VanPersie
Well-Known Member
You know why they declined then?
The Marvels (2023)
- Thread starter renaissance_man
- Start date
I'll take the 'L' on this one, simply because I can't answer that, based SOLELY on corroborated reports, without getting political.
VanPersie
Well-Known Member
No then…
Cephus
Master Member
Nobody ought to give a crap that Depp is eccentric. He's not a criminal. Majors is. This was Amber Heard trying to make money and she lied about it, just like Majors tried to do. Neither of them got away with it. There deserves to be some serious retribution against them both. Depp, for whatever oddities he has, he has done nothing illegal in this case.
Solo4114
Master Member
Yeah, I dunno. I didn't really follow the case. It felt both pointless and kinda ghoulish, and I didn't really want to engage with any of the other "culture war" issues that wound up cropping up from it. So I just detached from it altogether. What little I did hear made me think that it's at least possible Depp did some nasty stuff, but it also sound like nobody had totally clean hands in that situation, which was another reason why I just went "Never mind. I'll just move on" and did so.
I suppose some of this also is just because I'm kinda "done" with Depp anyway. I didn't think he was that great in the Harry Potter prequels (which I didn't think were that great at a baseline), his Pirates stuff was stale, and I wasn't super interested in watching him and Helena Bonham Carter cavort in whatever the next Tim Burton project wound up being. >shrug<
That could be part of the calculus, sure, but it could also be that it was more the kind of case you'd just end up pleading out anyway, and it wouldn't amount to much by way of punishment, so they just ignored it. Prosecutorial decisions can be pretty dependent upon the facts. But there's also a strategic reason where, if you really do want to go after Majors, you don't also go after his victim because (1) it's a bad look to go after someone you want to categorize as a victim at a baseline, and (2) discovery might've resulted in information that'd make prosecuting Majors more difficult.
But honestly, who the hell knows? It could be any number of reasons or a mix thereof.
Yeah, I dunno. I didn't really follow the case. It felt both pointless and kinda ghoulish, and I didn't really want to engage with any of the other "culture war" issues that wound up cropping up from it. So I just detached from it altogether. What little I did hear made me think that it's at least possible Depp did some nasty stuff, but it also sound like nobody had totally clean hands in that situation, which was another reason why I just went "Never mind. I'll just move on" and did so.
I suppose some of this also is just because I'm kinda "done" with Depp anyway. I didn't think he was that great in the Harry Potter prequels (which I didn't think were that great at a baseline), his Pirates stuff was stale, and I wasn't super interested in watching him and Helena Bonham Carter cavort in whatever the next Tim Burton project wound up being. >shrug<
In the bigger picture I agree about Depp. His career-peak 'Pirates' role is exhausted and he's kinda back to being a niche oddball, which is always where he was at home.
As for the Depp/Heard case, I didn't really follow it while it was going on either. Same reasons. But after the ruckus died down I took a few minutes to surf through what had emerged once the smoke cleared. Depp seemed to have the usual substance abuse & eccentric/stubbornness that you see all over Hollywood. But the most problematic stuff didn't match his history, it matched hers.
Wakeem
Sr Member
All I know is that I've never seen a video of a man running away from a woman after getting his phone back. Which I understand that according to laws in some areas, you can use force even against a spouse to get stolen property back. I find that odd but I guess that's some laws. And then said woman giving chase through the streets for some crazy reason.
All the evidence hasn't been released from what I've seen. But the financial damage to Jonathan Majors is already done. I would be shocked if they give him that year in jail. But I wouldn't be surprised if they attempt to give him something. Just because the jury felt the need to convict him on 2 of the 4 charges. We'll see in February and if and when he appeals or perhaps has a civil case for damages.
There were a few audio recordings of Johnny Depp attempting to get away from Amber Heard. I believe those resulted in small injuries as well. Of course, none of that got anywhere near the level of this Jonathan Majors case.
