
Disney's movie dominance has a dark side, independent theatre warns - cirrus-clouds
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/disney-the-last-jedi-rules-movies-1.4455305
======
Animats
The studios once owned the theaters. That's why you see old "Warner" and
"Paramount" theaters in some big cities. That monopoly was broken by an
antitrust lawsuit by the Syufy chain, which, among other things, built the
domed theaters seen around Silicon Valley.

With antitrust enforcement so weak today, Disney could probably buy theaters.
They probably wouldn't. The margins are not very good.

The Marvel Overextended Universe looks tired. Star [Wars|Gate|Trek] has been
done to death. Coming up from Disney: another Winnie the Pooh movie, another
Wreck-It Ralph movie, another Mary Poppins movie, another Aladdin movie,
another Toy Story Movie, another Avengers movie, another Lion King movie,
another Frozen movie... Disney used to have an official Crap Sequels Division
called Disneytoons, which cranked out Cinderella 2, Lion King 2, Mulan 2, and
other direct to the DVD bargain bin products. Disneytoons was supposedly shut
down after the Pixar acquisition, but the Disneytoons sequel mania seems to
have taken over the company.

They're in a rut in beautiful downtown Burbank.

~~~
Traubenfuchs
The Marvel Overextended Universe movies are as sterile as still packaged
surgeon gloves. But that's what people want. Not even infinite repetition of
the same scenes, a grape colored CGI villain with a ludicrous motivation and
inconsequential, pointless battles where no one loses or wins can kill
audience interest. They are like those quick time event games, without the
quicktime events.

~~~
swebs
I actually liked Infinity War for breaking the formula. In the end, the
antagonist won and half the universe died. They didn't pull out a last ditch
win using the power of friendship or childhood promises from flashbacks or
other such cliches.

Of course, this will all be subverted when the sequel comes out, but I can at
least enjoy it for now.

~~~
gambiting
That was the first Marvel movie that I actually liked in a long long time - it
felt like it had some weight to its scenes, it wasn't peppered with idiotic,
unnecessary jokes every 30 seconds(looking at you Thor&Gotg2), and the
antagonist had an understandable and well thought out goal, not just "I want
to kill everyone because I'm evil lol". The only other Marvel movie that had a
decent antagonist was Spider Man: Homecoming - it wasn't some evil being from
outer space, but a normal dude who lost his income and wanted to provide for
his family, that was actually relatable, even if his methods weren't.

Like you said, the sequel to Infinity War will probably undo this and be
disappointing in comparison, but I'm enjoying what we got.

~~~
mattmanser
The Joss Whedon inspired comedy is great for many of us. I loved Taika
Waititi's take on Thor, especially compared to the first one, as did most
other people. And it's sitting on 7.9 on IMDB, which is pretty much a
resounding "Wow". If you loved Thor Ragnarok, watch Hunt for the Wilderpeople,
it's a real indie gem and you can play spot the Ragnarok actors.

Also Chris Hemsworth's comic timing is great, he was a real highlight in
Ghostbusters too. It reminds me of Ryan Gosling in the Nice Guys, a rare
surprise that an actor can do comedy too that you weren't expecting.

As for Marvel baddies, yes, I generally agree with you. Their best baddies
have been in the TV shows, namely Wilson Fisk's Kingpin and David Tennant's
Kilgrave.

~~~
billfruit
I thought the first Thor movie was the better one of the Marvel movies,
perhaps it was because of Kenneth Branagh's influence, and his experience with
Shakespeare; he did the family conflict in Asgard quite well.

------
ajmurmann
As someone who doesn't like the Marvel movies and is losing interest in Star
Wars it feels like the are fewer movies for me to enjoy in the cinema than
there was even just a year ago. There were times my wife and I went to the
cinema twice on one weekend because there was so much stuff we wanted to see.
This year we've watched Isle of Dogs. Before that was Three Billboards Outside
Ebbing Missouri which was in December. Last summer we had Dunkirk, Babydriver
and shortly after the new Blade Runner. This year everything seems dominated
by Marvel and SatWars. Even upcoming movies on IMDb look bleak to me.

~~~
burn_cycle
Spare a thought for those of us in developing countries. I can now watch the
latest Marvel or Star Wars blockbuster in 3D as soon as it is available in
western markets, but little else. Many of the films you mention never saw the
light of day in my neck of the woods and the Disney et al titles seem to stay
forever, where I live Infinity War is still being screened.

~~~
pk22
Same here in my poor country. It's either superhero or ultra-action movies or
nothing. I still dream to watch a nice drama movie in a cinema.

