Current Events > cinema is dead. mattel article in the new yorker

(+) Yeah! (+)

Donomark posted...

I think you're attributing too little agency to Gerwig herself. No one is forcing her to do anything. This is the direction she has chosen to take her career. She has an authentic interest in retelling stories that have been told before and has done so to great success. Again, I also disagree with your implied premise that adapting IP is an inherently inferior form of filmmaking. I think we too often draw a simplistic, false, and loaded association between originality and quality. And part of that confusion lies in our failure to recognize the ultimately derivative nature of most things, whether they're based off of a preexisting, recognizable license or not. Now, I agree that it's unfortunate that mid-range movies are increasingly less economically viable, but that's a demand problem as well as a supply one. And I don't think the loss of that demand can be attributed primarily to conditioning. You have to recognize that we occupy a radically fractured media environment with tremendous levels of competition that films that were released in past decades never had to contend with.

well if gerwig's goal is just make IP stuff instead of tackling something in reality or from her imagination then... i would definitely think less of her as an artist, yeah. kind of like how i think less of, say, bong joon ho when he remastered his films to have more of an ugly green tint for their criterion blu ray releases. or how i think of the coen bros as not as good anymore because their entire visual language changed when they dumped roger deakins as their cinematographer, and i realized they may have had very little input into how they made their films look.

if i had to make a prediction, barbie will be the canary in the coal mine who gets away with being interesting and whatever else comes after is neutered into a flavorless paste. kind of like the last jedi. a successful gamble and then lots of playing it safe after for one reason (not having filmmakers as good as gerwig) or another (geeks hating last jedi for ruining lore or whatever). i mean the person running mattel studios is talking about merchandising opportunities in the article more than the quality of the movies. i think this is a tell.

also the demand i do think is conditioning. young people are basically never going to get interested in mature dramas on a large scale. like there's not going to be another titanic or the godfather type box office success ever again. just IP stuff. it's been too long to change. like do you really think our generation and below is going to demand great movies be shown in theaters lol. like are you reading the posts in this topic?

Moist explained it well.

Going to the movies is inconvenient.

He discussed them charging $8 for Dasani....ick

Back in the early 90s there were $1 seats places.
The industry basically killed itself from greed.

Greta Gerwig has been pretty open about how she has wanted to become a studio director for like her whole career now lol

Obligatory 'always has been' post.

The most basic knowledge of movie history will tell you that it was never a paradise of unfettered original creativity.

bsp77 posted...

Also, Aftersun was on so many film critics top 10 lists. But because the Almighty Zithers doesn't like it, it is therefore shit. Get over yourself.

I would love to interact with you about movies, but you are so fucking insufferable that it is impossible. Learn how to interact with others.

to be clear, i am definitely smarter than most critics who are just as prone to succumbing to hype as comic book fanboys. i, however, am even keeled and have never once been wrong about anything in the cinematic realm.

Smashingpmkns posted...

Greta Gerwig has been pretty open about how she has wanted to become a studio director for like her whole career now lol

i was not aware of this.

also i do think there is a difference between being a studio director and being someone who makes feature length commercials.

Zithers posted...

i was not aware of this.

also i do think there is a difference between being a studio director and being someone who makes feature length commercials.

What modern day studio directors are making anything else other than existing IP shit?

Zithers posted...

well if gerwig's goal is just make IP stuff instead of tackling something in reality or from her imagination then... i would definitely think less of her as an artist, yeah. kind of like how i think less of, say, bong joon ho when he remastered his films to have more of an ugly green tint for their criterion blu ray releases. or how i think of the coen bros as not as good anymore because their entire visual language changed when they dumped roger deakins as their cinematographer, and i realized they may have had very little input into how they made their films look.

if i had to make a prediction, barbie will be the canary in the coal mine who gets away with being interesting and whatever else comes after is neutered into a flavorless paste. kind of like the last jedi. a successful gamble and then lots of playing it safe after for one reason (not having filmmakers as good as gerwig) or another (geeks hating last jedi for ruining lore or whatever). i mean the person running mattel studios is talking about merchandising opportunities in the article more than the quality of the movies. i think this is a tell.

also the demand i do think is conditioning. young people are basically never going to get interested in mature dramas on a large scale. like there's not going to be another titanic or the godfather type box office success ever again. just IP stuff. it's been too long to change. like do you really think our generation and below is going to demand great movies be shown in theaters lol. like are you reading the posts in this topic?

