Nostalgia Bait Needs to Go Away 

Except, save for Civil War, everything else you mentioned is based on IP or otherwise widely known material. Care to guess which one of them is a commercial failure?

@@alexman378 meh, that only applies to Barbie I'd say. Oppenheimer was very succesful for a biopic, most people who went to see it went because of Nolan and not necessarily for the story of Robert Oppenheimer. Dune sure had its following before the DV movies, but it was very niche and it is kind of a miracle that both movies combined to make a billion dollar franchise. Poor Things is based on a book but I wouldn't say it had a massive following before. I'd say all of these, even if based on previously existing material, have been success stories for auteur-driven filmmaking.

@@camcabbas Barbie is based on a huge IP, Oppenheimer is based on a book that was based on a true story, Dune had a large following, Poor Things had enough of a following for the small $30M budget they aimed for. And all four of them were made by directors with decent to large followings. Again, the only one of them that failed, was Civil War, which was the only one to not be based on anything.

@@alexman378 thats what I'm saying, the success is mostly due to the director's appeal. How many biopics like Oppenheimer do we get each year? How many of them earn even half of what that film did? People went to see it because it was a Nolan film first and about Oppenheimer the man second. Dune had a decent and loyal following before DV, but not big enough to bet on the franchise cracking the 1 billion mark - not even WB were sure about that before greenlighting the sequel. Poor Things book following I can't really assess, but it definitely is the type of movie -absurd, surreal, hyper sexual- that studios would have run from just 10 years ago. Now, those films are not only getting made, but being succesful at the box office. Thats in part to the directors bringing in huge followings of their own. My point is: studios might be realizing that the directors can be and in many cases already are the stars of the show, people will go watch the new stuff from their favorite director. Just give them artistic control over the project, just let them cook

Bulk of that probably comes from terrible planning and having to redo things over and over. It's gone from "We'll fix it in post" to "We'll make the entire movie in post".

@@Syntopikonthe worst parts how much film has regressed as an art form, compared to the greats of yesteryear a lot of big budget movies suck today

Seriously. The most disappointing Marvel movie I've seen. And extremely disappointing after Ragnarok, which I enjoyed immensely.

Only audiences who were gaslit into thinking Waititi’s trash were good to begin with. L&T has virtually no differences in its approach and essence than Ragnarok. The curtain just fell and audiences caught up with the reality of the matter.

Yup. In general, they should bring down the budgets for the large tentpoles and spread them across more mid-budget movies.

I hope physical media sees a pickup, especially as people seem to be paying more attention to it thanks to streaming shows suddenly being unavailable. As someone who buys Criterion's religiously, nothing beats physical media in terms of quality.

Fair enough. It's why I use the Regal movies subscription. Flat price and so long as I see at least 2 movies a month, I'm in the clear.

@@Syntopikon A) Great video! B) Even the way they treat you at the theater is trash. I love popcorn and candy and soda. To make me pay those prices when I can walk down to the grocery store buy a months worth of fun stuff and watch The Extended Lord of The Rings Trilogy without worrying about my wallet, coughing or danger. C) Your time is worth more than the studios give you credit for. Obviously, because you make ENTERTAINING content! 🤣

Yup - people want both things and when they're unsatisfied with one, they'll go for the other. Eventually, we do get bored of old content and seek out new things but if the new thing aren't hitting us the same way - and especially at the current price points - there's always Friends, The Office, The Sopranos, etc.

there’s definitely a lot of original movies that have been released recently just look at any A24 movie and compare it to any other hollywood blockbuster

@@PaulTheSloth Not that many.

The ark of the covenant literally vaporized the nazis towards the end of the first film, and the fake holy grail literally aged someone to death in the last crusader, not to mention the existence of aliens in kingdom of the crystal skull. Even if the time travel thing done poorly and it’s implementation a sort of jumping the shark for Indy, there is no denying that supernatural happenings within the films time and time again, dating back to the first film

What 4 bozos liked your comment? Nothing supernatural ever happens? 😂 WTF. The Ark spews out ghosts that consume the Nazis. In temple of doom, a guy reaches into chests and pulls out hearts while the victim is still alive. In Crusade, water from a cup instantly heals a gunshot wound. In Crystal Skull, there’s a giant UFO. There’s always a supernatural plot device in Indiana Jones. The time travel wasn’t the issue with Indy 5. It just didn’t treat the character the way we wanted it to. After Indy 4, he was settled down. Happy. Then, in Indy 5, he’s suddenly divorced and his son is DEAD. I get that that’s realistic. People get divorced. People suffer losses of family members. But this is fantasy. We don’t want Indy to regress so far that he’s in the worst place he’s ever been in his life. He’s an old man. He has done his part. Saved lives. Beaten Nazis. He should get a freakin’ break. Indy 5 should have found Indy as a comfortable man. Retired. Or maybe teaching a bit on the side, like he was in Indy 5. The tone of Indy 5 was all wrong from the start. It felt mean, not playful like the previous 4. We are supposed to have fun watching Indy. Not feel depressed because of everything he’s lost. This isn’t Logan. We should have gotten an Indy movie with Short Round as the lead and Indy as the sidekick as Short Round, I dunno, tries to find his daughter who disappeared looking for (insert treasure). Give people something a bit safer. Something people actually WANT. And that’s the main failure of all these movies. They’re giving people something they sorta want- a sequel- but they’re not giving them the right kind of sequel.

Hmmm…the holy grail cup literally saved his dad and healed his gunshot wound…then the entire building crumbled because the grail crossed the seal…the ark literally shoots out spirits that melt people…haha. Not hating, just saying 😅

I think it'll be a slow change (especially due to the strikes), though I think the change will eventually come.

@@Syntopikon I hope so. I yearn to be pleasantly surprised again.

Dune was not a success with original...

Glad you enjoyed it!

It's possible, though keeping up the quality is difficult + there's an inherent bias against the new in favor of the old. Sometimes the new is better, though (Dune, for example).

Accurate 99.9%

Lol the closest was probably Idris Elba in Pacific Rim.

I appreciate the constructive feedback! Will try to improve tone and treat the room I record in.

@@Syntopikon you just need to open your mouth wider dude

Maybe they're not even thinking about folks like you. Sequels are just a cash grab to reel in more viewers.

@@user-bk4pm6me8i If they are not, they are dumb. Sequels do not get new viewers, they only get a diminishing share of people who liked the original show or movie.

I think that's why so many of these come in threes - the original, prequel, and sequel trilogy, the Jurassic Park and Jurassic World trilogy, the LOTR and Hobbit trilogy, etc. If they really wanted to make Indiana Jones and the recent Matrix work, they should've established a breaking point: this is something new, the past is in the past. I think John Wick is one of the few movies that did make it to a 4th, where the last one might've been the best of the bunch. Your point re: horror franchises is a great one - thanks to the risk/reward calculus, horror is more "franchisable" than others. Comedy used to be, but that pretty much moved to streaming.

@@Syntopikon I do agree John Wick is an outlier. I think one of the reasons is Reeves, while not young, is also not some old guy reliving the past and still has his star power and it did not wear out its welcome. But that is not a template for most movies, as very few movies have Keaunu's massive screen presence and where everyone still loves the guy.

Maybe some just aren't worth watching at the cinema