• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

DAREALGUMMY

Member
Oct 25, 2017
484
LMAO

When most every other studio has failed spectacularly to replicate the success Marvel has with this formula, I think cinema is fine. Marvel themselves are taking it easy for the time being.

Relax.
 

Browser

Member
Apr 13, 2019
2,031
I dont get these takes of "this came and killed this"

We are still going to get small, personal films. Independent films, even films that try to be franchises that may or may not succeed. Very few studios have the money to try for something as big as the mcu, so in that sense endgame is the niche product here. Movies like these are 1 or 2 high profile failures away from scaling down , like we learned with the dcu, first a franchise now a bunch of smaller movies that we are not sure if they are connected.
 

Diunx

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
188
Lol what a stupid article, I guess those Hannah Barbera movies were they had all their characters from different franchises was the start of the end of cinema.
 

mjc

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
5,881
Hannah Barbera was fucking trash

giphy.gif
 

Addi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,249
The title of the avclub article (and thereby the thread title) is unnecessarily inflamatory. It's easy to see by responses that very few actually read the original article.
It makes some interesting points and is more about how the lines between TV/Streaming and movie franchises are getting blurred.

What a wanker, especially considering endgame for once isn't just about punching shit until your problems go away

The writer liked Endgame.
 
Oct 25, 2017
8,354
Gordita Beach
The title of the avclub article (and thereby the thread title) is unnecessarily inflamatory. It's easy to see by responses that very few actually read the original article.
It makes some interesting points and is more about how the lines between TV/Streaming and movie franchises are getting blurred.



The writer liked Endgame.
It's also ignoring the GOT take in there
 

wenis

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,117
LOL FOH with this stupid ass take


I saw fucking High Life in theaters. The fact that that movie exists in 2019 refutes that "cinema is dead" that shit is the most cinema ass cinema movie and if you feel like they're disappearing than that means you're doing a piss poor job of getting out there during their theater runs or buying them on VOD or spending the money on a physical copy.

quit complaining and go watch movies.
 

BocoDragon

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
5,207
"Film" did used to mean something in particular that MCU movies aren't. A brief but complete experience whose main aim was exploring the human condition, rather than another slice of a never ending genre serial. And yeah most films were like this. Most people in the 70s watched grown up films not based on adolescent fantasies. And these films certainly are being displaced by genre content today, in terms of what's occupying actual theaters.

But the erosion started in 1975 with Jaws and 1977 with Star Wars. Most people in this thread weren't even alive for that. Of course Endgame doesn't look any worse than the Empire Strikes Back if you think of Star Wars as oldschool cinema.

We shouldn't use this conversation as an attempt to dismiss the MCU. It's its own accomplishment to be treasured. But I hope that people realize that there is a reason old film critics are whining. The movies used to be about more than capes and lightsabers, and now they barely are. Personally I think there are still plenty of non-genre art pieces to be watched, but you'll probably be seeing them on a streaming service from now on, rather than at the multiplex.
 

SABO.

Member
Nov 6, 2017
5,872
There are plenty of movies coming this year, has been plenty of movies this year and the years before that this article claims is dying thanks to MCU.
 

ShutterMunster

Art Manager
Verified
Oct 27, 2017
2,460
Man, many of y'all really didn't read his essay and it shows.

Matt's right, his essay is fckn' superb, and like him I look forward to this weird and wacky future.
 

Charamiwa

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,059
I could do without the whole "cinema is dead" sentationalism, but I tend to agree with his idea of content. It's what I've been thinking regarding these massive movies that make billions. The brand, the continuity is what drives people to love them, the movie itself is almost secondary.
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,780
LOL FOH with this stupid ass take


I saw fucking High Life in theaters. The fact that that movie exists in 2019 refutes that "cinema is dead" that shit is the most cinema ass cinema movie and if you feel like they're disappearing than that means you're doing a piss poor job of getting out there during their theater runs or buying them on VOD or spending the money on a physical copy.

quit complaining and go watch movies.

good call telling the guy who's job for the last 25 years has been movie reviewer to "go watch movies"

also - he gave it four stars: https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/high-life-2019
 

Cuburger

Member
Oct 28, 2017
10,975
It's more like the a definitive example of the ability for the definition of cinema to change.

