Movies and TV Shows

2098 readers

186 users here now

A community for entertainment industry news and general discussion about movies and TV shows.

Rules:

Be civil.
Please do not link to pirated content.
No spoilers in the title of submissions. And please use spoiler MarkDown in the body of discussions. This is a courtesy to other users.
Comments solely criticizing headlines and/or journalism will be removed for being off-topic.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

433

Dakota Johnson on ‘Madame Web’ Blowback: “I’ll Never Do Anything Like It Again” (www.hollywoodreporter.com)

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

139 comments fedilink hide all child comments

“It’s so hard to get movies made, and in these big movies that get made — and it’s even starting to happen with the little ones, which is what’s really freaking me out — decisions are being made by committees, and art does not do well when it’s made by committee,” she added. “Films are made by a filmmaker and a team of artists around them. You cannot make art based on numbers and algorithms. My feeling has been for a long time that audiences are extremely smart, and executives have started to believe that they’re not. Audiences will always be able to sniff out bullshit. Even if films start to be made with AI, humans aren’t going to fucking want to see those.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 14 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah sorry I'm not gonna feel bad about criticizing Hollywood's least charismatic nepo-baby whose presence is taking job opportunities away from actors who pursued the career the right way rather than merely having the right parents and connections.

I think it's important to make the distinction that not wishing fame, fortune, and incredible opportunities for somebody is not the same as wishing ill on them. I don't want her to suffer some poor fate, I don't want her to get in any way harmed, I don't her to be miserable. I just don't want undeserving stiff acting being rewarded with fame and wealth when other vastly more deserving people could be taking those roles. I hope she has a wonderful life as a regional manager at In & Out, for example.

And yes, I feel this way about all nepo babies.

And frankly, actors in general; once you've made your mark on the industry and secured a comfortable wealth for you and your family, retire and allow those opportunities to go to others, but obviously that's vastly less egregious than people being raised to pinnacle of culture just for coming out of the right vagina.

edit: typo

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Strongly agree with nepotism being bad, but why would talented actors/artists retire? They live through their performance, and we the people enjoy watching.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Because the Rock is probably already half a billionaire; he doesn't need any more fucking money.

If they want to work for free, fine, whatever. Otherwise, let other people enjoy some opportunities for once.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

We may have a very different opinion on who a talented actor is then. ) Talented businessman is not equal to a talented actor, just a popular one that can sell.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Maybe. But I'd rather see a no-name with student debt deliver a 9.2 performance in a lead role than see a near-billionaire deliver a perfect 10.0 performance in the same role, 10 out of 10 times. I understand that is a matter of preference and personal priorities, however.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'd prefer a solution that includes both. This is my main gripe with Disney (and the rest of big guys, but mostly them): they just bought out everything and everyone thus killing the competition. Viewers' time available to watch a movie and cash they are prepared to pay for it is limited, so now only a generic sh...stuff actually reaches the screens. All to make shareholders happy, very much against the interests of the public. Lets see if the market can solve this.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

That feels entirely an aside to the conversation of opportunities for established vs unknown actors, aside from that both things are at the behest of shareholders. If you for any reason thought I didn't have more ire for and assign vastly greater blame to the executives and shareholders, allow me to alleviate that concern. Yes, the problem of lack of opportunities for lesser knowns is moreso a problem of studio and shareholder expectations than just individual actor greed, but still both parties share some level of culpability.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

I may have used unclear and incomplete wording, but it is directly relevant: whoever delivered a box office last time will be in the cast of the next movie. This is not a form of art, this is a business that involves $$$$$$$, so yes, opportunities are severely limited. Generalisation, I know, but seems legit to me.

My opinion re talented actors stands: I do want to see more of them, not less - just in the pictures that are not stifled by the whatever template brought the cash in the last season.

Went to see a movie recently (Dune is good, or at the very least pretty!), there were trailers before as usual. Out of 6, 4 were sequels, 1 was based on a successful game franchise and the last one was a movie about making a movie with constant breaking of the 4th wall. Or at least it looked like it. That will keep me away for this year, thank you very much.

I believe your main point is about giving opportunities to the new generations. Hard agree here, and lets start in politics first!