[psmith2.0]

Yeah. It was a slow march, but things were accelerated this past year or so.

At this point I just don’t think “normal” is gonna return. For all kinds of reasons - COVID being just one - I think the days of the crowded, bustling cultural gathering place of the multiplex are over.

Technology, changing attitudes, the 14 gazillion other forms of intertainment/distraction available, etc. have all been slowly eating away at the experience. The events of the past 12-18 months fast-tracked things.

I love movies - in theory, assuming I can find any that appeal to me - but I honestly think I’ve set foot in a multiplex for the last time. That it was The Rise of Skywalker (December 2019) is both tragic and hilarious. But somehow fitting as well…the ignoble, “meh” dull thud wrap-up of something that has existed for four-plus decades. It’s damn near poetic!

If there was ever a movie that made me never want to drop $25+ on a solo outing to the Flick-O-Rama 36 (and fill out loan/financial aid forms for Twizzlers), it would be that one.

It’ll be interesting to watch how the next 5-10 years play out on this front. But I’d wager all I have that the multiplex is never coming back/recovering. Even if we miraculously get out from under this bastard pandemic, both Hollywood and consumers know there are other ways. That bit of toothpaste is now out of the tube and it ain’t going back in, I’m afraid. I think millions and millions of people realized “I don’t really need this stuff…but if I do, just pipe it in to my house directly and I’ll decide if it’s worth the $30 being asked”

Not only that, but I think of all the existing movies I’ve never seen. I could spend the remainder of my life pursuing that and be as happy/entertained as a fella can be. Because if it’s between The Maltese Falcon and The Fast & The Furious, Chapter 27: Spider-Man’s Revenge, guess which one I’m going with?

Plus, should Hollywood wind up suing itself 24/7, that could put a damper on output.

[kscherer]

I'm with you, Paul. I'll get the popcorn, you get the drinks.

This will more than likely be more entertaining than the swill they're churning out, anyway.

[psmith2.0]

It'll change, the release/viewing approaches. That's pretty locked in, IMO.

A lot of these streaming places are doing their own shows/movies anyway, so that will probably kick in even more...original one-off movies, like that Netflix one Highwaymen. They landed Kevin Costner and Woody Harrelson to tell the story of the two former Texas Rangers (not the baseball players ) who brought down Bonnie and Clyde. I've watched it three times now. It's a well-made, enjoyable movie.

Yeah, it's on the "small screen", but, these days, people's TVs aren't so small.

I think it'll all just slowly shift over. I think these streaming services, in addition to changing how people go about TV viewing, will also make a mark on the feature film industry. Maybe they can do with smaller, tighter budgets and and focus a bit more on the story/writing vs. just pure, unhinged spectacle/FX?

If you've got a good idea and can write a compelling story that grabs people, it's not that hard to make it into something. It happens all the time. There are still small, independent filmmakers doing their thing, and that's where I gravitate to as I get older. I've seen all the superhero three-point-landings I care to at this point. And I've seen enough shit blow up to last me four lifetimes.

It won't go away, but I think the venues and distribution will undergo a big change in the coming years. And I don't think studios will be bonkers about throwing $200-300M on iffy projects as they once did. Some really big, high-profile (and expensive) movies have tanked in recent years (that DC/Justice League stuff comes to mind), in good times. Now? They're going to rethink some of the things that probably used to get automatically greenlit. Especially if this virus hangs on and becomes this generation's TB or polio, and the thought of sitting shoulder-to-shoulder with a bunch of a strangers in a dark theater no longer appeals to anyone. I think that's already taken root.

[Ryan]

Netflix already produces more new content than anyone else in the industry. Last year their market cap surpassed everyone else in entertainment.

I've read a bit about how they run productions and they seem plenty happy to give creators free reign without drowning them in studio notes. When the Duffer Brothers were pitching Stranger Things, other studios kept telling them they didn't want an "adult" show based around children. Only Netflix was willing to take the risk on their original idea.

When Netflix signs a TV show, apparently they always sign a minimum two-season commit. They're willing to take the risk on a stinker in order to give the showrunners time to develop their idea and find their audience.

[psmith2.0]

That's cool to hear. The main networks obviously don't take that approach.

