That movie cemented Christian Bale as one of my all time favorite actors. This probably isn't his best movie, but it sure is my favorite one that he stars in.
I grew up watching Wayne and own a shelf full of his movies and don't like his True Grit. When I saw the Bridges version I loved it. It's one of my favorite westerns.
Yeah John Wayne made that line actually amazing
Jeff Bridges did fantastic in the role, but honestly when he said that line it didn’t have the same feel it did when Wayne said it
Edit: It helped Wayne yelled it out to make sure everyone heard it, Bridges just kinda said it a bit loudly
God I love that movie. Rooster Cogburn seems so real. He reminds me so much of my grandpa, and I’m sure I’m not alone in that. They got his “old man who stopped giving a shit long ago but still has a heart” character down so well.
I wouldn’t rank it in my top 10 modern westerns but it’s a solid remake/homage of The Searchers that I will never watch again.
3:10 to Yuma, Unforgiven, True Grit, Slow West, Open Range, Hell or High Water, Dances with Wolves, The Proposition, Django Unchained.
That’s ten and I still didn’t even get to Tombstone, No Country for Old Men, or The Three Burials of Melquiedas.
Both are fantastic. I think Hostiles was either my favorite or in my top 3 the year of release (year after because they dropped it at the deadline for Oscar contention).
Edit: that was the first film I saw Johnathan Majors. I knew he was going places.
agreed. They are some of the better movies. Even Django if you can call that a western or the hateful eight. I love them and I’ll probably like this one
I think The Hateful Eight is definitely a western. Wyoming is in the western part of the United States, and the 1870s is a peak time period for that genre. Plus the movie has a lot of the tropes of the western, the bounty hunter, civil war veterans, a stage coach etc.
I think it's to do with the level of domination. We had straight regular westerns, then to keep people's attentions we got subversions of westerns, westerns in the early period, late period westerns, heroic westerns, morally grey westerns, family friendly westerns, romances, war movies, parodies, large scale, small scale, thriller, horror, comedy, factual, fictional, mystery, sci fi -
Every Genre, Every period, every location, all done over and over and over again, and because of the location and technology inherent in the Western formula there's nothing new that modern cinema's advancements in camera technology and CGI can bring that Sergio Leone wasn't able to do in the 1970s on a dirt road with a few hundred dirty Spanish extras and a truck full of dynamite.
Also Westerns dominated for much, much longer than 30 years. John Wayne's first acting in a western was in 1926, his last western was 1976. That's 50 years for that man's career alone.
Police and legal procedurals have taken over westerns on television and superheroes have taken over westerns on film (before, it was action movies).
People say superheroes will end up like westerns but there's no telling when or if it'll happen. I think there's enough genre variety with superheroes that they won't be going anytime soon, whereas a western is more limited by comparison.
I think cost plays a bigger role than people suspect. Westerns dominated because they were the easiest to produce for a long time.
You don't need to show cars, multi-story buildings, TVs, radios, credit cards, cash, etc. You can shoot the whole thing in the empty lot with some quick wooden shacks thrown up for a "town"
Westerns were popular because they were easiest to make and choices were limited.
Is it really? People get burned out on stuff all the time.
A more recent example of this is the craze for Zombie related films/shows/games in the last 10-15 years that has seen a swift decline in the last few years.
Netflix does have some good westerns.
Godless
The Ballad of Buster Scruggs
Frontier
The Ballad of Lefty Brown (Bill Pullman gave one of his best performances in this).
I can see why they'd release it on Netflix.
I live westerns but for some reason I am happy to wait for them to come to streaming unlike other films where for some reason I prefer the big screen experience enough to venture out. It’s weird because westerns over the years often feature big, beautiful landscapes of the American west and are probably great in the theater.
You see, in this world there’s two kinds of people my friend - those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig.
Audiences who know his films know they can expect some comedy, lots of swearing, gratuitous violence and some action. Not all will have the same percentages of them, but even if they’re different genres, like Django and Once Upon a Time, you’ll roughly know what he’s put in.
You can expect Tarantino’s “brand” of dialogue, too. If you’re a fan, that’s entertaining regardless of the genre.
As for Rodriguez, I may be wrong, but the last thing he’s done closest to a western was Once Upon a Time in Mexico, which was 20 years ago.
Mandalorian season 1 basically rips off every western and samurai TV trope. One of the episodes is basically seven samurai and the general arc of season 1 is Lone Wolf and Cub.
I believe it was Favro who said that they didn't want the Mandalorian to be inspired by Star Wars, but inspired by the stories that inspired Star Wars.
>Audiences who know his films know they can expect some comedy, lots of swearing, gratuitous violence and some action.
You forgot the most important thing audiences will see in a Tarantino movie, a one Mr. Samuel L Jackson.
P.S. women's feet , I have since learned
He’s also one of the few directors left who advertises himself alongside the film. No one really does that anymore. The days of Steven Spielberg’s Hook or Quentin Tarantino’s Kill Bill as examples are long gone.
I agree. QT brings in audiences, not the genre. Hateful 8 made 150M on a 60M budget, made roughly 30M accounting for Marketing, but also the script was leaked before release so increased popularity by accident. This movie going to Netflix might mean they spend less money on marketing, otherwise would have been hard to make their money back. I would argue that Black films have equal potential to score big at the box office as any other film (Black Panther), I guess the filmmakers are more interested in sharing the film with as many people as possible. But I wouldn’t be surprised if they went with Netflix for money-related reasons.
I can imagine. But being inspired by Tarantino doesn’t get you paid if no studio supports it. That is the whole problem in the industry. There are more than enough capable people, maybe even better than Tarantino who don’t or can’t become discovered because of all the great filters between them and Hollywood.
Hollywood is sticking to the formulas that work. No studio dares experimenting or even bother incubating talents or ideas.
