Like him or hate him, The Critical Drinker nails it about remakes/sequels/reboots...

[-JKR-]

Originally Posted by mwynn

Would be hard to gauge since they do not talk about them. Just using this site as an example.

These threads.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=321933
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=348080
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=315071

These are examples of movies that will need the help of the audience to get attention. I doubt they will.

No Exit doesn't really NEED the audience's attention, though, considering how it's being dumped onto streaming.

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by -JKR-

No Exit doesn't really NEED the audience's attention, though, considering how it's being dumped onto streaming.

That is happening for the exact reason we are discussing, it would not sell tickets. It needs the attention for the next similar movie that cannot find an audience.

[-JKR-]

Originally Posted by mwynn

That is happening for the exact reason we are discussing, it would not sell tickets. It needs the attention for the next similar movie that cannot find an audience.

It's pretty much a self fulfilling prophecy, though.

The reason it wouldn't make an audience is that film fans have become increasingly cynical, as we've said. What adds fuel to the fire is that the mainstream media surrounding movies (websites such as Collider) are in the hands of the nerd/fandom type of audience, and that studios themselves are increasingly trying to sell the narrative that theaters will merely be a venue for big event movies.

So, the solution is not to support the fact that a movie such as No Exit lands on Disney's very own Hulu streaming service, but rather to support those movies which DID manage to somehow be released in theaters, indicating that you spend the money where your mouth is (if that makes sense).

Otherwise the message will be that they're doing the right thing by dumping most movies on streaming and only releasing big franchise movies in theaters.

If it were for me, we'd try to break that cycle and narrative.

[drush9999]

The only thing I completely agree with, is there's too much "content" out there now whether it's theatrical or on streaming. It's not just reboots and sequels, it's also so called "original" stuff that follows the same old tropes. If you're fast approaching 50 like I am and watched tens of thousands of movies, it's very hard to find stuff that's actually original.

[-JKR-]

Originally Posted by drush9999

The only thing I completely agree with, is there's too much "content" out there now whether it's theatrical or on streaming. It's not just reboots and sequels, it's also so called "original" stuff that follows the same old tropes. If you're fast approaching 50 like I am and watched tens of thousands of movies, it's very hard to find stuff that's actually original.

There's an overabundance of "contento", and very few truly worthwile stories, I agree.

Which IMO has been made worse through streaming, because movies don't need to go to the process of "would this even be a worthwile movie to try and get even a small theatrical audience for"?

Simply because streamers are hungry for content, regardless of how or what it is. They just want more of those little thumbnail pics and trailers to present to potential new subscribers.

And if possible, they want stars in those trailers.

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by -JKR-

There's an overabundance of "contento", and very few truly worthwile stories, I agree.

Which IMO has been made worse through streaming, because movies don't need to go to the process of "would this even be a worthwile movie to try and get even a small theatrical audience for"?

Simply because streamers are hungry for content, regardless of how or what it is. They just want more of those little thumbnail pics and trailers to present to potential new subscribers.

And if possible, they want stars in those trailers.

I think it is in the uptick and churn of productions. Before it was direct to DVD. Now it is direct to streaming. The difference is now streaming has quality material. You also have an issue with limited play dates and screens in theaters.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by mwynn

This is also an issue. Also something I brought up before, that sometimes the things we enjoy outgrow us. It is a cross genre thing, with Games and Music as well. When you have seen every trick what is left?

It is like Smart Phones, all they can do is improve the camera.

Bold = yep, lol. And we do outgrow stuff. There are plenty of movies or shows that I adored as a kid. But, when I revisited them as an adult I was like "Oh.... thats kind of lame".

Originally Posted by mwynn

I think it is in the uptick and churn of productions. Before it was direct to DVD. Now it is direct to streaming. The difference is now streaming has quality material. You also have an issue with limited play dates and screens in theaters.

Streaming certainly does have quality material. All kinds of great shows that have come through the streaming systems. Its just a it much and theres another thread that gets into details about the issues and pitfalls with too much streaming/proprietary content.

[mwynn]

The proprietary thing was already a thing with Cable and Theaters.

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by drush9999

The only thing I completely agree with, is there's too much "content" out there now whether it's theatrical or on streaming. It's not just reboots and sequels, it's also so called "original" stuff that follows the same old tropes. If you're fast approaching 50 like I am and watched tens of thousands of movies, it's very hard to find stuff that's actually original.

This is also an issue. Also something I brought up before, that sometimes the things we enjoy outgrow us. It is a cross genre thing, with Games and Music as well. When you have seen every trick what is left?

It is like Smart Phones, all they can do is improve the camera.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by drush9999

The only thing I completely agree with, is there's too much "content" out there now whether it's theatrical or on streaming. It's not just reboots and sequels, it's also so called "original" stuff that follows the same old tropes. If you're fast approaching 50 like I am and watched tens of thousands of movies, it's very hard to find stuff that's actually original.

Heh. It's gotten to the point where I can quote dialogue before it's spoken on something I've never seen before, and 'twists' in movies become glaringly obvious in the first reel (like Eternals). Not that I refuse to watch anything nowadays but people stress too much about all this contento, there's way more than I could get through in a lifetime which is WHY I still gravitate towards IP that I know and love whilst cherry-picking a few things that pique my interest e.g. For All Mankind, Queen's Gambit, Station Eleven.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Queen's Gambit

Coolest shit Ive watched in a long time. We weren't even going to bother but couldnt find anything else and said screw it. Its the best "awe screw it" we've ever been a part of

[HotRats]

"It is never difficult to distinguish between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine." P.G. Wodehouse

[Guy87]

My main concern in life isn't a lack of stuff, it's an overabundance of stuff.

I could quit my job and sit in my house ingesting content and still not find time to watch all of the stuff I want to.

It actually depresses me a bit. I want to watch it all.

[levcore]

Originally Posted by Guy87

My main concern in life isn't a lack of stuff, it's an overabundance of stuff.

I could quit my job and sit in my house ingesting content and still not find time to watch all of the stuff I want to.

It actually depresses me a bit. I want to watch it all.

Same with reading books, actually the books thing is probably worse as it takes longer to read a book than to watch a movie. I agree with what you say, too much content to get through.

[JamesKurtovich]

I usually agree with almost every point he makes if I catch one of his videos.

Good example:

Why The Hobbit Trilogy Failed To Equal Lord Of The Rings - YouTube

[Martoto]

Critical drinker.....

Bloody hell.

[RossyG]

"This person said this - discuss his points..." can be an interesting debate.

"No, because that person is awful" is just thread crapping and very, very boring.

And "He's just some YouTuber so who cares?" is a very dated outlook. People with a million subs on YouTube, be they the Critical Drinker or Grace Randolph, have more viewers than a lot of mainstream media outlets.

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by RossyG

"This person said this - discuss his points..." can be an interesting debate.

"No, because that person is awful" is just thread crapping and very, very boring.

And "He's just some YouTuber so who cares?" is a very dated outlook. People with a million subs on YouTube, be they the Critical Drinker or Grace Randolph, have more viewers than a lot of mainstream media outlets.

When someone asks for a discussion on the views of a youtube personality they are inviting a discussion of the youtubers persona. His view counts are everything to do with the persona. Live by the flex - die by the flex.