Again, your distinction between "IP" and "tackling something from reality or from her imagination" is a false one. Little Women is IP. Do you think that movie didn't tackle something real? Do you think that movie didn't come from Gerwig's imagination? Little Women is just a book. You need a cinematic mind to adapt it successfully to film (e.g., cast it, develop the shot lists, select the cinematography, scout the locations, not to mention write the screenplay).

What you're saying is increasingly ironic given your reference to Titanic, an event which had been famously adapted to film literally multiple times before James Cameron was even born. And obviously, the Godfather is the opposite of an original story, it's a film adaptation of the Puzo novel.

Also, who cares what the Mattel executive says? Businesspeople are interested in business, and Hollywood has always been a business. All he cares about is money, yes. But that's basically been Hollywood since the very beginning. Hollywood has never been run by artists. Some stories will shift away from the cinema, but many will still get made, just released on other platforms.

Smashingpmkns posted...

What modern day studio directors are making anything else other than existing IP shit?

i did cite the legacy filmmakers earlier. tarantino, the anderson's, scorsese, spielberg.... all working for major studios with mid sized or large budgets. even someone like ridley who i think is more of a journeyman director.

Donomark posted...

Again, your distinction between "IP" and "tackling something from reality or from her imagination" is a false one. Little Women is IP. Do you think that movie didn't tackle something real? Do you think that movie didn't come from Gerwig's imagination? Little Women is just a book. You need a cinematic mind to adapt it successfully to film (e.g., cast it, develop the shot lists, select the cinematography, scout the locations, not to mention write the screenplay).

What you're saying is increasingly ironic given your reference to Titanic, an event which had been famously adapted to film literally multiple times before James Cameron was even born. And obviously, the Godfather is the opposite of an original story, it's a film adaptation of the Puzo novel.

Also, who cares what the Mattel executive says? Businesspeople are interested in business, and Hollywood has always been a business. All he cares about is money, yes. But that's basically been Hollywood since the very beginning. Hollywood has never been run by artists. Some stories will shift away from the cinema, but many will still get made, just released on other platforms.

all she* cares about. did you even read the article? cmon man there's some gold in there. it'll demoralize you for sure.

it's interesting you bring up titanic stories being told before. which ones featured jack and rose? the godfather was based on a hit book. why are we conflating adapting a best seller with franchise fodder? do you actually genuinely believe they're analogous? i guess i'll give you little women which has three prior adaptations that are fairly popular, but what about lady bird?

i think caring about what the person running the movie branch says is probably important when discussing the future of movies. also how familiar are you with classic hollywood from its origin until the late 60s? because plenty of filmmakers had unique voices. and their voices were certiainly louder than those of, say, james mangold or craig gillespie or the russo bros who are all, as far as i can tell, completely anonymous and just puppets for executives.

btw sorry to the guy who already had made a thread about this before me.

Compsognathus posted...

I find it funny that this bothers you.

TC seems to complain about any films that are not "high-cinema".

Solar_Crimson posted...

TC seems to complain about any films that are not "high-cinema".

what are some movies that are "high-cinema"

Intro2Logic posted...

Jerry Seinfeld is at work on Unfrosted: The Pop-Tart Story.

Jerry Seinfeld is at work on Unfrosted: The Pop-Tart Story.

Its a movie about nothing.

Zithers posted...

btw sorry to the guy who already had made a thread about this before me.

Im not him, but I forgive you.

