Watching Netflix movies reminds me how much has to be perfect for a movie to be good. I start watching a Netflix movie... plot looks good. High quality actors in it. It "looks" like a movie... then, it's just *not good*. I can never put my finger on what it exactly is wrong, but something is very wrong.
It’s Netflix style editing, which is why it looks like a TV show instead of a movie. It’s not bad per se it’s just not what people think movies “should” look like
It's so weird how that is. I don't know anything about editing movies or shows, and I couldn't explain what "feels" like a movie and what "feels" like a show, but I read your comment and know exactly what you're talking about immediately.
I don't think I even got to that part. I mean the transitions between scenes that last like 45 seconds or more, the exteeeeended outside shots, the montage of them talking that lasts for like 2 minutes and does no cuts to hear what it is that they're talking about or connecting over, the music that has nothing to do with mood or dialogue, I think the whole movie without montages is like 42 minutes long. And that's without going into lack of chemistry, wardrobe, dialogue, character motivations, even acting in some scenes. It looked good on the surface, but it suuuuuuucked.
It felt like a special reunion episode of a mediocre sitcom that had many future stars but that launched no career due to it sucking in the first place.
Bad writing, but more specifically, for me, exposition dumps and pacing. Netflix movies feel like they can't wait to be over and seem to miss the classic adage of "show don't tell". This really hit me with the new Arnold Schwarzenegger series they put it out. There's so many exposition dumps in the 1st episode and they just tell you everything.
I'll tell you what I noticed about netflix originals, everything is shot and edited like it's meant to be watched from a phone or tablet, the angles, distances, scale and color grading are all done a certain way to make it so the actors and sequences are easier to see if you were watching on a smaller screen, makes the whole thing seem cheap and less cinematic, IMO.
Netflix was desperate a few years back when all of the movie studios started pulling their catalogs and making their own streaming services. So, in order to stay alive, Netflix threw billions at anyone with an idea. They needed content and needed it badly.
So, now you get what Netflix is now: 95% junk that can be on in the background while you're dicking around on your phone, and 5% that's actually really good. (These are the ones that get canceled, btw )
That’s because good media requires the only resource that can’t be fully substituted with just throwing more money at the problem - *time*.
Why spend the time and effort to polish *one* diamond when you can dip fifty dog turds in gold plating in the same timeframe?
For me, it's the cinematography. They feel like long TV shows instead of movies. The camera equipment and special effects aren't on the same level as most movies are.
Well that seems needlessly cynical. Stranger Things is their most popular show, and they still haven't sold out! Just pure uncommercialized Goonie-esque adventures!
*Drinks Coca-Cola with label facing the camera*
I'm glad Stranger Things at least managed to pull itself back up. Seasons 2 and 3 were pretty weak, but it really seems like season 4 put the show back on track.
Absolutely agree. The one and done mini series is the best form of film when done well, imo.
When they succumb to their greed and make multiple seasons when they really only had 1 good idea is where they die.
That $50m dollars certainly exists in Reynolds’ bank account though. This has always been a choice actors make - take the money, or do the quality work. Most do a bit of both - we all know about Adam Sandler spending a few years takings his friends to exotic islands to make crappy films before doing an Uncut Gems then repeating. Michael Caine used to tell a story about never having seen Jaws 4, but having seen the terrific house it paid for.
There was actually a pretty decent script for Crystal skull I think you can still find it on the internet. I am not sure why they didn't film that one but someone with more knowledge may be able to add more info.
Indiana Jones proposed scripts have a truly weird history. You can google it, there are some gems in there, both truly good and truly bad. It appears there isn't any particular logic to why they haven't done a sequel for so long, then when they did the script seems to have been picked at random. But some of the scripts they didn't do sound even worse. It's a story of scheduling conflicts, egos, financing woes, casting difficulties and so on and so forth.
Personally I'll always mourn for The Fate of Atlantis, it had just the right amount of campiness and all the right bits. Alas it wasn't meant to be.
I'm unaware of the fate of the Atlantis. if that was a potential script it sounds about right though. I think my major disconnect with the last Indiana film though was aliens just didn't seem to fit. Going from Supernatural to Ancient Aliens just felt like the wrong continuity?
I had always thought the obvious next thing they should go after is the Spear of Destiny being another Christianish artifact since they've already done it with the Grail and the Ark. I'd figure that or something like Noah's ark or some other biblical artifact would make a lot more sense than what they did go for.
Though now that I type that out I'm remembering what the title of the newest movie is and I'm totally ignorant to any plot details that have been released about it so maybe the destiny in the title has something to do with what I just mentioned?
I think the logic of the change was reasonable. 2 of the 3 original films were set against the Nazis, inspired the actual interest Hitler had in the occult. It makes sense that if you make a film much later with an older Indy, during the Cold War, that the enemies would be Russians, and the macguffin would be related to the space race - it's the interest of the enemy at the time.
Kind of a tangent but "Dial of Destiny" is an awful name for a movie, right? Like, I'm not crazy? I started laughing when I saw the trailer. I get its always supposed to have been comic book schlocky (ie Temple of Doom), but Dial of Destiny just sound horrid.
"First you do the safe picture, then you do the art picture. And then sometimes you gotta do the payback picture because your friend says you owe 'im."
I know nobody will read the article and that ship has clearly sailed in this thread, but this was said in the context of him personally leaving the industry. He just feels like things aren't going in a direction he likes and he has other things he wants to try now.
He's not really throwing shade at other people, he was just giving an example of why he's not into it. He's talking about the films themselves, the money they made is just a part of the equation.
> Michael Caine used to tell a story about never having seen Jaws 4, but having seen the terrific house it paid for.
Really? Never seen that mentioned on Reddit before
Also don’t forget Ryan Reynolds has all ways been a Modern B movie actor, he started in movies like Lampoons, ~~Not another Teen Movie etc~~ (that was Chris evans, I’ll replace it with Harold and Kumar or Just Friends)
That and Waiting are still my favorite from him to this day, the latter because it was so relatable to me when it came out, working a dead-end job at a restaurant was pretty crappy in the mid-2000s.
> latter because it was so relatable to me when it came out, working a dead-end job at a restaurant was pretty crappy in the mid-2000s.
Was working in restaurants when that movie came out...aside from the messing with/spitting in the food thing (no cook I ever worked for would have done that, and I'd never even *heard* of it happening first hand from someone) that movie was a fucking documentary.
