Stars used to be the what sold a movie to the public. A recognizable face and a "brand" which promise a certain genre and level of quality. Today IP brands like "Marvel", "Star Wars" etc have taken that role. So the stars have less influence. IP is easier to mange and trade, and has less risk of doing embarrassing things.
I'm sympathetic to the big names, but the reality is that the game is changing and they need to reset their expectations (and budgets) accordingly. ScarJo was fully justified in her complaint, because she's caught in the middle of a paradigm shift not of her own making. Her next big deal will likely be of the money-up-front variety.
Who I don't have sympathy for is the auteurs like Villaneuve and Nolan who tout their theater-only aesthetic. Movie makers have been raking in billions from home entertainment for decades now, often more than their big-screen box office. Yes, the theater experience is great, but it seems a little disingenuous to complain about the streaming experience when it's the 21st century equivalent of VHS, DVD and BluRay (which is, of course, a 21 century technology, but work with me here). A lot of us aren't going to see your cinema art on an actual cinema screen; adjust your aesthetic to create a great experience on everything from a silver screen to an iPhone and let us give you our money without denigrating us for not placing our butts in theater seats.
Plenty of movies does not lose anything significant on the small screen. Why does it offend you that a few directors make movies designed for the big screen experience?
I think some entire themes just don't translate well. Explosions lose a lot of oomph if they aren't backed by powerful subwoofers. It's hard to pass environmental detail on an iPhone. Things like the scene with the bioluminescent creatures in Life of Pi lose a lot when you're on a small form factor screen. They also lose a lot if you have any glare on the screen.
> adjust your aesthetic to create a great experience on everything from a silver screen to an iPhone and let us give you our money without denigrating us for not placing our butts in theater seats.
This seems like the equivalent of saying "just write a single app that looks native everywhere". You're not going to get a bespoke C++ app back, you're going to get an Electron app that doesn't make anyone excited, but is easy to write.
Movies are the same. If you're designing for the lowest common denominator, you don't get a movie that looks great everywhere. You get a movie that looks great on an iPhone, and it's pointless to watch anywhere else because it's going to look the same. I don't see how you can make a single movie that both utilizes the high-end equipment in a theater to it's fullest, but also doesn't lose anything when you watch it on an iPhone using the built-in speakers.
They could do some "remastering" to release different versions for different platforms, but film buffs are always going to hold that some format is the "superior" one.
6 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 27.9 ms ] threadWho I don't have sympathy for is the auteurs like Villaneuve and Nolan who tout their theater-only aesthetic. Movie makers have been raking in billions from home entertainment for decades now, often more than their big-screen box office. Yes, the theater experience is great, but it seems a little disingenuous to complain about the streaming experience when it's the 21st century equivalent of VHS, DVD and BluRay (which is, of course, a 21 century technology, but work with me here). A lot of us aren't going to see your cinema art on an actual cinema screen; adjust your aesthetic to create a great experience on everything from a silver screen to an iPhone and let us give you our money without denigrating us for not placing our butts in theater seats.
> adjust your aesthetic to create a great experience on everything from a silver screen to an iPhone and let us give you our money without denigrating us for not placing our butts in theater seats.
This seems like the equivalent of saying "just write a single app that looks native everywhere". You're not going to get a bespoke C++ app back, you're going to get an Electron app that doesn't make anyone excited, but is easy to write.
Movies are the same. If you're designing for the lowest common denominator, you don't get a movie that looks great everywhere. You get a movie that looks great on an iPhone, and it's pointless to watch anywhere else because it's going to look the same. I don't see how you can make a single movie that both utilizes the high-end equipment in a theater to it's fullest, but also doesn't lose anything when you watch it on an iPhone using the built-in speakers.
They could do some "remastering" to release different versions for different platforms, but film buffs are always going to hold that some format is the "superior" one.