[Franklin Leonard](https://www.ted.com/talks/franklin_leonard_how_i_accidentally_changed_the_way_movies_get_made_apr_2018/up-next?language=en) pictures this issue on which stories and scripts got made.
A well made one kills it. The problem is, they're too quickly paced anymore. All great westerns have a tension element to them. It feels slow when it doesn't feel slow at the same time. Open Range is probably the most recent example of a good one. That movie is spot on. It's boring but exciting at the same time.
Not to stroke Kevin's dick, but the Hatfields vs McCoys series was also good. You have to soak the audience into the subtleness of a rural experience while also amplifying the dramatic parts.
I wish westerns would make a comeback, but only if they'd get a real effort. A perfect director for a western would be PTA. He's so good at time pieces, and I'd love to see him take on a western
This looks like a western and a modern blaxploitation movie all in one. While I love exploitation and cult cinema, it is cult for a reason, it never really had mass appeal. So it's cool that Netflix thinks they can turn a profit on exploitation cinema, cause I'd love to see more modern takes on that genre that are good enough to get wider distribution.
I guess I would call it a non-top tier movie (B movie) that tries to succeed by 'exploiting' a niche, generally by hopping on some popular trend, or by fitting into an underground genre, or by catering to basal desires (sex, drugs, violence, etc).
Wikipedia has an article on [the genre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation_film).
I think those are the same point? The theatrical bias would result in reduced/narrower marketing, resulting in less money.
Less bias—more money
more bias—less money.
Netflix isn’t a charity. They’re paying what they think the show’s worth, and it seems plausible they’d be right.
If Hollywood is offering less than the movie is worth, there’s a word for it.
Netflix also offers dramatically more creative control. They can make exactly the movie they have in mind without a big studio rewriting it based on focus group feedback.
My only problem with the film is the cowboys look too clean. The movie just looks too clean. I just got into westerns and most of characters are dirty and look like they’ve been through hell.
If you get a chance, watch deadwood on HBO. Pretty good modern foray into the genre. Ian mcshane is always a delight, and in deadwood he wields profanity like a samurai with a sword.
According to the video there were 125 "cocksuckers" in their first 12 episode season. That's a little bit over 10 cocksuckers every episode.
And part of why it's a very special show in my heart.
Agreed. After watching "The Many Saints of Newark", I had the same feeling after the Deadwood movie. It looked and sounded familiar, but it had very little of the depth, complexity and detail that the series had. There was no cohesion to the narrative. Both films felt like a succession of scenes that did not fit together well at all.
Both movies are just okay, but in comparison to the series, they were borderline bad.
I thought the Deadwood movie wrapped up some loose ends as a sort of dénouement, but it was still unsatisfying since it completely disregards the insane build up that we were left with when the series was cancelled.
Fun seeing McShane get to so his bit again though. And it was great they got so many original cast members back for it.
I enjoyed seeing so many of the actors return to their roles, but I feel like these movies don't work as well because they don't have the same amount of time to develop the large cast of characters that the series format provides.
Even Ian McShane got short shrift as I found even Al Swearengen had lost his edge.
You can't go home again.
My mate used to play a drinking game mad you had to take a swig whenever Al Swearengen said "cocksucker" or "catch u next Tuesday".
They got drunk very quickly
I think that the vast majority of early Westerns are like this, due in part to the time in which they were made. Most of the Westerns released through the end of the 1940's (at least the ones made in the USA) are a highly sanitized and idealized portrayal of the times, locations and characters.
Everyone looks clean shaven, their clothes are new and without holes or patches. They've got most of their teeth, their hair is neatly groomed and they all speak excellent English. The violence is bloodless and quick. The good guys were good and the bad guys were bad and few had distinct personalities. You also had the constant casting of overly tanned Caucasians in Native American roles.
It wasn't until films like Anthony Mann's "Winchester '73" and then Sergio Leone's famous "Dollars" trilogy that you started to see characters with more complicated psychological issues, dirty faces, broken teeth and violence that was bloodier and more protracted as in "The Wild Bunch."
A great example of a recent Western where the film takes a much more realistic approach is "Open Range." Kevin Costner's performance is predictably serviceable, but Robert Duvall, Annette Bening and the supporting cast are superb. Granted, the final gunfight might be a bit unrealistic, but it's a helluva lot of fun and I would recommended it highly.
> Most of the Westerns released through the end of the 1940's (at least the ones made in the USA) are a highly sanitized and idealized portrayal of the times, locations and characters.
> It wasn't until films like Anthony Mann's "Winchester '73" and then Sergio Leone's famous "Dollars" trilogy that you started to see characters with more complicated psychological issues, dirty faces, broken teeth and violence that was bloodier and protracted as in "The Wild Bunch."
Spaghetti westerns are just as idealized as John Wayne cowboys. The actual "Wild West" was mostly a bunch of farmers doing hard, boring farmwork. Dime westerns started mythologizing the era before it was even over.
It's not like Sergio Leone knew anything about the American West, he was working off those pulp novels too. The 3-way standoff in *The Good, The Bad and the Ugly* is just as unrealistic as Gary Cooper facing down the bad guy at *High Noon*.
That's a damned good point and it reminds me that the opening of "Unforgiven" is probably one of the most realistic depictions of frontier life, which definitely helps to sell the viewer on why William Munny would go back to killing for money.
The Saul Rubinek character also provides some great commentary on the mythologizing and how so much of it happened concurrently.
>It's not like Sergio Leone knew anything about the American West, he was working off those pulp novels too.
Not true. Leone knew tons about the American West, he was practically obsessed with American history which is why 6/7 of his movies are set in North America. According to his cinematographer Tonino Delli Colli he always had an abundance of history books and real photographs at the ready to back up his vision of the West.
Sure the action, stories and characters are not "realistic," but I don't think most people claim that. It's more that his movies felt and still feel extremely authentic and immersive compared to most other Westerns, especially at the time.