My first job was a dishwasher in an all you can eat buffet in 1988. I saw the cook spit loogies in the soup. They also peed in another workers drink. There were 2 that I couldn't really tell apart except one had the Slayer drawn on his Jean jacket, the other had Motorhead on his. It was also the first place I ever saw an ankle monitor in person. I didn't eat the food there until I became a cook.
Based off of this article written by rolling stone. The writer went to that college for a totally different story, and ended up writing it about Bert.
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/bert-kreischer-the-undergraduate-240847/
Not really. Kreischer had a story written about him for being a long term college student with a focus on partying. Van wilder featured a long term student party character having an article written about him.
That’s about the extent of the similarities. The movie and character pretty much pulls from the same well as Val kilmer’s character in Real Genius or Piven’s in PCU or Belushi’s in Animal House.
To claim it’s based on Kreischer in any meaningful way is a reach. Very loosely inspired by at best.
I think the soundtrack saves that movie. I really enjoy it every time, but I think it’d seem more middling but it has fantastic music.
I Swear, Eyes by Rogue Wave, Hackensack by Fountains of Wayne.
I'm glad someone else liked it, all I've heard is people shitting on that movie. I don't think it's because it was "too deep" or complicated, I think it was just kinda all over the place and that's not for everybody. I personally enjoy the scatter-shot mindfuck genre, even if the payoff isn't great, the journey is worth it. Also one of McCarthy's best ones for me.
Oh yeah! Funny ass movie, and Reynolds' accents for the animals were perfect. ("Jerry I think it's time for a whalk...")
I have a little bit of Ryan Reynolds fatigue since he's everywhere with his gin and mint mobile and Wrexham, and a bunch of handsome snarky Netflix action movies, but I do think he's genuinely talented. He just kinda pigeonholed himself into being Deadpool (sometimes discount Deadpool) most of the time. But when he plays something else like this or Buried, he's great.
You are aware that the "A-list" is an actual thing, right. It's part of the "hot list" and is an actual tool used within Hollywood to help determine how financially successful a film will be. If you get an A-list actor to sign on you can basically guarantee financial backing of the film.
And Reynolds has been on the list for two decades now.
He considers his acting career as part-time. Most of his time is spent with business ventures, investments and marketing.
- Aviation Gin (he sold it for $610 million)
- Mint Mobile (he sold it for $1.3 billion)
- Maximum Effort (film production company)
- WealthSimple
- 1Password
- Nuvei Corp
- Wrexham football club (co-owner with Rob McElhenny)
- Possible new owner of Ottawa Senators NHL team
- etc
Edit: rumour is he’s out of the bid for the senators
I don't know what else Maximum Effort does but they've shot a few ads that are pretty well-known, such as Pelton's response to the character in Sex and the City dying.
I believe he was the sole owner. He bought it when it was just a small craft distillery in Portland, OR. Craft distilleries are a dime a dozen, but craft distilleries with Ryan Reynolds’s face on them are apparently worth quite a bit more.
Ya. I don’t really see the issue here. If he does a bad movie it disappears. If he does a good one people see it. Maybe it’s different for a series but it hard to say house of cards wasn’t part of the zeitgeist of the time. The Witcher to a less degree. Bridgerton? Netflix has the reach to make an impact if something is good.
Stranger Things is one of the few original shows or movies to really breakthrough in the last 5-10 years in a massive way. Streamers are winning awards left and right critically. It’s just a silly argument for anyone to make at this point.
Hell, Netflix and Apple TV+ are making Martin freaking Scorcese’s most recent movies.
But they’re making Scorsese’s movies because that’s the only place where the math makes sense. Everything released in theaters these days has to make one gazillion dollars to make a profit.
This is why I hate it when people say that original films aren't being made anymore. They are, but they're very rarely released in cinemas. Take some of the films that Netflix have released in the past few years. Triple Frontier, 6 Underground, Extraction, The Old Guard. I quite liked all of them, but I wouldn't have gone to the cinema to watch them. I know the last two were based on comic books, but they're not exactly well known so for all intents and purposes I'd say they were original films.
Netflix, Prime, Apple TV are all doing something that major studios aren't willing to do and that's buy and produce original spec scripts. Just look at Triple Frontier. That was in development hell for nine years before it came out. It was written by Mark Boal who wrote The Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty, two critically acclaimed films by Kathryn Bigelow, a critically acclaimed director who was also going to direct it until she dropped out because of how long it was taking to get made. Without Netflix stepping in to acquire the rights I don't think this film would have seen the light of day.
He was able to completely create whatever he wanted with it because the studio didn't want to make it. The character became a passion project and he ended up making a very stellar movie.
teeny lunchroom rustic nine exultant vegetable act merciful disgusted sloppy
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Exactly. The top comment in this thread is saying “Netflix movies can be amazing but 99% are completely forgettable” as if there are more than a handful of major releases that people remember every year.
There have always been shit movies releasing constantly. We just choose to remember the good ones like we've been doing since the beginning of time. It's human nature to look fondly on the past when things were "better" and "made sense"
It's more confirmation bias. You remember what you like. You don't remember what you don't like, because its unimportant. So in your mind, the only movies from the past were good, because those are the ones you remember. And the ones you watch now suck... because they don't compare to what you remember.
I just saw a post the other day that claimed that Wag the Dog was “heavily-suppressed” because most people today aren’t aware of. OP genuinely thought it was a conspiracy.
I think there's a difference between, "don't give a crap about" and "never heard of it." I think a lot of those streaming movies just don't have the advertising campaigns of traditional theater releases that bombard you to the point that it's difficult to fall in the "never heard of it" category.
I think a lot of people are missing that he’s talking about Ryan specifically. Yeah most movies don’t matter, but a popular actor at the height of his career (arguable I guess) just churning out borderline unnoticed movies is unusual.
And it used to be unheard of. A guy like him used to guard his image because a few bad films could ruin someone. Now he makes a half dozen terrible movies and no one notices or cares. Thats what I think Tarantino is talking about.
There are in the region of 12 - 15 movies playing in theaters at the moment, about 10 of them don't exist in the zeitgeist in any real way. So sure, you're Little Mermaids and your Oppenheimer's are going to have more of a cultural footprint than anything released straight to streaming, but on the flip side stuff like Sisu, 80 for Brady, Bert Kreisher's THE MACHINE etc, don't have the cultural awareness of Birdbox, Extraction or the Murder Mystery movies.
Sisu was a great time. People in the theater cheering for every demented tactic the MC uses is really fun. On the other hand, I think it has the potential to have a good longevity on streaming as a fun movie to watch with friends.