~~~
magduf
This is why we have cheap big-screen TVs now: you can just watch this stuff in
the comfort of your own home, and not have to deal with: sticky floors,
overpriced and unhealthy concessions, screaming children, conversing or
texting viewers, inability to pause to go to the bathroom, etc.

------
dustinmoorenet
I don't mean to be glib, but is there a positive side? I mean, I know it is
positive to the share holders, but what benefit does Mega-Disney have for the
regular person? Regular-Disney got us the 95 year copyright, so the public
doesn't need any more Disney power.

~~~
crooked-v
Well, Disney power did get us not-unequivocably-bad Star Wars sequels, though
I think there's an argument to be made there that a megacorporation was only
needed for that because megacorporations had pushed the extension of copyright
terms so far in the first place.

~~~
pferde
My opinion is that Disney got us rather simplistic and formulaic fan fiction
sequels with overblown visual effects, while treading all over the real thing
(the SW Expanded Universe).

While the stories from the EU were of varying quality, at least they were
interesting. These Disney sequels are so predictable and uninteresting it's
not even funny.

Fortunately, each of us gets to pick their own canon. For me, it will always
be books by Timothy Zahn, and Disney can't do anything at all to the physical
copies that I have on my shelf.

~~~
scarface74
I have mixed feelings about the Last Jedi, but it definitely wasn’t
predictable.

~~~
pferde
Maybe not in the individual plot elements, but the entire movie felt like they
were checking off items from a list, and that they were fully aware that the
movie is merely a fuel for the merchandise money machine . It was more or less
just as naive and fairytale-y as the old Episode 4, and had exactly the right
elements to make children go "ooooh" and "aaaaah" (and to pester their parents
to buy them toys), and adults cringe.

Which by itself is fine, I guess, but there wasn't any depth in it beyond the
effects' wow factor.

------
tomohawk
Disney pretty much killed the Star Wars franchise by making "best of" remixes
and putting people in charge who seem to be tone deaf and/or actually despise
the originals. Several fans I know have sworn off seeing another one after
seeing The Last Jedi. It's gotten so bad that even Disney has noticed and
they've paused production of future installments.

This is exactly the kind of movies you would expect to be created by a vast
entertainment conglomerate that is too big to fail.

The industry is greatly in need of a shake up.

~~~
untog
IMO anyone that was going to make a set of Star Wars sequels was doomed to
fail. The originals hold such a specific place in people's childhood memories
that any resurrection will always be considered sacrilege.

I didn't see any of the Star Wars movies until I was in my twenties, and I
think the new movies are absolutely fine. Nothing earth shattering, but
_neither were the originals_.

~~~
krapp
The two arguments I've seen laid against the sequels are either vague rants
about "SJW propaganda" or that they're disgracing the originals, _especially_
the characters, by deconstructing and recontextualizing them.

And it's unfortunate because what they seem to object to is taking risks with
the material. They only want the EU on screen, nothing else. I'm as old as the
franchise and I _want_ to see something new done with the universe. Don't
pander to the old guard, challenge them and undermine their expectations.

~~~
Helloworldboy
TLJ is an objectively bad movie, politics and nostalgia aside. It’s absolutely
littered with plot problems.

~~~
gamblor956
TLJ is not an "objectively bad movie". It's currently sitting at 91% on Rotten
Tomatoes, which means that objectively speaking, 91% of people paid to watch
movies for a living thought it was worth watching, compared to all the other
movies that they have to sit through.

There are certainly plotting issues, like the entire detour to the gambling
planet. But there aren't any major _plot holes_. (The hyperdrive kamikaze
attack is brought up as a big one--but closer examination shows why it isn't a
plot problem and why hyperdrive torpedoes aren't a thing in SW. The attack
actually fails to destroy its target--it merely slices through it. It only
succeeds in causing any sort of meaningful damage because the NR's ship is so
massive, which rules it out as a weapon of general use.)

------
0xcafecafe
These days it seems movie making is about taking the least risk. Most if not
all the big budget flicks are either fantasy/scifi or reboots of old
franchises or superhero movies or a combination of them. There seems to be a
lack of a tight script and good storytelling. The last movie which was not a
marvel/dino/superhero genre and enticed me to watch in the theatre was "gone
girl". I wish we see more of those movies again.

~~~
CompelTechnic
I agree with your point but I also want to point out that if you think about
the ratio of money you spend on franchise movies vs. other movies, even the
people that like to complain (not accusing you of complaining) are often at
fault.

I know personally that I see just about every Marvel movie in theaters, but
for any no-big-name movie, I wait until I can see it on Netflix or just never
see it at all. I cannot complain without being a hypocrite.