Zithers posted...

i did cite the legacy filmmakers earlier. tarantino, the anderson's, scorsese, spielberg.... all working for major studios with mid sized or large budgets. even someone like ridley who i think is more of a journeyman director.

all she* cares about. did you even read the article? cmon man there's some gold in there. it'll demoralize you for sure.

it's interesting you bring up titanic stories being told before. which ones featured jack and rose? the godfather was based on a hit book. why are we conflating adapting a best seller with franchise fodder? do you actually genuinely believe they're analogous? i guess i'll give you little women which has three prior adaptations that are fairly popular, but what about lady bird?

i think caring about what the person running the movie branch says is probably important when discussing the future of movies. also how familiar are you with classic hollywood from its origin until the late 60s? because plenty of filmmakers had unique voices. and their voices were certiainly louder than those of, say, james mangold or craig gillespie or the russo bros who are all, as far as i can tell, completely anonymous and just puppets for executives.

Which ones featured Jack and Rose? The fact that you're now drawing finer distinctions underscores my point. At first, you were exhalating originality, now you're asking me which versions had Jack and Rose. Well, here's your answer, which is even more telling (and further underlines my point): Romeo & Juliet.

Again, at first you were poo-pooing IP, now, you're carving out exceptions. No one is saying Barbie and the Godfather are the same thing. But I am most definitely saying that they're both IP, and there's no question you went from putting down IP to now changing your tune. Exalting Tarantino is particularly interesting given your preference for originality. I'm sure you're familiar with City on Fire.

Classic Hollywood had a tremendous amount of garbage. Particularly the serials of the 30s and the schlock and exploitation films of the 50s and 60s. We tend to only remember the classics; whereas now, we're inundated with everything of this era, therefore, we're hyper attentive to the crap and can look at the past with rose tinted glasses.

Not to mention the fact that studio executives wielded an even heavier hand in the Golden Age than they do now. Hell, back then, staff cinematographers would literally hand directors shot lists and storyboards. It was less of an auteur age than is commonly believed. Basically, a lot of ghost artists and company men who remained in the shadows.

Donomark posted...

Which ones featured Jack and Rose? The fact that you're now drawing finer distinctions underscores my point. At first, you were exhalating originality, now you're asking me which versions had Jack and Rose. Well, here's your answer, which is even more telling (and further underlines my point): Romeo & Juliet.

Again, at first you were poo-pooing IP, now, you're carving out exceptions. No one is saying Barbie and the Godfather are the same thing. But I am most definitely saying that they're both IP, and there's no question you went from putting down IP to now changing your tune. Exalting Tarantino is particularly interesting given your preference for originality. I'm sure you're familiar with City on Fire.

Classic Hollywood had a tremendous amount of garbage. Particularly the serials of the 30s and the schlock and exploitation films of the 50s and 60s. We tend to only remember the classics; whereas now, we're inundated with everything of this era, therefore, we're hyper attentive to the crap and can look at the past with rose tinted glasses.

Not to mention the fact that studio executives wielded an even heavier hand in the Golden Age than they do now. Hell, back then, staff cinematographers would literally hand directors shot lists and storyboards. It was less of an auteur age than is commonly believed. Basically, a lot of ghost artists and company men who remained in the shadows.

i feel like youre really simplifying it. the godfather and barbie were made in two radically different film industries. they just aren't comparable. one was in new hollywood where robert evans was too busy doing blow and fucking hookers to bother coppola while he made something completely unlike the novel. while barbie is being made in a time where you have execs clearly meddling with everything and worrying about brand management and extensions. is this the case for barbie? possibly not. maybe gerwig will get away with something in here. but i have to imagine if barbie passes the test that many others won't be so lucky, because where is the precedent for that in recent memory?

as far as the originality stuff with cameron and tarantino - you seem a bit hung up on macro plot stuff for some reason which is quite frankly not important. also you seem to be unaware of the fact that various filmmakers worked at various studios in various decades and managed to have identifiable and repeated themes and styles. they were not receiving notes from ghost artists or bending the knee to studio heads lol. which filmmakers are you referring to btw?

I found the discourse around the Mario movie to be a bit eye opening.

Don't get me wrong. I like Mario and I overall liked the movie fine. Didn't think it was an all-timer but it did the job.