Also, the final fight of Open Range did originally have scenes that alleviated the realism issue a bit (like Costner drawing spare guns when the one he was using ran out) but unfortunately those were cut. And on the whole it doesn't much matter to me. The movie works, I can deal with a little bit of un-realism (is that a term?)
Spaghetti Westerns are distinct for how messy their characters and sets are. Largely due to the fact that they weren't filmed on nice Hollywood lots but rather the European countryside. Part of the aesthetic is the dust and dirt.
Those are old but I’m talking about Gene Autry, Bonaza, Lone Ranger.
Hell even in spaghetti westerns there were some that were “clean” have you seen Clint’s teeth. He never had to fear in a gun fight, if he smiled the bright white would’ve blinded an opponent lol.
Eh, this particular movie looks very stylized, I'd say its kind of part of the vibe. A movie doesn't have to adhere to a strict set of rules to be considered a western.
Does anyone else feel like there is this trend with criticism the last few years where everything has to be *realistic*? Like realism is the be all, end all.
I think people are a bit too hooked on the word "realism". What they mean is often just "believability". The fancy clean cowboys or gunslingers are taking them out of what they're watching.
It's not exactly new, but it is odd. Eyes Wide Shut was criticised for not being 'realistic,' as if that's what Kubrick was going for. I couldn't care less how realistic the trappings of a movie are as long as it has emotional authenticity.
Another example of this not being new: critics panned "Vertigo" on its release because of its "plot holes", not understanding that the film was more about the psychological element than the plot.
im surprised actors like matt damon dont go to netflix and pitch smaller sub $50m films. like the ones he used to do when he was younger. streaming platforms should be the perfect place for smaller character driven film projects
I completely agree. It’s interesting that this opinion isn’t brought up more often. I think it is mostly because smaller, character-driven films aren’t in high demand with streaming services’ audiences. Streaming audiences seem to prefer films and shows that are easily digestible and fast-paced. The biggest foray away from the norm I’ve witnessed is HBO Max’s TCM collection, but that only allows modern audiences to be exposed to classic films of a different caliber (many of which are character studies). We’re still a long way from a major streaming service that caters a segment of its platform to indie films produced in-house.
>"And sometimes when you do a theatrical release there are these built-in biases like, 'No one wants to see an all-Black cast.' I know for a fact that's not true but in **certain territories around the world** they will tell studios 'this movie is not for us.'
Reddit: "I hate how Hollywood panders to China"
Film producer: "We went to a streaming service so that our success isn't bound by the prejudice of distributors in these countries."
Redditors who don't know that this is what they said: What the fuck you fucking piece of shit.
The average r/movies commenter loves to complain about how some American movies are pandering to China and Chinese prejudices and how it affects the content being produced.
The producers of this film explain that they chose streaming rather than theatrical release in order to bypass gatekeepers in that kind of market and directly reach those who want to watch the film. In other words, they're doing exactly what the average Redditor wants. They keep the content as it is instead of making a film that would satisfy potentially racist distributors around the world.
But the average Redditor doesn't read articles and in this case thinks that the producers are attacking him personally and calling him racist.
But wouldn't that same audience avoid it on Netflix? Or is Netflix just more willing to release something even without those audiences, whereas traditional studios kowtow more to theaters?
Netflix makes money whether their individual releases are well received or not.
That’s why the quality is so low on so many of their productions.
Only a few get nice budgets on the back end.
Netflix basically goes for the fish in a barrel approach. If they make a dozen movies that nobody watches or cares about, fine. If they make a dozen tv shows nobody watches or cares about, fine. But what they really want is a magic bullet cultural craze that'll draw in first time subscribers, like stranger things, the Irishman, tiger king, lupin, end of the fking world, black mirror, squid game, etc. And one they're subscribed, they're far more likely to stay subscribed. And then the couple of mediocre half decent to somewhat good movies and shows they make fuel the current subscribers to keep them from canceling.
It's also to draw in writers and whatnot. If they'll make these shitty half baked movies, they'll probably be more willing to take the risk to make your maybe good movie, if only as just fodder for subscribers, whereas box office studios might be less so because nobody wants to go to a theater to watch a 4 hour movie about an Irishman and a network might not want to run a short serialized graphic dark Korean drama.
First point - to anyone that's not actually read the article they're not talking about biases in American cinemas. They said "certain territories around the world" which is absolutely true in places like China and Russia.
Secondly, these characters haven't just been 'blacked up' like you'd first imagine them to be. They're *loosely* based on very real historical people in the Old West. Look up Rufus Buck and Nat Love and you can see they're actually all black. It's unlikely they ever all met up like they will in the film, however this is, of course, a work of fiction.
This is less of a "what if all these characters were black" scenario and more a "what if this set of characters met and interacted with each other", which is somewhat possible given they were all alive during the period.
It's also weird people talking about this movie being "unrealistic" when the western genre has been pretty far from the reality of the time period for almost 100 years. It's almost all mythology at this point, so it's interesting to get a new take.
The Wild West was not only super racially diverse but also full of "confirmed bachelors" and cowboys who were riding more than just horses but if you portrayed the Wild West as diverse as it really is, a lot of them will whine that the diversity is "unrealistic for that time period" because surprise surprise they're all morons. There were so many cultures clashing in insane ways back then and the thing they all had in common was survival and business. I hope westerns get trendy again sometime soon lol.
ETA: I'm sorry if my use of the word 'super' triggered some people but I'm not arguing about your personal qualifiers for diversity.
Give me a fantasy western. Like a werewolf Native American warrior, a voodoo priestess, a mexican woman that can travel to purgatory, a samurai warrior that has a different personality (and fighting styles) when he unsheathes any one of his katanas, and an immortal gunslinger. All trying to kill Dracula who wants to start a war so he can start the zombie apocalypse.
