Search results

I saw Babylon the night before, and the movie I saw prior to that was Avatar 2, so this just zipped by in comparison!

I neither have excess complaints nor excess praise for the film. I felt it delivered exactly what was promised, I enjoyed it while I watched it, and now I’m good to let it fade away to memory. As someone who can at times be too involved in his movie watching, I like when something like this...

I have seen it. I’m trying to assess the viability of this as a group selection.

Can this movie be enjoyed by people who haven’t seen Knives Out? Does it spoil anything in Knives Out if someone saw this one first?

I don’t see it that way and neither does the Academy, but I also don’t see any merit in continuing the conversation since everyone is just digging in on their viewpoints.

The counter argument is that character informs story - Benoit Blanc could be any random character, but he’s not - he’s Benoit Blanc. The decisions about how he’d react to given situation, and what situations he’d find himself in, are all based on what’s established in the first film. The first...

I’ve seen that before. It’s also considered adapted if its a new script is based on an unproduced script, even if its by the same writer.

I think that’s correct. Historically, sequels have been nominated as best adapted. They’re considered adaptations because they use existing characters and/or scenarios etc.

I was wondering that too.

I’m pulling the budgets out of thin air, I have no idea what the real number is, that’s not my point. I’m just trying to make the point that they don’t see things by the same metrics as a theatrical company. They’re playing a different game and for them it’s not so much about individual budgets...

For what it’s worth, I’d argue that the theatrical model in the moment immediately before the pandemic was also broken. It’s not sustainable to have a system where a film must gross three times what it cost to make, and must do that within the first ten days of release, in order to stand a...

I think the thing is, the bills are getting paid. They take in about $25 billion a year. They don’t have to split revenue with theaters, and they don’t have to pay profit participation with talent. They can spend $20 billion on content a year and still have $5 billion leftover as profit. That’s...

Scorsese didn’t jump ship from Netflix to Apple. Scorsese signed with Paramount to direct The Irishman and Flowers of the Killer Moon. Paramount decided to sell The Irishman to Netflix. Scorsese started work on Flowers for Paramount. Paramount decided to sell Flowers to Apple. It’s Paramount in...

True, but Netflix isn’t necessarily operating on a year to year budget, and they also bankroll as well as license a lot of content which costs significantly less. Something like Tiger King was huge for them but also pretty inexpensive in the grand scheme of things. Netflix has over 200 million...

It might help to think of Netflix more as a studio of old, before the days when each individual picture was treated as its own horse race. In the case of Netflix, it’s not about a Knives Out sequel (or any other single property) bringing in X number of dollars or subscribers. It’s about how...

I think they key point from the Hollywood Reporter article is that the contract gives Johnson total control over content, budget and casting, with the only stipulation being that Daniel Craig appear in each film. That’s huge. I know the first film wasn’t hugely budgeted and Johnson was coming...