All the evidence hasn't been released from what I've seen. But the financial damage to Jonathan Majors is already done. I would be shocked if they give him that year in jail. But I wouldn't be surprised if they attempt to give him something. Just because the jury felt the need to convict him on 2 of the 4 charges. We'll see in February and if and when he appeals or perhaps has a civil case for damages.
There were a few audio recordings of Johnny Depp attempting to get away from Amber Heard. I believe those resulted in small injuries as well. Of course, none of that got anywhere near the level of this Jonathan Majors case.
Disney is a fella who borrowed money from the mob to buy Seabiscuit, Secretariat and Man O' War then, against all advice, fired all the trainers, the veteranarians and the jockies, hired family and friends to manage the stable and ran the horses for participation trophies. They are just now starting to ask why they can't win any actual races.
I don't see Disney digging out of this any time soon, if ever. Who wants to fire family and friends?
I don't see Disney digging out of this any time soon, if ever. Who wants to fire family and friends?
Last edited:
Allow me to be the one to flog the proverbial dead horse…
Not since Simple Jack has a film flopped this hard…
Not since Simple Jack has a film flopped this hard…
Solo4114
Master Member
So, here's the thing. I think at this point it's abundantly clear that something needs to change with studios. Marvel is probably the most visible in this regard because (1) they had such a prolific output across a span of about 15 years, and (2) they had such box office dominance for much of that and seemingly could do no wrong. Towards that end, it feels to me like the obituaries were in the can for a long time now, and just got updated to reflect the current troubles when it finally hit.
But other studios have had similar issues. Lots of them posted weaker-than-hoped-for returns or "box office bomb" films where the amount spent to make the film was higher than the amount the film brought in at the box office.
For me, the issue comes down to one of managing budgets, pure and simple. I think audiences are basically only showing up in $1B box office numbers to things that are largely beyond prediction. I would not have pegged that Barbie would score $1B at the box office. I damn sure wouldn't have picked Oppenheimer as a nearly $1B film, especially considering its length and subject matter. But that's kind of my point: it's become much harder to predict what will bring audiences in in those numbers, and yet the studios keep spending on films with the expectation that audiences will show up.
The market is smaller, thanks to Russia's involvement in the Ukraine war. (Not sure how much smaller, but it's smaller, no question.) More than that, I think people are just being choosier about what they see at the theater. And I think the superhero thing, while still popular, isn't really "Guaranteed +$800M B.O." popular at this point. Could it be if you changed the content of the stories? ...I honestly don't know. I think some of it may just be that the shine is off the penny in those numbers.
The thing is, these films are still relatively popular. A $200M box office isn't bad...unless you've already spent +$300M getting there.
But I keep coming back to the "disappointing" Transformers movie from this year, as compared to the "surprisingly successful" John Wick 4 film...and they were separated by, what, like $2M box office? Until you look at the budgets, that is, and that's where the Wick film came out way ahead, having only cost about $100M to make, while Transformers cost around twice that much. So, it looks like the line between "success" and "failure" is really in the budget, not in the end result.
Like I said, something's gotta change. For Marvel, for big studios generally, but something's gotta change. The market has shifted, and you can't keep making films like you did before and expect to turn the same levels of profit.
But other studios have had similar issues. Lots of them posted weaker-than-hoped-for returns or "box office bomb" films where the amount spent to make the film was higher than the amount the film brought in at the box office.
For me, the issue comes down to one of managing budgets, pure and simple. I think audiences are basically only showing up in $1B box office numbers to things that are largely beyond prediction. I would not have pegged that Barbie would score $1B at the box office. I damn sure wouldn't have picked Oppenheimer as a nearly $1B film, especially considering its length and subject matter. But that's kind of my point: it's become much harder to predict what will bring audiences in in those numbers, and yet the studios keep spending on films with the expectation that audiences will show up.