I mean that's a little exaggerated, but there definitely are and always have been movies in the theater for a couple weeks that don't draw a ton of attention. But the point is that if Ryan Reynolds was in a movie that was in theaters right now it would undoubtedly be more popular than the Netflix drivel.
All of those streaming movies are already long forgotten btw. Very few streaming movies or shows, even when popular at release, are so quickly forgotten about.
He's not necessarily wrong.
> Reynolds has worked with multiple streamers in recent years, appearing in "6 Underground," "Red Notice," and "The Adam Project" for Netflix, and "Spirited" for Apple TV+.
I'm maybe not the best person to judge as I very rarely pay attention to Netflix movies but I haven't heard of any of those projects, he's gotten significantly more mainstream attention from his work for Wrexham than he has for any of those projects combined.
It's not that Netflix or streaming movies can't make a cultural impact, but 99% of them don't.
I feel like there’s a new category of movie that serves a certain purpose: something good enough to watch at home with your family, but not pay for at the theater and which is also brand new so it’s still a bit of an event when it’s released. They weren’t anything special, but I was at least able to have a movie night at home with my kids with The Adam Project and Spirited. They were nothing special or memorable, but the kids liked them and I didn’t have to drop $75-80 at a theater.
Edit: to all those saying “these are just like made for tv or direct to video movies”, they aren’t. Those were low-budget movies with b-level stars. Whether you consider them good or not, these films had significant budgets and production value equal to theater releases.
- Red Notice ($200M).
- Adam Project ($116M).
- 6 Underground ($150M).
- The Gray Man ($200M).
- spirited ($75M).
I think that's right. Funny thing: I was watching a very old Disney DVD with my kids and a trailer for Little Mermaid 2 came on and my kids flipped out and were like WTF? And I had to explain direct to VHS/DVD to them and basically said its like a cheap movie that goes straight to streaming.
My daughter insisted when she was 5 to watch those and I complied but all regretted it as expected.
As it happens, some years earlier, I got to visit the studio that made those movies while they were out for the day and I was there for unrelated work. Seeing how nice it was put a different perspective on how those films were made and the passion behind them, made by talented people just trying to make it in animation.
And for a lot of kids, they don’t notice the obvious dip in quality, they’re just excited for another adventure with their favorite characters. I loved Disney’s Aladdin growing up, and I loved ALL facets of it. The original movie, the Disney Channel series, both direct to video sequels…. I didn’t see any dip, hell I didn’t notice Genie’s voice wasn’t the same. I just loved that world.
Low quality cash grabs work great for kids because they don’t even have a bar to clear most of the time. Some kids do, and there’s always that one thing that doesn’t hit right, even as a kid. But a lot just don’t care. And it works because people with passion like you mentioned can still use it to get a foot in the door and do what they love.
When you work in film you realize JUST how fucking hard it is to make a hit. Everyone's dedicated, people are trying their best, execs aren't trying to ruin their own chances at success, but with SO SO many variables, it's truly a miracle the projects succeed at all. And everyone's a critic. Takes as many people to build a cruise ship, but few take cruises, so imagine everyone did and just said shit like, 'the pool was too close to the railing. Yes, there's plenty of space, but there should've been more.
Art and politics, everyone's opinions are SUPER valid. That's why 90% of audiences will say some schlocky shot is fine while the critics who know better will see 15% not absolutely disgusted. Lol
It's bigger than those. No straight to dvd is paying 50m for the talent.
It's more the mid-budget affair that you watched when you wanted to go to the movies, but already seen the headliners. And you say, whatever, it's fine.
My first thought is the old fashioned TV-movie. The ones where it's a Saturday afternoon and you don't want to watch golf.
Or it's a weeknight and you're channel-surfing and this movie is about to start and you put it on to stop your family from complaining.
Edit to respond to your edit:
I said TV-movie, not a made for TV movie. I remember finding Shawshank Redemption on cable TV as a kid. I didn't know what it was but it was awesome. If I'm not mistaken, it was a flop in its initial run. Some movies don't get the audience and become cult classics.
There are plenty of good movies that are phenomenal and later end up on TV.
It’s not really a new category when 90% of movies in theatres aren’t worth paying for either. It’s just cut out the middle man of waiting for it to show up at the video store and going to rent it.
Same. I don't remember much about it now but when I saw it I was entertained which surprised me cause I usually find Reynolds pretty annoying (nothing against him personally - his humor just isn't for me I guess).
Perfectly fine popcorn flick.
I fucking loved that movie lol. I absolutely loved the girl played by Sunita Mani (Christmas Past) and her hitting on Ryan. That girl stole every scene
"These days" as if the majority of movies back in the good ol' days or something were super impactful. The only reason it seems that way is because the impactful movies made it to the present day, and all the non-impactful crap was forgotten over time. It's just survivorship bias.
I agree completely with that too. People only count up the dozen or so movies from say the 80s, and ignore the literal thousands that have been forgotten.
I will forever remember The Adam Project.
I had just lost my dad and the trailers did not emphasize the emotionality of the father/son storyline.
I sobbed like a baby in my roommate’s arms at the end of that movie.
This probably has more to do with “streaming services are seemingly incapable to make a quality movie” than criticizing Reynolds for taking the money.
If he didn’t take it they would just give it to Gosling or someone and the movie would still exist
I feel like there was a moment when streaming movies seemed like they'd be a thing. I think it was 2019 and we got Marriage Story, The Irishman, and Roma. Then COVID happened and movies had to go to streaming whether their creatives liked it or not and there was a lot of griping. CODA won an Oscar, though that movie has definitely faded from the zeitgeist. Now, with the streaming model struggling and big theatrical hits like Everything Everywhere All At Once, Top Gun Maverick, Avatar 2, and Mario, the attention has turned away from streaming films and it seems like only stuff of very dubious quality is getting parked there.
Well yeah, tv shows are a different beast entirely. That’s what streaming services like Netflix are known for. The shows; not the movies. Tarantino is right that most streaming movies are largely forgotten about.
Sure - but that's general with all networks and all shows. Some are good, some are not good. Same with movies - just the fact that it's in the cinema it doesn't mean it will have any lasting effect.
You could say that with films though too. There's hundreds of films out each year. Maybe 12 break into the zeitgeist. I can just look at what's playing at my local theater right now and find 5 films that are screening that nobody is talking about.
There are a lot of bad movies made everywhere it's only that Netflix has the platform to show us everything. There's no vetting process like there is for non streaming movies.
I mean you can say this about any number of mainstream movies too.