At one time television wasn't thought to be able to be as serialized as it has become since there was the thought that if too much continuity existed that people would get lost and people would then lose interest, but with the ability for people to easily stream an entire show and catch up on whatever the missed out on, more shows have been able to tell longer form stories that typically were left to other mediums to do consistently.

Maybe you can look at it as just "content" as if television is nothing more than a GaaS stringing along people with a carrot on a stick, but a lot of television at least is able to argue for the validity of the format through their desire to actually tell stories in a way that discrete episodes couldn't. It's the same with movies, which franchises have always had the cynical business side to why they exist, and whether they too were more episodic or more connected, there at least typically presents an argument for revisiting the characters and world in a way that a discrete singular film wouldn't allow them to do otherwise.

You think this wouldn't be an debate since The Godfather series and Star Wars bucked trends several decades ago and made the argument that continuous story is not only appreciated by audiences, but valid storytelling in film, and now firmly accepted in film circles as "real cinema", yet here we are at a point when Marvel ventures into the same space while ramping it up to the next level, and people want to act like it's the end of real storytelling and the beginning of pandering and leading people on.

If they saw Endgame, or at least paid attention, it's clear that they really made an effort to tell an end to a story with lots of care and respect to the characters and the story they are telling, and I think if the MCU was limited by having to tell all of it's story within the confines of 2 hours and that was it, you simply couldn't do the same justice to the journey of these characters have taken. In fact, I think Endgame (like many television series, book series, manga series, and comic series) has shown how engaging cinema can be if it dared to step outside it's self imposed limits. There used to be a time when a movie could be longer than 2 hours with intermissions, so while we've firmly accepted Lord of the Rings and Star Wars as film epics and recognize the box office success and significant of historical epics like Gone with the Wind and The Ten Commandments, Marvel has been able to reimagine the film epic, not in a discrete 2 and a half to 3 hour movie like Avatar or Titanic, not just across a trilogy, not just across a two-part film, but across 22 movies with varying levels of significance.

It may take years for the film community to accept this as they eventually did with the significance of Star Wars, but the MCU is just as much a legitimate part of cinema as many films we've seen over the last century.
 

VAD

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,532
Where was this guy when James Bond became a movie franchise? It's nothing new. The MCU is not preventing anyone to make standalone and « artsy » movies and thank god for that.
 

mutantmagnet

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,401
I get what the writer is saying but he went overboard.

Endgame represents the birth of a fully formed media franchise. But it took 10 years to just finish it. Something that takes this long isn't killing their predecessor immediately.

In 100 years if I lived that long, I would be surprised if content media didn't have a super majority over standalone media.
 

ZackieChan

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
8,056
It won't be a norm. Comic book/superhero movies won't last forever, saturation always leads to burnout. The thing the MCU did properly so far was hit an endpoint before people got done with it.
Any day now...
All of this

It does feel like since Endgame started smashing records a wave of backlash is happening against the MCU with a vocal minority.

The salt tastes so good though
 

Deleted member 2171

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,731

MCU already adapted mid-stride. People tired of campy super movies, so we went from the rubber Batman movies to Begins. People tired of fantasy and magic after LotR started a big run of fantasy medievalish content. Part of the reason the MCU started out as "everything is somewhat plausible" was because of both of those things. Even Wanda was way toned down in Ultron partly due to that, they leaned way more in on her psychic powers than her reality bending ones.