The market is smaller, thanks to Russia's involvement in the Ukraine war. (Not sure how much smaller, but it's smaller, no question.) More than that, I think people are just being choosier about what they see at the theater. And I think the superhero thing, while still popular, isn't really "Guaranteed +$800M B.O." popular at this point. Could it be if you changed the content of the stories? ...I honestly don't know. I think some of it may just be that the shine is off the penny in those numbers.
The thing is, these films are still relatively popular. A $200M box office isn't bad...unless you've already spent +$300M getting there.
But I keep coming back to the "disappointing" Transformers movie from this year, as compared to the "surprisingly successful" John Wick 4 film...and they were separated by, what, like $2M box office? Until you look at the budgets, that is, and that's where the Wick film came out way ahead, having only cost about $100M to make, while Transformers cost around twice that much. So, it looks like the line between "success" and "failure" is really in the budget, not in the end result.
Like I said, something's gotta change. For Marvel, for big studios generally, but something's gotta change. The market has shifted, and you can't keep making films like you did before and expect to turn the same levels of profit.
I agree, but I think there's another factor playing into it too.
Since before any of us were born, SFX/spectacle/action . . . it has had a certain amount of box-office draw. Is that still true? I dunno.
Lately we've seen a ton of gigantic movies get outsold by a slow 1940s courtroom drama and a Barbie toy adaptation. And the longer-term trend lines have been leaning this way farther by the year.
In the history of movies, has there ever been another year when so much spectacle carried so little weight at the box office?
I'm not arguing that spectacle/VFX/action is worthless. But its value to sell tickets by itself has never been lower.
I think the future of spectacle is like pretty faces. In a rom-com you need pretty faces, you absolutely do. But they are a component in service of the genre. Pretty faces don't have box office power alone. You can sit at home and watch other pretty faces all day long for free. Same with spectacle now.
Last edited:
Cultural influences affecting the entire market and Disney's rampant budgeting certainly are both factors at play in the downfall, but if we want to actually reverse this trend we can't ignore the fact that the quality of writing has taken a nosedive.
I'm not going to argue with anyone who wants to say there's nothing wrong with the writing, but this is apparent to a non-trivial number of fans.
It isn't just a matter of overbudgeting of otherwise quality productions IMO. Fans don't think about what was spent; they only know what they like or don't like. If these were still good movies the fans would not be turning their backs on the films in such large numbers or crying out about the "magic" being lost from MCU, Lucasfilm and PIXAR.
Any discussion about "wokeness" is a minefield. The issue of "wokeness" is typically misunderstood, misrepresented and mishandled by both the fans and the studio, but I do think some discussion of this is integral to a realistic analysis of Disney's decline.
Diversity, equity and inclusion are positive principles and necessary in the long run. The correct approach is when DEI is organically integrated into otherwise original and traditionally inspirational stories. The wrong approach (IMO) is to simply rainbow-wash every major production and raise flags while bulldozing over traditional themes of romance, humility, personal sacrifice for a greater cause than self etc.
Disney has done it right before. "Frozen" is a clever allegory for coming out of the closet (I stand by this claim) and did it well. "Andor" features a lesbian couple whose relationship is complex and engaging. (Vel is a flawed and tragic character played with heartbreaking delicacy.) The early MCU was already giving us multiple major female and black characters that stood on their own without having to make an underscored statement about it, and were part of a greater story.
Disney was already on the right track, but why did they have to give us films like, "Strange World"? I won't rehash the arguments about the overhaul of Star Wars and MCU. Once again, it isn't a problem with DEI - only in the way these IPs are seemingly being landscaped to displace just about anything white, cisgender or male. Pointing that out doesn't make me a bigot.
Somewhere along the way it feels as if a plan for peaceful integration gave way to plans for a "hostile makeover", and it is so sudden and hamhanded it is hard to digest.
Historically I have always been a SW and MCU apologist, but it is too hard for me to suspend disbelief anymore. I defended "The Last Jedi" until I watched "Rise of Skywalker" which reversed my opinion.
