|
Post by Mattsby on Sept 11, 2018 19:44:54 GMT
from Deadline -Back in July, Sod said his next The Laundromat "will probably end up at Netflix." That'd be Streep's first! High Flying Bird was shot in about 10 days on an iPhone, like Unsane. Sundance premiere? Now....Netflix has worked with: Coens, Herzog, Scorsese, Soderbergh, David Fincher, Joon-ho Bong, Alfonso Cuaron, Christopher Guest, Mark Duplass, Spike Lee, Baumbach, Fukunaga, etc. No studio offers money + creative freedom like they do. And while everybody was turning down funding completion of the new Welles, they said yes...
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Sept 11, 2018 20:36:31 GMT
I still don't get how Netflix has this much money to do 100 movies and 1000 TV shows... and not only that, but they are spending big bucks doing so (even in stuff that has no reason to be like The Get Down, which is somewhere between $120M-$200M for the season... like WHAT?!).
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Sept 12, 2018 1:21:00 GMT
I still don't get how Netflix has this much money to do 100 movies and 1000 TV shows... and not only that, but they are spending big bucks doing so (even in stuff that has no reason to be like The Get Down, which is somewhere between $120M-$200M for the season... like WHAT?!). they have 120 mil subscribers at 11 min per month. So they can afford it but they overspend on talent. They have way too output right now and quality control issues.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Sept 12, 2018 18:32:44 GMT
Now....Netflix has worked with: Coens, Herzog, Scorsese, Soderbergh, David Fincher, Joon-ho Bong, Alfonso Cuaron, Christopher Guest, Mark Duplass, Spike Lee, Baumbach, Fukunaga, etc. No studio offers money + creative freedom like they do. And while everybody was turning down funding completion of the new Welles, they said yes...
It's hilarious to me that no one (still?) is really giving them credit for changing the face of film forever, already. People still talk about "the Netflix issue" - but no one in Hollywood is buying it in private now at all - everyone wants complete control and the exposure and money - maybe Spielberg in public can say whatever stupid stuff he just said (just 6 months ago!) but no other filmmaker who has ever had to struggle for financing and opportunity is believing that nonsense of his now.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 12, 2018 18:55:58 GMT
Now....Netflix has worked with: Coens, Herzog, Scorsese, Soderbergh, David Fincher, Joon-ho Bong, Alfonso Cuaron, Christopher Guest, Mark Duplass, Spike Lee, Baumbach, Fukunaga, etc. No studio offers money + creative freedom like they do. And while everybody was turning down funding completion of the new Welles, they said yes...It's hilarious to me that no one (still?) is really giving them credit for changing the face of film forever, already. People still talk about "the Netflix issue" - but no one in Hollywood is buying it in private now at all - everyone wants complete control and the exposure and money - maybe Spielberg in public can say whatever stupid stuff he just said (just 6 months ago!) but no other filmmaker who has ever had to struggle for financing and opportunity is believing that nonsense of his now. I think you misunderstand the criticism. People are giving them credit. It's just that the industry is slow as fuck to recognize them in any meaningful way. But the day is coming, and soon. Spielberg's view on the subject is like Nolan/Tarantino/PTA's on film being superior to digital: the times are a-changin', and you best recognize it. Spielberg's films do well enough so where they don't need a Netflix distribution system, but almost all the guys you mentioned are smaller-scale, and Netflix provides a perfect sort of system for them, especially as it seems they get far more creative freedom than mega-studios. When we talk about "the Netflix issue," it's not a diss on Netflix. It's a diss on the Academy.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Sept 12, 2018 19:04:57 GMT
Now....Netflix has worked with: Coens, Herzog, Scorsese, Soderbergh, David Fincher, Joon-ho Bong, Alfonso Cuaron, Christopher Guest, Mark Duplass, Spike Lee, Baumbach, Fukunaga, etc. No studio offers money + creative freedom like they do. And while everybody was turning down funding completion of the new Welles, they said yes...It's hilarious to me that no one (still?) is really giving them credit for changing the face of film forever, already. People still talk about "the Netflix issue" - but no one in Hollywood is buying it in private now at all - everyone wants complete control and the exposure and money - maybe Spielberg in public can say whatever stupid stuff he just said (just 6 months ago!) but no other filmmaker who has ever had to struggle for financing and opportunity is believing that nonsense of his now. Adam Sandler looks like a genius. Wasn't he the first big name to work with them?