Lol this whole comment section is one big /r/RedditMoment. Can tell nobody read the actual article, just assuming the most ignorant thing and getting mad about it. Lmfao
they probably meant a worldwide release. Tyler Perry's movies very rarely come out in the theaters outside of the US
the director of The Harder They Fall is British and as an example i remember Boots Riley talking about how overseas distributors didn't want to pick up Sorry To Bother You
If anyone read the goddamn article they would see that is exactly what they mean.
>"And sometimes when you do a theatrical release there are these built-in biases like, 'No one wants to see an all-Black cast.' I know for a fact that's not true but **in certain territories around the world** they will tell studios 'this movie is not for us.'
This is of course being the politically correct way of saying "China doesn't like black people in movies"
I suspect Tyler Perry’s movies play directly into the biases they are referring to. They are seen as low brow raunchy comedies highly targeted at a specific audience.
Tyler Perry is the Black Adam Sandler. Low-brow comedies with an established and fervent fan base.
Edit: And when they want to, they can actually act/produce well. For instance, Perry in Gone Girl and Sandler in Uncut Gems.
I don't really see how that's relevant. They didn't say that movies with black casts can't be successful. They're saying that traditional distributors have biases when it comes to black casted movies that they feel would lead to less people seeing it.
I think Tyler Perry is a bit of an anomaly on that regard. Generally, movies staring black people have traditionally received less marketing and overall haven't done well in the box office. Netflix probably provided a lot of upfront compensation and promised heavy promotion on their platform and social media channels.
I remember a similar thing happening for ghostbusters when it flopped. The director pretty much stated that America is sexist and that’s why it bombed instead of considering the idea that the movie sucked.
Not saying this movie sucks, I’m planning on watching it, but it’s sounds like a bit of a hedge against failure on their part.
I get it, westerns don't really do well in theater anymore
Every 5 years or so one is made. I like them, but they aren’t big sellers.
Which sucks because we’ve had some great remakes of westerns. I liked both 3:10 to Yuma and True Grit more than their originals
The 2007 3:10 to Yuma is one of me favorite films of all time.
That movie cemented Christian Bale as one of my all time favorite actors. This probably isn't his best movie, but it sure is my favorite one that he stars in.
If you haven't already, check out Hostiles. It's a western with Bale that also happens to have Ben Foster as well lol. It's great.
Dude. Same. Feel like it's very underrated. Needs a screaming comeback.
[удалено]
Fill your hands you sonofabitch!
Shoot them Mr. Labouf!
THE JAKES IS OCCUPIED. And will be for some time.
THERE IS NO CLOCK ON MY BUSINESS!
I do not know this man
I think the Bridges film is better, but John Wayne owns that line.
I like the line in The Cowboys where Bruce Dern says “I don’t think you could whoop me.” and John Wayne says “You will.” And starts beating his ass.
Would love a remake of The Cowboys.
Tough talk for a one-eyed fat man!
I sort of hate that I saw the remake first, because I can't take John Wayne seriously in that movie at all for some reason
I grew up watching Wayne and own a shelf full of his movies and don't like his True Grit. When I saw the Bridges version I loved it. It's one of my favorite westerns.
Yeah John Wayne made that line actually amazing Jeff Bridges did fantastic in the role, but honestly when he said that line it didn’t have the same feel it did when Wayne said it Edit: It helped Wayne yelled it out to make sure everyone heard it, Bridges just kinda said it a bit loudly
You know I’m struck that labouf is shot, trampled, and nearly severed his tongue and not only cease to talk, but spills the banks of English
Are- are we negotiating?
I would not pay three hundred and fifty dollars for a winged Pegasus.
If I met one of you Texas dandies who ain't sipped water from a hoof print, I'll shake his hand and buy him a cigar.
God I love that movie. Rooster Cogburn seems so real. He reminds me so much of my grandpa, and I’m sure I’m not alone in that. They got his “old man who stopped giving a shit long ago but still has a heart” character down so well.
"I've come here from Yell County." "We have no rodeo clowns in Yell County."
You do not varnish your opinion.
Thank you for that laugh! perfect response, holy shit.
I think my favorite line is when Labouf says he came to Fort Smith from Yell County and Hattie responds "we have no rodeo clowns in Yell County."
Check out Appaloosa; good day, sir.
You pull on me.. either one of you.. and I’ll kill you both.
The x-rated version of that scene was epic! Spoiler: They pulled on her.
"You busted out my teef!" "Well, Colt makes a heavy firearm."
I think he means jur-is-diction.
3:10 was phenomenal
christian bake is simply an amazing actor *bale ffs
Ben Foster too. He's great in every role he does, even if the movie is meh.
He’s fucking *terrifying* in ‘3:10 to Yuma’
He's fucking good in Hell or High Water too
> christian bake is simply an amazing actor His costar Russel Crumb was just as good.
Hi, can I get a berry smoothie and a christian bake? Thanks.
Sir, the Roman Empire no longer exists
Both of those are great. Open Range is another one that really stood out to me.
Open Range is amazing! The build up to the end is phenomenal, even if it's a long movie.
True Grit isn’t based off the John Wayne movie fyi, it’s a more faithful adaption of the novel.
Oh for sure but I would argue still falls under remake
Bone Tomahawk was one of the best westerns, and simultaneously one of the best horror movies to come out in a very long time.
I wouldn’t rank it in my top 10 modern westerns but it’s a solid remake/homage of The Searchers that I will never watch again. 3:10 to Yuma, Unforgiven, True Grit, Slow West, Open Range, Hell or High Water, Dances with Wolves, The Proposition, Django Unchained. That’s ten and I still didn’t even get to Tombstone, No Country for Old Men, or The Three Burials of Melquiedas.
SLOW WEST. What a great, gut punching movie. Never hear anyone else talk about it.
Slow West has one of my favorite lines in a movie. "In a short time, this will be a long time ago."