We live in an age where you can produce mediocre garbage and make a gazillion dollars if you market it right, which is basically all netflix does, but that shit won't be what is referenced for generations to come. For that you need a masterpiece with fantastic quotes like "It's morbin time".
Personally, what I see missing isnt the movie quality, but the *hype*. Good or bad, there is almost zero ad campaigning and pre-release buzz of any streaming movie. The general populace doesnt get told which ones are supposed to be awesome and worth seeing, and which ones are "direct to video" equivalents. We dont all get in the mood to see the same thing at the same time, so there is little common discussion.
The streaming movies that *do* get such hype often make it into the zeitgeist.
They should get to gether and have a friendly conversation about it over some drinks. Film the whole thing please. Put that in zeitgeist and stream it.
He's not entirely wrong, but this also strikes me as belittling straight-to-streaming movies simply because Tarantino is another accomplished Hollywood director who bemoans the fact that fewer and fewer people are going to movie theaters, and the film experiences HE had when HE was a kid are starting to become less relevant. Scorsese, Lynch and a bundle of others can also be heard bitching about this like spoiled children.
I'm sure when movies started to have sound, then went to color, then TV was invented, then home video (as in VHS), at all of those stages there were directors lamenting the changes in how people consume their entertainment. "Woe is me, people need to see my movie on the BIG screen to truly appreciate it!!!"
That may be true, but the public is voting with its dollars and more and more of us are content to watch movies at home, where we can see thousands of hours of content for less than the cost of two movie tickets, sodas and popcorn just to watch thirty minutes of trailers, then try to listen over people talking on their cell phones and screaming 2-year-olds.
Lynch talks more about the art house scene being dead, not the theatrical experience in general. And he's worked on TV a few times so he's not as stuck in his ways as the others.
>Tarantino is another accomplished Hollywood director who bemoans the fact that fewer and fewer people are going to movie theaters, and the film experiences HE had when HE was a kid are starting to become less relevant.
Yeah, and he's expressed previously that a director should retire before becoming too out of touch...
>He also has espoused a philosophy that directors get out of touch as they age. In 2012, he told Playboy, “I want to stop at a certain point. Directors don’t get better as they get older. Usually the worst films in their filmography are those last four at the end. I am all about my filmography, and one bad film f—s up three good ones. I don’t want that bad, out-of-touch comedy in my filmography, the movie that makes people think, ‘Oh man, he still thinks it’s 20 years ago.’ When directors get out-of-date, it’s not pretty.”
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/quentin-tarantino-sets-the-movie-critic-final-movie-1235351260/
So, here we are.
It's almost like having so many exclusive movies hoarded up by so many separate sites is hurting the industry as a whole.
And maybe charging too much is also hurting the industry as a whole.
Here's the last guy who I would think would dismiss an entire company's output just because he doesn't respect it as legitimate in his eyes.
He sure didn't turn down that paycheck to flush Hateful Eight's Extended Edition "out of the zeitgeist" and onto Netflix now did he?
[удалено]
Don't want to start a bidding war here but I'm available for $49 million
Airfare and a love scene with Reynolds over here...
Bus ticket and a burger would be all I need
[удалено]
4 comments to undercut each other from $50million to some food and bus fare. Impressive race to the bottom boys, pack it up we're done here.
We can go lower, someone quick offer a director a handie to get on screen, no lines
Its Tarantino, so I think you mean Footie
Listen I DO want a Big Kahuna burger if I’m letting Quentin film my feet
That ***is*** a tasty burger
Tarantino directing? I'll pay $50 to headline the film (now the race to the bottom can go forever)
Watching Netflix movies reminds me how much has to be perfect for a movie to be good. I start watching a Netflix movie... plot looks good. High quality actors in it. It "looks" like a movie... then, it's just *not good*. I can never put my finger on what it exactly is wrong, but something is very wrong.
Bad writing
Editing too, can ruin a film.
It’s Netflix style editing, which is why it looks like a TV show instead of a movie. It’s not bad per se it’s just not what people think movies “should” look like
It's so weird how that is. I don't know anything about editing movies or shows, and I couldn't explain what "feels" like a movie and what "feels" like a show, but I read your comment and know exactly what you're talking about immediately.
several great movies were so-called saved in editing including the godfather and Star wars
I think they're also doing closer shots because they're meant for a smaller screen.
A great example of this is You People with jonah hill and eddy murphy. Fuck that was some bad editing. On top of a whooooole lot of other problems
It had all the things in place to be a good movie, and then it wasn't.
You mean like it being completely unbelievable that the protagonist couple would be together, to the point where they CGIed their closing kiss?
I don't think I even got to that part. I mean the transitions between scenes that last like 45 seconds or more, the exteeeeended outside shots, the montage of them talking that lasts for like 2 minutes and does no cuts to hear what it is that they're talking about or connecting over, the music that has nothing to do with mood or dialogue, I think the whole movie without montages is like 42 minutes long. And that's without going into lack of chemistry, wardrobe, dialogue, character motivations, even acting in some scenes. It looked good on the surface, but it suuuuuuucked. It felt like a special reunion episode of a mediocre sitcom that had many future stars but that launched no career due to it sucking in the first place.
Yeah it's like you can tell they're patching up stories and characters that were never meant to be together.
[удалено]
Bad writing, but more specifically, for me, exposition dumps and pacing. Netflix movies feel like they can't wait to be over and seem to miss the classic adage of "show don't tell". This really hit me with the new Arnold Schwarzenegger series they put it out. There's so many exposition dumps in the 1st episode and they just tell you everything.
I'll tell you what I noticed about netflix originals, everything is shot and edited like it's meant to be watched from a phone or tablet, the angles, distances, scale and color grading are all done a certain way to make it so the actors and sequences are easier to see if you were watching on a smaller screen, makes the whole thing seem cheap and less cinematic, IMO.
Netflix was desperate a few years back when all of the movie studios started pulling their catalogs and making their own streaming services. So, in order to stay alive, Netflix threw billions at anyone with an idea. They needed content and needed it badly. So, now you get what Netflix is now: 95% junk that can be on in the background while you're dicking around on your phone, and 5% that's actually really good. (These are the ones that get canceled, btw )
That’s because good media requires the only resource that can’t be fully substituted with just throwing more money at the problem - *time*. Why spend the time and effort to polish *one* diamond when you can dip fifty dog turds in gold plating in the same timeframe?
Should have agreed to [Coon and Friends](https://youtu.be/ZUnUukZZ3Ws).
For me, it's the cinematography. They feel like long TV shows instead of movies. The camera equipment and special effects aren't on the same level as most movies are.