But you had a very large and vocal audience that were very clearly invested in it. They were getting angry at critics calling their critiques unfair or outright calling them biased. They were using it as an opportunity to shit on Disney and Pixar saying nobody cared about Pixar's movies anymore. They were clearly hoping for it to be the most successful animated movie of all time. They wanted it to result in more video game movies and wanted that to be the overall lesson for executives to learn.

But stuff like Mattel doing this is the actual lesson. IP is king. Audiences are very vocal about it. Nobody is going to have that above investment in new IP.

It all just left a very sour taste.

Just make good movies again, cinema is saved

Please refer to the excerpts below. Basically, in the studio system era, studio heads hired staff art directors and production designers that acted as co-directors, cinematographers, and coauthors of the films. Although artists, these individuals were fundamentally house-style company men who contributions to the final product were enormous and far exceeded what most would have anticipated given that they were not credited as directors.

"By the end of the silent period, the studio system in Hollywood was fully in place, with the art director now the head of a department that was largely responsible for the mise-en-scne of every film produced at a given studio. This resulted in the highly recognizable visual styles of the major studios studios during the sound period, each style generally attributed to the tastes of the supervising art director. The Twentieth Century Fox look was shaped by William Darling, Richard Day, and Lyle Wheeler; Warner Brothers had the gritty realism preferred by Anton Grot; MGM had the luxurious, high-key look of Cedric Gibbons; Paramount had the European sophistication of Hans Dreier; Universal, the moody darkness of Herman Rosse and Charles D. Hall. And at RKO, Van Nest Polglase oversaw the styling of the AstaireRogers musicals and Citizen Kane."

"Though the production designers specific responsibilities may vary slightly from film to film, [the production designer] has a far more comprehensive role than that of the art director. In addition to designing the overall style of the sets, props, and costumes, he is also intimately involved with the shot flow and dynamic elements of film design as well. A good example of this is Menziess contributions to Gone With the Wind, for which he drew thousands of elaborate continuity sketches detailing the composition, staging, and editing points for each shot of the film."

Katz, Steve D.. Film Directing: Shot by Shot - 25th Anniversary Edition (p. 7-8). Michael Wiese Productions. Kindle Edition.

These same men basically created the film on paper prior to directors and cameramen being hired. And at that stage, the director was primarily executing the vision of the studio and its art department. This truth was kept hidden from the public for decades for commercial and political reasons.

"Art director and Oscar-winning production designer Gene Allen (the first president of the Storyboard and Matte Painters Union in 1953; and former president of the Art Directors Guild) began his career in the Warner Brothers art department in 1937. Allen told me that continuity boards were already an established method of mapping out scenes in the mid-30s and that at least eight fulltime continuity sketch artists were working in the art department under the supervision of department head Anton Grot. In the studio system, the physical design of a movie was handled entirely by the art department. The art director worked out set designs and costumes and the continuity of the picture, aided by the staff artists. Only after the picture had been designed on paper (and with many sets built as well) would the director and cameraman join the picture. This procedure was extremely efficient, and if it resulted in generic graphic solutions much of the time, it also permitted major stars and directors to make as many as three pictures a year...Under the studio system, the use of storyboards was kept from the public and press because the building of directorial reputations was easier if all the ideas in a film were credited to him."

Katz, Steve D.. Film Directing: Shot by Shot - 25th Anniversary Edition (p. 18-19). Michael Wiese Productions. Kindle Edition.

Punished_Blinx posted...

I found the discourse around the Mario movie to be a bit eye opening.

Don't get me wrong. I like Mario and I overall liked the movie fine. Didn't think it was an all-timer but it did the job.

But you had a very large and vocal audience that were very clearly invested in it. They were getting angry at critics calling their critiques unfair or outright calling them biased. They were using it as an opportunity to shit on Disney and Pixar saying nobody cared about Pixar's movies anymore. They were clearly hoping for it to be the most successful animated movie of all time. They wanted it to result in more video game movies and wanted that to be the overall lesson for executives to learn.