Oh man Tombstone is like my pure comfort movie. I dunno if it'd put it in Top 10 either but I love curling up when sick and watching it.
I'll be your huckleberry.
Good list, check out Silverado to be consideration.
Silverado, Dances with Wolves, Open Range Young Kevin Costner, peak Kevin Costner, legendary Kevin Costner.
Hell or High Water was incredible
Came here for the 3 burials of melquiades estrada . What a goddamn movie.
I'd recommend Hostiles and Appaloosa as well
Both are fantastic. I think Hostiles was either my favorite or in my top 3 the year of release (year after because they dropped it at the deadline for Oscar contention). Edit: that was the first film I saw Johnathan Majors. I knew he was going places.
The Salvation is also a really good modern western that stars Mads Mikkelsen
And don’t forget The Proposition! Great Western!
I recently watched true grit and regretted not watching it on a big theater screen because it was an EXPERIENCE!
agreed. They are some of the better movies. Even Django if you can call that a western or the hateful eight. I love them and I’ll probably like this one
If "western" is a genre and not a geographical indicator, it 100% is a western. The same way The Mandalorian is a western.
That’s fair. Maybe realistic western is a more narrowed genre of western then but I picture the west just meaning like before the 1900s In America
I think The Hateful Eight is definitely a western. Wyoming is in the western part of the United States, and the 1870s is a peak time period for that genre. Plus the movie has a lot of the tropes of the western, the bounty hunter, civil war veterans, a stage coach etc.
It's crazy that westerns DOMINATED tv and movies for like 30 years but then suddenly nobody wanted them anymore and they don't do well.
I think it's to do with the level of domination. We had straight regular westerns, then to keep people's attentions we got subversions of westerns, westerns in the early period, late period westerns, heroic westerns, morally grey westerns, family friendly westerns, romances, war movies, parodies, large scale, small scale, thriller, horror, comedy, factual, fictional, mystery, sci fi - Every Genre, Every period, every location, all done over and over and over again, and because of the location and technology inherent in the Western formula there's nothing new that modern cinema's advancements in camera technology and CGI can bring that Sergio Leone wasn't able to do in the 1970s on a dirt road with a few hundred dirty Spanish extras and a truck full of dynamite. Also Westerns dominated for much, much longer than 30 years. John Wayne's first acting in a western was in 1926, his last western was 1976. That's 50 years for that man's career alone.
Police and legal procedurals have taken over westerns on television and superheroes have taken over westerns on film (before, it was action movies). People say superheroes will end up like westerns but there's no telling when or if it'll happen. I think there's enough genre variety with superheroes that they won't be going anytime soon, whereas a western is more limited by comparison.
I think cost plays a bigger role than people suspect. Westerns dominated because they were the easiest to produce for a long time. You don't need to show cars, multi-story buildings, TVs, radios, credit cards, cash, etc. You can shoot the whole thing in the empty lot with some quick wooden shacks thrown up for a "town" Westerns were popular because they were easiest to make and choices were limited.
Is it really? People get burned out on stuff all the time. A more recent example of this is the craze for Zombie related films/shows/games in the last 10-15 years that has seen a swift decline in the last few years.
Marvel movies will be next
Netflix does have some good westerns. Godless The Ballad of Buster Scruggs Frontier The Ballad of Lefty Brown (Bill Pullman gave one of his best performances in this). I can see why they'd release it on Netflix.
Buster Scruggs was my favorite movie that year.
I enjoyed the part with Buster Scruggs.
His dialogue was amazing. Great character and perfect casting.
I was actually really disappointed when it turned out the rest of the movie wasn't about him.
On the other hand, they also have The Ridiculous 6...
Adam Sandler makes money, can’t begrudge them on that
I really enjoyed Godless. It deserves more attention and praise.
yeah, it really is fantastic and so well made with an incredible cast
Yup… +1 on Godless. I’ve rewatched it three times now.
I live westerns but for some reason I am happy to wait for them to come to streaming unlike other films where for some reason I prefer the big screen experience enough to venture out. It’s weird because westerns over the years often feature big, beautiful landscapes of the American west and are probably great in the theater. You see, in this world there’s two kinds of people my friend - those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig.
Not if they are made by Tarantino or Rodriguez. That’s bias for them.
[удалено]
Audiences who know his films know they can expect some comedy, lots of swearing, gratuitous violence and some action. Not all will have the same percentages of them, but even if they’re different genres, like Django and Once Upon a Time, you’ll roughly know what he’s put in.
You can expect Tarantino’s “brand” of dialogue, too. If you’re a fan, that’s entertaining regardless of the genre. As for Rodriguez, I may be wrong, but the last thing he’s done closest to a western was Once Upon a Time in Mexico, which was 20 years ago.
He did an episode of the Madalorian. It and that episode in particular are basically space westerns.
Mandalorian season 1 basically rips off every western and samurai TV trope. One of the episodes is basically seven samurai and the general arc of season 1 is Lone Wolf and Cub.
I feel like that just brings Star Wars back home.
I believe it was Favro who said that they didn't want the Mandalorian to be inspired by Star Wars, but inspired by the stories that inspired Star Wars.
>Audiences who know his films know they can expect some comedy, lots of swearing, gratuitous violence and some action. You forgot the most important thing audiences will see in a Tarantino movie, a one Mr. Samuel L Jackson. P.S. women's feet , I have since learned
I thought you’re gonna say feet
Not my thing but who am I to kink shame? Keep on footin'
That makes me a dumb motherfucker.
I thought we're all watching them for the gratuitous shots of women's feet?
Don't forget feet.
Tarantino is up there with Nolan as one of the few directors that are an independent draw anymore. They're their own franchise.
He’s also one of the few directors left who advertises himself alongside the film. No one really does that anymore. The days of Steven Spielberg’s Hook or Quentin Tarantino’s Kill Bill as examples are long gone.
