Yeah the conversation started off based on the release date of Jupiter Ascending, but the follow up statement itself was more so about the general state of originality and its rebuttal by the audience. I guess one could apply it to JA itself but it's part of a large conversation about originality as she mentioned.
Again I disagree with the basic statement. It's not the quality of "originality" that repel the public. It's the simple fact that films that do take risks tend to appeal to a smaller audience as opposed to a film that was crafted to have a broader appeal.
In other words it should be easier to accept and realize that the large going crowd won't open up to new risky movies. Of course some movies like Gravity do make the cut once in a while. And if Edge of Tomorrow didn't have broader appeal, then I don't know what qualifies anymore.
Any auteur worth their salt who wants to make a statement in celluloid doesn't bemoan box office numbers. You can't have it both ways unless you're a hypocrite.
I agree, also once you use commerce to measure art, it stops being just art. And though it's not the filmmakers who use that, it's a tool used by studios to show how original movies don't make it worth the risk. It's a messy battle between people who create art and the people who sell it, and they are using the audience's current trend of clinging to franchises to push the notion that new original art is not worthwhile anymore.
I watch their films today hoping for a spark of their original voice. I really do want them to make films that I enjoy. For me their downfall is when they degenerate into pretentious pseudointellectualism - which feels insulting to my intelligence. I could be wrong but the article entitled, "The Wachwskis refuse to take 'no' for an answer" and the final statement, as I explained, reads like sour grapes.
Given the nature of journalism it's also possible her statement was taken entirely out of context.
I'm pretty cruel in what I say but, believe me, I really want to like their films again. They just keep breaking my heart.
cheers.
Yeah maybe their follow up movies could be termed under pseudointellectualism, but The Matrix itself was anything but that. I am aware it's partly inspired by other existing works and known philosophical themes but they were able to blend it all into a great entertaining visual treat, that even if somebody doesn't want to dwell into its deeper roots could still enjoy it immensely. They really set the bar pretty high for themselves and I don't think they will ever top that. I would say the same about Richard Kelley and Neill Blomkamp. Both had excellent debut films and it will be tough for them to even match those. Maybe Wachowskis' work in TV might turn out to be more promising.
haha. This is so unlike you, Vivek.
As I explained before, my reluctance to see that film has nothing to do with the film itself. I just am just sick of seeing Clooney, and that's a personal bias.
The only reason we both brought Gravity into the mix was cause it was used as a example by LW for a movie not being released in summer. Though you had your reasons and I directed my statement based on you not seeing it, I also it meant it in regards to everyone else who didn't give the movie a chance. Just search the movie's thread on the forum and see how the early reactions were. And it's not just here, it's pretty much everywhere. There are always these suspicions and excuses not to give the non-franchise movie a chance these days.
Again, though the following is based on your reason about not liking a particular actor and not choosing to watch it, but I keep seeing similar trends and that's what I am addressing below.
People who irk at of some of the actors/writers/directors etc, will actively avoid their works especially when it's a non-franchise film. If those same individuals end in their favourite franchise film, they will suck it up and will at least give the movie a chance, cause they are supporting that franchise and brand. But they won't do the same to a original film.
Okay, maybe you won't do it either ways but many would and they have already expressed their interests in similar fashion.
Gravity was by the director of Children of Men, Clooney was a supporting role or more like a early cameo. There are more reasons to watch it, then to avoid it.
Again, I understand everybody has their preferences and its their prerogative as to what they want to watch. But when we see the growing trend in sequels/reboots and the audience keeps saying they want to see more new original movies, it's not just Hollywood that needs to change the audience need to be more open to that change too.
