Disney (and others) at the Box Office - Current State of Affairs

[celluloid]

As I understood it, @_caleb was directly responding to that poster’s suggestion that everything Disney is now doing is so bad that only mindless bots could like it.

Yes, and the proper response to that would not be gatekeeping. I think it is clear that the poster was being facetious I don't think anyone thinks that anyone with a positive opinion is a bot. Do you think that suggestion was literal?

The denial or pretend of confusion of gatekeeping is a bit different than flippant. Ugly passiveness and odd loyalty.

 

[BuddyThomas]

Like someone who posted something sardonic, and knows that not every poster here is a bot? They were responding to an outrageous claim that most posters here must be AI software.

I responded to the post that was asked to explain what I meant. And now that it is, we resort to bringing up things that are not even a part of the conversation I was asked to clarify. But if you want to keep asking me my opinion on things, I will try to respond.

And yet that ridiculous post is allowed to live, and my posts that Poor Things won Best Actress and Best Film at the Golden Globes were deleted.

 

[brideck]

Special effects shots are not always necessary. You can have a good story and movie with less special effects shots.

With very rare exceptions, due to audience expectations I do not think that you can have a major studio tentpole release without special effects shots, and certainly not in the MCU, which is what the original comment was about. There are only so many Christopher Nolans in the world.

 

[celluloid]

And yet that ridiculous post is allowed to live, and my posts that Poor Things won Best Actress and Best Film at the Golden Globes were deleted.

A lot of times, posting things is about tone as much as it is content Buddy Thomas.

 

[celluloid]

With very rare exceptions, I do not think that you can have a major studio tentpole release without special effects shots, and certainly not in the MCU, which is what the original comment was about. There are only so many Christopher Nolans in the world.

Where did my post say it had to be none at all? The growing of the character was specifically what I was responding to. You don't have to have as many, and there are creative ways You are stuck in some all or nothing rut that no one presented.

Five Nights at Freddy's had some of the best received effects in a movie this last year, as did M3GAN. Lot of practical effects. 1/8th the budget of Disney's tentpoles. Extreme examples as casting and such were different and methods, but the point stands. Oppenheimer certainly had many visual effects. That movie cost only 100 million. Wonka was 125 and much of it was digitally created.

 

[brideck]

Where did my post say none at all? You don't have to have as many, and there are creative ways You are stuck in some all or nothing rut that no one presented.

I'm really not, but thanks for telling me what I'm thinking.

If you cut the number of SFX shots in half, but also contract with more expensive SFX houses, you have in fact saved not all that much money. And if the MCU is going to insist on continuing to tell epic/cosmic level stories, they're going to continue to need SFX. There aren't that many ways to do Mr. Fantastic or the Silver Surfer convincingly with practical effects.

 

[brideck]

my posts that Poor Things won Best Actress and Best Film at the Golden Globes were deleted.

Huh. I thought it was weird that you'd never reported back after the start of the GGs last night.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

I'm pretty sure most of the posters here are GPT.

I’m guessing most people (including myself) on forums like this are old enough not to know what GPT is, or at best we have a vague idea what it is but we have no clue how it works.

I’m sure my nieces and nephews could explain it to me though.

 

[celluloid]

I'm really not, but thanks for telling me what I'm thinking.

If you cut the number of SFX shots in half, but also contract with more expensive SFX houses, you have in fact saved not all that much money. And if the MCU is going to insist on continuing to tell epic/cosmic level stories, they're going to continue to need SFX. There aren't that many ways to do Mr. Fantastic or the Silver Surfer convincingly with practical effects.

And you are still framing it as special effects, are the ONLY way to save budget.

 

[DKampy]

And yet that ridiculous post is allowed to live, and my posts that Poor Things won Best Actress and Best Film at the Golden Globes were deleted.

Are you serious??? How could anyone think that is offensive

 

[brideck]

I’m guessing most people (including myself) on forums like this are old enough not to know what GPT is, or at best we have a vague idea what it is but we have no clue how it works.

I’m sure my nieces and nephews could explain it to me though.

This is not at all an endorsement of GPT, but I would highly encourage anyone to use it for a bit (it's free, for now) so you can see what its output is like. Learning to recognize it will serve as an inoculation to keep oneself from being bamboozled in the future.

 

[celluloid]

Are you serious??? How could anyone think that is offensive

Best not to question a moderator's decision. Things are deleted and edited for various reasons.

 

[brideck]

And you are still framing it as special effects, are the ONLY way to save budget.

I was speaking to a specific post that was about how the SFX is perceived by some as cheap-looking. It will cost more money to fix that problem... or yes, they could eliminate SFX shots instead. I was not having a larger discussion about all of the ways to trim a movie's budget.

Actors are typically the other big expense, so I suppose you could have totally new/unknown actors in every single movie, so you're not forking out $170 million to get the Avengers all on the screen together, but then you'd pretty much have to discard the franchise approach. Once an audience makes an attachment, actors absolutely understand how they have a studio over a barrel for their continued appearances.

 

[DKampy]

Best not to question a moderator's decision. Things are deleted and edited for various reasons.

I just don’t get it when
I have seen very hateful posts survive

 

[BuddyThomas]

Are you serious??? How could anyone think that is offensive

Perhaps I omitted a “tone” that offended someone. Or whomever deleted it was unaware that Fox Searchlight is Disney owned. Who knows.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

I just don’t get it when
I have seen very hateful posts survive

My guess is the mods delete what they see but it survives if they don’t see it. There’s too much for them to read every single post.

If it’s hateful report it and it should disappear.

 

[celluloid]

I just don’t get it when
I have seen very hateful posts survive

Moderators have to make choices, and they also can't be always as instant as people would like. They also can't see everything all the time.

 

[Phroobar]

I’m guessing most people (including myself) on forums like this are old enough not to know what GPT is, or at best we have a vague idea what it is but we have no clue how it works.

I’m sure my nieces and nephews could explain it to me though.

I'm surprised on how many take offense to possibility being AI bots. I guess I'm first when SkyNet takes over.

 

[celluloid]

I was speaking to a specific post that was about how the SFX is perceived by some as cheap-looking. It will cost more money to fix that problem... or yes, they could eliminate SFX shots instead. I was not having a larger discussion about all of the ways to trim a movie's budget.

Actors are typically the other big expense, so I suppose you could have totally new/unknown actors in every single movie, so you're not forking out $170 million to get the Avengers all on the screen together, but then you'd pretty much have to discard the franchise approach. Once an audience makes an attachment, actors absolutely understand how they have a studio over a barrel for their continued appearances.

It is more complex than that. Actors and their agents will take less pay for more interesting things and better treatment.

The cast of Avengers no longer makes the Avengers money from other projects. The talent budget of those only rose becuase so many others make great income off of it.

Scarlett Johansen made this very public and prominent.

At a certain point, people are going to have to let that version of the Avengers and as many Marvel movie expectations go. Disney is already scaling those back both in amount and budget.

 

[_caleb]

Phrases like this to the poster insinuate they are not a fan because they don't currently like what is being produced of the company.

You can be a fan of the company's past work, while not being a fan of the current work. You stated an adult fan of Disney would find something ot like in what the company is currently doing. Why do they have to?

So this comes off as gatekeeping.

Hmm. I suppose you could interpret my post like that. In intended it to admit that maybe my affinity colors my assessment that anyone can find something to like in modern Disney.

I ask people "why" a lot around here; it's my way to encourage people to say more, not less.