|
Post by Lord Death Man on Feb 29, 2024 17:26:28 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by primemcgee on Mar 1, 2024 23:14:52 GMT 1
Hugo Weaving said it too--which is why he wouldn't do another.
Elizabeth Olson also said it wasn't worth it to do Marvel films. Too controlled and bureaucratic.
Same for the FX work--as Phil Tippet said:
"In the olden days, producers knew what visual effects were. Now they've gotten into this methodology where they'll hire a middleman, a visual effects supervisor, and this person works for the producing studio. They're middle managers. And when you go into a review with one of them, there's this weird sort of competition that happens. It's a game called 'Find What's Wrong With This Shot'. And there's always going to be something wrong, because everything's subjective. And you can micromanage it down to a pixel, and that happens all the time. We're doing it digitally, so there's no pressure to save on film costs or whatever, so it's not unusual to go through 500 revisions of the same shot, moving pixels around and scrutinizing this or that. That's not how you manage artists. You encourage artists, and then you'll get, you know, art. If your idea of managing artists is just pointing out what's wrong and making them fix it over and over again, you end up with artists who just stand around asking "OK lady, where do you want this sofa? You want if over there? No? Fine. You want it over there? I don't give a fuck. I'll put it wherever you want it." It's creative mismanagement, it's part of the whole corporate modality. The fish stinks from the head on down. Back on Star Wars, RoboCop, we never thought about what was wrong with a shot. We just thought about how to make it better."
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Mar 7, 2024 9:04:21 GMT 1
…admitted that filming the Marvel movie “was fine until you have to do the reshoots.” “Then you find out that a few producers have come down, and your performance is too much, it’s too strong… That’s the way Marvel works,” Winstone said. “It can be soul-destroying because you feel like you’re doing great work.”
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Mar 7, 2024 9:05:49 GMT 1
Hugo Weaving said it too--which is why he wouldn't do another. Elizabeth Olson also said it wasn't worth it to do Marvel films. Too controlled and bureaucratic. Same for the FX work--as Phil Tippet said: "In the olden days, producers knew what visual effects were. Now they've gotten into this methodology where they'll hire a middleman, a visual effects supervisor, and this person works for the producing studio. They're middle managers. And when you go into a review with one of them, there's this weird sort of competition that happens. It's a game called 'Find What's Wrong With This Shot'. And there's always going to be something wrong, because everything's subjective. And you can micromanage it down to a pixel, and that happens all the time. We're doing it digitally, so there's no pressure to save on film costs or whatever, so it's not unusual to go through 500 revisions of the same shot, moving pixels around and scrutinizing this or that. That's not how you manage artists. You encourage artists, and then you'll get, you know, art. If your idea of managing artists is just pointing out what's wrong and making them fix it over and over again, you end up with artists who just stand around asking "OK lady, where do you want this sofa? You want if over there? No? Fine. You want it over there? I don't give a fuck. I'll put it wherever you want it." It's creative mismanagement, it's part of the whole corporate modality. The fish stinks from the head on down. Back on Star Wars, RoboCop, we never thought about what was wrong with a shot. We just thought about how to make it better." It’s wonder people folks even bother seeing such banal entertainment.
|
|
|
Post by primemcgee on Mar 7, 2024 17:57:56 GMT 1
It’s wonder people folks even bother seeing such banal entertainment. Pauline Kael said studios inherit audiences, they don't acquire them from scratch. People will see whatever is available unless they feel it has reached a point where they have a negative view of the entire subject like westerns or dance movies.
It looks to me like the desire to capture the globe as an audience, combined with the narrowing of story range, is a recipe for banality. There is no such thing as a global culture. People are too different in taste and impulses based on regional characteristics.
Hollywood had a habit of putting all its eggs in an ever-shrinking basket. Around the mid-60s they seemed to shift emphasis from acting and writing as a marquee draw to SPFX and stunt innovation. Slowly. One of the major selling points of the Godfather was the innovation in makeup that would allow Marlon Brando to be accepted as an older Sicilian guy. That was the entire point of the blockbuster era--advancing technical novelty while grabbing for a larger audience. Then computers took over and that gave a boost to more visual innovation--but stardom and writing were sacrificed. There are no movie stars anymore that can sell a movie entirely on their name alone--either they have lots of vfx with it or a brand name franchise to it. That's bad for actors and writers in terms of inspiration or enthusiasm.
And now, after 20 years of "franchises," it is burning out because they don't have VFX innovation anymore--it is harder to impress people with a magic trick (and they farm it out to India or it is so mundane a job--that the artists are just pushing buttons in an office cubicle). And they hammer you with wall-to-wall advertising because of the pervasive corporate media domination.
A new Predator sequel will get massive advertising compared to the original film no matter how dull it is.
I think it is hard to get excited about movies in a time when you can make your own action movie on an iphone with plugins while sitting on a bus. In the days when film and video were more scarce, it was more exciting for artists and audiences.
I would think a shift back to actor and story would be necessary to create more excitement now. Interesting screen personalities, but I am not sure how that would be done as a trend or Dogme 95 kind of thing.
|
|