Discussion in 'Entertainment Forum' started by iCarly Rae Jepsen, Dec 20, 2017.
on the fence about this. love the cast but it looks like melodramatic nonsense, and i'm generally unfamiliar with curran. we'll see.
Just saw this because I was bored. Didn't know much about the actual story. Thought it was a fine movie.
Same. Pretty good. Not great. Enjoyed seeing Jim Gaffigan but he didn’t have too much to do.
Yeah that caught me off guard haha
yeah, this was pretty empty and one-note, though clarke and helms were decent enough. not a great look for ole teddy.
I'm at work; is this on HBO or Hulu or Netflix?
In theaters (because a movie like this is meant to be seen on the big screen!)
I don't know why I was thinking this was VOD or something.
I haven't seen it but it does seem like it would be an HBO movie.
it’s a movie that is meant to be seen in the theaters, it just came out five years too late. these small historical dramas used to have a place in the theaters and it was normal, but there isn’t any place for the medium-sized movie anymore. but no, there is no universe where this is a debuting on VOD movie like it’s the overnight lmao
Why would this be meant to be seen in theaters?
Yeah, I'm not understanding that at all.
why wouldn’t it be? it’s a movie. movies are designed to be seen in theaters. just because some movies come out on VOD now, it’s not like any filmmaker makes movies with the intent to have them seen on inferior screens.
Plenty of movies are made and are straight to streaming services. And the way it was phrased made it sound like it was something that you just "have to see in a theater" as if it's some kind of spectacle.
Yeah, plenty of movies are made specifically to go to streaming services/VOD and not go to theaters.
no they aren’t lol. just because that’s how their distribution ends up panning our after production finishes doesn’t mean that was the filmmakers intent prior. baumbach and garland have spoken on this at length about their two most recent direct to streaming (depending on the region for annihilation) movies. charlie mcdowell is another example of this with the discovery. that’s absurd.
Then why even say "it’s a movie that is meant to be seen in the theaters" if literally every movie is meant to be seen in theaters?
i didn’t say it lol. but to argue the opposite is pretty dense. name a single movie that was filmed and crafted by the filmmaker with the intent of people to see it on a smaller screen.
Also, in regards to your last sentence, I don't think anyone was assuming this debuted on a VOD service. They were just asking if it was available to stream anywhere. Which, in 2018, is not that weird of question. Annihilation, for example, hit Netflix like 2 weeks after it's theatrical release.
and it went directly to streaming in other countries. that doesn’t change the fact that garland stated numerous times on different platforms that it was intended to be seen in a theater during filming and studio backroom stuff led to streaming being its platform. which is pretty obvious if you see the movie.
i’m not saying this movie is as much of a spectacle as annihilation, but it seems akin to movies like spotlight or lincoln, all movies that no one would have argued about streaming for at the time. just because the times have changed doesn’t mean the intent of the filmmakers have. if a filmmaker has the intent for the movie to be seen on a big screen and it’s one available on a big screen in my area, why would i want to see it in a method other than that intended/an inferior method?
this is not a movie i care enough about to get into a deep argument regarding haha. and there have certainly been movies that i catch after their theater runs or watch on streaming bc they never went to a theater. i just fundamentally don’t understand stating “x is a movie to be seen on streaming” when everything about this movie and others brought up has pointed to the contrary.
I would prefer to watch a movie on the big screen as well. I'm just saying not every single movie is made with the intent for it to go to the big screen. Have streaming services not hired filmmakers specifically to make and release movies on their streaming platform?
And I don't think anyone ever said that it's a movie to be streamed and not seen in theater? Unless I missed a post or something.
But you're right, I don't care about this very average movie enough either to get into a heated debate about it haha
regarding your first point, there are certainly filmmakers who have deals with places like netflix. the duplass brothers, noah baumbach and charlie mcdowell are examples of some. however, the latter two both entered deals after their movies were completed to get them to a wider audience - that doesn’t mean the movies were designed with streaming in mind, they just ended up being advantageous avenues for release. the duplass brothers have a production agreement with netflix, but there isn’t much difference between a movie they made specifically for netflix like creep or one of their first movies, like the puffy chair. the only difference is it’s 2018 and streaming is a legit thing now. they’re still making movies the same way and they are still movies that would be better suited in a theater, if those production companies still had the checkbooks netflix now has.