28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[baby doll]

Doesn't it depend what you mean by quality though? If netflix gives a filmmaker $100 million to do whatever the fuck they want to do with a movie giving them complete creative control, opposed to Disney who barely trust their directors to do anything radical as they are too afraid to lose out on their ROI, where do we draw the line at quality? Give the audience what they think they want? or let the creative juices flow?

Except they're not giving filmmakers a hundred million to do whatever the fuck they want; they're giving filmmakers a hundred million to make gritty cop movies about elves and goblins starring Will Smith.

[transmogrifier]

Corman I think was at least able to conceive of a specific type of movies that a certain audience actually wanted to see, and he hoovered up cheap talent to produce those specific movies. Reputable or not, he had a vision for the movie-viewer interaction.
Netflix, on the other hand, doesn’t give a crap what the movies are or who the audience is; they just want a mass of product that can be used to attract as many consumers as possible to sign up in the hopes something will catch their fancy on a lazy Tuesday night. Corman was balls deep in a Louisiana swamp handfishing for catfish for a group of people who really fucking like catfish; Netflix is deep-sea trawling for stuff it can grind up and sell to prisons, schools, and supermarkets as “fish sticks”.

[baby doll]

The comparison of Netflix with Roger Corman is absurd, since Corman didn't own the venues where his films were screened. A more apt comparison would be Paramount before 1947.

[Grouchy]

Regardless of whether or not one likes certain directors, the point is it's nice to have a choice. As Dave Kehr pointed out a number of years ago, a lot of classic films by the likes of Oshima and Sembène that were released on VHS never made it to DVD, and the films that made it to Blu-Ray represent an even narrower slice of film history. (As far as I can tell, no film by Naruse Mikio is currently available on Blu-Ray with English subtitles.) Netflix simply represents an intensification of this winnowing down of film history, with films that were on Netflix in the past disappearing into the ether. Speaking of Corman, I'd be very surprised if either of the two Monte Hellman westerns he produced, Ride in the Whirlwind and The Shooting, was available on Netflix.

I agree with this, by the way. I think the popularity of Netflix is a unique opportunity to produce a library of classics and weird films that presumably wouldn't be so hard to acquire and they're not using it. Their idea of movie selection (at least on Latin America) is buying underseen recent movies and a huge bunch of stuff that used to be on TV in the '90s.

But as a production model I think it's working pretty well. Martin fucking Scorsese signed up with them.

[Ezee E]

Except they're not giving filmmakers a hundred million to do whatever the fuck they want; they're giving filmmakers a hundred million to make gritty cop movies about elves and goblins starring Will Smith.

They just gave Scorsese $160 million at least.

The frustrating part from Netflix is that unless you're following some of these movies, you'll never know they actually exist in the library.

Cannes is dumb for not letting them count when a good percentage of their movies will never see more than 200 screens anyway, and some may never even get screened at all.

Both at fault.

[baby doll]

They just gave Scorsese $160 million at least.

The frustrating part from Netflix is that unless you're following some of these movies, you'll never know they actually exist in the library.

Cannes is dumb for not letting them count when a good percentage of their movies will never see more than 200 screens anyway, and some may never even get screened at all.

Both at fault.

First of all, a large budget, even from a company not dependant on traditional box office returns, is not the same as artistic freedom (i.e., being given a wad of cash to do whatever the fuck you want). At the end of the day, Scorsese is going to deliver another blockbuster film like he's been doing since the early '90s, whether or not it ever winds up in a movie theatre.

But more to the point, isn't the very fact that some of the films at the festival won't get a wide release all the more reason to give them a competition slot instead of films that will be widely available on Netflix in a few months and are going to get lots of publicity anyway?

[Grouchy]

Yeah, that Silence film was a real blockbuster. Bringing Out the Dead, too, was a regular Avatar. I admit I'm not objective when it comes to Scorsese because I love the man's work so much, but your stance is just weirdly dismissive.

As for your second point, it's a good one, but that's what's weird about Netflix - they don't really advertise their feature film productions so much apart from Bright which pretty much blew on their faces.

[Skitch]

- but there is no way Netflix deserves any credit as some kind of creative force.

C'mon man, thats a bit extreme.

[Skitch]

Corman I think was at least able to conceive of a specific type of movies that a certain audience actually wanted to see, and he hoovered up cheap talent to produce those specific movies. Reputable or not, he had a vision for the movie-viewer interaction.
Netflix, on the other hand, doesn’t give a crap what the movies are or who the audience is; they just want a mass of product that can be used to attract as many consumers as possible to sign up in the hopes something will catch their fancy on a lazy Tuesday night. Corman was balls deep in a Louisiana swamp handfishing for catfish for a group of people who really fucking like catfish; Netflix is deep-sea trawling for stuff it can grind up and sell to prisons, schools, and supermarkets as “fish sticks”.

So a film doesn't count unless the people footing the bill are passionate about it? I don't think any major studio gives a shit about the product much beyond potential box office payback.

[transmogrifier]

So a film doesn't count unless the people footing the bill are passionate about it? I don't think any major studio gives a shit about the product much beyond potential box office payback.

What do you mean by "count"? A film is a film is a film. It can be good, bad, whatever. Netflix doesn't seem to care about the quality of its product as much as it cares that it fills up the little squares on the browsing page. It simply does not have the quantitative metrics to worry about that regular studios have - box office takings, exit polls, awards, whatever. It has view counts that it keeps to itself and its number of subscribers. That's all it cares about. So it'll throw money at people to produce stuff to expand the library - but did you ever wonder why all those cheap direct-to-DVD movies that were prevalent a decade or two ago were mostly piles of garbage? Because it turns out throwing money at average talent to produce stuff to fill the shelves is not exactly the best route for creativity. That is what Netflix is doing now. They are in that phase. And their movies are mostly crap.

