4merper4mer Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 I'm pretty sure #3 is Galadriel. No clue what the actress name is, but I'm pretty sure it's the chick that played the Lady of Lothlorien If that's from the Hunger Games I think you're wrong. Her name is Liz Banks but I don't think that is her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 If that's from the Hunger Games I think you're wrong. Her name is Liz Banks but I don't think that is her. No, the blonde chick from Hunger Games was Phillip Seymore Hoffman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 More Madness........................ Florida art prof penalizes students for saying 'melting pot' http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7973 ‘You guys’ and ‘freshman’ are ‘Words that Hurt’ according to UC Davis http://hypeline.org/you-guys-freshman-words-hurt-uc-davis/ One of the ways they recommend is instead of saying “you guys”, students should say “y’all” in order to make the language more inclusive. How soon will they then complain that saying y'all is racist - due to it's Southern roots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 No, the blonde chick from Hunger Games was Phillip Seymore Hoffman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 Major movie studios in 1990's Disney Paramount Warner Brothers Sony/Universal) 20th Century Fox Major movie studios in 2000's Disney Paramount Warner Brothers Sony 20th Century Fox Major movie studios in 2010's Disney Paramount Warner Brothers Sony 21th Century Fox It took Fox a decade to figure out it was a new century? And, where's MGM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 And because of that, the industry is going to collapse entirely. The model being used today isn't one designed to sustain the industry, it's designed to pick the last bits of flesh from its carcass. Somebody should alert the industry, then. The great scripted-TV boom is showing no signs of abating. By year’s end there could be anywhere from 430 to 450 scripted television shows, which would serve, once again, as a record for the industry, saidJohn Landgraf, chief executive of FX Networks. In 2015 there were 417 scripted TV shows — nearly double the 210 that were on the air in 2009, FX’s research department said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 Who made the movie mighty ducks. That's a good studio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 Somebody should alert the industry, then. You do realize this only makes my case stronger, right? Who made the movie mighty ducks. That's a good studio Disney. Who own everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 You do realize this only makes my case stronger, right? Not really. You're complaining that the old ways of studios are dying and that will sap the artistic creativity which will kill of the entire industry eventually. I'm saying that the old ways of studios are dying because there's a greater RoI focus from the corporate parents, but the ever expanding distribution outlets will keep the industry alive, but you shouldn't expect the same payoffs as before. Why do you think that the old world of producing movies & TV aren't sustainable? Look at your example - writers getting paid 250K per week? Actors getting millions per episode. Don't you think that's contributing to the high costs that aren't sustainable. The business model is evolving. It's not dying. Just like the death of the music business was greatly exaggerated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 Not really. You're complaining that the old ways of studios are dying and that will sap the artistic creativity which will kill of the entire industry eventually. I'm saying that the old ways of studios are dying because there's a greater RoI focus from the corporate parents, but the ever expanding distribution outlets will keep the industry alive, but you shouldn't expect the same payoffs as before. Why do you think that the old world of producing movies & TV aren't sustainable? Look at your example - writers getting paid 250K per week? Actors getting millions per episode. Don't you think that's contributing to the high costs that aren't sustainable. The business model is evolving. It's not dying. Just like the death of the music business was greatly exaggerated. Yes really. The entire conversation yesterday was focused on the feature film industry, not TV. TV is a different animal, especially on digital platforms. The reason there's a spike in scripted shows is the direct result of the feature industry dying and more and more creative talent going to the smaller screen. It's not a cause, it's a result. The old model, one which struck balance between commerce and art had bloat. I've never denied that, in fact I've highlighted it. But it wasn't a broken model and was certainly sustainable. The 250k a week example was from this current model, it shows they aren't trying to sustain the industry, they're picking the meat from its bones. It wasn't until 2008 when things changed, and those changes weren't made to sustain the industry, they were made to funnel the profits into fewer and fewer hands at the expense of the product. And when your entire industry is built around something as subjective as narrative film, not caring about the quality of the product is suicide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 Yes really. The entire conversation yesterday was focused on the feature film industry, not TV. TV is a different animal, especially on digital platforms. The reason there's a spike in scripted shows is the direct result of the feature industry dying and more and more creative talent going to the smaller screen. It's not a cause, it's a result. The old model, one which struck balance between commerce and art had bloat. I've never denied that, in fact I've highlighted it. But it wasn't a broken model and was certainly sustainable. The 250k a week example was from this current model, it shows they aren't trying to sustain the industry, they're picking the meat from its bones. It wasn't until 2008 when things changed, and those changes weren't made to sustain the industry, they were made to funnel the profits into fewer and fewer hands at the expense of the product. And when your entire industry is built around something as subjective as narrative film, not caring about the quality of the product is suicide. This proves that you haven't been reading what I've been writing. As I said before, the change in the feature films business model is benefitting the other production markets because there are more distribution channels to showcase better quality productions. What do you think I was referring to with Breaking Bad? Do you think those shows even get a chance to exist in the old world movie studios and 3 broadcast networks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 