~~~
0xcafecafe
I see your point (I myself have seen most the marvel movies in the theatre).
But I think if the movie is good, people would be willing to go to the theatre
to watch. "Get out" is a good recent example.

------
JakeAl
I just want to recommend people read the Alvin Toffler quadrilogy as he
described decades ago the changes that would take place due to technology.

In The Third Wave he provides a historical context and background for the
evolution of technology and it's impact on society; In Future Shock he talks
about the growing pains as technology enables the individual to do things the
group (government, education, business) could only do before; In Powershift he
discusses the shift in power from those at the top to the individual; In
Revolutionary Wealth he discusses the new producer-consumer business models.

If you look at social media and businesses such as YouTube, Kickstarter and
Patreon they are the future, and traditional businesses can only survive by
embracing and capitalizing on their value to these new models, or by clinging
to the old models as they die off which means Disney buying up as much content
as possible as distribution costs drop and channels approach infinity. They
are trying to lock up as much popular content as they can for the built in
audience and brand because they are a goliath that can't compete with an army
of Davids.

This has all happened before, all you have to do is look at the history of
print, live performances, radio, television, cable, even web portals. It's a
predictable cycle of growth and consolidation with an existing system as it
spawns new systems independent of but predicated upon the systems that came
before it. Marshall McLuhan spoke a lot about such things as well as Neil
Postman.

------
greedo
Movies have always been bad. Always. Look at how many movies are made in
Hollywood each year. Hundreds and hundreds. Maybe 10 each year are worth the
time to watch. Maybe 1 will end up having enduring value. The rest just
disappear.

Tropes get recycled, new genres come and go, are rediscovered, and then fade.
Formula has always been important in cranking out the volume of productions.
The odds are stacked against any one movie being a success, either critically
or financially. Who would have thought that Spielberg would follow up Jurassic
Park with such a stinker?

The studio system was no ideal world; actors were stuck in their contracts and
had horrible bargaining power. Censorship was the norm, writers were not given
much leeway. Today's movie industry is far healthier, with more outlets, more
customers, and more opportunities.

The problem today isn't on the distribution side, but on the production side.
Creating a movie is just so expensive. Same problem facing the video game
industry. Think you can create a movie for $4M? That's the inflation adjusted
budget for American Graffiti. Or Star Wars at $47M. Not a chance. The FX alone
would probably cost that. Rogue One was over $200M...

------
skookumchuck
Whenever I see a movie synopsis that contains "zombies", "murder",
"detective", "race against time", I just move on.

------
tvh
Maybe movie theatres will become extinct, and Disney will have to funnel their
unoriginal, sterile, monotonous, CGI-based movies exclusively through their
competitive streaming platform to Netflix, thus allowing people to choose to
either watch an independent movie, or a blockbuster, or another type of movie,
without forcing business owners to do anything.

Despite my love for movie theatres and the feel good sensation they used to
provide me in the past, they have moved away from this and the experience has
become less enjoyable than an actual home watch. The endless amount of
brainwashing commercials prior to the actual movie when going to the theatre
is only one of the problems. The lack of choice in movies is another.

One can hope that theatres will first become extinct because of streaming
platforms coming up, then will get reborn as proper theatre with a renewed
purpose of showing movies rather than brainwashing people with commercials,
force-feeding them that Deutsche Bank is a great bank for their next mortgage,
and having them waste their money on 10 EUR nachos/soda bundles, etc...

------
ergothus
Utterly ignoring the content of disney/marvel movies for this post...what is
the proper response to this problem?

Theatres that just elect to follow the requirements lose money if they are
small markets. Theaters that refuse the requirements also lose money.
Consumers dont get to make the choice, and suffer only variations of the
consequences. (I may be annoyed that nothing else is showing, or I may be
annoyed that I have to go to another theater to see what I want, but DISNEY
isnt likely to be impacted by how my theaters decision impacts me.

What is the proper response here? And not just here...if Pepsi and Coke both
incentivise exclusive contracts, they aren't the ones to suffer if my favorite
restaurant goes with the one I prefer least. Etc.

