Writer and actors on STRIKE. Most main stream TV and Movies come to a stand still

[93gilmour93]

Are you seriously suggesting that writers just willy-nilly have their scripts approved without the content being green-lit/commissioned by the studio?

Lots of blame to go around

 

[Peasy]

I don’t watch these movies so it doesn’t make me angry lol, but it’s very interesting to see how hard people defend Woke scripts


I’ve already explained Barbie in this thread

And its crazy how someone against the woke agenda cant even answer straight forward questions and just turns everything into woke is bad.

You ever consider that the dramatic shift in how writer rooms work might have had a role in the decrease in quality scripts? Or maybe the complete oversaturation we're getting from all these streaming services just pumping out as much content as they can?

Still waiting on your thoughts on this ^

But since it isnt about wokeness you probably have no answer or havent given it any thought.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

I think I get it...

If you put RANDOM women, minority and/or LGBTQ characters in a movie or TV show that's bad because that's clearly just tokenism to put diverse characters in something. You can't fool me, Hollywood! I am on to your tricks.

But also, you can't put SPECIFIC women, minority and/or LGBTQ characters who show or discuss any actual aspect about being a woman, minority or LGBTQ character in a movie or TV show because if you do, well then you're pushing an agenda. You won't brainwash me, Hollywood! I am on to your tricks.

I mean "they" can have "their" stories. I'm not saying that!

But their stories can't in any way be part of "my" stories.

Separate movies. But equal! That makes sense, right? Kinda catchy.

Lady Ghostbusters? Errrr. No, no. Not THAT equal. Forget I said equal. Definitely needs to be different.

She-Hulk? I mean ... maybe. She is a she, but it is also a comic so I'm conflicted. Comics are for boys. I do like that she punches and fights. But she's not going to talk about woman stuff, right? She is? Really? Ooof, yeah, that's a no from me dawg. Crosses a line.

Barbie? Ok, sure. NOW we're talking. That's a girl's toy. That doesn't bother me at all. Wait ... what's that ... it ... makes fun of men? Ummmm, I'm not real sure they should have that one either now that I think of it. I mean I don't want to see it, but I also don't want it to have anything in it that doesn't appeal to me. Now that I think about it, movies that aren't for me also should be for me. Could we at least tease the arrival of G.I. Joe in the credits?

Get Nora Ephron on the phone, sure she can give them something they'll like ... wait, she's what? Is there even another woman writer?

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Lots of blame to go around

You have an incredible talent for coming up with the biggest platitude possible once you're not sure of what to say.

 

[Beau Knows]

-Are the writers and actors at fault for studios haphazardly producing far too much content?
-Are they to blame for cannibalizing their own theatrical runs by streaming movies so quickly?
-Are they to blame for giant CGI-based budgets and a misguided attempt at making every movie an expensive blockbuster?

No? Then why are you so happy to see the studios making these bad decisions get all the rewards while the actors and writers (who didn't make those bad decisions) get shafted?

 

[Spring in Fialta]

-Are the writers and actors at fault for studios haphazardly producing far too much content?
-Are they to blame for cannibalizing their own theatrical runs by streaming movies so quickly?
-Are they to blame for giant CGI-based budgets and a misguided attempt at making every movie an expensive blockbuster?

No? Then why are you so happy to see the studios making these bad decisions get all the rewards while the actors and writers (who didn't make those bad decisions) get shafted?

Lots of blame to go around, bro.

 

[RandV]

"Streamed well" meaning it was the number 1 movie on their platform for 19 days.



This doesn't make very much sense. You claim nobody wants to watch the movie because there's a gay character in it, I guess? Yet when the movie was on Disney+ it became a hit.

There's a lot more going on in the movie industry than you seem to want to admit. Getting people to theatres in general is harder than ever with the rise of streaming, increased ticket/food costs, and ironically growing wealth inequality (which you don't seem to care about w/r/t writes/actors) leaving customers with less disposable income.

We also seem to be getting closer and closer to superhero fatigue finally being a big factor. That is no doubt a tough adjustment for studios to make, they have been able to just slap a Marvel character on a poster and expect to bring in hundred of millions. Soon they'll have to find another fad, or make more interesting movies (that will be harder will poorly paid writers).

There's also the new x-factor in the equation that Disney wants to sell it's monthly subscriptions, knowing full well that a chunk of it's viewers will decline seeing something at the theatre if it's just going to come out on Disney+ in a few months. And they're okay with that because having someone corporations love subscription models. So then while people will be saying they're doing 'too much' Marvel or Star Wars or whatever, there is a distinct timed pattern here of regular releases to Disney plus to ensure there's always something new or relevant on the front page.

Which makes the final verdict on Strange World as the example here hard to pinpoint. Obviously Disney would prefer it to do well in theatres, but they know how many people watched it from home, whether it was just a few minutes or watched it through in a single or multiple sittings. Personally I feel like this one was just a miss in general, I remember seeing a trailer in theatre and it just looked like a Disney version of a "The Lost World" type movie. Until this thread I didn't even know it had the gay in it, which isn't something that you'd notice in the trailer, and I feel like it would be the same for most people here. On a similar note Netflix also had a recent animated feature, Nimona, that had the gay in it, streaming only but it seems to have done quite well there. Unlike Strange World this one I did watch.

