?Listen, I love big ass shared universes in movies, as well as huge franchises. But I?m a little worried about the numerous shared universes being planned by the studios, without having a strong base film to grow from ? or in some cases, NO base film to grow from. Star Wars had the original Star Wars, the Marvel Universe had the original Iron Man, the Dark Knight series had Batman Begins, even movies like Transformers and Twilight ? these were movies audiences loved, and the audiences demanded more from these characters. But these days studios are trying to grow trees without a strong seed. Execs and producers and sometimes even directors are focused on the big picture, without perfecting the task directly in front of them ? making a great movie. And studios are trying to grow franchises from non-existent films or middling successes. It?s like they aren?t taking audiences into account at all anymore.
I know George Lucas, Kevin Feige, John [sic] Favreau, etc, had ideas where their films would potentially lead in the face of success. But I don?t think it ever got in the way of making that first movie count as if it was the last, of making it something wonderful that people would love whether it led to other films or not.
In short, I think this new business model is flawed. I think filmmakers and studios should be prepared for the big picture, but never, ever let it get in the way of making a single great film. Be a little more experimental and see what works as opposed to trying to force success. And mostly, remember that we as an industry exist to serve the audiences, to communicate with them ? they have a voice in what we create as well. We are not here to dictate what they want to see, mostly because that?s simply not possible.?
We're going to see hints of the Lorax's dark, troubled past before his own origin movie hits.Rituro said:In a morbidly curious kind of way, I want to see where this three(?)-part pitch of Green Eggs & Ham goes. Who's being cast? Is this part of a "Seussiverse" with cameos by the Cat and the Lorax? So many possibilities...!
...all of them bad. So, pitch it at Sony and watch them go ape for it?
But those aren't examples of broken movies at all. There's a huge difference between making a sequel to a stand-alone movie after the fact, and deciding to make multiple films right from the start. If you watch Planet of the Apes and never even know it had any sequels, you still get a perfectly good experience from watching it as a film on its own. But as Bob says, no-one watches Deathly Hallows Part 1 on its own because it simply doesn't make sense to watch half a film. Franchises growing out of the success of a film are certainly not new, but planning entire franchises from scratch really is.FPLOON said:But, I thought this has been going on even before the 21st Century... Granted, I'm thinking about the original Planet of the Apes movie series, the original Godzilla movie series (kinda)
I actually think it's quite easy to watch Part 2 on its own, I just find that the camping bits in Part 1 go on for way too long on account of the fact that the book isn't very friendly to a film's three act structure.Kahani said:But those aren't examples of broken movies at all. There's a huge difference between making a sequel to a stand-alone movie after the fact, and deciding to make multiple films right from the start. If you watch Planet of the Apes and never even know it had any sequels, you still get a perfectly good experience from watching it as a film on its own. But as Bob says, no-one watches Deathly Hallows Part 1 on its own because it simply doesn't make sense to watch half a film. Franchises growing out of the success of a film are certainly not new, but planning entire franchises from scratch really is.
To be fair, I thought Carrey was AWESOME as the Grinch, but that was only because he was good at emoting. But, yeah...I agree.LordTerminal said:Ack Bob! Don't even joke about that! You know what happens when Dr. Seuss and Hollywood mix!
Eh. Order of the Phoenix went from being the longest book in the series to being the shortest movie, and I don't remember anything significant being left out. They probably could have shortened Deathly Hallows into a single, long movie by cramming some of the setup into Half-Blood Prince, which was already not much more than setting up the finale.Zachary Amaranth said:With a book, you see largely linear interpretations, which do all the setup in the first and all the payoff in the second. Does it have to be this way? No, but if you thought "the book was better" snobs were bad before, wait until you start doing more than omitting Dobby and Kreacher from certain scenes.
Robot Chicken had that explained:GamemasterAnthony said:To be fair, I thought Carrey was AWESOME as the Grinch, but that was only because he was good at emoting. But, yeah...I agree.LordTerminal said:Ack Bob! Don't even joke about that! You know what happens when Dr. Seuss and Hollywood mix!