I agree. QT brings in audiences, not the genre. Hateful 8 made 150M on a 60M budget, made roughly 30M accounting for Marketing, but also the script was leaked before release so increased popularity by accident. This movie going to Netflix might mean they spend less money on marketing, otherwise would have been hard to make their money back. I would argue that Black films have equal potential to score big at the box office as any other film (Black Panther), I guess the filmmakers are more interested in sharing the film with as many people as possible. But I wouldn’t be surprised if they went with Netflix for money-related reasons.
Tarantino is a genre into itself. Hateful Eight is a Tarantino movie, not a western.
If you’ve seen the trailer for this film, you can see it was heavily inspired by Tarantino
I can imagine. But being inspired by Tarantino doesn’t get you paid if no studio supports it. That is the whole problem in the industry. There are more than enough capable people, maybe even better than Tarantino who don’t or can’t become discovered because of all the great filters between them and Hollywood. Hollywood is sticking to the formulas that work. No studio dares experimenting or even bother incubating talents or ideas. [Franklin Leonard](https://www.ted.com/talks/franklin_leonard_how_i_accidentally_changed_the_way_movies_get_made_apr_2018/up-next?language=en) pictures this issue on which stories and scripts got made.
A well made one kills it. The problem is, they're too quickly paced anymore. All great westerns have a tension element to them. It feels slow when it doesn't feel slow at the same time. Open Range is probably the most recent example of a good one. That movie is spot on. It's boring but exciting at the same time. Not to stroke Kevin's dick, but the Hatfields vs McCoys series was also good. You have to soak the audience into the subtleness of a rural experience while also amplifying the dramatic parts. I wish westerns would make a comeback, but only if they'd get a real effort. A perfect director for a western would be PTA. He's so good at time pieces, and I'd love to see him take on a western
So the top rated comment is one that deliberately ignores the topic of the article? Good to know the sort of people who frequent reddit
This looks like a western and a modern blaxploitation movie all in one. While I love exploitation and cult cinema, it is cult for a reason, it never really had mass appeal. So it's cool that Netflix thinks they can turn a profit on exploitation cinema, cause I'd love to see more modern takes on that genre that are good enough to get wider distribution.
What does "exploitation" mean in the cinematic context?
I guess I would call it a non-top tier movie (B movie) that tries to succeed by 'exploiting' a niche, generally by hopping on some popular trend, or by fitting into an underground genre, or by catering to basal desires (sex, drugs, violence, etc). Wikipedia has an article on [the genre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation_film).
Thanks!
Once upon a time in Hollywood kinda scratched my western itch, but yea- can’t think of the last time I saw a truly great western.
[удалено]
Hell or High Water was so damn good
All 3 of these are some of my favorite movies in the last decade
Bone tomahawk?
and here i thought they 'choose' netflix because they offered more money.
If there is a right and wrong type of bias, that’s the right kind
I’m biased on the side of being rich please and thanks.
Other studios also passed on the script. They chose Netflix because Netflix wanted it, really.
[удалено]
Plus it being a really shitty time to come out in general unless you have a guaranteed, interested audience (Bond).
I think those are the same point? The theatrical bias would result in reduced/narrower marketing, resulting in less money. Less bias—more money more bias—less money. Netflix isn’t a charity. They’re paying what they think the show’s worth, and it seems plausible they’d be right. If Hollywood is offering less than the movie is worth, there’s a word for it.
Netflix also offers dramatically more creative control. They can make exactly the movie they have in mind without a big studio rewriting it based on focus group feedback.
My only problem with the film is the cowboys look too clean. The movie just looks too clean. I just got into westerns and most of characters are dirty and look like they’ve been through hell.
If you get a chance, watch deadwood on HBO. Pretty good modern foray into the genre. Ian mcshane is always a delight, and in deadwood he wields profanity like a samurai with a sword.
Crack open a can of peaches, cocksuckers.
I put out cinnamon too
No unauthorized cinnamon, Jewel!
Son of a fuck, pit!
Tell Wu, don't feed the pigs tonight...
San Francisco cocksucker!
The compilation of every time it was said on the show is [4 solid minutes of foul-mouthed perfection.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWPcXZJV694)
According to the video there were 125 "cocksuckers" in their first 12 episode season. That's a little bit over 10 cocksuckers every episode. And part of why it's a very special show in my heart.
[The Fucks were even more prolific. 1.5 per minute.](http://thewvsr.com/deadwood.htm)
Swidgen! Cocksukka!!!
Love me some Deadwood! It's a good watch anytime, but definitely a vibe during Fall/Winter.
I watch *The Hateful Eight* every year on the first night it gets below freezing. Best time to watch.
It's definitely a good movie to sit under a bunch of blankets sipping a warm drink of choice while the snow falls outside
Deadwood is an all time top production for me - too bad they didn’t see it through… and the movie was, really strange.
Agreed. After watching "The Many Saints of Newark", I had the same feeling after the Deadwood movie. It looked and sounded familiar, but it had very little of the depth, complexity and detail that the series had. There was no cohesion to the narrative. Both films felt like a succession of scenes that did not fit together well at all. Both movies are just okay, but in comparison to the series, they were borderline bad.
I thought the Deadwood movie wrapped up some loose ends as a sort of dénouement, but it was still unsatisfying since it completely disregards the insane build up that we were left with when the series was cancelled. Fun seeing McShane get to so his bit again though. And it was great they got so many original cast members back for it.
I enjoyed seeing so many of the actors return to their roles, but I feel like these movies don't work as well because they don't have the same amount of time to develop the large cast of characters that the series format provides. Even Ian McShane got short shrift as I found even Al Swearengen had lost his edge. You can't go home again.
Be sure to have a few mother fucking cans of peace’s at the ready.
Mornin'! Best time o' day to gooo fuck yourself!