This proves that you haven't been reading what I've been writing. As I said before, the change in the feature films business model is benefitting the other production markets because there are more distribution channels to showcase better quality productions. What do you think I was referring to with Breaking Bad? Do you think those shows even get a chance to exist in the old world movie studios and 3 broadcast networks? You're swinging back and forth between industries as if they're the same. They're not. Thus, the connections you're making aren't really connections or aren't relevant to the conversation we're having. There's no question digital platforms have benefited from the demise of the film industry as well as cable outlets. Networks have not because they're tied more closely with their feature counterparts within the studio system. That doesn't change what's at issue: why the film industry is dying. It's not dying because the audiences' appetites have changed, nor is it because the old model was broken. It's dying because there was a systemic change, made from the top on down, to gut the middle class of the industry in order to make more money for the conglomerates that own the studios. Consolidation of profit at the expense of product if you wish. This same model, as recently as the past 24 months, has been brought into the TV landscape and we're only just beginning to see the ripple effects of that with the new shows slated for release. So if you're celebrating the creative resurgence in the TV space you should be worried that it'll be fleeting. You're not seeing more new shows, you're seeing more spin offs, more sequels, more shows that are built within existing IP worlds. As the studios buy bigger and bigger stakes in these new digital platforms, this will only accelerate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 Perhaps you should look up the term consolidation. Major movie studios in 1970's Disney Paramount Warner Brothers Universal/MCA 20th Century Fox Major movie studios in 1980's Disney Paramount Warner Brothers Universal/MCA 20th Century Fox Major movie studios in 1990's Disney Paramount Warner Brothers Sony/Universal) 20th Century Fox Major movie studios in 2000's Disney Paramount Warner Brothers Sony 20th Century Fox Major movie studios in 2010's Disney Paramount Warner Brothers Sony 21th Century Fox The five families are still alive & well (unconsolidated). And most of your posts supports my point that the industry is far more RoI driven, and they're not going to do small movies anymore because they don't justify the marketing outlays. No matter what the production cost is, P&A is getting astronomical, and no one is greenlighting a $20 million cult flick knowing that P&A will cost $100 million. It's a far safer road to spend hundreds of millions on proven brands than take a risk on something new. As long as the kids keep buying tickets, the model will continue. Your argument is more along the line that the industry is changing because the new owners care more about the bottom line, than they do about the artistry. Welcome to the 21st century. Seriously, where is MGM? I thought I saw that lion before just about every movie when I was young Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 You're swinging back and forth between industries as if they're the same. They're not. Thus, the connections you're making aren't really connections or aren't relevant to the conversation we're having. Wait, what? You're blaming consolidation, but then dismissing how that consolidation is propping up the industry? And I'm the one who's all over the place? BTW, at least get the terminology correct if you want to talk about the business side of your industry. It's not consolidation, but vertical integration. Movie studios would not exist if they didn't have other distribution outlets. Someone asked about MGM. MGM doesn't exist anymore because they didn't have a big corporate parent to sustain the losses they took on crappy movies. Even the venerable Disney was on its back and was bought by a lowly TV broadcaster and second rate newspaper company. But after that, I bet you Eisner & Iger didn't mind the steady profits that ESPN brought in that they could take bigger risks with their movies. You think that's what's happening is killing the creative juice. That's bull. What's going on is that the fat is getting tossed out of an industry that was notorious for excess. The creative guys will always find other outlets of expression. They'll just get paid much less. And Hollywood is not alone. It's happened to all industries, and you can thank the Internet for that. That's why those guys are making billions while they blow up old industries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted August 13, 2016 Share Posted August 13, 2016 Seriously, where is MGM? I thought I saw that lion before just about every movie when I was young Sometimes it was a cat though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 It is a bit humorous to see the left eating itself. Back in the day, this would have been mildly funny. But apparently not in today's world - https://twitter.com/TheEllenShow Ellen DeGeneres ✔@TheEllenShow This is how I’m running errands from now on. #Rio2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 It is a bit humorous to see the left eating itself. Seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 Ellen DeGeneres Chastised; Forced to Deny She’s Racist After Usain Bolt Meme Controversy. In Orwellian America, anybody can be declared a thought criminal. But why is DeGeneres even accepting the ridiculous premise of the fellow leftists who are attacking her? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 Please make it stop. "The Constellations Are Sexist" The Atlantic http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/08/sexism-in-the-stars/496037/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 Please make it stop. "The Constellations Are Sexist" The Atlantic http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/08/sexism-in-the-stars/496037/ Yeah, no ****. One of my favorite jokes is the constellation Virgo. On old-timey pictoral star charts, she's usually portrayed as: But the actual stars look like: Yeah...those stars are a woman reclining with her legs spread (towards the top). That's your "virgin." The Greeks and Romans have been trolling us for 2000 years. Ellen DeGeneres Chastised; Forced to Deny She’s Racist After Usain Bolt Meme Controversy. In Orwellian America, anybody can be declared a thought criminal. But why is DeGeneres even accepting the ridiculous premise of the fellow leftists who are attacking her? The correct response by Ellen is to have Bolt on her show to carry her around on his back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts