@Ravix No, I think you're correct that romance in film is often not well executed, particularly by Hollywood fare. If I think of my favourite romances in TV or film, it's always the ones that deviate from the normal (in the case of You're the Worst or are non-American productions (in the case of Portrait of a Lady on Fire). As you said, romance is often just characterised into cliché, big moments rather than having a naturalistic development throughout the narrative. That's what I appreciate about the projects I mentioned, where the approach was either more naturalistic or out of bounds from how a perfect romance is usually portrayed. Neither of those ones are ones a person will strive for because of their complications, and that's exactly what makes them interesting to watch and see unfold. I get that seeing any film as a result with the core conceit of it being a romance is going to turn you off because of normal way of going about these themes. It turns me off all the same. If a project is really about a romance, it needs to have some kind of unique hook (or possibly talent I'm invested in) for me to even give it a shot.
That said, I can understand there's a place and time for your more comfy romance narratives though. And I do acknowledge how many people can appreciate them, even if we maybe don't get anything out of them if not actively get turned off. Not everyone is a big media nerd like ourselves, and a feel-good approach might be just what they're after! Unfortunately for us, that seems to be the majority and the most catered to group. Honestly can't even fault Hollywood for giving the majority what it wants in that case. My mother is subscribed to a streaming service that exclusively hosts romance film or TV... and not the ones I'd considered good, but more like the Hallmark-type fare.
What irreparable damage could we possibly make just by being weird?! We're the victims to our own psyche after all!
***
@Vermines Enjoy! I had a great time with the sequel of Wicked. Report back your findings!
@Tjuz I thought Wicked Part II was pretty good. I enjoyed it well enough but I think I enjoyed the first movie better, despite the storyline of the second part being much more interesting with all the character reveals and twists. I think a lot of it boils down to the music being a lot better in the first movie. None of the songs in the second were particularly catchy, imho. Still, the performances in general maintained their high quality and the costuming and effects were really fantastic.
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
@Th3solution I agree fully about the songs. Nothing in the second movie comes close to matching the highs of songs like Defying Gravity, Popular or What Is This Feeling? in the first. I think only Wonderful stood out to me as a memorable song. Less so because the song itself is incredibly good, but more so because it was the one with the most interesting and fun staging of the bunch. I do feel like they missed an opportunity in adapting the musical's second act and its songs. In the first film, it felt like they were actively utilising the medium of film to be able to do more than is possible on stage with the choreography and staging of the musical numbers, while in the second it feels more like they directly lifted how the songs were performed on stage. Unfortunately, that means the actual scenes are fairly uninteresting when presented in cinematic form. Like how Elphaba essentailly just jumps from platform to platform without doing much in No Good Deed, which I feel really let down one of the few songs that people are particularly fond of in the second act.
@Vermines I'm glad you had a good time! Erivo and Grande with their incredibly chemistry on-screen is most definitely what keeps the entire movie together. It might have its faults, whether minor or major, but when it comes to those two, it becomes easy to forgive anything that might not work as well. Truly perfectly cast leads. I did also enjoy the Oz references, but I do think they should've done a better job at integrating them into the mainframe of Wicked's own story. If you take this narrative on its own, the Wizard of Oz references totally lose their impact and seem somewhat ham-fisted into the narrative. I feel like they could've done more to justify those parts being there, but as long as you're familiar with the original story, I don't think it affects your enjoyment really.
Like I said before, totally agree on everything you've said about romance in film though. I almost envy the people who can enjoy the Hallmark-type of romances for what they are. It must be more fun to enjoy that kind of incredibly naive, perfectly calibrated feel-good shlock!
So, I went to see Predator: Badlands for a second time at the cinema, and boy, that movie handles repeat viewings like a champ! Pure and unadulterated fun sci-fi adventure entertainment that put a smile on my face this go-round as well. The excellent soundtrack stood out more for me this time around, too.