[transmogrifier]

C'mon man, thats a bit extreme.

No, it really isn't. Is Netflix truly a mark of quality for you? I mean, good for you if it is, but if I see "Netflix Original", I treat it as a warning.

[Skitch]

I'm more interested if it says Netflix Original because most of the ones I've watched have been good. I just don't understand why you think its better quality if the studio cares about how much money a film will profit them vs Netflix wanting to check their boxes of content. I don't see a difference. If a film is good it will generate buzz and either ticket sales or subscriptions, that is, money either way for the people who foot the bill.

[Dukefrukem]

Yeah, that Silence film was a real blockbuster.

This.

[transmogrifier]

I'm more interested if it says Netflix Original because most of the ones I've watched have been good.

Can't say I agree with this much. If at all.

[Peng]

I guess "Netflix doesn't promote its films" might be a US-centric issue, as well as theater-going for a small-to-medium-budget film. Take Mudbound; if not for Netflix I would not have seen an unexpected number of people in my (Thai) timeline, both cinephile and non-, watched this kind of drama. Because for worldwide, or at least here, Netflix invests in itself being a brand (I got some freelance money writing for some of their releases here), because of accessiblity (think of what theatrical releases Mudbound would get in US, then decrease exponentially for here), and because of their immediately available subtitles. I can kinda see where the other side comes from about Netflix, but living here put me in too different a mindset to feel that negative towards them.

[Grouchy]

I live in Argentina and the only reviews I've seen for Cloverfield Paradox or Annihilation have been from online fan sites. Other than that, zero. Bright did have a lot of street posters and so do most of their TV shows.

No, it really isn't. Is Netflix truly a mark of quality for you? I mean, good for you if it is, but if I see "Netflix Original", I treat it as a warning.

And yeah, I agree with Skitch and you sort of made our argument here. If I see a film is a Netflix original, I don't inmediately assume it's good, but I might assume it's not based off a comic, videogame or YA novel, it probably has a good director and it's pretty much its own thing. And, after all, the ones I've seen (Okja and Beasts of No Nation come to mind) have been pretty good.

I understand how this might not work for you because you hate almost every film you watch no matter the source. I don't mean it as a diss, it's just reality.

[transmogrifier]

I understand how this might not work for you because you hate almost every film you watch no matter the source. I don't mean it as a diss, it's just reality.

And there we have it. Reminds me why I barely bother with this particular thread.

[Grouchy]

Hahah but it's true! What can I do about it? You have overwhelmingly negative opinions on every film, not just Netflix ones. I don't necessarily disagree with your "padding the library" theory, I just don't think it produces nothing but shit like you.

Have you seen Okja and Beasts of No Nation? What do you think about them?

[Dukefrukem]

Someone here once aggregated all of the YAYs and NAYs by everyone on MC in a given calendar year and did a ranking of most detractors and most consensus wielding votes. I wonder if we can do that again?

[baby doll]

Yeah, that Silence film was a real blockbuster. Bringing Out the Dead, too, was a regular Avatar. I admit I'm not objective when it comes to Scorsese because I love the man's work so much, but your stance is just weirdly dismissive.

Box Office Mojo doesn't list a production budget for Silence, but I'm guessing a three and a half hour period drama shot in Japan with major stars wasn't cheap to make. Even if it didn't do major business, it's still clearly in a different economic bracket than, say, The King of Comedy or The Last Temptation of Christ (to say nothing of a film by Costa or Reygadas). For the record, I don't think Scorsese's post-'80s blockbusters are altogether artistically bankrupt (I especially like Goodfellas, The Wolf of Wall Street, The Age of Innocence, and The Aviator in descending order), but holding him up as the living embodiment of artistic integrity and freewheeling creativity without acknowledging the very real commercial constraints he's under (despite his obvious clout within the industry) strikes me as a form of denial. As much as I like some of Scorsese's films, none of them qualify as the work of a free man.

[Dukefrukem]

Box Office Mojo doesn't list a production budget for Silence, but I'm guessing a three and a half hour period drama shot in Japan with major stars wasn't cheap to make. Even if it didn't do major business, it's still clearly in a different economic bracket than, say, The King of Comedy or The Last Temptation of Christ (to say nothing of a film by Costa or Reygadas). For the record, I don't think Scorsese's post-'80s blockbusters are altogether artistically bankrupt (I especially like Goodfellas, The Wolf of Wall Street, The Age of Innocence, and The Aviator in descending order), but holding him up as the living embodiment of artistic integrity and freewheeling creativity without acknowledging the very real commercial constraints he's under (despite his obvious clout within the industry) strikes me as a form of denial. As much as I like some of Scorsese's films, none of them qualify as the work of a free man.

Quick google search says it cost $50 mil. Made 23 WW.

[baby doll]

Quick google search says it cost $50 mil. Made 23 WW.

The fact that this one film underperformed financially is not in itself overly significant (especially as it's likely to have made back its budget on home video). The extent of Scorsese's clout within the industry is that he can have the occasional "flop" provided it's not too expensive (fifty million being a mid-range budget for the major studios these days) and that his more expensive pictures perform well enough for him to be able to continue making expensive pictures.

[Skitch]

Off to movie jail for Marty, right??

Nope, just back to mob stuff.

[Dukefrukem]

What's happening to my boy TJ Miller?

[Skitch]

Hopefully something that ensures I don't ever have to suffer his unfunny ass in another movie again.