My partner and I have been together since some of our nieces and nephews were toddlers. They have no memories or knowledge of us as anything but a couple. How would the arbitrary “not below 12” cut-off point work in a case like ours? For that matter, what should my partner and I do when we’re walking hand-in-hand down a street where someone else’s child might catch sight of us?
The horse has already bolted. If society is claiming to treat us as equal to our straight counterparts, we can’t be expected to hide away in the closet again.
It's kind of crazy to see someone describe being treated as a secret or second class person by their awful family, and somehow thinking that's okay or should be the norm.
Trauma can do that I guess.
Personally, I'd be thinking of better ways to treat people, not demonizing them as unsuitable for children.
Domestically I actually think it’s much simpler. They made a movie about 50’s era sci fi pulp and marketed it to millennial parents and gen alpha kids. Neither of those demographics are nostalgic for 50’s pulp fiction. It was kind of a stupid framing decision. It was quite bland and as a hyper consumer of all things Disney, I haven’t actually watch Strange World myself. It just didn’t look very good.
I can't disagree with this, even though I rather enjoyed Strange World. I was strangely very much in the crosshairs for this, though. Fan of pulps? Check. Receptive to a story that is expressly showing other ways of being a man than stereotypical masculinity? Check. Concerned about climate change and/or energy production transformation? Check. Heck, I'd even coincidentally seen two of the screenwriter's plays (Vietgone and She Kills Monsters) in the month before SW's release, so I was attuned to his sense of humor, etc.
It's kind of crazy to see someone describe being treated as a secret or second class person by their awful family, and somehow thinking that's okay or should be the norm.
Trauma can do that I guess.
Personally, I'd be thinking of better ways to treat people, not demonizing them as unsuitable for children.
I’m not going to call anyone’s family here awful. Goodness knows I faced my own issues with my father, who took much longer to accept my sexuality than he should have. But I agree that we should be looking to make progress, not perpetuating the prejudices that we ourselves may have experienced.
Except that percentage wise that doesn't seem to be true.
Remakes and sequels make more money than original or adaptations when it comes to movies these days. I hate it personally, but people are just less likely to turn out in large numbers for something new they have to take a chance on and it feels like it has been that way for a while now. These movies are just easier to market and come with a prebuilt audience that is likely to come out and spread the word.
With that in mind, I went and looked up the worldwide box office numbers by year since the turn of the century. Just looking at the top 10 grossing films of each year (skipping the decimated theatrical covid years of 2020 and 2021) I get:
2023 - 1 original
2022 - 0 original
2019 - 0 original
2018 - 1 original
2017 - 0 original
2016 - 1 original
2015 - 2 original
2014 - 1 original
2013 - 1 original
2012 - 1 original
2011 - 0 original
2010 - 1 original
2009 - 5 originals
2008 - 5 originals
2007 - 3 originals
2006 - 4 originals
2005 - 4 originals
2004 - 5 originals
2003 - 3 originals
2002 - 4 originals
2001 - 5 originals (an argument could be made for one or two more)
2000 - 8 originals
Sure, we could expand outside of the top 10, which would be fascinating to see and I think would make originals look slightly better, but, even with the limited sample size I am using, you can see the general pattern. People could also argue on what qualifies as an original here and there but by and large those numbers are going to be close. With those caveats in mind, it is hard to look at the numbers and think anything other than people want more of the same.
As a quick aside, I think it is interesting that 2010 seems to be the turning point for the most recent trend. My guess is this is the first crop of movies largely produced in the post 2008 crash so executives were being cautious. After seeing it work for a few years, they just stuck with it. Obviously just a theory but I have been racking my brain for any other events/cultural shift dating back to around that time and have come up blank.
Finally, for anyone wondering about 2024 it is looking to continue the same trend.
Great post. I’d argue that adaptations of very prominent pre-existing material should be counted with reboots and sequels - I don’t think we can lump things like Twilight and Transformers with true, untested IPs. If we remove those, the pre-2010 number of originals gets much smaller. In fact, the only studio consistently producing successful originals was Disney, via Pixar and Disney Animation.
