FireChan

Whaley has been here since 2010. That was the last major shakeup top to bottom of the FO. That's not more of the same. IMO.

removed for ignorant, inappropriate commentary

No. Whaley picked EJ.

I get what you're saying, but this has to be encouraging for the older vets at the same time, right? Pegulas aren't just gonna keep doing the same old thing.

Sorry for him. I try to separate the people from the shirts around here, because of what Kirby said. When guys who I think stink get cut, I'm glad, but never because of them personally.

He doesn't get it. I said he didn't get it after Rex was fired, because he truly doesn't. Whether he kept Whaley or not is irrelevant as long as he plays King in his court with the HC and GM both making cases. That may work in fracking. In an industry where careers are made in 16 weeks, it does not.

This brings up the question, was Whaley's disastrous presser last year him lashing out at his new jailers?

Instant gratification? We haven't had success in 17 years, how much longer are we supposed to be patient?

He's the best GM on the market, but he would also never be fired soo

George Lucas of all people has some great examples of the difference between Hollywood 30 years ago and today. He ended up exemplifying both sides in his career, but it was still something to hear. Lucas said that Hollywood used to be the filmmaker fighting with, but also being bet on, by the studio. The studio would take a $20M investment on a project and say, go make me $100M. Nowadays, with more data, hard numbers and analytics at our finger tips, companies like Disney have cut filmmakers out of the equation. They fulfill their brand recognition quota by using an existing IP, because original stories are harder to market, and they've perfected their new game. There's still the odd bust, like Fantastic Four, but on the whole they can grab a A or A- list actor, pair him up with a director who has done two episodes of the Mindy Project and 90% of the time they'll make half a billion dollars. It's insane.

No I think some were decent. But most are Transformers-esque trash.

A chance, like not telling a bland "bad guy needs X to threaten the world," story or "CGI monsters are the villains so we can still appeal to little kids." Directorial flair refers to the shots and cinematography. The original Iron Man directed by John Favreau had many beautiful shots and juxtapositions that you can't even find in some of the latest Marvel films. Example . This is a cool shot. It's aesthetically pleasing. Show me something from Avengers 2 or Thor 2 that comes close. I don't think you can. "Don't watch?" I thought we were talking about my criticisms of the films. CGI can be done tastefully, or it can be your whole movie and look like crap. The Star Wars prequels were almost entirely CGI and they sucked. As the Marvel films have progressed, the characters have become caricatures. Any development we saw previously is thrown aside for funny quips and nothing of any substance. They have no motivations, they aren't real people, they are action figures. Which is boring. An original theme would be taking a chance. Instead we get schlocky "Ultron wants to kill the Avengers because his computer logic believes that will protect humanity." That theme has been done 10000000000 times before. It's boring. Now, not all Marvel movies suck. Just most of them.

Ouch.

That's a tough post to have immediately after I dunked on it. :lol:

Yep. And it sucks. Take any kind of a chance? Show any kind of directorial flair? Less dependence on CGI? Characters that aren't 2D cardboard cut outs? Any kind of original theme? If they can't do any of those things, they are trash movies that should not exist. Here's an example. Thor 2 should not exist. It was a campy, soulless piece of trash. It was made because it grossed $640M, but it was an actual disgrace. The movie industry is fundamentally broken because movies like Thor 2 make money. And Disney is the chief culprit. Along with the mindless consumers.