to awards-friendly one-offs like The Descendants, 12 Years a Slave, The Shape of Water, and the upcoming A Hidden Life and French Dispatch. Huge chains are able to survive under these conditions (though not easily). Smaller theaters have to go the unconventional route, and repertory screenings have always been an important tool in their kit. Remove it, and survival becomes much harder.

The Plaza’s Escobar also happens to be a Disney shareholder, and he says he’s holding out hope that Disney will change its mind and rescind the new policy. “Disney has the opportunity not to be the bad guy, to act in the public interest and prove that them owning something is not a bad thing,” he says. Time to wish upon a star.

Last edited by Abbie (2019-10-24 16:03:43)

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: "This Is Fine" — Abbie and Teague Discuss Happy Trends in Filmmaking

Read this for unrelated reasons: http://web.archive.org/web/200802041358 … ilogy.html

In 1997(cir?) John Freaking Williams wrote:

I can't speak with an expertise about film preservation, but I can talk emotionally and not as a serious art historian. I would make this observation: In the last 20 years or so, I've been very heartened - I guess we all have - by the consciousness that has emerged about preservation.

    We're suddenly realizing as the 20th century comes to a close, one of the greatest cultural legacies, especially American but around the world also, is our filmmaking, and that we need to be very serious about preservation and about the archival aspects of all of these things that we do. It isn't only film, it's also music. The horror stories are myriad about the great MGM library that had Doctor Zhivago original music and Singin' in the Rain original music and musicals from the '30s and '40s - all these scores and orchestra parts that people want to perform now were all destroyed in the fire after some real estate company took over the physical lab of the studio.

    The American Film Institute and other interested people, their preservation sentiments are wonderful in film and I think they should extend to original scripts that people have their marginalia on, and the original scores and sketches and orchestra parts of all this material. Imagine our grandchildren fifty, a hundred years from now, the interest that they would find in being able to take the orchestra parts to Wizard of Oz and sit down and play the whole score.

    That is something devoutly to be wished. I don't confuse popular arts with high art. That's another discussion not suitable for this kind of time. But, however you evaluate the popular art of American filmmaking, as a high, middle, low, wherever you place it in your mind, doesn't alter the fact that this preservation task is desperately needed. I'm just delighted that we're seeing in the recent period of years people being very conscious of it, especially young people.

Last edited by Beeg (2019-10-25 01:58:58)

Thumbs up +2 Thumbs down