(I will repeat my previous caveat, though: This is not your typical "Predator" movie and quite a few people out there vehemently dislikes it because it breaks with tradition, but if you can take it for what it is - I liken it to Spielberg's old Amblin movies in tone - you will probably have a good time)
@FuriousMachine I wondered if you were going to, you seemed really interested in catching it whenever it streams. I have to admit for a movie that feels nothing like Predator it actually did work. When you said 'buddy movie' I thought 'he is winding me up, there's no way' and there they were the two of them. The translation system was really smart too. It's unfortunately one of those movies that people (who haven't even seen it) will say 'well this is everything wrong with Hollywood today' I almost fell into that very same trap, it would have happened with Star Wars too. Now I actually want to see what happens if they make a sequel. I think I already said but I never thought I'd see a Predator movie handle emotions like that and then blend it all back seamlessly into the lore/Clan involvement. You see some of that in the books, which you need to listen to. There's a Youtube channel called Patrick_Predator who uploads books like that and then uses A.I. so the visually impaired can listen. As for print I think you'd like Concrete Jungle and Cold War, South China Sea is very good and very rare. A rough copy is £90 and a good one £200, obviously digital is no where near that.
These violent delights have violent ends & in their triumph die, like fire & powder Which, as they kiss, consume.
EDIT: Wait, I read your post as the deal had gone through, but I can't find any verification of that. Do you have a link? All I can find is the news from this morning that they have entered "exclusive talks" (I fully expect the deal to go through, after Netflix pays the necessary Trump bribe estimated at 5 billion, though)
EDIT 2: Found the press release now. A dark day for entertainment
@GirlVersusGame Absolutely agree, it is a shame that the movie probably won't get all the love it deserves, but it seems like it's had a fairly successful theatrical run, so I don't see Disney dropping this franchise just yet. I hope there will be room for different types of "Predator" movies going forward as I would love to see the more grisly versions make a return, too
So... what WB releases do you recommend I get before Netflix decides that, as physical media is the enemy of their streaming success, they must halt production on everything?
I imagine swathes of cinemas will be forced to close if they end up reducing their output, too?
Can anyone see any positives?
When it seems you're out of luck.
There's just one man who gives a f*************ck
⚔️🛡🐎
@Ravix So when I learned to lace a film projector (35mm) the person who taught me how to do it talked at length about streaming. The film arrives on platters and you have splice all the different reels and trailers, then the audio on disc which you then sync so that they run in unison. Men sometimes struggle to lace projectors because the cogs and knobs are so small and some of the mechanics are so delicate. It takes maybe twenty minutes to do it right, I snapped one, accidentally ran one backwards, then eventually got it. I also managed to get one wet and had to hold my finger between the platter and the reel for almost an hour until we found a fix, it was playing in a live cinema.
He's worked for the BBFC and then I believe went into theater management so he knew his trade from both sides and had his own projector at home. He said that if streaming hit a critical point it wouldn't be worth the effort to try to compete. Just distribution alone would price them out. Let's say you are watching Predator in a theater and it runs for five nights. Each night is not just a cut of the profits to studio, there's the cost of actually running the venue, staff, the machines and insurance (which people don't see) that reel might be insured for anywhere between £30K or more depending on the rarity and it doesn't always end there either, it gets passed down to smaller venues when a bigger box office title takes the main screen. That was the old way and it kept things balanced, now everything costs more which is why tickets cost more, food etc too and people want only the newest movie to come to their nearest venue, they won't settle for waiting. That means extra prints, the insurance per reel adds up fast, even the vehicle has to be specific because they are fragile and need to be handled with care. Not to mention the size, they are huge, heavy, etc.
They are fighting to make it worth while to screen movies and yes a movie can do very well at the box office but the theater still have to grind to make it worth while. If it wasn't for the safety net that a chain provides, well they would probably go into liquidation. Specific concessions can help to bridge gap but there's no product placement on site other than other movies. Ultimately it's the percentage they pay to the distributor that makes or breaks their profit margin, studios don't send their products out at the goodness of their hearts. Every venue pays them to feature each movie and you have to remember that the studios don't control the theaters, they charge a fee and if it's not met then a theater has no product.
Also something like IMAX or 3D costs even more to run. I hate to say it but live cinema will eventually go extinct, it's not economically viable. That's why I do attend so many red carpet events etc, it makes make a little of the difference each time and one screening might run from £3K to £5K per night depending on attendance. There are more and more VIP packages popping up because it's a kind of life-line that they desperately need. I don't know if you've looked at the figures for closures in the UK, streaming might have it's benefits yes but it's seriously threatening the survival of a very important industry. Just insurance alone makes such a difference, you don't have to insure streaming because there's no physical print, nor do you have to meet the overheads of physical distribution or the logistics of getting those prints from venue to venue. I think much like the live music industry it's logistics, power costs and rental that will determine the future. I think eventually seeing a movie in a theater will become a rare novelty, which is awful but you can't always fight fate.