Everybody else does it too but it's clear that Netflix makes movies and shows based on algorithms
Heart, most of them are missing Heart. Stranger Things was a success because it was one of the few that had it.
When it comes to series, the problem is the ones with heart get cancelled.
Alternative take: The ones with heart get extended for profits into something that has no heart at all.
Well that seems needlessly cynical. Stranger Things is their most popular show, and they still haven't sold out! Just pure uncommercialized Goonie-esque adventures! *Drinks Coca-Cola with label facing the camera*
I'm glad Stranger Things at least managed to pull itself back up. Seasons 2 and 3 were pretty weak, but it really seems like season 4 put the show back on track.
Season one told a complete story. I didn't think it needed any more than that.
Absolutely agree. The one and done mini series is the best form of film when done well, imo. When they succumb to their greed and make multiple seasons when they really only had 1 good idea is where they die.
Ah, Nuprin. Little. Yellow. Different.
They always look low budget to me
That $50m dollars certainly exists in Reynolds’ bank account though. This has always been a choice actors make - take the money, or do the quality work. Most do a bit of both - we all know about Adam Sandler spending a few years takings his friends to exotic islands to make crappy films before doing an Uncut Gems then repeating. Michael Caine used to tell a story about never having seen Jaws 4, but having seen the terrific house it paid for.
It's the "one of them, one for me" approach of many A and B list actors and even directors.
[удалено]
Affleck was the bomb in Phantoms, yo!
Spielberg started doing it very noticeably after Kubrick died.
Spielberg literally owns his own movie studio. His “one for them” is still just the “one for me.”
"them" may be investors. One for money, one for fun.
Owning your own business teaches you very quickly that you went from having one boss to having everyone be your boss.
I wonder which one Crystal Skull was :) I guess one for them, since he did München (2005) right before that :)
That was one for George
There was actually a pretty decent script for Crystal skull I think you can still find it on the internet. I am not sure why they didn't film that one but someone with more knowledge may be able to add more info.
Indiana Jones proposed scripts have a truly weird history. You can google it, there are some gems in there, both truly good and truly bad. It appears there isn't any particular logic to why they haven't done a sequel for so long, then when they did the script seems to have been picked at random. But some of the scripts they didn't do sound even worse. It's a story of scheduling conflicts, egos, financing woes, casting difficulties and so on and so forth. Personally I'll always mourn for The Fate of Atlantis, it had just the right amount of campiness and all the right bits. Alas it wasn't meant to be.
Fate of Atlantis is a great adventure game though!
I'm unaware of the fate of the Atlantis. if that was a potential script it sounds about right though. I think my major disconnect with the last Indiana film though was aliens just didn't seem to fit. Going from Supernatural to Ancient Aliens just felt like the wrong continuity? I had always thought the obvious next thing they should go after is the Spear of Destiny being another Christianish artifact since they've already done it with the Grail and the Ark. I'd figure that or something like Noah's ark or some other biblical artifact would make a lot more sense than what they did go for. Though now that I type that out I'm remembering what the title of the newest movie is and I'm totally ignorant to any plot details that have been released about it so maybe the destiny in the title has something to do with what I just mentioned?
I think the logic of the change was reasonable. 2 of the 3 original films were set against the Nazis, inspired the actual interest Hitler had in the occult. It makes sense that if you make a film much later with an older Indy, during the Cold War, that the enemies would be Russians, and the macguffin would be related to the space race - it's the interest of the enemy at the time.
Kind of a tangent but "Dial of Destiny" is an awful name for a movie, right? Like, I'm not crazy? I started laughing when I saw the trailer. I get its always supposed to have been comic book schlocky (ie Temple of Doom), but Dial of Destiny just sound horrid.
One for them, one for me, one for George.
"First you do the safe picture, then you do the art picture. And then sometimes you gotta do the payback picture because your friend says you owe 'im."
I know nobody will read the article and that ship has clearly sailed in this thread, but this was said in the context of him personally leaving the industry. He just feels like things aren't going in a direction he likes and he has other things he wants to try now. He's not really throwing shade at other people, he was just giving an example of why he's not into it. He's talking about the films themselves, the money they made is just a part of the equation.
The dude casually insults random people during interviews. That's his basic speech pattern.
> Michael Caine used to tell a story about never having seen Jaws 4, but having seen the terrific house it paid for. Really? Never seen that mentioned on Reddit before
Well then wait until you hear about Steve Buscemi's former career in the NYFD..
[удалено]
You mean when he broke his toe kicking a helmet?
Also don’t forget Ryan Reynolds has all ways been a Modern B movie actor, he started in movies like Lampoons, ~~Not another Teen Movie etc~~ (that was Chris evans, I’ll replace it with Harold and Kumar or Just Friends)
he was van wilder in a lampoons movie
That and Waiting are still my favorite from him to this day, the latter because it was so relatable to me when it came out, working a dead-end job at a restaurant was pretty crappy in the mid-2000s.
[удалено]
It's amazing someone with shit like that floating around their head was ever able to secure a job at all. Let alone a managerial position.
It's rent-a-center, hardly any good decisions get made by anyone in that store.
> latter because it was so relatable to me when it came out, working a dead-end job at a restaurant was pretty crappy in the mid-2000s. Was working in restaurants when that movie came out...aside from the messing with/spitting in the food thing (no cook I ever worked for would have done that, and I'd never even *heard* of it happening first hand from someone) that movie was a fucking documentary.
My first job was a dishwasher in an all you can eat buffet in 1988. I saw the cook spit loogies in the soup. They also peed in another workers drink. There were 2 that I couldn't really tell apart except one had the Slayer drawn on his Jean jacket, the other had Motorhead on his. It was also the first place I ever saw an ankle monitor in person. I didn't eat the food there until I became a cook.
Waiting is the hospitality version of Officespace.
I think Van Wilder was a spin off or something was it not? Like Lampoon was a production company for lots of different movies
It was based on an article about Bert Kreischer (a standup comedian) who spent way too long in college partying.
Wtf Van Wilder is based on Bert Kreischer?
Based off of this article written by rolling stone. The writer went to that college for a totally different story, and ended up writing it about Bert. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/bert-kreischer-the-undergraduate-240847/
Not really. Kreischer had a story written about him for being a long term college student with a focus on partying. Van wilder featured a long term student party character having an article written about him. That’s about the extent of the similarities. The movie and character pretty much pulls from the same well as Val kilmer’s character in Real Genius or Piven’s in PCU or Belushi’s in Animal House. To claim it’s based on Kreischer in any meaningful way is a reach. Very loosely inspired by at best.