We accept that Harrison Ford can't be Indy forever, but they could have been more respectful about passing the torch. They could have certainly treated Luke and Han better. You can't ignore the fans who express outrage. If they were a trivial minority we wouldn't be having these discussions in the first place.
There was a time that every PIXAR film managed to make me cry and/or changed the way I saw the world. "Lightyear" was as far away from those principles as you could get. I can't even recall a single moment that made me laugh. (I liked the cat, though).
I am not writing as a gleeful Disney hater. I'm a fan, just like y'all, who has picked apart these IPs and appreciated what made them tick. I'd like to think I'm fairly observant, and I have an opinion that these franchises are conceptually off track. I am not trying to win an academic argument by pointing this out but, I believe Disney will continue to fail if we ignore their mishandling of DEI. I want to see Disney thrive again.
(I am writing this from a family vacation at Disney World.)
Last edited:
Yes, giant spectacle has some utility, but it no longer has scarcity. Whereas good writing retained its utility but seems to have acquired even more scarcity than it previously had.
I can only speak with authority regarding my own experience as to why I am personally not going to the theater to see these movies vs making any larger diagnostic for the entertainment industry.
For me, the end-product—the stories that they are presenting—are not compelling to me and not worth my time and my money. In the end, quality matters to me as a consumer.
I can only speculate as whether my experience represents a larger diagnostic for the industry. I am sure other consumers have their own reasons that may be different from my own.
For me, the end-product—the stories that they are presenting—are not compelling to me and not worth my time and my money. In the end, quality matters to me as a consumer.
I can only speculate as whether my experience represents a larger diagnostic for the industry. I am sure other consumers have their own reasons that may be different from my own.
Last edited:
Yes, and that's a much more succinct way of putting it.
As for writing, I don't think the issue is true scacity within the industry. The bottleneck is more the process. Good writing cannot make it through the guantlet of corporate meddling and survive to the final product intact.
Cephus
Master Member
Plus, most writers in Hollywood these days don't seem to have any life experience. They are pushing an agenda, trying to write what they want to write, not what an audience wants to buy. This is made worse by announcements, like the recent one by Bob Iger, that he is doubling down on agenda and DEI for all Marvel movies going forward. It's like he's blissfully unaware of everything that caused their 2023 slate of movies to crater.
There does seem to be a lack of write-able life experience in the writing world. But again, I think it has more to do with the corporate machine than the supply. Give me a wad of money and I'll go find a bunch of good writers any time. (Seriously - I have no doubt that the members of this forum could brainstorm up a better Star Wars movie than Disney has made in years. It's not a very high bar to clear.)
The studios just don't want good writing badly enough to set aside their other priorities for it. Not enough to choose the experienced 53yo white guy instead of a 23yo minority kid right out of college. Or maybe they did hire the old white guy, but they gave him 4 weeks to do the script and then they rewrote his ending to keep the villian alive for sequels. Etc.
Bob Iger - IMO it's pretty clear he is gonna ride that bomb all the way down, just like Kathleen Kennedy. Those two will have to be dragged out of the building kicking and screaming when the time comes. In the meantime they are not gonna change course. No more than Adolf would have admitted that Germany was losing the war in 1944.
Last edited:
Writers draw from life experience.
Old school writers had blue collar roots, many of whom were immigrants who knew true poverty, served in war and experienced actual strife.
Modern writers are uniformly college educated. Their world view is shaped by liberal arts college culture and centered around identity politics and struggles against cultural oppression.
Writers draw from their experience.
Old school writers had blue collar roots, many of whom were immigrants who knew true poverty, served in war and experienced actual strife.
Modern writers are uniformly college educated. Their world view is shaped by liberal arts college culture and centered around identity politics and struggles against cultural oppression.
Writers draw from their experience.
Last edited:
Similar threads
