Exactly.
In the words of one Sheev Palpatine, "good is a point of view" and is therefore not something that can be objectively determined.
The same is true of the opposite sentiment.
Sony Spider-Verse discussion thread
- Thread starter Turtletrekker
- Start date
Exactly.
In the words of one Sheev Palpatine, "good is a point of view" and is therefore not something that can be objectively determined.
The same is true of the opposite sentiment.
Avi Arad?
I actually like The Last Witchhunter, Gods of Egypt, and Power Rangers, but I still have to wonder how Sazama and Sharpless keep getting work when literally every movie in the list has been a complete bomb. Is it just the success of Lost in Space?
But then how are we supposed to get an idea of what the general opinion is if we can't use sites like that?
I don't have a ton of money, and I don't want to waste it on bad movies. I'm not going to go by trailers and marketing because they're manipulative and lie to make things look better than they are. Am I supposed to go sit outside the theater and ask every person coming what movie they saw and if they liked it?
As I said, writers have virtually no power in the feature film industry, so they can't be held responsible for the failure of a movie. They're treated as mere contractors hired to do what the director and producers tell them to do, and they can't control how their scripts might get rewritten or mangled by uncredited script doctors, the director, the editor, and the studio execs.
Besides, professionals understand that nobody bats a thousand. There are countless factors affecting whether a film succeeds or fails, and the majority of them fail, so if you blacklisted everyone who ever worked on a failed film, there'd be nobody left to make new films. Not only that, but only about 1 or 2 percent of scripts sold to or commissioned by movie studios even get made. For every film the public sees, there are fifty or a hundred scripts that never even got that far. From that standpoint, getting a film completed and released at all is a success, even if it bombs.
So a lot of what gets people hired is less about the final box office than it is about the process itself -- whether they deliver what's asked of them in a reliable fashion, whether they stay on schedule and under budget, whether they're good to work with on a personal level, that sort of thing. Since a writer's role in the feature industry is to follow the director's wishes, a writer who's reliable at following instructions and translating the director's ideas into filmable scripts is likely to keep getting work, even if they keep getting hired by directors whose ideas are crap.
Do we have a discussion thread for Madame Web, or is it all going here?
Any way, despite my ambivalence, I had a quiet day and decided, what the hell and checked this out at the theatres. I wouldn't say it's awful, but it is rather bland and dull. It feels like the only reason it takes place before 2003 is because it has to take place before social media became so commonplace otherwise the entire plot falls apart completely.
Any way, despite my ambivalence, I had a quiet day and decided, what the hell and checked this out at the theatres. I wouldn't say it's awful, but it is rather bland and dull. It feels like the only reason it takes place before 2003 is because it has to take place before social media became so commonplace otherwise the entire plot falls apart completely.
I know how all of that works, but you'd still think the fact that literally every movie in that list was a complete failure would make people not want to hire them. I could see if they had one or two failures mixed with successes, but they have not had a single successful movie in their entire career. I know that movies are controlled by the director rather than the writers, but the script is still a big part of the movie, and you'd think the directors or producers, whoever's hiring the writers, would want to have writers who have proven they know how to put together a script for a successful movie, not a couple of guys who appear to be complete failures in that regard.
I remember years ago an interview about a movie, where it had been announced the movie would be written by the writer of a well known box office bomb (over twenty years ago, I don't remember specifics). The movie's producer defended the hiring of that particular writer by saying the movie that bombed had "something like a dozen writers" contributing to the script and that "arcane WGA rules" are the only reason why that particular writer was the only one credited.
I don't know if there's any truth to this story, but if there is it's possible this sort of thing could be so common in Hollywood that having a resume full of duds is not necessarily a detracting factor. Granted, it does open up all sorts of questions about what a writing credit actually means on a movie.
Please re-read the last one and a half paragraphs of my previous post, where I address why that may not be as overriding a consideration as you assume.
Very few movies succeed. The important thing is continuing to try, and being an effective member of the team. I imagine there are plenty of pro baseball players who've never made it to the World Series or been voted MVP or whatever, but who still manage to have ongoing if unremarkable careers because they do their job reliably as members of the team. There are more factors to consider than the final score.
Oh, hell, yeah. I read an article about it once -- it's typical for any movie script to be pieced together from bits of various drafts by 8-12 writers or thereabouts, with most of them getting no credit. It's a complete mess of a system. The credited writer often has very little involvement with the finished script; I think it's often the writer who came up with the original concept, even if subsequent writers have changed it into something unrecognizably different.
Isn't there a pregnant Mary Parker still in the final cut of the film?
The film doesn't take place "before 2003", though.
Yes, but she has such a minor part in the plot if it weren't for her last name being Parker, no one would otherwise think she's supposed to have relevance.
Well, shit, I made a typo. Run for the hills, everyone!
No. Cassie says that to Ben when he comments her driving is like when he was in the military, only without people shooting at them.
I think we can all appreciate that filmmaking is an incredibly complex process. Every released film, no matter the quality, is at least a minor miracle, and a huge team effort. Scripts get mishandled, actors have chaotic schedules, foreign investors want input, and the marketing team has to entice a prospective audience without giving too much away. As fans, we've become far more understanding of these processes over the years, and with that understanding, we've developed great compassion and sensitivity.
Therefore, with peace in our hearts, and open minds acknowledging our own perceptive limitations, let us tenderly inquire: who keeps fucking up these live-action Sony/Marvel movies, and why aren't they in jail?!
Last I checked, there's no law against a bad movie.
So, perhaps we need to lobby for such a law.
Haven't seen it yet but maybe it is one of those "It is so bad it is good" situations?Last I checked, there's no law against a bad movie.
So, perhaps we need to lobby for such a law.
The movie is full of Pepsi product placement and ends with
the villain being killed by a giant Pepsi sign.
Dakota Johnson responding to being asked what she thought of the finished film.
“I don’t know when I’ll see it. Someday.”
Weirdly she said this after already having been at the premiere. (Guess she must have slipped out the back door.)
https://twitter.com/OneTakeNews/status/1758159130047467632
“I don’t know when I’ll see it. Someday.”
Weirdly she said this after already having been at the premiere. (Guess she must have slipped out the back door.)
https://twitter.com/OneTakeNews/status/1758159130047467632