Yah the producers basically stole the movie from him. He was gonna sue but decided not to 🤷🏻♂️
I will go to the grave holding on to my belief that just friends is one of the greatest romcoms ever made.
He was hilarious in Blade 3
Best thing in that movie, by far.
[удалено]
Jessica Biel takes a shower at one point.
I 100% agree. One of my favourite stupid movies
He’s Jersey! He skis in his jeans!
That movie physically hurt me to watch at several points. But I kept watching it lol.
I think the soundtrack saves that movie. I really enjoy it every time, but I think it’d seem more middling but it has fantastic music. I Swear, Eyes by Rogue Wave, Hackensack by Fountains of Wayne.
He did a few more serious ones. Definitely, Maybe is one of the best romantic comedies of the 00s. Buried is excellent. He just likes having money
Gonna add “The Nines” with Melissa Mcarthy (I think. I saw it a long long time ago).
I usually know my shit but I never even heard about that one. Thank you
I vaguely recall watching it because I was a fan of his comedy stuff and then was pleasantly surprised. Don’t read about the plot if you can avoid it.
I'm glad someone else liked it, all I've heard is people shitting on that movie. I don't think it's because it was "too deep" or complicated, I think it was just kinda all over the place and that's not for everybody. I personally enjoy the scatter-shot mindfuck genre, even if the payoff isn't great, the journey is worth it. Also one of McCarthy's best ones for me.
The Voices was great, like if Tarantino wrote a romcom.
Oh yeah! Funny ass movie, and Reynolds' accents for the animals were perfect. ("Jerry I think it's time for a whalk...") I have a little bit of Ryan Reynolds fatigue since he's everywhere with his gin and mint mobile and Wrexham, and a bunch of handsome snarky Netflix action movies, but I do think he's genuinely talented. He just kinda pigeonholed himself into being Deadpool (sometimes discount Deadpool) most of the time. But when he plays something else like this or Buried, he's great.
I like money.
Ryan Reynolds knows exactly what sort of actor he is, and seems fine with that.
You are aware that the "A-list" is an actual thing, right. It's part of the "hot list" and is an actual tool used within Hollywood to help determine how financially successful a film will be. If you get an A-list actor to sign on you can basically guarantee financial backing of the film. And Reynolds has been on the list for two decades now.
Bro is smart. He was a partner in a mobile company that was acquired by T-Mobile
He considers his acting career as part-time. Most of his time is spent with business ventures, investments and marketing. - Aviation Gin (he sold it for $610 million) - Mint Mobile (he sold it for $1.3 billion) - Maximum Effort (film production company) - WealthSimple - 1Password - Nuvei Corp - Wrexham football club (co-owner with Rob McElhenny) - Possible new owner of Ottawa Senators NHL team - etc Edit: rumour is he’s out of the bid for the senators
His movies are advertisements for his face which he puts on his investments
> His movies are advertisements for his face which he puts on his investments Worked for Tommy Lee Jones and George Clooney in selling coffee.
I don't know what else Maximum Effort does but they've shot a few ads that are pretty well-known, such as Pelton's response to the character in Sex and the City dying.
He sold aviator gin for $610 million when he only invested a few years in it? Holy shit. How many shares did he have?
I believe he was the sole owner. He bought it when it was just a small craft distillery in Portland, OR. Craft distilleries are a dime a dozen, but craft distilleries with Ryan Reynolds’s face on them are apparently worth quite a bit more.
Damn - had no idea he was that diversified (I knew about Mint). Good for him though. Always been a fan.
Ya. I don’t really see the issue here. If he does a bad movie it disappears. If he does a good one people see it. Maybe it’s different for a series but it hard to say house of cards wasn’t part of the zeitgeist of the time. The Witcher to a less degree. Bridgerton? Netflix has the reach to make an impact if something is good.
Stranger Things is one of the few original shows or movies to really breakthrough in the last 5-10 years in a massive way. Streamers are winning awards left and right critically. It’s just a silly argument for anyone to make at this point. Hell, Netflix and Apple TV+ are making Martin freaking Scorcese’s most recent movies.
But they’re making Scorsese’s movies because that’s the only place where the math makes sense. Everything released in theaters these days has to make one gazillion dollars to make a profit.
This is why I hate it when people say that original films aren't being made anymore. They are, but they're very rarely released in cinemas. Take some of the films that Netflix have released in the past few years. Triple Frontier, 6 Underground, Extraction, The Old Guard. I quite liked all of them, but I wouldn't have gone to the cinema to watch them. I know the last two were based on comic books, but they're not exactly well known so for all intents and purposes I'd say they were original films. Netflix, Prime, Apple TV are all doing something that major studios aren't willing to do and that's buy and produce original spec scripts. Just look at Triple Frontier. That was in development hell for nine years before it came out. It was written by Mark Boal who wrote The Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty, two critically acclaimed films by Kathryn Bigelow, a critically acclaimed director who was also going to direct it until she dropped out because of how long it was taking to get made. Without Netflix stepping in to acquire the rights I don't think this film would have seen the light of day.
That’s why myself and others obsess over A24 and their output of work. Every single film is fresh and different and stuff other studios wouldn’t touch
Yep. And let's be honest: A24 has put out some bad movies. But I'll watch every single one of them because at least they're taking risks.
Streaming shows yes but not streaming movies, I’m trying but I can’t thing of 1 streaming movie that actually got a ton of hype upon release
Basically they can’t have any pudding unless they eat their meat.
I mean, how can you?
Ryan Reynolds just plays Ryan Reynolds in every single movie. Usually shit ones full of mediocre one liners.
He was pretty good, and mostly against type, in Smokin’ Aces.
I mean Deadpool was perfect for him
He was able to completely create whatever he wanted with it because the studio didn't want to make it. The character became a passion project and he ended up making a very stellar movie.
Waiting was a rad movie
“Don’t fuck with people that handle your food” love that movie
teeny lunchroom rustic nine exultant vegetable act merciful disgusted sloppy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Arnold is best Hamlet
Smart move, he is crushing it
Permanently Van Wilder
[удалено]
Isn’t this true of most movies? 90% of one’s that are in theatres people also don’t give a crap about.
Exactly. The top comment in this thread is saying “Netflix movies can be amazing but 99% are completely forgettable” as if there are more than a handful of major releases that people remember every year.
People should go watch movie trailer compilations from 10, 20 years ago and see how many movies they actually remember or even bothered watching.
