Posts by northerncrane4

Just bumping this thread—looks like it starts playing this Thursday.

rustyviper6 said:I was wondering if there are any film studies lectures held around Washington, D.C.?

Now that Smith has passed away—even if such lectures still exist—it’s as if they don't. 😢

George Alvarez3 said:Yeah, by the way, I honestly think it’s just plain rude and low-class to walk out of a movie theater halfway through, no matter how bad the flick is.

To whom?

The kidnapping sequence was solid enough—but after that, the whole thing goes downhill fast. It gets progressively more nonsensical as it drags toward the end.

Mark Howard17 said:I'm convinced the policy was the same after '45—hardly any films about WWI get made in America. 👎 😢

That’s because Stepinac served on the Western Front. 😬

velvetcrane57 said:Honestly, those who fail to grasp the sheer brilliance of Spider-Man simply lack anything substantive to contribute to the conversation... It’s quite transparent, really.

Get real. You adults are absolute fools!

velvetcrane57 said:Frankly, if someone fails to grasp the sheer technical brilliance of *Spider-Man*—and I am not referring to the character itself, but rather the sophisticated manner in which the film is directed—then they really have no business weighing in on cinematic discourse at all.

Fine—then we'll just end up reading nothing but you on this forum. 😢

nimblemarlin6 said:Why not just catch an American movie at the theater? If it's good, great—if it sucks, then it's trash, which is also fine. Either way, you win. There's nothing to lose—aside from the ticket money and your time.

But Lukas Nola's films? They're beyond trash.

Eric Jackson68 said:That’s fair—but even with "True Wonder," we're looking at a similar outcome; besides, it's not like they could ever replicate that kind of work.

Once "True Wonder" hits, Americans won't be flocking back to the local cinema for another six years.

Eric Jackson68 said:You might be joking, but I’m telling you—it would pass 500 viewers, maybe even hit 1,000.

This is the better way to look at it. Because those 1,000 people watching "Memory Thief" wouldn't step foot in an American cinema for another 15 years.

Eric Jackson68 said:Why does a movie end up pulling only 200 people? Look at the case of the Memory Thief. It’s because the distributor is an idiot—they’re only screening it in Washington, D.C., at the local Broadway theater, while most people actually go to AMC Theatres.

What do you think—if they put "Memory Thief" in AMC Theatres, would it finally crack that magic number of 300 viewers?

wanderinghawk17 said:...and if those three guys on the jury are calling the shots, we're obviously just going to end up filming unwatchable garbage.

Except now, they aren't just filming unwatchable garbage.

wanderinghawk17 said:No. You need a three-person jury to evaluate her—because those 100,000 people don't have a clue. 🙄

If you let 100,000 people decide—then all we'll get is some mindless pop ballad or something equally vapid. The fact that those 100,000 people have absolutely no clue what they're doing? That's just an objective truth.

wanderinghawk17 said:No. They'll just refinance the film based on whatever it pulls in at the box office.

If a movie costs $1,000,000 and only clears $100,000 at the theaters, the Department covers another $100,000.
Regardless of the amount—it’s all about tying "subsidies" to commercial success. The ratio doesn't even matter.

So, let me get this straight—film quality is being judged solely by theater attendance?

wanderinghawk17 said:Here is how I would handle the funding:

The Department of the Interior should just refinance a film based on its actual box office earnings...

So, go ahead—keep filming unwatchable garbage then...

In that scenario, will the Department also cover the marketing campaign? Without it, nobody is showing up to the theater—no matter how good the movie actually is.

silvercyclist32 said:All for nothing—just endless suffering.

The so-called "fear allowance." 😁

Daniel Young said:Are they even discussing some kind of pay-per-view model, seeing as that audience doesn't even exist here in the States?

Look, that’s actually a solid idea—give every viewer a fee, or at least a daily stipend. 👍

Daniel Young said:Alright, so will anything actually change with the audiovisual council/center/law?

Of course it will—this audiovisual council/center/law is going to create two hundred thousand terra cotta American moviegoers.

brightdriver75 said:the most profitable movies are the ones where they make a single copy, screen it in San Francisco, and then dump it straight into the archives

After "screen it in San Francisco" you supposedly ", win a Golden Arena for best director or best picture".

wearytinker8 said:All I know is—in their world—any movie that doesn't pull in over 500,000 viewers is considered a total flop.

You don't know.