WaltJRimmer

I wonder how they'll choose who gets crushed to death at every screening.

$400m for the rights alone. It doesn't talk about cost of production.

Meaning they're looking to make that rights cost back across the trilogy rather than from one film, but they're constantly adding costs along the way.

It's weird to me that he's lumping all comic book movies together and acting like they're the problem. We keep having trash movies churned out by studios because they make money. That's been true since at least the nineteen-forties if not earlier. Hell, I'm really just talking about the ones where enough of them still survive that you can go find them. Earlier, in the silent era, yeah, you had trash get made quickly and churned out so that people would pay a dime to watch it. I don't get how a single genre is supposed to be the culmination that's ruining cinema.

But, here's the thing. Have movies changed over the years? Absolutely. Scorcesie's movies have changed over the years! His style has changed, his vision has changed. What sells tickets has changed. How studios are producing films based on what they think will make them money has changed. It's been discussed before that the fall of video rentals and the rise of streaming has changed what kinds of movies studios are willing to put their money behind and how they're less likely to take a risk on something than they used to be. That's a problem. That's a big problem because it's reduced the number of small-budget and medium-budget studio films. None of that can be blamed on comic book adaptations.

And there's nothing inherently wrong with a comic book adaptation. Marvel movies are overly formulaic and especially since Disney bought them overly safe. Even in the ones I like, I can just feel that Disney touch that makes me go, "Ew," sometimes. DC's movies have been mismanaged with an unfit vision helming its original run from the start. So the big series, yes, I'll admit, they're kind of shit cinema. I still enjoy some of them, but they're kind of shit cinema. There are plenty of shit crime movies and thrillers and other things like that, but I'm not going to start yelling about how they're killing cinema and we have to fight against them. Why do comic book adaptations get singled out as artless trash when there's a constant stream of hollow feel-good romance films that get churned out every year? Do those formulaic vacuous sap-fests (some of which I love and will watch whenever I need a good cry, I'm really not knocking them) really merit a pass yet for some reason comic books require this war be waged by filmmakers against them? I really don't see how they're the problem.

And you can come in and say things like, "He's just stirring the pot to promote his film," but I don't think so. Scorsese has had a lot to say about modern filmmaking even when he doesn't have a project on the table. He's talked about his feelings on modern film culture, comic book adaptations, using the word content to describe any form of media, and more. I really don't think he's doing it to bring attention to any project so much as he just really feels very strongly that movies have changed and change is bad? Is that really what it is? Because some of the stuff he sees as a problem, yeah, I agree, it's an issue. But other stuff like this, even if there is a problem, your aim at what the problem really is is just completely off.

I don't really know how you can threaten someone when you need them more than they need you.

If you leave town, where are you going to go? The city doesn't need you. If you're not making what you want/need here, go ahead, leave, the city won't be hurt by it. You will, though. Because you'll have to pack up your business, set it up somewhere else, and hope that they do the things you want them to. It'll be expensive for you, won't mean a thing to the city.

So how is it a threat?

I always enjoyed the US Godzilla films

Always?

Like... Always?

If Chicken can be a language, that can be a language!

And I don't mean the actually useful programming language. I mean the esolang one where the only valid character is Chicken.

Federal appeals are more difficult and more rare. The state charges he'll have an easier time appealing against, though. Lots of questions still up in the air about how all that will go, though. Unless he's barred from office, there's a chance he does become president again, which would make things incredibly complicated. There's also the question of him appealing to the Supreme Court and them simply overturning anything they can that's been brought against him. I find these unlikely, but they're possible. For the USA, this is the first time someone in that high of an office has gone to trial like this, and we're going to be having to make some answers on the spot.

Even if he goes to prison, which if he's convicted there's a good chance he gets something more similar to house arrest due to his position as a former president, he is 100% not going to be in general population. I believe he's guilty and hope that if the trial proves that that he's convicted. But people imagining him in the chow line in an orange jumpsuit are fooling themselves.

And Family Guy, which is why I said rarely.

And I suppose there are arguments to be made in either direction when a show gets "resurrected" but it's decades later, like Rosanne. If you count that, then it's actually becoming more common for shows to be canceled multiple times.

Thank you very much for the context!

Only once, but then it's rare that a show needs to be canceled more than one time.

Did they quit or did they go on strike? I'm not familiar with the show or its behind-the-scenes happenings.