But stuff like Mattel doing this is the actual lesson. IP is king. Audiences are very vocal about it. Nobody is going to have that above investment in new IP.

It all just left a very sour taste.

i made a thread asking why so many adults were excited for a mario movie. this offended so many people that i had people snitching on me with like 6 posts deleted, got warned for a couple days, and the thread was locked lol.

AI_TechGam3FAQS posted...

Just make good movies again, cinema is saved

yeah its that simple really

Donomark posted...

Please refer to the excerpts below. Basically, in the studio system era, studio heads hired staff art directors and production designers that acted as co-directors, cinematographers, and coauthors of the films. Although artists, these individuals were fundamentally house-style company men who contributions to the final product were enormous and far exceeded what most would have anticipated given that they were not credited as directors.

"By the end of the silent period, the studio system in Hollywood was fully in place, with the art director now the head of a department that was largely responsible for the mise-en-scne of every film produced at a given studio. This resulted in the highly recognizable visual styles of the major studios studios during the sound period, each style generally attributed to the tastes of the supervising art director. The Twentieth Century Fox look was shaped by William Darling, Richard Day, and Lyle Wheeler; Warner Brothers had the gritty realism preferred by Anton Grot; MGM had the luxurious, high-key look of Cedric Gibbons; Paramount had the European sophistication of Hans Dreier; Universal, the moody darkness of Herman Rosse and Charles D. Hall. And at RKO, Van Nest Polglase oversaw the styling of the AstaireRogers musicals and Citizen Kane."

"Though the production designers specific responsibilities may vary slightly from film to film, [the production designer] has a far more comprehensive role than that of the art director. In addition to designing the overall style of the sets, props, and costumes, he is also intimately involved with the shot flow and dynamic elements of film design as well. A good example of this is Menziess contributions to Gone With the Wind, for which he drew thousands of elaborate continuity sketches detailing the composition, staging, and editing points for each shot of the film."

Katz, Steve D.. Film Directing: Shot by Shot - 25th Anniversary Edition (p. 7-8). Michael Wiese Productions. Kindle Edition.

These same men basically created the film on paper prior to directors and cameramen being hired. And at that stage, the director was primarily executing the vision of the studio and its art department. This truth was kept hidden from the public for decades for commercial and political reasons.

"Art director and Oscar-winning production designer Gene Allen (the first president of the Storyboard and Matte Painters Union in 1953; and former president of the Art Directors Guild) began his career in the Warner Brothers art department in 1937. Allen told me that continuity boards were already an established method of mapping out scenes in the mid-30s and that at least eight fulltime continuity sketch artists were working in the art department under the supervision of department head Anton Grot. In the studio system, the physical design of a movie was handled entirely by the art department. The art director worked out set designs and costumes and the continuity of the picture, aided by the staff artists. Only after the picture had been designed on paper (and with many sets built as well) would the director and cameraman join the picture. This procedure was extremely efficient, and if it resulted in generic graphic solutions much of the time, it also permitted major stars and directors to make as many as three pictures a year...Under the studio system, the use of storyboards was kept from the public and press because the building of directorial reputations was easier if all the ideas in a film were credited to him."

Katz, Steve D.. Film Directing: Shot by Shot - 25th Anniversary Edition (p. 18-19). Michael Wiese Productions. Kindle Edition.

interesting stuff. i guess orson welles didnt *really* direct citizen kane then. very eye opening. thanks for sharing.

Zithers posted...

also you seem to be unaware of the fact that various filmmakers worked at various studios in various decades and managed to have identifiable and repeated themes and styles. they were not receiving notes from ghost artists or bending the knee to studio heads lol. which filmmakers are you referring to btw?

What? Of course artists have had identifiable styles. I'm not saying "No individual was ever an artist," I'm saying that the simplistic notion that that individual styles was a thing of the past is ridiculous and presents a half-truth. We don't know the full scope of who contributed what to certain classic films because the films were produced under an autocratic model that prioritized public facing mythmaking at the expense of accurate accreditation.

Donomark posted...