Imagine all the movies (and TV shows, for that matter) that have been made needlessly lousy/unwatchable by interference from the suits, "studio notes", insistence on appealing to the LCD, bowing to PC/Wokeism™ at every step of the way, test audiences made of up sub-literate ding-dongs submitting their horseshit insights resulting in reshoots/re-edits ("it didn't have a happy ending", "there should be more gooder car chases", "the villain's girlfriend needs to show her titties more...and can they be bigger?", "that twist was too confusing and hurt my head", etc.).

I know it's show business, so you can't let a bunch of flaky "artiste" types run wild with millions of dollars at stake, but somewhere is that nice middle ground where artistic freedom and commerce/money-making coexist and most everyone is happy...studios, filmmakers and audiences.

Some outfits seem better at it than others. Let the creative folks handle the storytelling, let the suits with no discernible moviemaking skills handle the money/business side...each side trusting the other to properly do their job and deliver so everyone benefits and reaps the rewards (critical and commercial success).

[Ryan]

We don't have to imagine the studio notes. Thanks to North Korea's hack of Sony Entertainment, we can read them ourselves.

[psmith2.0]

Holy hell, no wonder so many movies suck.

And this guy is obsessed with catering to/pleasing “millennials”, it seems.

Everything he wrote/suggested was idiotic.

[drewprops]

Ah, our old men are whinging about Scarlett Johansson, I see


Here's something you might might not know:

During the last round of negotiations between the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) and my union (props, grips, electric, construction, medics, spfx, greens, and more) the producers essentially said "hey guys, we're just getting our heads wrapped around this whole "streaming shows over the internet" thing and it might never take off, so could you give us a break on our contract?"

Our negotiators let them have it just as streaming went gonzo (even before Covid-19, mind you). Brilliant bit of poker playing there, by the producers. They knew what they were sitting on, and they negotiated a fabulous deal where our people made less than they might on similar product for television.

Cut to today, where our union and the producers started negotiations for the next 3 year contract for the Basic Agreement back around May and still have not emerged with a new contract. Terms from the Basic Agreement will percolate out to the Area Standards Agreement under which people in our jurisdiction here in Atlanta frequently work under.

The crafts are no longer willing to let producers release lucrative hit shows like Stranger Things, Mandalorian, and Wandavision (that our old whingy men here love so much) while our crews make less money, as compared to similar products for network television.

In a similar vein, actors who are playing at the top of their game, like Scarlett Johansson, are like professional athletes. If they're valuable to the team/studio, they have bargaining power at the table and I say that they should capitalize on their position, because you never know when the winds of fate will change - when they'll have trouble getting hired again, or sustain some career-altering event that will preclude them from ever working again.

Her deal was structured on revenue from box office, not streaming subscriptions. They totally fucked her, and they're going to LOSE in court.

We should all be so fortunate as to make as much as we can for our talents, and if we are blessed then we can put that money back out into our communities. It sounds as if Disney is making an end-run around Johansson's contract and I hope that she wins. Accusing her of being "insensitive" to the Covid pandemic is a low, low lawyer trick that only thick-headed thickies would fall for.

<3 to all you whingy old men


...

[psmith2.0]

You're older than me, so bug off.

I believe I said in a couple of posts above that she's likely got a case if the deal she made a while back (pre-pandemic/streaming) wasn't honored. I also said I assumed she and the company she's worked for for a decade - and has helped make a lot of money (and vice versa) - would've/could've/should've hammered something out and it never would've had to proceed to contentious lawsuit stage.

Or maybe you were talking to Ken?

I don't think anyone "accused" her of much, certainly not being "insensitive to the pandemic". I do think all the folks lecturing everyone else the past 12 or so months aren't any more noble or even-keeled, or get less upset, when their finances get toyed/fucked with. Difference is, most of us don't have a 7-8 figure buffer to shield us from these moments. She's not out of work, worrying about the electric bill or baby formula like some folks I know.

I did say the studios are scrambling to figure stuff out and that the old way doesn't seem to be the new way. But, yeah...if Marvel/Disney didn't think to ring her up, then they messed up...they're gonna lose because, as I said about four posts up, she seems to have a case from all I've read. They, not her, acted differently than expected/agreed upon. If Disney bungled/stepped in it, then they'll pay the price.