These violent delights have violent ends & in their triumph die, like fire & powder Which, as they kiss, consume.
@GirlVersusGame great insight on a troubling topic. If a company like Netflix starts holding WB releases ransom it is only going to increase the speed of that downfall, right? It is obvious they like to limit their cinematic releases in favour of streaming, and WB is a huge entity with many titles now under Netflix control.
Do you also see a future where cinemas repurpose as 'streaming venues' as a last gasp? (It sounds weird to say) Perhaps the draw wouldn't be there from the consumer, but the costs of showing things if deals are made would be far less than if they have to physically source the movies. Beyond the initial setnup of, i'd assume some new high end digital projectors and partnerships. I can almost see streaming branded theatres plastered with logos of their partnered streamers, hand outs of voucher codes with the tickets to encourage people to subscribe to the service when they are not at the venue. (Is this just a waking nightmare, or something you think some will try, maybe even in a franchise kind of structure? Maybe some even have introduced some of these elements already 🤷♂️)
It would almost solely be about the big screen and social aspect being retained, rather than cinematic integrity, though, and it feels like it'd be quite quite homogenised. But the flexibility to flip to a different line-up if anything is not doing particularly well would be a positive for a venue.
But ah, it almost bares not thinking about. I can imagine Mr. Machine flaying me alive for even daring to imagine a world where this could happen. And it isn't something i'd like to see. But I can imagine some savvy venues possibly surviving this way, even if it feels like a grim idea.
And for the big fish... Franchise streaming cinemas to supplement the fact everyone will have to be subscribed to their services anyway 🤮
And then part of me thinks... if it could work logistically then there is definitely extra money to be made this way as streamers get to muscle in more on the 'social cinema/big screen' experience, and a venues' catalogue grows exponentially just by, you know, selling its soul to the devil 😬 and I don't like that side of me, because I don't think life should ever boil down to just money. But then, so often it seems to =/
Like, I could easily market that as being the best of both worlds for all movie lovers, while thinking "this is definitely the worst of both worlds" 🙈
@Ravix I don't see a single positive with this - I'm not a shareholder in either company, who are the only ones who will benefit from this, unfortunately.
Any movie coming out that falls under a now Netflix owned IP will most likely head directly to streaming, unless they want it to be eligible for awards consideration. I don't see that happening for DC movies, for example. I do think they will make a big deal out of showing the next couple of James Gunn DC movies and The Batman - Part II in theatres and then it will slowly dry up.
Directors who wants their movies in theatres will still have other options, fortunately (I actually think Skydance would be a better owner, though I loathe Ellison), but all in all the amount will diminish, I expect.
Physical will probably be severely lessened as well, but Netflix have had some of their properties released (mainly award fare, once again, typically handled by Criterion) and I expect that will continue.
As for which current WB releases you should get, I really wouldn't know where to start compiling such a list. Outside of IPs like Harry Potter and DC, I don't really track which movies are WB owned and thus would be in danger of disappearing when existing stock is out of circulation. I also think physical may be a bigger question mark going forward, because I think even Netflix can see that they are leaving money on the table there. Still, their stated goal is that everything they do should ideally have the sole purpose of bringing in (and keeping) subscribers and I don't believe for a second that anything that follows this deal will be allowed to jeopardise that strategy.
I'm not too worried about quality dilution on the movie side yet, Netflix has actually produced a surprising number of quality movies lately. Still, Netflix has typically been about quantity over quality, so... TV shows will probably suffer most, as Netflix will cancel anything that doesn't immediately find a broad audience (rule of thumb for new Netflix shows: Any viewership outside of the first two or three weeks of release will not be taken into account when deciding a show's fate)
@GirlVersusGame Yeah, cinema is dying, and Netflix just put a pillow over its head. I remain thankful each and every time I am able to go see a movie on the big screen, well knowing that those days are numbered (I do believe enthusiast cinema houses will remain, though, and luckily, Oslo has two of them).