I can't disagree with this, even though I rather enjoyed Strange World. I was strangely very much in the crosshairs for this, though. Fan of pulps? Check. Receptive to a story that is expressly showing other ways of being a man than stereotypical masculinity? Check. Concerned about climate change and/or energy production transformation? Check. Heck, I'd even coincidentally seen two of the screenwriter's plays (Vietgone and She Kills Monsters) in the month before SW's release, so I was attuned to his sense of humor, etc.
It was OK. Toxic masculinity Grandpa was cringe for a bit, and the big reveal was kind of a letdown for me. I didn’t hate it by any means, and appreciated the representation of a dad (and mom) who were cool with their kid being gay.
Great post. I’d argue that adaptations of very prominent pre-existing material should be counted with reboots and sequels - I don’t think we can lump things like Twilight and Transformers with true, untested IPs. If we remove those, the pre-2010 number of originals gets much smaller. In fact, the only studio consistently producing successful originals was Disney, via Pixar and Disney Animation.
I can't disagree with this, even though I rather enjoyed Strange World. I was strangely very much in the crosshairs for this, though. Fan of pulps? Check. Receptive to a story that is expressly showing other ways of being a man than stereotypical masculinity? Check. Concerned about climate change and/or energy production transformation? Check. Heck, I'd even coincidentally seen two of the screenwriter's plays (Vietgone and She Kills Monsters) in the month before SW's release, so I was attuned to his sense of humor, etc.
Also, people can point to thousands of films that didn't deserve the box office they received. Posters have done it in this thread. It's REALLY, REALLY easy to do. Let's see... Rocky 3 and 4, the Police Academy series, Godzilla x Kong, Dungeons and Dragons, Fall Guy, Furiosa, American Beauty, The Thing, Rambo 2, Independence Day, Twister, Fifty Shades of Grey, The Flintstones...
Not my question. I said, of the films from Disney, that we have been discussing. The ones over the last couple years, that the "hate network" took down. How many of them didn't deserve their box office results? I'm betting you knew that, but you just don't have an answer. I've watched all the films, and the ones that were successful, elemental, guardians, deserved it. The ones that weren't, I can't see why they should have deserved to be critical hits. Most were lazy efforts that performed as they probably should have in my opinion.
I fear “Hate Network” came from me. Unfortunately, “network” probably has excessively formal connotations that the usual suspects latched onto. I was trying to describe a group of broadly ideologically aligned media outlets with little genuine editorial oversight which each reinforce the others narrative, building “credibility” by repetition, volume, and by citing each other. I’m certainly open to better terminology, since my wording has left a lot of room for bad faith caricaturing and denial.
I fear “Hate Network” came from me. Unfortunately, “network” probably has excessively formal connotations that the usual suspects latched onto. I was trying to describe a group of broadly ideologically aligned media outlets with little genuine editorial oversight which each reinforce the others narrative, building “credibility” by repetition, volume, and by citing each other. I’m certainly open to better terminology, since my wording has left a lot of room for bad faith caricaturing and denial.
The YouTube bubble has these channels that feed off each other, guesting on each others’ shows, etc. The commentators rarely have an original thought and can’t rock the boat or they risk losing viewers and subs. Their analysis is about an inch deep and poorly articulated. And they operate like a middle school group of teens. So, clique?
I fear “Hate Network” came from me. Unfortunately, “network” probably has excessively formal connotations that the usual suspects latched onto. I was trying to describe a group of broadly ideologically aligned media outlets with little genuine editorial oversight which each reinforce the others narrative, building “credibility” by repetition, volume, and by citing each other. I’m certainly open to better terminology, since my wording has left a lot of room for bad faith caricaturing and denial.