What? Of course artists have had identifiable styles. I'm not saying "No individual was ever an artist," I'm saying that the simplistic notion that that individual styles was a thing of the past is ridiculous and presents a half-truth. We don't know the full scope of who contributed what to certain classic films because the films were produced under an autocratic model that prioritized public facing mythmaking at the expense of accurate accreditation.

we do know who contributed to what because of credits, i think.

of course auteurs still exist but they are obviously not given the freedom or budgets that auteurs of the past enjoyed. sad!

Love zithers topics.

When the Jurassic Park book was hot a whole bunch of movie studios were chasing up the rights with a director already named.

Universal with Steven Spielberg
Warner Bros with Tim Burton
Columbia with Richard Donner
20th Century Fox with Joe Dante
James Cameron going for it on his own

We obviously ended up with an amazing movie. But damn if I could see different versions from a movie from an alternate timeline this has gotta be a front-runner.

I know it seems like a silly point to bring up an adaptation for this topic but that whole story just seems so different to how IP is handled these days. A bidding war for a new IP with huge named directors attached who all would have most likely done both a great job and something completely different than the rest of the contenders.

Jurassic Park didn't end up influencing cinema as much as it did by being an IP either. It did it because of Spielberg and all of the people who worked on that movie who used it as an opportunity to push the medium.

I'm not expecting Jurassic Park level movies ever again obviously but nothing really comes close to trying to recapture anything that movie did. It's just constant attempts to tickle nostalgia bones, superheroes and the same old aging actors when it comes to the blockbusters. Sometimes all three.

Punished_Blinx posted...

When the Jurassic Park book was hot a whole bunch of movie studios were chasing up the rights with a director already named.

Universal with Steven Spielberg
Warner Bros with Tim Burton
Columbia with Richard Donner
20th Century Fox with Joe Dante
James Cameron going for it on his own

We obviously ended up with an amazing movie. But damn if I could see different versions from a movie from an alternate timeline this has gotta be a front-runner.

I know it seems like a silly point to bring up an adaptation for this topic but that whole story just seems so different to how IP is handled these days. A bidding war for a new IP with huge named directors attached who all would have most likely done both a great job and something completely different than the rest of the contenders.

Jurassic Park didn't end up influencing cinema as much as it did by being an IP either. It did it because of Spielberg and all of the people who worked on that movie who used it as an opportunity to push the medium.

I'm not expecting Jurassic Park level movies ever again obviously but nothing really comes close to trying to recapture anything that movie did. It's just constant attempts to tickle nostalgia bones, superheroes and the same old aging actors when it comes to the blockbusters. Sometimes all three.

yeah its interesting how those directors all have their own identifiable styles and were getting large budgets and creative control as recently as 20 years ago. which leads me to another thing.

mainstream filmmakers are just really boring now. like spielberg is obviously goated but everyone like jj abrams or james mangold or whoever just wants to copy him when that isnt really how you go about making interesting films. or look at george lucas. people want to rip off star wars because we all love it right? but lucas was inspired by samurai movies, westerns, and flash gordon. has jj abrams ever even seen a movie from the 30s? has he seen non-kurosawa movies from 50s and 60s japan? then you have cinephile directors liek scorsese, pta, wes anderson, tarantino - these guys rip off other filmmakers but synthesize their influences in ways that make the films seem wholly original instead of derivative, which leads to them being the most exciting american filmmakers today. which to be clear is a bad thing because they are basically all like at least 60 years old. has me very worried.

Zithers posted...

For a long time, we were talking to Mattel about Hot Wheels, and we couldnt quite find the thing that clicked, that made it worthy of what Hot Wheelsthat titledeserved, he said. Then we came up with something . . . emotional and grounded and gritty.

I would 100% believe this is a quote from an Onion article.

Zithers26 is just mad that Barbie isnt 3 hours long and in black and white

independence day bump

Were leaning into millennial angst

cringiest line in history

Gritty posted...

Were leaning into millennial angst

cringiest line in history

tbf i see some of my fellow millennials being cringe fairly often

still. us non cringe millennials deserve better.

that isnt a very nice thing to say now is it