And for the Terminator movie that's being talked about kind of the same thing. My first thought would be 'there was another Terminator movie?' well before getting into any other reasons why it would fail. I'd imagine this is the impression of the majority, and very few people would even know that they girl powered(?) John Connor here, again only knowing myself because of this thread. I mean let's be realistic, the only good Terminator movies were the first two, the franchise was all about Arnie, and not even he could save it when they made a 3rd one with him in it.

Terminator 3 was actually very political as from the Arnold docuseries that came out on Netflix he would have run for California Governor earlier but was contractually obliged to do T3 and the studio told him he'd be in for a big lawsuit if he didn't.

 

[93gilmour93]

You have an incredible talent for coming up with the biggest platitude possible once you're not sure of what to say.

Well thank you

 

[Tawnos]

Lots of blame to go around, bro.

I do think that there's a "pox on all their houses" attitude going on there. Which is fine, but this will get settled eventually and since the labor dispute has nothing to do with any of these issues, they'll go right back to doing the same things they've been doing.

 

[Beau Knows]

There's also the new x-factor in the equation that Disney wants to sell it's monthly subscriptions, knowing full well that a chunk of it's viewers will decline seeing something at the theatre if it's just going to come out on Disney+ in a few months. And they're okay with that because having someone corporations love subscription models. So then while people will be saying they're doing 'too much' Marvel or Star Wars or whatever, there is a distinct timed pattern here of regular releases to Disney plus to ensure there's always something new or relevant on the front page.

I don't think this is a very sustainable model though. I think these companies are still in the customer acquisition phase and are willing to burn money to try to get a piece of the market. But eventually they'll have to cut back on the amount they are spending on shows/movies, raise prices or manage to double-dip theater and streaming views better.

No to mention they have been ripping off writers and actors on streaming revenue sharing, which obviously helps.

 

[Hasbro]

Whatever "woke nonsense" is.

 

[RandV]

I don't think this is a very sustainable model though. I think these companies are still in the customer acquisition phase and are willing to burn money to try to get a piece of the market. But eventually they'll have to cut back on the amount they are spending on shows/movies, raise prices or manage to double-dip theater and streaming views better.

No to mention they have been ripping off writers and actors on streaming revenue sharing, which obviously helps.

Yeah everyone was in a 'spend' phase to try and get their subscription base up, but I feel like Disney is really well situated here to be sustainable. They have to properly manage costs - and hopefully that doesn't include ripping off their labour force too much, but otherwise between Disney, Pixar, Star Wars, and Marvel, that's a really solid core to build a steady pipeline of releases out of. They haven't had to dive into the market to buy and produce content from existing works.

 

[Osprey]

What if...

There really is a social agenda behind Hollywood projects and 93gilmour93 is awake to that reality and the rest of you aren't.

Wouldn't that make him the wokest one here?

 

[Osprey]

Seriously, though, it seems like some of the arguing back and forth is simply over the meaning of "losing money." 93gilmour93 appears to mean that Disney didn't make as much as they could've (i.e. they lost potential money) and Spring in Fialta seems to take it to mean not making a profit. These aren't contradictory. A film can turn a profit but not as much of one as it could've. Even Barbie, with nearly $1.2B in grosses, might've made even more if people didn't have their reasons for not wanting to see it.

 

[Mario_is_BACK!!]

Read about the issues of blockbusters. Hey it’s not just Disney! Usual money makers like Mission:Impossible and the Fast series are struggling. This seems like a very familiar conversation.

Big Budgets, Big Headaches: Why ‘Indiana Jones 5’ and ‘Mission: Impossible 7’ are Struggling to Make a Profit

"Mission: Impossible" and "Indiana Jones" each cost $300 million, making it difficult for those films to turn a profit in theaters.

variety.com

 

[Beau Knows]

Seriously, though, it seems like some of the arguing back and forth is simply over the meaning of "losing money." 93gilmour93 appears to mean that Disney didn't make as much as they could've (i.e. they lost potential money) and Spring in Fialta seems to take it to mean not making a profit. These aren't contradictory. A film can turn a profit but not as much of one as it could've. Even Barbie, with nearly $1.2B in grosses, might've made even more if people didn't have their reasons for not wanting to see it.

It also might have made less.

The endless anti-Barbie videos, tweets and discussion about Barbie being "woke" or not, provided the movie with tons of free publicity.

When Nike partnered with Kaepernick they saw a sales surge and an all-time high stock price based on online outrage. Gillette and others saw the impact of that campaign and have used the same idea, often to great success. I don't think Barbie was cynical in the same way those brands were about using online outrage to whip up the public and get attention. But it's had a similar online presence with people like Ben Shapiro releasing 40 minute long "reviews" and burning his dolls.

I mean, we're still all talking about a movie about toys that came out weeks ago.

 

[RandV]

I pretty much immediately doubt anybody who brings up "woke agenda" these days because most of the time people are just using it to describe things that they don't agree with and then when challenged struggle to define what it actually is.