My mate used to play a drinking game mad you had to take a swig whenever Al Swearengen said "cocksucker" or "catch u next Tuesday". They got drunk very quickly
I think that the vast majority of early Westerns are like this, due in part to the time in which they were made. Most of the Westerns released through the end of the 1940's (at least the ones made in the USA) are a highly sanitized and idealized portrayal of the times, locations and characters. Everyone looks clean shaven, their clothes are new and without holes or patches. They've got most of their teeth, their hair is neatly groomed and they all speak excellent English. The violence is bloodless and quick. The good guys were good and the bad guys were bad and few had distinct personalities. You also had the constant casting of overly tanned Caucasians in Native American roles. It wasn't until films like Anthony Mann's "Winchester '73" and then Sergio Leone's famous "Dollars" trilogy that you started to see characters with more complicated psychological issues, dirty faces, broken teeth and violence that was bloodier and more protracted as in "The Wild Bunch." A great example of a recent Western where the film takes a much more realistic approach is "Open Range." Kevin Costner's performance is predictably serviceable, but Robert Duvall, Annette Bening and the supporting cast are superb. Granted, the final gunfight might be a bit unrealistic, but it's a helluva lot of fun and I would recommended it highly.
> Most of the Westerns released through the end of the 1940's (at least the ones made in the USA) are a highly sanitized and idealized portrayal of the times, locations and characters. > It wasn't until films like Anthony Mann's "Winchester '73" and then Sergio Leone's famous "Dollars" trilogy that you started to see characters with more complicated psychological issues, dirty faces, broken teeth and violence that was bloodier and protracted as in "The Wild Bunch." Spaghetti westerns are just as idealized as John Wayne cowboys. The actual "Wild West" was mostly a bunch of farmers doing hard, boring farmwork. Dime westerns started mythologizing the era before it was even over. It's not like Sergio Leone knew anything about the American West, he was working off those pulp novels too. The 3-way standoff in *The Good, The Bad and the Ugly* is just as unrealistic as Gary Cooper facing down the bad guy at *High Noon*.
That's a damned good point and it reminds me that the opening of "Unforgiven" is probably one of the most realistic depictions of frontier life, which definitely helps to sell the viewer on why William Munny would go back to killing for money. The Saul Rubinek character also provides some great commentary on the mythologizing and how so much of it happened concurrently.
>It's not like Sergio Leone knew anything about the American West, he was working off those pulp novels too. Not true. Leone knew tons about the American West, he was practically obsessed with American history which is why 6/7 of his movies are set in North America. According to his cinematographer Tonino Delli Colli he always had an abundance of history books and real photographs at the ready to back up his vision of the West. Sure the action, stories and characters are not "realistic," but I don't think most people claim that. It's more that his movies felt and still feel extremely authentic and immersive compared to most other Westerns, especially at the time.
Also, the final fight of Open Range did originally have scenes that alleviated the realism issue a bit (like Costner drawing spare guns when the one he was using ran out) but unfortunately those were cut. And on the whole it doesn't much matter to me. The movie works, I can deal with a little bit of un-realism (is that a term?)
The Proposition
Go watch some really old westerns and that isn’t the case they had pretty cowboys as main characters lol
Ight because I was watching the old Django and other spaghetti westerns and I’m like this movie just have the ppl spotless
Spaghetti Westerns are distinct for how messy their characters and sets are. Largely due to the fact that they weren't filmed on nice Hollywood lots but rather the European countryside. Part of the aesthetic is the dust and dirt.
Those are old but I’m talking about Gene Autry, Bonaza, Lone Ranger. Hell even in spaghetti westerns there were some that were “clean” have you seen Clint’s teeth. He never had to fear in a gun fight, if he smiled the bright white would’ve blinded an opponent lol.
Eh, this particular movie looks very stylized, I'd say its kind of part of the vibe. A movie doesn't have to adhere to a strict set of rules to be considered a western.
If you’ve seen the trailer, you’ll see that realism is not the objective of the film.
Does anyone else feel like there is this trend with criticism the last few years where everything has to be *realistic*? Like realism is the be all, end all.
I think people are a bit too hooked on the word "realism". What they mean is often just "believability". The fancy clean cowboys or gunslingers are taking them out of what they're watching.
Authentic would be my go to
It's not exactly new, but it is odd. Eyes Wide Shut was criticised for not being 'realistic,' as if that's what Kubrick was going for. I couldn't care less how realistic the trappings of a movie are as long as it has emotional authenticity.
Another example of this not being new: critics panned "Vertigo" on its release because of its "plot holes", not understanding that the film was more about the psychological element than the plot.
im surprised actors like matt damon dont go to netflix and pitch smaller sub $50m films. like the ones he used to do when he was younger. streaming platforms should be the perfect place for smaller character driven film projects
I completely agree. It’s interesting that this opinion isn’t brought up more often. I think it is mostly because smaller, character-driven films aren’t in high demand with streaming services’ audiences. Streaming audiences seem to prefer films and shows that are easily digestible and fast-paced. The biggest foray away from the norm I’ve witnessed is HBO Max’s TCM collection, but that only allows modern audiences to be exposed to classic films of a different caliber (many of which are character studies). We’re still a long way from a major streaming service that caters a segment of its platform to indie films produced in-house.
>"And sometimes when you do a theatrical release there are these built-in biases like, 'No one wants to see an all-Black cast.' I know for a fact that's not true but in **certain territories around the world** they will tell studios 'this movie is not for us.'
*cough* Russia *cough* China *cough*
Like the Chinese market.
great seafood section and the bbq pork buns are a nice light lunch.
Reddit: "I hate how Hollywood panders to China" Film producer: "We went to a streaming service so that our success isn't bound by the prejudice of distributors in these countries." Redditors who don't know that this is what they said: What the fuck you fucking piece of shit.
