The "Automata" and "Snowpiercer" debacle

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Ok, I haven't seen Automata yet, but it looks like a gritty, intelligent science fiction film. It could suck, for all I know. I did see Snowpiercer, but no thanks to the studio, who refused to release it wide. Apparently, Automata was supposed to come out in theaters in October, but that never happened... except maybe in an even more limited capacity than Snowpiercer. Ugh.

We're all excited for these Marvel and DC films,even myself, who has been critical of them. I'm most critical of the process, however. Actual science fiction films are being pushed to the way side while "comic book style" films are slated for theatrical distribution years in advance. It's all a top down philosophy where studio executives and producers are trying to determine what will land them in the black and films that come to fruition from the vision of actual filmmakers are being put by the wayside. I understand why this is happening from a business point of view, but it's disturbing.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Same as it ever was, I think.

 

[Professor Zoom]

It's all a top down philosophy where studio executives and producers are trying to determine what will land them in the black and films that come to fruition from the vision of actual filmmakers are being put by the wayside. I understand why this is happening from a business point of view, but it's disturbing.

Woah, woah, woah. Stop the presses! Studio executives want to make MONEY? Want to see a profit? The HELL you say. That seems like something so totally different than how Hollywood has been operating since the very beginning.

Mind. Blown.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

It sounds to me like the real issue is not a lack of indie/low-budget films but a shortage of venues in which to exhibition them. Three companies control most of the film screens in the US and, unfortunately, independent art house theaters are just not doing that well.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Ok, I haven't seen Automata yet, but it looks like a gritty, intelligent science fiction film. It could suck, for all I know. I did see Snowpiercer, but no thanks to the studio, who refused to release it wide. Apparently, Automata was supposed to come out in theaters in October, but that never happened... except maybe in an even more limited capacity than Snowpiercer. Ugh.

We're all excited for these Marvel and DC films,even myself, who has been critical of them. I'm most critical of the process, however. Actual science fiction films are being pushed to the way side while "comic book style" films are slated for theatrical distribution years in advance. It's all a top down philosophy where studio executives and producers are trying to determine what will land them in the black and films that come to fruition from the vision of actual filmmakers are being put by the wayside. I understand why this is happening from a business point of view, but it's disturbing.

Snowpiercer is no more or less "actual science fiction" than The Avengers or Guardians of the Galaxy.

Plus, contrary to the idea of them pushing smaller budget films aside, the revenue generated by blockbusters is what allows studios to finance and release those smaller niche and arthouse films.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Snowpiercer is no more or less "actual science fiction" than The Avengers or Guardians of the Galaxy.

On the mere surface that's true. It's an absurd premise based on a comic book. But, unlike the other films you mentioned, Snowpiercer is metaphorical science fiction, using an allegorical situation to have us think a little differently about the real world. I'm not saying I agree with the idea that human society, as it is now, was set up a certain way to keep the balance and that the fikm was an allegory was an allegory for that. Not to mention that it's more brutal than the other films you mentioned. It's hard-edged science fiction... but metaphorical.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Genre elitism sure is weird.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Genre elitism sure is weird.

+1

 

[Mr. Adventure]

It sounds to me like the real issue is not a lack of indie/low-budget films but a shortage of venues in which to exhibition them. Three companies control most of the film screens in the US and, unfortunately, independent art house theaters are just not doing that well.

And in the case of Snowpiercer, like many foreign films in the U.S., has the involvement of Harvey Weinstein who has never met a film that couldn't be improved by his whittling down their content for domestic release.

 

[Professor Zoom]

It sounds to me like the real issue is not a lack of indie/low-budget films but a shortage of venues in which to exhibition them. Three companies control most of the film screens in the US and, unfortunately, independent art house theaters are just not doing that well.

And in the case of Snowpiercer, like many foreign films in the U.S., has the involvement of Harvey Weinstein who has never met a film that couldn't be improved by his whittling down their content for domestic release.

In the end though, the cuts didn't happen. He did though, only put it into art house cinemas... eventually only 150 theaters.

 

[kitik]

It sounds to me like the real issue is not a lack of indie/low-budget films but a shortage of venues in which to exhibition them. Three companies control most of the film screens in the US and, unfortunately, independent art house theaters are just not doing that well.

It's tough to blame theaters when you have the internet.

How many bazillion films are right there at your fingertips on amazon? Or elsewhere on the internet?