I don't begrudge anyone making a buck, and I never said she should work for free (or take a loss). This might be the case that ensures that studios factor in streaming releases and that contracts are signed where all parties are on the same page re: who gets how much, and when/why. Otherwise it'll be just an ongoing lawsuit-fest.

If Johansson gets to be Norma Rae for a bit, good for her.

My whole take on this, from the beginning, was "I've never seen a big star like her sue a major studio" (and what will the fallout be...will others do the same since some of their movies have had similar release patterns, etc.). She's probably not as concerned about the fallout now as she might've been several years ago because she's likely done with the character, voluntarily or otherwise, at this point.

She wants her money, even if it means going toe-to-toe with the outfit that kinda put her on the map. Disney's official response to her lawsuit wasn't all that gracious or diplomatic and probably didn't do them any favors either (probably written by the same guy who gave the Spider-Man notes above). It's shaping up to be a real slap-fight!

"Old men...". Pot, meet kettle.

[drewprops]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 You're older than me, so bug off. I believe I said in a couple of posts above that she's likely got a case if the deal she made a while back wasn't honored. Or maybe you were talking to Ken.

I am talking to ANYBODY whose goat I can get


...

[tomoe]

That's quite the generalization lulz.

[drewprops]

Originally Posted by tomoe That's quite the generalization lulz.

When you are going for goats, the best tool is sweeping generalizations



...

[tomoe]

Originally Posted by drewprops When you are going for goats, the best tool is sweeping generalizations ...

💞 💞

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by drewprops When you are going for goats, the best tool is sweeping generalizations ...

Don't I know it. I wrote the book.

What are those pink symbols? Are those iOS emoji? Hearts or something (my old man eyes, unfortunately). They can be posted/included here? They "translate" or show up?!

Damn, I had no idea. I just use those stock, built-in ones that have always been offered here: and so on.



I've wanted nothing more than to include a taco or flip-flop emoji here.

"Things are going to start happening to me now." - N. Johnson

[Brad]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 What are those pink symbols? Are those iOS emoji? Hearts or something (my old man eyes, unfortunately). They can be posted/included here? They "translate" or show up?!

https://forums.applenova.com/showthread.php?t=39102

😉

(In macOS browsers, at least, check out the Edit menu item Emoji & Symbols.)

🌮

It ain't great, but it "works" "for free" anyway.

[psmith2.0]

How cool. I truly didn't even know. Oh, excuse me... 😂

[tomoe]

🌮🩴

.

[Ryan]

Amazon just posted the first peek at their Lord of the Rings adaptation:



Coming September 2022.

[psmith2.0]

Kinda soon, isn't it? I thought those Peter Jackson movies said about all there needed saying about this stuff, at least for a generation or two.

I wouldn't have expected this so soon. Or is it different stories/books set in that world?

Reading an article about it, it seems they've hired an "intimacy coordinator" (aka boot-knocking technician), so I guess they'll be going for some of that Game of Thrones "getting it on" angle?

These premium cable/streaming-based sword/wizard/dragon shows like their fucking, don't they?

Anytime you see one of these things come along, assume you're getting some titties and thrusting.

[kscherer]

LOTR was so well done that I just can't see the need for this. But, as Scates said, perhaps they're looking for the, er, uhm, Hobbit hole?

Not sure I want to follow this one.

[psmith2.0]

There may be other stories/chapters set in that place/timeframe. I'm not a Tolkien expert, so I don't know what all is out there or available to turn into something new. Those articles weren't super clear about if these were remakes of the Jackson stuff, or all-new stuff (different stories/books).

It's a nice pic. Looks very LOTR-y.

I did come across this while searching around for details/info, from an article on CNET:

Amazon reportedly has rights to use elements from the Peter Jackson movies, though we're unsure what form that will take. Jackson himself told Metro U.K. that he won't be deeply involved, but that he might offer some assistance.

If I remember correctly, I don't think Jackson was going to be directing/heading up those Hobbit movies either, but he would up doing so after Guillermo del Toro left the project. He'll wind up directing all of these. I don't think he can get away from this stuff (much like John Carpenter with Halloween...he's spend the rest of his life playing in that sandbox, whether he "planned" to or not.