I fear “Hate Network” came from me. Unfortunately, “network” probably has excessively formal connotations that the usual suspects latched onto. I was trying to describe a group of broadly ideologically aligned media outlets with little genuine editorial oversight which each reinforce the others narrative, building “credibility” by repetition, volume, and by citing each other. I’m certainly open to better terminology, since my wording has left a lot of room for bad faith caricaturing and denial.
Not my question. I said, of the films from Disney, that we have been discussing. The ones over the last couple years, that the "hate network" took down. How many of them didn't deserve their box office results? I'm betting you knew that, but you just don't have an answer. I've watched all the films, and the ones that were successful, elemental, guardians, deserved it. The ones that weren't, I can't see why they should have deserved to be critical hits. Most were lazy efforts that performed as they probably should have in my opinion.
Your quotation was, “and still, no one can point to a film that didn't deserve the box office it received.”
You’re trying to artificially limit examples to bolster the absurd claim that films earn what they deserve, something the entire history of popular media proves untrue. To play your game, TLM was absolutely no worse then live-action remake blockbusters like Aladdin and Lion King and The Marvels, while suffering from a weak villain, was charming and fun and no worse then many very successful MCU films. Perhaps it “deserved” to underperform, but in no way, shape or form did it deserve to be a historic bomb. Lightyear also failed out of proportion to the quality of the film.
Again, this is a futile exercise, because the “quality equals box office” argument is absurd on its face and all sorts of deserving films have underperformed in the last two years. You also continually ignore the fact they folks aren’t claiming the hate campaigns are wholly or even primarily responsible for the 2023’s slates underperformance, just that it played some reasonably significant role. You are determined to pretend all the “bad things” in society are completely powerless and inconsequential, mere nuisances, and that is not a truthful or useful position.
The YouTube bubble has these channels that feed off each other, guesting on each others’ shows, etc. The commentators rarely have an original thought and can’t rock the boat or they risk losing viewers and subs. Their analysis is about an inch deep and poorly articulated. And they operate like a middle school group of teens. So, clique?
I’m not going to call anyone’s family here awful. Goodness knows I faced my own issues with my father, who took much longer to accept my sexuality than he should have. But I agree that we should be looking to make progress, not perpetuating the prejudices that we ourselves may have experienced.
Yes - it’s amorphous, shifting. The lines of connection aren’t formalized. There aren’t meetings or documents in invisible ink. It’s only “secret” in the sense Pleakley indicated - that it uses gaslighting to obscure something that is clearly visible.
If I brand his sister awful (based merely on his secondhand reporting of her actions), then I would have to use the same word of my own father. It’s just not helpful or productive.
I’m the last person to appease anyone, as my posts amply demonstrate.
I will say, Raya and the Last Dragon was a movie that was significantly enhanced by the big screen experience. The movie does have flaws with it's dialogue and fumbling the message of "trust" but on the big screen the visuals and locations really popped out. I was swept in the spectacle of it all when I saw it in theaters in 2021. It wasn't nearly as impressive when I rewatched it at home.
Which is why I believe in an alternate timeline where COVID didn't happen, Raya would have been a bigger box office hit than superior movies like Luca and Turning Red. It's the pandemic-era film that I think benefitted the most from the big-screen.
I’m not sure what word best describes it, but perhaps people would better understand the network (or whatever you want to call it) that @Casper Gutman is describing if we considered the demonstrable and undeniable impact it’s had within this very forum. As multiple threads here demonstrate, a good number of posters routinely come to these discussions with very definite thoughts on films they’ve never seen and have no interest in watching. They’ll tell us, with absolute certainty, that this film pushes a certain agenda, or that film vilifies men, and so on and so forth. Where are they getting these notions—most of which are recycled with minimal variation, and many of which have little do with the films they purport to describe—if not from the network of outlets and commentators that @Casper Gutman is pointing to? How else can we explain the prevalence of certain highly predictable characterisations coming from multiple individuals who seem broadly aligned in their worldview and who have no firsthand experience of the films they’re commenting on with such ostensible authority?