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Sept 12, 2018 19:07:06 GMT
Now....Netflix has worked with: Coens, Herzog, Scorsese, Soderbergh, David Fincher, Joon-ho Bong, Alfonso Cuaron, Christopher Guest, Mark Duplass, Spike Lee, Baumbach, Fukunaga, etc. No studio offers money + creative freedom like they do. And while everybody was turning down funding completion of the new Welles, they said yes...It's hilarious to me that no one (still?) is really giving them credit for changing the face of film forever, already. People still talk about "the Netflix issue" - but no one in Hollywood is buying it in private now at all - everyone wants complete control and the exposure and money - maybe Spielberg in public can say whatever stupid stuff he just said (just 6 months ago!) but no other filmmaker who has ever had to struggle for financing and opportunity is believing that nonsense of his now. I think you misunderstand the criticism. People are giving them credit. It's just that the industry is slow as fuck to recognize them in any meaningful way. But the day is coming, and soon. Spielberg's view on the subject is like Nolan/Tarantino/PTA's on film being superior to digital: the times are a-changin', and you best recognize it. Spielberg's films do well enough so where they don't need a Netflix distribution system, but almost all the guys you mentioned are smaller-scale, and Netflix provides a perfect sort of system for them, especially as it seems they get far more creative freedom than mega-studios. When we talk about "the Netflix issue," it's not a diss on Netflix. It's a diss on the Academy. When they want a passion project funded and a clueless exec from major says no....they will go to dark side.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 12, 2018 19:11:39 GMT
I think you misunderstand the criticism. People are giving them credit. It's just that the industry is slow as fuck to recognize them in any meaningful way. But the day is coming, and soon. Spielberg's view on the subject is like Nolan/Tarantino/PTA's on film being superior to digital: the times are a-changin', and you best recognize it. Spielberg's films do well enough so where they don't need a Netflix distribution system, but almost all the guys you mentioned are smaller-scale, and Netflix provides a perfect sort of system for them, especially as it seems they get far more creative freedom than mega-studios. When we talk about "the Netflix issue," it's not a diss on Netflix. It's a diss on the Academy. When they want a passion project funded and a clueless exec from major says no....they will go to dark side. I could see PTA doing it anyway. He's passionate about the importance of film stock and digital projection, but he comes off much less irritable about the whole thing as opposed to Nolan and Tarantino. There was a talk he and Tarantino did a couple of years ago about the subject, and while Tarantino railed about the essential aspects of film and how digital was sacrilege, PTA just kinda shrugged and was all, "I just like shooting on film." He may insist that the movies he makes with Netflix get a theatrical release, but in terms of getting funding and distribution, I think he'd be fine with working with them.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Sept 12, 2018 19:27:30 GMT
When they want a passion project funded and a clueless exec from major says no....they will go to dark side. I could see PTA doing it anyway. He's passionate about the importance of film stock and digital projection, but he comes off much less irritable about the whole thing as opposed to Nolan and Tarantino. There was a talk he and Tarantino did a couple of years ago about the subject, and while Tarantino railed about the essential aspects of film and how digital was sacrilege, PTA just kinda shrugged and was all, "I just like shooting on film." He may insist that the movies he makes with Netflix get a theatrical release, but in terms of getting funding and distribution, I think he'd be fine with working with them. We need to ask our expert box office peeps but seriously, the average movie makes majority box office in how many weeks? Especially, if you are smaller movie.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Sept 12, 2018 19:36:29 GMT
Now....Netflix has worked with: Coens, Herzog, Scorsese, Soderbergh, David Fincher, Joon-ho Bong, Alfonso Cuaron, Christopher Guest, Mark Duplass, Spike Lee, Baumbach, Fukunaga, etc. No studio offers money + creative freedom like they do. And while everybody was turning down funding completion of the new Welles, they said yes...It's hilarious to me that no one (still?) is really giving them credit for changing the face of film forever, already. People still talk about "the Netflix issue" - but no one in Hollywood is buying it in private now at all - everyone wants complete control and the exposure and money - maybe Spielberg in public can say whatever stupid stuff he just said (just 6 months ago!) but no other filmmaker who has ever had to struggle for financing and opportunity is believing that nonsense of his now. Adam Sandler looks like a genius. Wasn't he the first big name to work with them? In a way that's true - and it's interesting that whenever you saw media appraisals of those Sandler films - they used Netflix policies against them to bash them (them not disclosing ratings) and yet used inaccurate "traditional" film tools (i.e. low RT scores) to "guess" about that and to bash Sandler and Netflix both.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Sept 13, 2018 0:31:19 GMT
