Intellectual Property and Filmmaking
When you realize that's all the AAA actors are being cast as, it becomes obvious why the biggest blockbusters have recently boiled down to ensembles standing around reskinned warehouses and parking lots. As Jake Uris writes, when acting has been reduced to stewarding IP, you don't want people getting invested in these stars. Rather, it's better for investors if they function as empty vessels for stories much bigger than them, ones that can be endlessly. Iterated long after they're out of the picture
I was running out of time there, so I figured I'd carry this on here. But I think that quote very, very accurately describes my feelings towards this film and some of the actors that were in it and the decisions that companies like Disney and others are making to really push stuff that just is not creative in the least bit over. Stuff that I would say in the past took the world by storm
I'm going to assume if I had to think, it would be everything, everywhere, all at once, just because I know that was their most successful film as far as awards go, but I don't know if they're necessarily comparing that towards their genre based openings where then I would assume it would be behind Hereditary. But the idea that we still have these original concepts that are coming out, but for whatever reason, Hollywood is choosing to pursue just intellectual properties, I think it's problematic
Swell Team
@Swell · 0:15
So now we're going to see this thing where it's like they're only seeing money, they're only seeing dollar signs because Hollywood is a very reactionary industry. They're not learning the lesson that this was just a well thought out project. It wasn't just about we. Harvey barbie. People turned out to see it. People are talking about this movie and having rich conversations
One that I feel has recently had a little bit of a renaissance, I'd say. But, yeah, I mean, to your point, there are so many films that come out, and for whatever reason, mainly it's usually the superhero films or just these big IP projects kind of holding up all of the space at the theaters, but we don't get to see them as often as we used to
With Cronenberg's Crash, I think one was a little bit more polarizing in terms of how it was received, but the importance of it, that sort of message, they were not treated the same in any way. Tutene was kind of a movie that came and went, and if you love cinema, I think it was something that was talked about. But I agree it was just treated kind of disposable. But I recently just did something on the 400 like specialty theaters called what year was this?
In the case of David, it was Crimes of the Future with Bego Mortensen, and in the case of Brandon, it was Infinity Pool, starring Alexander, and I loved both of those movies. I think I liked Infinity Pool a little bit more than Crimes of the Future, but both movies made only a little bit more than $2 million in their entire box office run. I believe Infinity Pool edged out Crimes of the Future by, like, $300,000
And I don't necessarily know if that's a good thing because when you generalize horror or absent mindedly blanket term a horror film as a studio now the only way we're going to be able to get horror made is if we emulate something like a 24. And that's problematic because the Cronenbergs aren't necessarily they don't stick within one genre