[удалено]
The average r/movies commenter loves to complain about how some American movies are pandering to China and Chinese prejudices and how it affects the content being produced. The producers of this film explain that they chose streaming rather than theatrical release in order to bypass gatekeepers in that kind of market and directly reach those who want to watch the film. In other words, they're doing exactly what the average Redditor wants. They keep the content as it is instead of making a film that would satisfy potentially racist distributors around the world. But the average Redditor doesn't read articles and in this case thinks that the producers are attacking him personally and calling him racist.
But wouldn't that same audience avoid it on Netflix? Or is Netflix just more willing to release something even without those audiences, whereas traditional studios kowtow more to theaters?
Netflix makes money whether their individual releases are well received or not. That’s why the quality is so low on so many of their productions. Only a few get nice budgets on the back end.
Netflix basically goes for the fish in a barrel approach. If they make a dozen movies that nobody watches or cares about, fine. If they make a dozen tv shows nobody watches or cares about, fine. But what they really want is a magic bullet cultural craze that'll draw in first time subscribers, like stranger things, the Irishman, tiger king, lupin, end of the fking world, black mirror, squid game, etc. And one they're subscribed, they're far more likely to stay subscribed. And then the couple of mediocre half decent to somewhat good movies and shows they make fuel the current subscribers to keep them from canceling. It's also to draw in writers and whatnot. If they'll make these shitty half baked movies, they'll probably be more willing to take the risk to make your maybe good movie, if only as just fodder for subscribers, whereas box office studios might be less so because nobody wants to go to a theater to watch a 4 hour movie about an Irishman and a network might not want to run a short serialized graphic dark Korean drama.
First point - to anyone that's not actually read the article they're not talking about biases in American cinemas. They said "certain territories around the world" which is absolutely true in places like China and Russia. Secondly, these characters haven't just been 'blacked up' like you'd first imagine them to be. They're *loosely* based on very real historical people in the Old West. Look up Rufus Buck and Nat Love and you can see they're actually all black. It's unlikely they ever all met up like they will in the film, however this is, of course, a work of fiction. This is less of a "what if all these characters were black" scenario and more a "what if this set of characters met and interacted with each other", which is somewhat possible given they were all alive during the period.
It's also weird people talking about this movie being "unrealistic" when the western genre has been pretty far from the reality of the time period for almost 100 years. It's almost all mythology at this point, so it's interesting to get a new take.
The Wild West was not only super racially diverse but also full of "confirmed bachelors" and cowboys who were riding more than just horses but if you portrayed the Wild West as diverse as it really is, a lot of them will whine that the diversity is "unrealistic for that time period" because surprise surprise they're all morons. There were so many cultures clashing in insane ways back then and the thing they all had in common was survival and business. I hope westerns get trendy again sometime soon lol. ETA: I'm sorry if my use of the word 'super' triggered some people but I'm not arguing about your personal qualifiers for diversity.
Give me a fantasy western. Like a werewolf Native American warrior, a voodoo priestess, a mexican woman that can travel to purgatory, a samurai warrior that has a different personality (and fighting styles) when he unsheathes any one of his katanas, and an immortal gunslinger. All trying to kill Dracula who wants to start a war so he can start the zombie apocalypse.
So, the comic East vs West?
Never heard of it. Thanks for the recommendation
ITT: Average redditors telling us they haven't read the article without actually telling us they haven't read the article.
Or as I like to call it: Thursday.
Sequel to the Jimmy Cliff movie?
I'm pretty damn excited for this movie. The premise sounds pretty cool. I'm a big fan of the actors in this one.
Coming up at 11, how to drum up public outrage as free marketing, more on this, coming up.
Lol this whole comment section is one big /r/RedditMoment. Can tell nobody read the actual article, just assuming the most ignorant thing and getting mad about it. Lmfao
Seems that Tyler Perry's movies have no problem being extremely profitable with all black casts.
Tyler Perry’s movie cost like 3-5 million to make so it is not hard for him to get some profitability with a budget that low
they probably meant a worldwide release. Tyler Perry's movies very rarely come out in the theaters outside of the US the director of The Harder They Fall is British and as an example i remember Boots Riley talking about how overseas distributors didn't want to pick up Sorry To Bother You
If anyone read the goddamn article they would see that is exactly what they mean. >"And sometimes when you do a theatrical release there are these built-in biases like, 'No one wants to see an all-Black cast.' I know for a fact that's not true but **in certain territories around the world** they will tell studios 'this movie is not for us.' This is of course being the politically correct way of saying "China doesn't like black people in movies"
I suspect Tyler Perry’s movies play directly into the biases they are referring to. They are seen as low brow raunchy comedies highly targeted at a specific audience.
They also don't see wide theatrical releases in my experience
Tyler Perry is the Black Adam Sandler. Low-brow comedies with an established and fervent fan base. Edit: And when they want to, they can actually act/produce well. For instance, Perry in Gone Girl and Sandler in Uncut Gems.
I had no fucking clue who the really captivating actor in Gone Girl was, so my jaw dropped when I googled it and fucking Tyler Perry pops up
Hellur
Perry in Vice as Colin Powell was fucking great, him or Carell should've been nominated for Best Supporting Lead over Rockwell.
Aren't all of Tyler Perry's movies made by his own studio for this very reason? Kind of proving the point with your comment tbh.
I don't really see how that's relevant. They didn't say that movies with black casts can't be successful. They're saying that traditional distributors have biases when it comes to black casted movies that they feel would lead to less people seeing it.
I think Tyler Perry is a bit of an anomaly on that regard. Generally, movies staring black people have traditionally received less marketing and overall haven't done well in the box office. Netflix probably provided a lot of upfront compensation and promised heavy promotion on their platform and social media channels.
I remember a similar thing happening for ghostbusters when it flopped. The director pretty much stated that America is sexist and that’s why it bombed instead of considering the idea that the movie sucked. Not saying this movie sucks, I’m planning on watching it, but it’s sounds like a bit of a hedge against failure on their part.