I think we often get hung up on the fact that once upon a time "studios" (the biggest guys) produced pretty much everything, and that some eras were more autuer-centric than others.
But bloated tentpole IP is just for the big guys now - they're mamoth multimedia corporations that are best when they do these, and honestly, they suck when they get their hands on more nuanced material. Let's let A24 and NEON and Mubi and smaller entities keep making the creative films for now. Let bloated studios make bloated IP. That's just what the ecosystem is, for now. It never stays the same for long. And there is no lack of unique films with unique voices. They're just not getting 200M budgets and being pumped out by Sony, and that's okay.
Very true! As I've said, there's lots of quality out there if you look beyond whatever the latest blockbuster is that's topping the box office. And I don't even think we necessarily have to disparage the big guys either; those movies can still be fun, even if you don't recognize all the Easter eggs.
For sure - some of that bloated IP is very well done for what it's trying to be. My point was more: they are by nature risk averse, so why do we WANT them to handle auteurist work which they will by dint of their nature water down to be so much less than what it could be? We of course then have to accept lower budgeted creator-driven work, and not all be Coppola where we want both $100+M budgets AND full creative control.
It's not that the IP itself is bad; it's how the filmmakers choose to use it. The most accomplished people in film can make do with what they have given this assignment. Unfortunately, the studios tend not to hire them, but instead recruit people who have been brainwashed into not questioning why the studio is no longer making original content...
I think we often get hung up on the fact that once upon a time "studios" (the biggest guys) produced pretty much everything, and that some eras were more autuer-centric than others.
But bloated tentpole IP is just for the big guys now - they're mamoth multimedia corporations that are best when they do these, and honestly, they suck when they get their hands on more nuanced material. Let's let A24 and NEON and Mubi and smaller entities keep making the creative films for now. Let bloated studios make bloated IP. That's just what the ecosystem is, for now. It never stays the same for long. And there is no lack of unique films with unique voices. They're just not getting 200M budgets and being pumped out by Sony, and that's okay.
Very true! As I've said, there's lots of quality out there if you look beyond whatever the latest blockbuster is that's topping the box office. And I don't even think we necessarily have to disparage the big guys either; those movies can still be fun, even if you don't recognize all the Easter eggs.
For sure - some of that bloated IP is very well done for what it's trying to be. My point was more: they are by nature risk averse, so why do we WANT them to handle auteurist work which they will by dint of their nature water down to be so much less than what it could be? We of course then have to accept lower budgeted creator-driven work, and not all be Coppola where we want both $100+M budgets AND full creative control.
Smh
It's not that the IP itself is bad; it's how the filmmakers choose to use it. The most accomplished people in film can make do with what they have given this assignment. Unfortunately, the studios tend not to hire them, but instead recruit people who have been brainwashed into not questioning why the studio is no longer making original content...