Then people got interested in magic and fantasy again, Guardians was a surprise hit and they started to lean in on Cosmic Marvel a lot more. MCU followed the trend, did little retcons here and there to retroactively justify how toned down the magic and fantasy side of the MCU was previously. I think if Guardians had tanked and Dr Who had been a dud, we don't even get the Infinity War that we did. It probably would have been more of a "practical" war movie, likely not even with Thanos as they would have dropped the Infinity Stones subplot which they had to make BIG retcon leaps of faith to justify.

It all depends on if the MCU is willing to both adapt mid-stride like it already has, and if they can resist the temptation to order too much content that people can't keep up with it anymore. We already saw multiple MCU-aligned TV projects fail, so it's not impossible for people to reject supers content.

This is in no way a complaint, salty, or anything, just an observation that every time a Good thing Happens, the people in charge either oversaturate it, or sit on their laurels and get passed by. And if it's all because of Fiege, Disney is one contract buyout away from losing their architect. I mean, we saw how fast Warner/DC snapped up Gunn as soon as Disney let him go.
 
Last edited:

ZackieChan

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
8,056
This is in no way a complaint, salty, or anything, just an observation that every time a Good thing Happens, the people in charge either oversaturate it, or sit on their laurels and get passed by. And if it's all because of Fiege, Disney is one contract buyout away from losing their architect. I mean, we saw how fast Warner/DC snapped up Gunn as soon as Disney let him go.
I don't really know what that post has to do with mine, but I'll respond to yours in the same way.
Any day now...
 

Rosebud

Two Pieces
Member
Apr 16, 2018
43,625
Oct 25, 2017
12,018
In this context, Seitz uses the word "content" to signify a piece of media that's synonymous with a brand and exists as part of a larger content stream, in which one piece blends seamlessly into the next to cross platforms and string the audience along. "Cinema," on the other hand, refers to a single cinematic work that exists as an end in itself. In the last ten years, we've seen a lot more of the former than the later.

The above is a lie. The vast majority of films still being made stand alone not as part of a brand or a sequel to something else. If you like movies, you have no one to blame but yourself for not finding something else to watch.
 
Oct 25, 2017
41,368
Miami, FL
Did these hot takes exist when Harry Potter was making money hand over fist in theaters?

How about when Lord of The Rings was setting records?

OG Star Wars trilogy?
 

UsoEwin

Banned
Jul 14, 2018
2,063
No. And it's not even the death of Hollywood as that happened decades ago.

It's easy to find stronger film still, you just have to look outside North America.
 

Window

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,284
Cinema's been dead for decades. Just ask Godard.

This is a silly notion. Blockbuster filmmaking has been a thing for decades now. Sietz is usually a good writer so this is a bit odd coming from him.
 

Mockerre

Story Director
Verified
Oct 30, 2017
630
Why use a new buzzword, content, when you just compared it to serialized television, which it is. Spoiler: people like series more than one-offs, it is true for novels, it was for radio dramas, it is for TV and now it's also true of cinema (like we didn't know it already with all the sequels and trilogies).
 

El Bombastico

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
36,055
Did these hot takes exist when Harry Potter was making money hand over fist in theaters?

How about when Lord of The Rings was setting records?

OG Star Wars trilogy?

There were similar bullshit hot takes like this when the first Star Wars came out. Nothing has changed in almost fifty years.

Just a bunch of butthurt old elitists angry that people are watching this over a Roman Polanski or Woody Allen film (LOL)...
 

Window

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,284
WTF is wrong with these people? Are they not satisfied with the success of La Llorna, or US, or Get Out?
Satisfied? They are outright ignoring them to come to such conclusions. Those movies apparently don't exist. Because guys in a cape made a billion bucks in a weekend. Woe to cinema.
If you read the original article, you'll see that both of Peele's films are mentioned. Those films are acknowledged but are correctly identified as exceptions.

I don't agree at all with central point of the article though. Non franchise films haven't been the central cultural touchstone for a while now. Other forms of media have dominated people's attention for over a decade at this point and big hits have been "content" for decades now. The only interesting point being made is the blurring of lines between TV and film's long form storytelling.