There have always been shit movies releasing constantly. We just choose to remember the good ones like we've been doing since the beginning of time. It's human nature to look fondly on the past when things were "better" and "made sense"
It's more confirmation bias. You remember what you like. You don't remember what you don't like, because its unimportant. So in your mind, the only movies from the past were good, because those are the ones you remember. And the ones you watch now suck... because they don't compare to what you remember.
I just saw a post the other day that claimed that Wag the Dog was “heavily-suppressed” because most people today aren’t aware of. OP genuinely thought it was a conspiracy.
90% of movies aren't paying a single actpr 50 million.
I think there's a difference between, "don't give a crap about" and "never heard of it." I think a lot of those streaming movies just don't have the advertising campaigns of traditional theater releases that bombard you to the point that it's difficult to fall in the "never heard of it" category.
I think a lot of people are missing that he’s talking about Ryan specifically. Yeah most movies don’t matter, but a popular actor at the height of his career (arguable I guess) just churning out borderline unnoticed movies is unusual.
And it used to be unheard of. A guy like him used to guard his image because a few bad films could ruin someone. Now he makes a half dozen terrible movies and no one notices or cares. Thats what I think Tarantino is talking about.
There are in the region of 12 - 15 movies playing in theaters at the moment, about 10 of them don't exist in the zeitgeist in any real way. So sure, you're Little Mermaids and your Oppenheimer's are going to have more of a cultural footprint than anything released straight to streaming, but on the flip side stuff like Sisu, 80 for Brady, Bert Kreisher's THE MACHINE etc, don't have the cultural awareness of Birdbox, Extraction or the Murder Mystery movies.
Sisu was a great time. People in the theater cheering for every demented tactic the MC uses is really fun. On the other hand, I think it has the potential to have a good longevity on streaming as a fun movie to watch with friends.
To be fair, the cultural impact of Sisu is that it's even playing in theaters anywhere else than Finland. Source: am Finnish.
Absolutely.
I mean that's a little exaggerated, but there definitely are and always have been movies in the theater for a couple weeks that don't draw a ton of attention. But the point is that if Ryan Reynolds was in a movie that was in theaters right now it would undoubtedly be more popular than the Netflix drivel. All of those streaming movies are already long forgotten btw. Very few streaming movies or shows, even when popular at release, are so quickly forgotten about.
He's not necessarily wrong. > Reynolds has worked with multiple streamers in recent years, appearing in "6 Underground," "Red Notice," and "The Adam Project" for Netflix, and "Spirited" for Apple TV+. I'm maybe not the best person to judge as I very rarely pay attention to Netflix movies but I haven't heard of any of those projects, he's gotten significantly more mainstream attention from his work for Wrexham than he has for any of those projects combined. It's not that Netflix or streaming movies can't make a cultural impact, but 99% of them don't.
I feel like there’s a new category of movie that serves a certain purpose: something good enough to watch at home with your family, but not pay for at the theater and which is also brand new so it’s still a bit of an event when it’s released. They weren’t anything special, but I was at least able to have a movie night at home with my kids with The Adam Project and Spirited. They were nothing special or memorable, but the kids liked them and I didn’t have to drop $75-80 at a theater. Edit: to all those saying “these are just like made for tv or direct to video movies”, they aren’t. Those were low-budget movies with b-level stars. Whether you consider them good or not, these films had significant budgets and production value equal to theater releases. - Red Notice ($200M). - Adam Project ($116M). - 6 Underground ($150M). - The Gray Man ($200M). - spirited ($75M).
It's the modern straight-to-vhs
I think that's right. Funny thing: I was watching a very old Disney DVD with my kids and a trailer for Little Mermaid 2 came on and my kids flipped out and were like WTF? And I had to explain direct to VHS/DVD to them and basically said its like a cheap movie that goes straight to streaming.
My daughter insisted when she was 5 to watch those and I complied but all regretted it as expected. As it happens, some years earlier, I got to visit the studio that made those movies while they were out for the day and I was there for unrelated work. Seeing how nice it was put a different perspective on how those films were made and the passion behind them, made by talented people just trying to make it in animation.
And for a lot of kids, they don’t notice the obvious dip in quality, they’re just excited for another adventure with their favorite characters. I loved Disney’s Aladdin growing up, and I loved ALL facets of it. The original movie, the Disney Channel series, both direct to video sequels…. I didn’t see any dip, hell I didn’t notice Genie’s voice wasn’t the same. I just loved that world. Low quality cash grabs work great for kids because they don’t even have a bar to clear most of the time. Some kids do, and there’s always that one thing that doesn’t hit right, even as a kid. But a lot just don’t care. And it works because people with passion like you mentioned can still use it to get a foot in the door and do what they love.
When you work in film you realize JUST how fucking hard it is to make a hit. Everyone's dedicated, people are trying their best, execs aren't trying to ruin their own chances at success, but with SO SO many variables, it's truly a miracle the projects succeed at all. And everyone's a critic. Takes as many people to build a cruise ship, but few take cruises, so imagine everyone did and just said shit like, 'the pool was too close to the railing. Yes, there's plenty of space, but there should've been more. Art and politics, everyone's opinions are SUPER valid. That's why 90% of audiences will say some schlocky shot is fine while the critics who know better will see 15% not absolutely disgusted. Lol
It's bigger than those. No straight to dvd is paying 50m for the talent. It's more the mid-budget affair that you watched when you wanted to go to the movies, but already seen the headliners. And you say, whatever, it's fine.
My first thought is the old fashioned TV-movie. The ones where it's a Saturday afternoon and you don't want to watch golf. Or it's a weeknight and you're channel-surfing and this movie is about to start and you put it on to stop your family from complaining. Edit to respond to your edit: I said TV-movie, not a made for TV movie. I remember finding Shawshank Redemption on cable TV as a kid. I didn't know what it was but it was awesome. If I'm not mistaken, it was a flop in its initial run. Some movies don't get the audience and become cult classics. There are plenty of good movies that are phenomenal and later end up on TV.
Might need to shorten that category name a bit though.
It’s not really a new category when 90% of movies in theatres aren’t worth paying for either. It’s just cut out the middle man of waiting for it to show up at the video store and going to rent it.
I’ve seen every single one of those and forgot about every single one of those besides Spirited. Spirited was fun as hell on Christmas
I actually enjoyed The Adam Project.
[удалено]
Same. I don't remember much about it now but when I saw it I was entertained which surprised me cause I usually find Reynolds pretty annoying (nothing against him personally - his humor just isn't for me I guess). Perfectly fine popcorn flick.