@FuriousMachine oh, lord. Please don't read my latest response to GvG. I have a feeling it might give you nightmarish visions of the end of all that is sacred to you, and cause severe insomnia or much worse.
They are just the wild speculations and ramblings of a mad man, nothing more 😬
When it seems you're out of luck.
There's just one man who gives a f*************ck
⚔️🛡🐎
@Ravix For me, it's less about the celluloid than it is about the opportunity to see a movie on the big screen and the act of going out to see a movie, so digital would be fine (I believe many cinemas in Oslo are digital only and I think only a handful still have film projectors). Oslo cinemas have found a modicum of success with showing stage plays, ballet and operas "live streamed" (not sure how "live" it actually is, and I'm assuming a modicum of success as there is quite a few of these screenings around). Also, non-western cinema seems to be having a decent run, so maybe they will survive on these things for a while longer. I don't know.
@Ravix It's definitely a global problem and the other big factor is piracy. There have never been so many people disconnected from media, or as many people who can't justify the price of a night at the cinema because they need to use that money to eat the next day. What I see when I travel is that a lot of profits that should be going back to the studios simply aren't. It's like if you donate to a charity in Africa, you think the full amount is going to the people but in reality there are a lot outside forces taking a cut. That's what so much of cinema is like outside of the UK/Europe now. I was guarded talking about it before but it's hard not to say something when you see something you love being effectively ruined.
I don't know if you saw but my go to internet is the DeepWeb and every movie that is currently in UK cinemas is available on there in near perfect quality. Some of that seeps out into the surface web but not all of it. Previously the quality would be that of a tele/sync or a screener, technology means the quality is rising exponentially. Anything you see on Netflix is available on DeepWeb too and most of that does seep out. It's not a case of a 700MB grainy .avi file, these are maybe 30GBs and very clear. The same for games, everything is on there now.
On the one hand streaming is killing attendance but streaming isn't secure and studios have experimented with streaming their product to theaters - every attempt was comprised. There's no such thing as a secure network, at least not when it's not being constantly adjusted and kept up to date. The old distribution network is run by dinosaurs, a kind of relic of the VHS days. They fail to understand that they need to adapt or they'll go extinct. The music industry on the other-hand found ways to bridge the gap by gaining ad revenue through various Apps and promotions. Hollywood is at it's core one room full of old men who think it's still the 50's, I'm not kidding.
Old projectors were more risky and bulky, one risk was the bulb. They had a kind of EoD technician replace one before and I watched. I don't know if he was joking but he said if that bulb exploded in that machine it could take the whole room out. Think of the power and heat that's needed to run those machines and then the out-put of light, they were ticking time-bombs. The new ones have better safety mechanisms and are easier to sync but not everyone has upgraded because it costs too much.
I can almost see streaming branded theatres plastered with logos of their partnered streamers, hand outs of voucher codes with the tickets to encourage people to subscribe to the service when they are not at the venue. (Is this just a waking nightmare, or something you think some will try, maybe even in a franchise kind of structure?
I actually thought of that before and at events etc when I do talk to distributors they want to talk about anything else but the job. I think it's like the saying to bury your head in the sand. They see it as 'well I got paid' and don't think of how much ticket goers had to (sacrifice?) to continue to see their movies. I went off watching movies for a long time because I saw the hobby I love being run by people who didn't care, over that time become 'these people have no idea what they are doing'.
I have serious back and forth feelings when it comes to a platform like Netflix or even Spotify (which I'm not even sure if I used in 2025) each time I flip to Netflix it feels like I'm cannibalizing the art of cinema. I spent so much time and resources to really get that invested and now it's a TV App. The same feeling I got when I used GamePass was the feeling I get when I use Netflix. It might be different if I relied on Netflix for TV shows because it has those but I primarily use it for Netflix Original Movies and I don't think the value is there. I have all of the other services too and end up watching grainy VHS, and listening to music on records. It could just be a personal preference but if I go backwards I don't have to admit that so many of the things I love have become nothing more than a monopoly.
