hateful b8 is said to have an actual intermission

>>62787522
ALRIGHT, go QT being all old and nostalgic!

>>62787522
Only in the Roadshow version

I'm 100% down for that shit by the way.

>>62787486

here you go OP, this is insightful and engaging reading:

http://www.gq.com/story/the-day-the-movies-died-mark-harris

>>62787522
3:17

>>62787752
Bump for good read.

>>62787752
Now I see where /tv/ gets most of its rhetoric

What happened to the sweet, sweet 90 min

>>62789229

what do you mean? what about the article do you disagree with?

>>62787752
>One sequel to a sequel to a movie based on a toy. One sequel to a sequel to a sequel to a movie based on an amusement-park ride. One prequel to a remake. Two sequels to cartoons. One sequel to a comedy. An adaptation of a children's book. An adaptation of a Saturday-morning cartoon. One sequel with a 4 in the title. Two sequels with a 5 in the title. One sequel that, if it were inclined to use numbers, would have to have a 7 1/2 in the title

That fucked me up a little.

>>62789288

I think the most dispiriting part is that if anything the situation has become worse in the years since that article was published

Your time, or any other pleb's for that matter, isn't that valuable. If you're going to the flicks then you really have nothing better to do.

>>62787752
>literally praising inception in the first paragraph
into le trash

>>62789376

it's pretty tempered praise mate. even though I don't like Inception all that much, to deny that it wasn't a gamble for a major studio to release a literally incomprehensible summer blockbuster is to be pretty silly. and as someone who doesn't like Inception that much I would say it's still leagues and leagues ahead of trash like Guardians to the Galaxy and the Avengers.

>>62787752
People who think like this are lazy cunts.

There are literally thousands of original films that come out each year, but you retards just want to focus on the mainstream trash because you don't want to do any actual work.

Stop being entitled litle cunts and actually look for movies you like, instead of complaining that food you're being spoonfed is too bitter.

>>62789493

did you even read the article?

for one, there are certainly not "thousands of original films that come out each year." for two, of course there are still a huge slew of masterpieces that come out every year. in terms of the overall quantity of great movies that come out each year, there has likely been no decline over the years. what the article is about is the fact that the mainstream Hollywood fare used to once actually produce a number of good movies but now it produces almost nothing of quality in favour of producing infantalized garbage for the masses to lap up.

anyway, you clearly didn't even take the 2 minutes to read past the headline which makes you a lazy retard or if you did read the article and interpreted it that way then you're an illiterate cunt. which one would you rather be?

>>62789553
kek someone is mad

>>62789595

"I made myself look like a dummy by talking about an article I hadn't even read and when I got called on it I felt ashamed and so I said the guy was mad, lol! mom when is dinner ready?!"

>>62789720
wow, you're really upset

>>62789553

He exaggerated the numbers a bit, but he's still right. There's plenty of good stuff coming out every year, "death of cinema" or no. If you want Hollywood to make good things, show them that's where the money is. There is nothing else, the article agrees.

Although really, what I see in that article is that the theater itself is a dead institution, and what's wrong with movies is that they're released through theaters. Another area in which Netflix is pulling ahead, because they're using the easy distribution model that everyone should be; the internet.

>>62789493
He explicitly says good movies still get made, but the biggest producer of films in the western world almost never does anymore, and its getting increasingly hard to make a decent sized movie with or without them

>>62790876
Netflix has the obvious problem of budgeting without ticket sales to make a large profit. With netflix its like they've sold tickets first, then used the money to make a movie in hopes people buy a ticket blindly for next year

Beasts of No Nation was seen by 3 million people in its first week or so, which would be about 25 million at the BO opening week. That would be called a "success" for an independent film like BONN, but not much more than you usually see for films of its kind. I'm not sure what that actually means in terms of audiences for serious movies