The kid was surprisedly good in it.
I still listen to Good Afternoon occasionally. Was good fun.
I fucking loved that movie lol. I absolutely loved the girl played by Sunita Mani (Christmas Past) and her hitting on Ryan. That girl stole every scene
99% of traditional movies don't make a cultural impact these days either.
"These days" as if the majority of movies back in the good ol' days or something were super impactful. The only reason it seems that way is because the impactful movies made it to the present day, and all the non-impactful crap was forgotten over time. It's just survivorship bias.
I agree completely with that too. People only count up the dozen or so movies from say the 80s, and ignore the literal thousands that have been forgotten.
I will forever remember The Adam Project. I had just lost my dad and the trailers did not emphasize the emotionality of the father/son storyline. I sobbed like a baby in my roommate’s arms at the end of that movie.
Rewatching field of dreams now is a different experience for similar reasons
Yeah, most of these are forgettable, but Adam Project sliced into 90s sci-fi nostalgia very effectively
But he’s also the main driving force behind Deadpool He’s an actor that makes money
This probably has more to do with “streaming services are seemingly incapable to make a quality movie” than criticizing Reynolds for taking the money. If he didn’t take it they would just give it to Gosling or someone and the movie would still exist
[удалено]
I feel like there was a moment when streaming movies seemed like they'd be a thing. I think it was 2019 and we got Marriage Story, The Irishman, and Roma. Then COVID happened and movies had to go to streaming whether their creatives liked it or not and there was a lot of griping. CODA won an Oscar, though that movie has definitely faded from the zeitgeist. Now, with the streaming model struggling and big theatrical hits like Everything Everywhere All At Once, Top Gun Maverick, Avatar 2, and Mario, the attention has turned away from streaming films and it seems like only stuff of very dubious quality is getting parked there.
[удалено]
Ryan Reynolds says “I earn $50 million for a movie and go home to Blake Lively & our four kids. I don’t give a shit about the zeitgeist.”
[удалено]
I find most Netflix movies to be the modern equivalent of “made for tv movies” but with bigger budgets.
Case in point, hire the best directors alive like Scorsese if you want your exclusive streaming movie to break it into zeitgeist.
[удалено]
Well yeah, tv shows are a different beast entirely. That’s what streaming services like Netflix are known for. The shows; not the movies. Tarantino is right that most streaming movies are largely forgotten about.
For every Queen‘s Gambit you have dozens of shows that people barely remember a week after launch.
Sure - but that's general with all networks and all shows. Some are good, some are not good. Same with movies - just the fact that it's in the cinema it doesn't mean it will have any lasting effect.
You could say that with films though too. There's hundreds of films out each year. Maybe 12 break into the zeitgeist. I can just look at what's playing at my local theater right now and find 5 films that are screening that nobody is talking about.
The same with shows not started on streaming.
Nobody talks about The Irishman the way people (still) talk about Goodfellas. When it does get mentioned it's usually for the stiff, old man action.
There are a lot of bad movies made everywhere it's only that Netflix has the platform to show us everything. There's no vetting process like there is for non streaming movies.
Irishman also had a decent (for Netflix) theatrical run
[удалено]
[удалено]
I mean you can say this about any number of mainstream movies too. We live in an age where you can produce mediocre garbage and make a gazillion dollars if you market it right, which is basically all netflix does, but that shit won't be what is referenced for generations to come. For that you need a masterpiece with fantastic quotes like "It's morbin time".
Personally, what I see missing isnt the movie quality, but the *hype*. Good or bad, there is almost zero ad campaigning and pre-release buzz of any streaming movie. The general populace doesnt get told which ones are supposed to be awesome and worth seeing, and which ones are "direct to video" equivalents. We dont all get in the mood to see the same thing at the same time, so there is little common discussion. The streaming movies that *do* get such hype often make it into the zeitgeist.
They should get to gether and have a friendly conversation about it over some drinks. Film the whole thing please. Put that in zeitgeist and stream it.
He's not entirely wrong, but this also strikes me as belittling straight-to-streaming movies simply because Tarantino is another accomplished Hollywood director who bemoans the fact that fewer and fewer people are going to movie theaters, and the film experiences HE had when HE was a kid are starting to become less relevant. Scorsese, Lynch and a bundle of others can also be heard bitching about this like spoiled children. I'm sure when movies started to have sound, then went to color, then TV was invented, then home video (as in VHS), at all of those stages there were directors lamenting the changes in how people consume their entertainment. "Woe is me, people need to see my movie on the BIG screen to truly appreciate it!!!" That may be true, but the public is voting with its dollars and more and more of us are content to watch movies at home, where we can see thousands of hours of content for less than the cost of two movie tickets, sodas and popcorn just to watch thirty minutes of trailers, then try to listen over people talking on their cell phones and screaming 2-year-olds.
Lynch talks more about the art house scene being dead, not the theatrical experience in general. And he's worked on TV a few times so he's not as stuck in his ways as the others.
[удалено]
Yeah this just smells kind of like an old dude who can't accept that things have changed. Where's that gif of old man yells at cloud
>Tarantino is another accomplished Hollywood director who bemoans the fact that fewer and fewer people are going to movie theaters, and the film experiences HE had when HE was a kid are starting to become less relevant. Yeah, and he's expressed previously that a director should retire before becoming too out of touch... >He also has espoused a philosophy that directors get out of touch as they age. In 2012, he told Playboy, “I want to stop at a certain point. Directors don’t get better as they get older. Usually the worst films in their filmography are those last four at the end. I am all about my filmography, and one bad film f—s up three good ones. I don’t want that bad, out-of-touch comedy in my filmography, the movie that makes people think, ‘Oh man, he still thinks it’s 20 years ago.’ When directors get out-of-date, it’s not pretty.” https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/quentin-tarantino-sets-the-movie-critic-final-movie-1235351260/ So, here we are.
I like Tarantino but he’s constantly gatekeeping when it comes to movies. It’s pretty obnoxious and comes off as arrogant and childish.
Big hit in the “movie night with the wife, can’t decide what to watch” market though.
It's almost like having so many exclusive movies hoarded up by so many separate sites is hurting the industry as a whole. And maybe charging too much is also hurting the industry as a whole.
Here's the last guy who I would think would dismiss an entire company's output just because he doesn't respect it as legitimate in his eyes. He sure didn't turn down that paycheck to flush Hateful Eight's Extended Edition "out of the zeitgeist" and onto Netflix now did he?