Movies/series/games flop all the time, and with even more options available for all of them these days, I'm not surprised they do. I think the majority of them fail simply because they're mediocre or do a terrible job of marketing.

I mean we can be pretty specific on what it means in the context of Hollywood and what's being discussed here: increased representation and prominence of minorities (race, sexuality, etc) and women in 'traditional' mainstream roles.

Instead of being specific just using a vague & generic undefined term makes it very convenient, even if people don't recognize what they're doing.

 

[Mario_is_BACK!!]

I mean we can be pretty specific on what it means in the context of Hollywood and what's being discussed here: increased representation and prominence of minorities (race, sexuality, etc) and women in 'traditional' mainstream roles.

Instead of being specific just using a vague & generic undefined term makes it very convenient, even if people don't recognize what they're doing.

Yes. When your alignment of “woke” is with that of repressive and recessive regimes… it may be time to look inward.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

Seriously, though, it seems like some of the arguing back and forth is simply over the meaning of "losing money." 93gilmour93 appears to mean that Disney didn't make as much as they could've (i.e. they lost potential money) and Spring in Fialta seems to take it to mean not making a profit. These aren't contradictory. A film can turn a profit but not as much of one as it could've. Even Barbie, with nearly $1.2B in grosses, might've made even more if people didn't have their reasons for not wanting to see it.

No, no, no, no, no. We are not "both siding" this.

What @93gilmour93 says is that because of the "wokeness nonsense" studios are losing money and destroying their business. He looks at business numbers with his conclusion reached before doing any analysis. When challenged about this, he just says "well, look at the numbers, they lost X! It is obvious lol". It is a very incomplete, naive and agenda-driven point of view.

Now, what YOU say is true. Considering the social climate in the United States, some movies/tv series are probably getting a backlash because they are trying to tackle social issues. Hence "people have their reasons for not wanting to see it". Some of those reasons being Shapiro (and the like) driven misogyny... let's not hide our heads in the sand. Of course, some people just do not have interest in a movie about a doll and target towards women. That's fair. I would expect people that are just not interested to not really care about the movie, not actively attacking it. If you are making a point to tell people you WON'T see a movie, there is something deeper at play. Either you think too much of yourself or you have an agenda regarding the movie.

The downswing in theater ticket sales and streaming service subscriptions has many other business explanations. For streaming, the market is not consolidated and there is WAY more content to choose from on a LOT of different platforms. BECAUSE of streaming and movies coming out of streaming platforms fairly quickly AND the new habits created by the pandemic, people do not go to the movie theater as much. Unless a film is a major event (like Barbie), ticket sales will be lower than at the height of the industry.

As for the lack of quality, the amount of content being put out will dilute the talent available to write and produce it. Trying to incorporate social issues into art is not the sole reason why quality would go down. A bad writer trying to do it will result in bad quality... but the "agenda" itself is not the main problem for MOST of the audience.

All of those market realities are much bigger reason why a company like Disney is not making as much as it "could". Let's not act as if @93gilmour93 was making an in-depth argument. He was just spewing nonsense.

 

[the squared circle]

I'm going to LA for the first time in a couple weeks and intend to go to Hollywood. I haven't been following the strike closely and had assumed it would have been well over by now. I haven't looked into the attractions/tours yet and I hope they're still available (why wouldnt they be? Just talking out loud)

 

[Rodgerwilco]

How some folks can even come into threads like this and make some comments like what are in here is just flabbergasting to me. The lack of awareness, social/emotional ineptitude, insecurity blows me away.... I don't understand why people engage in social forums only to spout very strong opinions with zero backing logic or effort to truly defend the point that "they" "feel".

 

[93gilmour93]

How some folks can even come into threads like this and make some comments like what are in here is just flabbergasting to me. The lack of awareness, social/emotional ineptitude, insecurity blows me away.... I don't understand why people engage in social forums only to spout very strong opinions with zero backing logic or effort to truly defend the point that "they" "feel".

Right. Clearly woke scripts play a part in losses but some folks just won’t admit it and cherry pick the reasons for everything based on how they feel with strong opinions that it just couldn’t be possible and it bursts there little bubble of life. I hear ya

 

[Rodgerwilco]

Right. Clearly woke scripts play a part in losses but some folks just won’t admit it and cherry pick the reasons for everything based on how they feel with strong opinions that it just couldn’t be possible and it bursts there little bubble of life. I hear ya

..........

..........

 

[Peasy]

Right. Clearly woke scripts play a part in losses but some folks just won’t admit it and cherry pick the reasons for everything based on how they feel with strong opinions that it just couldn’t be possible and it bursts there little bubble of life. I hear ya

and its weird how you completely ignore the fact that "woke" scripts can actually bring other people to come see a movie they normally wouldnt have. Weird how it can only work one way for you (ie in a negative way).

 

[93gilmour93]

and its weird how you completely ignore the fact that "woke" scripts can actually bring other people to come see a movie they normally wouldnt have. Weird how it can only work one way for you (ie in a negative way).

And it apparently only works one way for you. Woke scripts can only bring people to the movies but it’s impossible that it keeps people away. Got it