"Can I just make a silly, low-budget/no-CGI rom-com with one of those Jennifer chicks?"

[kscherer]

If it's exploring backstories and stuff like that, then I can get on board. But the whole "intimacy" angle isn't for me. LOTR doesn't have room for that, as far as I'm concerned.

There's plenty of oil-drilling on the internet, and most of it is free. No need to louse up good stories with the stuff.

[psmith2.0]

Was knocking it out ever part of any of the Tolkien stories, or is this an element added by the filmmakers to tap into that GoT thing ("sex sells", etc.)?

A production only hires an "intimacy coordinator" for one reason.

Interesting tidbit: today is the first time I've ever heard of the title/job of "intimacy coordinator"...and it happened twice! This morning I read at article about a movie's production, and their use of a "intimacy coordinator". 4-5 hours later, I hear about one for the second time.

I always get a kick out of those quirky coincidences. I can go five-plus decades completely unaware of such a thing and then manage to encounter it twice on the same day, just randomly reading articles online about movies.

[Ryan]

I haven't read anything beyond the core Hobbit and LOTR books, but I can't recall a single sex scene in any of them.

I agree it's not a good fit for LOTR though. I have no problem with sex scenes, but sex scenes for the sake of sex scenes are just lazy writing IMO.

My understanding is that the Amazon series takes place thousands of years prior to LOTR/Hobbit, in the "second age" of Middle Earth. Other than maybe some wizards I don't think we'll see any familiar characters.

[kscherer]

Yeah, shows like Game of Thrones (that have that stuff right from the start) it's fine. Whatever. With HBO I fully expect that any series they release is going to have at least one boob. Like I said, whatever. No surprise, and doesn't offend me at all.

But tossing doggy-style into LOTR (from any period in time) would feel no different than if Darth Vader bent Padmé over the lava falls and gave her the old light saber right in front of Obi Wan. It just doesn't work (even though we know full well that's exactly what they were doing all through those three cheesy episodes).

I just don't need to see it, and I sure as hell don't need my daughter to see it.

[Ryan]

I _think_ the Tolkien Estate gets at least some creative control over these productions? Wonder if they had any say in that.

[psmith2.0]

If they see it as a way to increase viewership and/or add some "edginess" to an older property (that seemed to do okay without it), then probably. Who knows who's calling the shots now, and what their thinking is.

Yeah, if there wasn't sex - explicit or otherwise - in the original Tolkien stories, then this just seems like an effort to spice things up to appeal to "new, younger audiences" or whatever.

They'll might add a car chase too.

Something else to consider re: this "intimacy coordinator", with things being what they are - everyone set on go and so quick to claim offense and/or vicitimization, all the stories that have come out, the industry itself known to be a haven for cock-wavers/around-the-desk chasers, etc. - simply may be part of most movie/TV productions at this point, just to keep any interaction between male and female cast members smooth and easy and make sure nobody - on either side - is being an idiot/inappropriate. There may not be any sex scenes in the production, but just a way to keep general male/female interaction above board and prevent any future "he said/she said" ugliness. Any scenes between male and female cast members - even just dialogue or a quick kiss - might warrant having such personnel on hand at this point?

Nice work if you can get it.

"Hey, how did work go today?"

"Well, I watched Gerard Butler feel up Jennifer Aniston for about seven hours...now if you'll excuse me..."

[PB PM]

Considering that one of Tolkien's best friends was C.S Lewis (author of Chronicles of Narnia, and lots of Christian books), it's safe to say that sex scene were not a typical part of his writing. Wouldn't stop modern writers who want to add such things from going there, but it also wouldn't fit the feel of LOTRs. Let us hope they don't go that direction just for the sake of doing so or just to draw in the causal GOT watcher.

[psmith2.0]

Eh, you know they're gonna.

But it may just be a standard movie production hire/position, post-#MeToo.

Can you imagine your job being to chaperone grown movie stars like they're going to the junior prom?

"A little less tongue, Brad...".

[drewprops]

I'm sure the info is out there. I have not looked yet. Kind of don't want to spoil it for myself, but I'm kind of not wanting to watch it either. The Silmarillion is a beautiful work that acts as the Old Testament for Middle Earth.

Plus they left Tom Bombadil out of the films.


...