Movies: Presumably 2024, maybe Beyond

The strikes will kill off more things than anything.


Fair enough, for now. Although, Lucasfilm has a tendency to release information about Star Wars movies a BIT too soon, then they should.

Studios generally do that - look at all the DC projects announced by WB or, the really stupid one, the amount of times Paramount have announced Str Trek 4 without telling the cast and crew.


Ok, I’ll stop. You’ve made your points.

I don’t mind Waititi not doing a Star Wars movie.

I loved Thor: Ragnarok and thought he is a brilliant director.

After the following films I now think: he’s a one-trick pony. Sorry.

1 Like

He is right. A majority of audiences now thinks cinema is blockbuster entertainment.

But the same audiences will discard him as an old and bitter man. „When was the last time he made a good film?“ is one of the responses on the Variety message board, among further ridicules.

The studios don’t support personal visions anymore, and even Nolan is always dancing on the edge, make no mistake.

1 Like

The full interview has his discussions on many things. Whilst the “comic book movies” are going to get the click-bait, he doesn’t actually mention them specifically. He’s talking throughout about these small, almost niche, groups in film making that he’s never felt part of or even wanted to be part of, yet have so much influence over how the industry is perceived. The academy awards get called out specifically several times. It’s well worth a (very long) read.


Very honest insight into how Scorsese feels now in his 80‘s.

To be clear: whether it’s comic book movies or other franchises - the IP now is, in my experience, everything that gets made. And it happened so fast. Two years ago I could sell and was asked for original stories. Now, nobody dares to do those. They are all afraid to tell a story if it has not an already built-in audience. Even if that IP story has the same themes as an original story.

It’s all about easier marketing and an audience which wants to know what they are buying before they see it.

Yes, I blame audiences who have become complacent to the max and look at stories the way they consume food. It has to meet the same expectations they had with other stuff. Surprises are not valued anymore, they are rather despised.

Barbie and Oppenheimer will often be dragged out now as examples for the contrary.

But let’s be honest, Barbie was IP heaven and opened just at the right time to make it cool to go to the movies. And Oppenheimer, also IP, was not really liked but a kind of „we took the bitter medicine after Barbie, so we wanted to join the conversation“-situation.

There won’t be another movie or double feature like that again, they were outliers, the exceptions from the rule.


Both are very good movies, but I’d argue they weren’t really outliers given the marketing on both leant on the known quantities they had. Oppenheimer was pushed as a Christopher Nolan film first and foremost, then Barbie leant hard on its SNL style comedy (with the two SNL alumni in its cast being shoved forward in the marketing) and “nostalgic memories” of playing with the dolls.

Agreed. But I was not talking about the qualities of these movies.

I am cynical enough to not believe that quality is what draws audiences. They were drawn by their expectations and a marketplace which did not offer another sunny comedy or a serious historical epic (made by a favorite director).

I can only rely on what I hear from friends and colleagues - but most of them later on said they did not really like both films but needed to see them in order to take part in the conversations.

I guess that explains the über-success of those films.

I’m not convinced it was either. Like I said, I note the marketing for both did lean on what most of the audience would be familiar with.

1 Like


"I do think that the manufactured content isn’t really cinema. No, I don’t want to say it. But what I mean is that, it’s manufactured content. It’s almost like AI making a film. And that doesn’t mean that you don’t have incredible directors and special effects people doing beautiful artwork. But what does it mean? What do these films, what will it give you? Aside from a kind of consummation of something and then eliminating it from your mind, your whole body, you know? So what is it giving you?

“The danger there is what it’s doing to our culture, because there are going to be generations now that think movies are only those — that’s what movies are.”


Manufactured content.

That describes it pretty accurately.

And while Bond films are formula driven, too, there still is a particular human element to it which sets it apart from every competitor.


Very Matthew Vaughn.

1 Like


Never let him near a Bond film.

Yes, I´m not a fan. Looks like a comic book/video game. Nothing has consequences. All is just a joke. Looks “cool”. Human beings? Not in sight. AI movie making.

I probably would shrug it off. But this is now how 99 per cent of mainstream movies are like.

Too much.


Looks quite fun but too much for a Bond, agreed.


Does look like fun, and I hope it’s as charming as the first Kingsman film.


Rare comic book movies that I’m excited for. I’m happy that these are not in a shared universe with other super powered characters.

As one feared…


The New York Times’ “Double the possession, half the fun” definitely wins the day.