Sorry to bring you the bad news, but your buddy Bob passed away 18 years ago.
Frankie's still kicking.
For now.

Nah, he would have told me if he was dead.

On account of he's my buddy.

That tracks.

True story, the reason I chose Robert Altman is because your "Marty" post took me back to years ago (18 years, apparently!) when I would read the blog of a co-worker that I hated, so that I could find more reasons to hate her. (You know, like what normal humans do.)

And her blog on the passing of Altman started out with something like, "No way, Bob Altman died???" And I was like ... who calls him "Bob"?

This has been a true story by Doot.

I like this true story.
And I hate her with a burning hot passion because I know Altman preferred to be called Robbie. You were correct to hate.
(Not sure how healthy it was to check her blog to reinforce your hate, though!)

I don't disagree with everything he says. His views on the way young actors are treated is a valid criticism in my opinion...but I still believe that audiences are the ultimate barometer. Brian Cox says, in conclusion that...


That's why decrying things that audiences enjoy just makes people sound out of touch, IMO. Ok, Brian Cox loved On The Waterfront...and it's a obviously a classic, but it belongs to a bygone era. They literally don't make 'em like that any more and they haven't for a long, long time.

I don't critique newer comics - for example - because I don't even read them. I know I won't like them based on the bits and pieces I've seen, but if someone's enjoying them, then fair enough. I'm the same with Star Wars. I saw The Force Awakens and realized immediately that I was no longer part of the target audience they were trying to reach, so I just gave up on Star Wars. I decided I'd watch other stuff. There's no point in watching stuff I know I'll hate. Same as that LOTR TV series...I've seen enough bits and pieces to know I won't enjoy it, but if someone's watching it and liking it then good luck to them.

Besides, with stuff like Dune and Dune II getting audiences interested, I don't see how anyone can claim that cinema is "in a bad way". Audiences want different things than they did in the 1950's. Same as everything else - music, fashion, cars, whatever.

Cox and Scorsese and them all are correct.

That said ...

... who fucking cares?

No one. No one cares.

I just felt compelled to comment.

What is happening to movies is analogous to what happened to Broadway. In some ways, all sides are correct on this.

1. It is still very possible to get a movie made, in fact easier in many ways -- because of all the streaming outlets to pitch it to.
2. The in-theater box office is more like the wide-audience Broadway, like Lion King and what have you. Purists may decry it, people of indie-alt sensibility may decry it. But it's just a fact that the mass audience likes predictable, familiar experience.

Scorcese is harkening to a time when the CINEMA ITSELF was the predictable experience. There were was a genuine, built-in audience of "movie fans" who went to the movies frequently, and were game for all sorts of films. Would take a chance on any film. Came out just for stars, or genre, or anything.

But the industry is addicted to the kind of returns you can only get from a huge hit now -- and that tends to mean tapping into some vein of "appointment cinema," where people make a point of seeing a movie. Enter the franchise.

This is in large part because there are also a lot fewer places to go see a movie now, and it costs more to do so. So people only feel like getting out to see one if it's a big deal somehow.

You're not alone.

Literally every Martin Scorsese movie involves a little man with a thick New York accent running around acting tough until he gets killed.

Every single one.

Is that the "true cinema" we're missing out on? I think we'll survive.

If Groot said the F word instead of “groot”, that would be great cinema.

The true essence of IMWAN!

Seems like Marty is working out some deeper issues there!

This conversation proves that IMWAN is more important than true cinema, whilst still being irrelevant. I agree with Linda's comments about Scorsese's films - he has his own style and his own fascinations. He's an America Auteur. Then again, so is Brian De Palma and so are several other people of that generation.

That doesn't mean that everything has to resemble what Scorsese does to be great, though. I'd argue that the two Dune movies are, very possibly, the greatest science fiction films of the last twenty years. They're also two of the best movies of any genre that have been made in just as long, IMO.

But lots of people will go through life never having seen a film by Martin Scorsese or Brian De Palma or Alfred Hitchcock, or anyone else who's considered 'great', and be perfectly happy. They might prefer comedies or whatever.

There are people who are happy if there's a car chase in every movie they watch and there are people who'll never read Dune or Foundation who are happy reading James A. Michener or Robert Ludlum novels or whatever...I don't assume I'm some sort of connoisseur whose taste is superior to anyone else's just because I like what I like.

People go and dip into the well of film, literature and whatever else for their own reasons - the minute you assume some sort of philosophical position (Iron-Man with a nose, for example) you get stuck and you stop being able to appreciate things on different levels. I don't like certain movies or types of movies but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be made. I'll never watch Big Momma's House, for example, because I know I'd hate it based purely on the trailer...but that doesn't make it bad. It just means it's not for me.

As previously stated, no one cares. I just like to type things sometimes.

Someone had a crush.

One time she caught me reading it, and I think she thought that.

When she realized how wrong she was, I bet she was crushed.

But in fact, she never spoke up about it. To this day, she may still believe that I was in love with her.

Star-crossed, we were.

INTERESTING

LIES, SLANDEROUS LIES