Pretty much every single film that's ever been made, including the art house projects, was made to generate profit for someone. Even if this person didn't get paid, or that one didn't, some one did. By far the overwhelming majority of films were made to make money. Psycho. Gone With the Wind. Wizard of Oz. Whatever your favorite film is. Bambi. It's a Wonderful Life. Whatever. You can just throw them in a fire, because, baby, end of the day, it was all just a great big cynical cash grab. No movie is pure. Not even close. Forget 'em all. Junk the entire industry. Not a one of these things was made to make the world a better place for you and me. It was always about the money.
|Posted: 17 July 2019 at 3:51am | IP Logged | 12
There we go. Case closed. No need to talk about film AT ALL anymore. If it's all just for money, we don't need to discuss it one bit further.
If we do decide that maybe these sh*tbag cashgrabs have some value after all (and really, I don't see how we can) but if, mind you, IF there's some small value to their existence beyond their venal profiteering, then maybe, again just maybe, there could be something to their using their huge, multi-billion dollar franchises to make what's on-screen resemble the world around us a little bit more closely.
I mean, movies make us feel good, right? Or feel something. We relate to the characters onscreen and allow them to take us places we may not have gone before. It's easier when they look like us, or rather, what we think we look like on our best days. They tend to feature idealized versions of who you and I think we are. Steve Carrell is THE FORTY-YEAR-OLD VIRGIN because, psheesh! Yeah. THAT guy can't get laid. Matthew McConaughey suffers from FAILURE TO LAUNCH because, oh, yeah, sure. THAT guy isn't going anywhere in life.
A key element of the alchemy that makes the storytelling happen is the sense that's US up there onscreen somehow. What's happening may be fantastical, but you can relate. Now imagine never seeing yourself up there. Or least not in some way that isn't insulting, mocking, or at best, secondary. Why would the film industry do that to large swathes of their audience? How many people are being left out of the loop?
Hey, what if we actually put someone onscreen who DOES look like someone the previously disenfranchised people out there can get behind? We'll hedge our bets of course. I mean, hell, of course we will. There's money at stake here. But y'know, if 007 is a call sign, and if the previous holder of it has retired, do we HAVE TO make the next agent a young, clean-cut White guy? Isn't there some potential benefit in this particular place in time to trying something else?
There's guaranteed backlash to be sure, but might those benefits outweigh that effect? We won't really know until we try, and hey, worse comes to worse, it's still Daniel Craig up there on that screen next to our new 007, the same guy we've been betting on for ten years or more now. Why not do this? Generate some buzz. Put some butts in the seats that might not have gone to a 007 movie before. Give a few more people someone to root for.
Of course they're in it for the money. Everyone before them was too. GOLDFINGER was made to make money. DR. NO. Every single Bond film ever.
How is this worse for that?
007 and Dr. Who were chosen for this sort of re-imagining because the character concepts allowed for it. 007 is a designation, not an individual. Dr. Who becomes different people. Very different people. Why is this iteration so much worse?
I recently had a lousy discussion with a twerp who insisted that Miles Morales needed to have a separate identity in order to be a viable character. But, as I pointed out to him, multiple iterations of existing characters sell, and have since the beginning of the super-hero genre. Why wouldn't you want your new Black character to have that advantage? Why is this so very much worse than when Spider-Woman was created? Or the next Spider-Woman? Or the ones after that?
Was that all so terribly degrading to women, to be dressed in Spider-Man costumes and made to serve their corporate masters in male drag, putting on "minstrel shows" to appease the dull-witted perverts out there? Or did those characters do well enough that they earned back their money and gave some good stories to their readers?
No? That's impossible? It was all just ugly, seedy profiteering? Whatever. Miles has earned the Spider-Man suit in-story, and he doesn't need to justify it to anyone online. It's was Marvel's decision to make and it was a profitable one. More than that, it was a good one.
Hey, whattayaknow. It's both.