Furious said he likes the big screen, and my question would be if you had your own theater room with a big screen would you still go to a theater. Or theoretically if there was a service where someone comes to your home, screens a new movie (that's still in the cinemas) stays during the viewing so you don't copy it, then leaves and technically you did go to the cinema but you didn't. (spoiler alert I've never been to a regular cinema) That's a service distributors use too and people probably don't know it exists but they are putting more effort into that service than they are into else. Someone said last night 'you are part of the problem' in regard to another topic, in a way maybe I am. The world has become very different in such a short amount of time, media was mostly about the 'group' experience and now everything is 'we can market this to the individual and charge more'. That kind of thinking is threatening and you can see it when you use an App like Netflix. They are curating the experience, adding what they think you should see, and eventually a whole generation of people will think that's how you normally consume all media.
I've seen all kinds of angles and access but not one solution for what's happening. It's too rooted in every aspect of the industry, it's easier to shoot digital, faster to edit, you can view the dailies at the touch of a button, then once it's gone through post production/the ratings-board, open your connection with the specific server and it goes to Netflix. I see it as paying people less, hiring less experienced crew, giving logistic and shipping companies less money so they bump the price up to make-up that deficit. I'm torn between the curation that a service like Netflix offers and the truth that it's absolutely killing parts of the movie industry.
The UK is a small country, they can come up with some kind of plan to save it on this side of the water. Perhaps lower rents and provide alternative energy so they don't have to light one side of a venue and not the other. The same for live music, I've seen venues light or heat only one part of a venue because 'not enough ticket sales' or 'we're sold out' no they aren't. I said that Sony event would run into trouble and sure enough it did, they ran into those very same logistical problems and rather than paying more they started to cancel shows. They moved through parts of the world that they didn't understand, through prices that fluctuate and through a customer-base that they took for granted.
They didn't understand that eco-system and got stung. They were more focused on the 'what that one player wants' mentality. These companies are jumping from 'who can pay more for this' instead of focusing on who is already paying for the service. When the usual audience do want to see something they are ripped off and have to pay more, watch a rise in membership fees, and pay three times the price for a beverage.
If you take for example live music. If an event sells out it's really saying 'we are out of these tickets but not these'. There's a whole sub-world to ticket sales and it allows vendors to move through loop-holes. It's more than a guest-list, they could take maybe one hundred tickets for a specific event and put them to the side and bump the price up ten-fold. It's perfectly legal too because it's a 'unique experience for the individual'. They just aren't thinking about who got them to where they are now, they are thinking about who can get them to where they want to be. It's not just greed, they are asleep at the wheel and have no proper understanding of predictive analytics anymore, they can assume a movie will do well but they don't know their audience anymore. Everything needs to be a franchise, they are hedging their bets in all of the wrong places. They do a great job of saying one movie broke all kinds of records but they aren't telling people that 2025 has been the worst year in the history of the industry for attendance. And then there's the cost of even working in the industry, people can't afford a roof over their heads so they are leaving in record amounts.
They said last year that there would be a major recovery, it was the exact opposite. It was felt here with yet even more venues closing, which the government could have done something about. Even studios get tax-incentives when shooting in a country like let's say Prague, or maybe Budapest. The government want the business, the UK government don't know what they want. There are options to stop a chain or venue from going under, I think cinema is a kind of public service. People need entertainment, governments need to recognize that and do something.
These violent delights have violent ends & in their triumph die, like fire & powder Which, as they kiss, consume.
I watched Star Wars 4K77 and they immediately announce the original Lucas cut is coming to cinemas lol. It’s a good cut though, removes the nonsense and looked great on my TV.
So last weekend I succumbed to the grade A, "movie of our generation"....."greatest film of the last 3 decades" hype train that has been plastered all over the new movie "one battle after another" with Decaprio and I paid the $20 just to rent it on prime. I usually never do that. I just wait until they are free with whatever streaming services i have at the time. But the hype was otherworldly so.... Did anyone else here happen to see it? I'm obv respectful and wise enough not to straight dropping spoilers. Just wondering what anyones quick thoughts on the film are. If they enjoyed it, thought it was overhyped, whatever....
"Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair" I highly recommend if you can see it on the big screen to do so.
I haven't watched the films since their DVD releases came out way back when. So going in it was very fresh and it didn't even feel like I was in the cinema that long. I'd have been happy without the intermission.
10/10 probably my favourite Tarantino film and definitely an all time favourite!
Forums
Topic: The Movie Thread
Posts 8,861 to 8,880 of 9,199
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic