“It’s so hard to get movies made, and in these big movies that get made — and it’s even starting to happen with the little ones, which is what’s really freaking me out — decisions are being made by committees, and art does not do well when it’s made by committee,” she added. “Films are made by a filmmaker and a team of artists around them. You cannot make art based on numbers and algorithms. My feeling has been for a long time that audiences are extremely smart, and executives have started to believe that they’re not. Audiences will always be able to sniff out bullshit. Even if films start to be made with AI, humans aren’t going to fucking want to see those.”
Because the Rock is probably already half a billionaire; he doesn’t need any more fucking money.
If they want to work for free, fine, whatever. Otherwise, let other people enjoy some opportunities for once.
We may have a very different opinion on who a talented actor is then. ) Talented businessman is not equal to a talented actor, just a popular one that can sell.
Maybe. But I’d rather see a no-name with student debt deliver a 9.2 performance in a lead role than see a near-billionaire deliver a perfect 10.0 performance in the same role, 10 out of 10 times. I understand that is a matter of preference and personal priorities, however.
I’d prefer a solution that includes both. This is my main gripe with Disney (and the rest of big guys, but mostly them): they just bought out everything and everyone thus killing the competition. Viewers’ time available to watch a movie and cash they are prepared to pay for it is limited, so now only a generic sh…stuff actually reaches the screens. All to make shareholders happy, very much against the interests of the public. Lets see if the market can solve this.
That feels entirely an aside to the conversation of opportunities for established vs unknown actors, aside from that both things are at the behest of shareholders. If you for any reason thought I didn’t have more ire for and assign vastly greater blame to the executives and shareholders, allow me to alleviate that concern. Yes, the problem of lack of opportunities for lesser knowns is moreso a problem of studio and shareholder expectations than just individual actor greed, but still both parties share some level of culpability.
I may have used unclear and incomplete wording, but it is directly relevant: whoever delivered a box office last time will be in the cast of the next movie. This is not a form of art, this is a business that involves $$$$$$$, so yes, opportunities are severely limited. Generalisation, I know, but seems legit to me.
My opinion re talented actors stands: I do want to see more of them, not less - just in the pictures that are not stifled by the whatever template brought the cash in the last season.
Went to see a movie recently (Dune is good, or at the very least pretty!), there were trailers before as usual. Out of 6, 4 were sequels, 1 was based on a successful game franchise and the last one was a movie about making a movie with constant breaking of the 4th wall. Or at least it looked like it. That will keep me away for this year, thank you very much.
I believe your main point is about giving opportunities to the new generations. Hard agree here, and lets start in politics first!