Just wanna note that Netflix had a very outstanding 2017 (and like pacinoyes said, barely recognized) - across all sorts of genres - and it's crazy to think their output will be even better in the coming years:
1922, Meyerowitz Stories, My Happy Family, Jim & Andy…. (which for some time last year were my top 4 favs of the year)
American Vandal , Mindhunter, Godless, Glow, The Keepers…. (not even counting other shows in their subsequent seasons)
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Sept 13, 2018 2:03:45 GMT
Just wanna note that Netflix had a very outstanding 2017 (and like pacinoyes said, barely recognized) - across all sorts of genres - and it's crazy to think their output will be even better in the coming years: 1922, Meyerowitz Stories, My Happy Family, Jim & Andy…. (which for some time last year were my top 4 favs of the year) American Vandal , Mindhunter, Godless, Glow, The Keepers…. (not even counting other shows in their subsequent seasons) they are doing better on TV side than on movie side.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Dec 11, 2018 19:50:25 GMT
DeadlineAlso idk if it was confirmed yet, that Melvin Gregg is playing the rookie client. He was great, the standout of the cast, in American Vandal S2.
|
|
|
Post by Leo_The_Last on Dec 12, 2018 21:38:00 GMT
Looking forward to this one.
Soderbergh is a strange case for me though. I like him overall, his technical mastery, his adventurousness, even the subjects he deals with. But when I think about who the great living american directors are, his name never really pops into my head.
Scorsese mentioned during his master class at the Marrakech FF that it was Soderbergh who ended the "effective exile from the studio system" for auteur filmmakers when Sex, Lies and Videotape won the Palme d’Or at Cannes in 1989.
This may or may not be true, but what I realized is how long Soderbergh is in the game, so to speak, delivering some very good movies along the way. And he is still at a relatively young age.
I wonder how his critical standing within the film community is going to be evolving over the years.
I think at the moment everybody is expecting that his movies are turning out to be at least solid to good, regardless if he is working in more auteurish mode or more as a blockbuster craftsman. But I never sense that the general movie lovers crowd or critics are craving for his future work as much as they do for Tarantino or Fincher for example.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Dec 20, 2018 21:28:59 GMT
Soderbergh is a strange case for me though. I like him overall, his technical mastery, his adventurousness, even the subjects he deals with. But when I think about who the great living american directors are, his name never really pops into my head. Scorsese mentioned during his master class at the Marrakech FF that it was Soderbergh who ended the "effective exile from the studio system" for auteur filmmakers when Sex, Lies and Videotape won the Palme d’Or at Cannes in 1989. This may or may not be true, but what I realized is how long Soderbergh is in the game, so to speak, delivering some very good movies along the way. And he is still at a relatively young age. I wonder how his critical standing within the film community is going to be evolving over the years. I think at the moment everybody is expecting that his movies are turning out to be at least solid to good, regardless if he is working in more auteurish mode or more as a blockbuster craftsman. But I never sense that the general movie lovers crowd or critics are craving for his future work as much as they do for Tarantino or Fincher for example. You bring up some interesting points and we don't talk about Soderbergh enough here. SL&V is important like Scorsese says, and markedly better than other indie efforts at that time (SL&V is controlled and brilliantly written - Slacker, conversely, is sketchy, affected, arbitrary). It remains my fav from Sod though if we're talking his most impressive technical achievement it might be The Knick. What he did with S1 is unheard of: 570pgs in 73 days, camera op'ing, directing, editing. For comparison, Roma (period piece, director also shooting/editing) had 130pgs on 108 days. I think it's possible we may look back on Soderbergh's career very highly or at least his career at this moment. There's a major admirable DIY aspect to him - something you don't see in Fincher for example who's never written a screenplay! And he keeps experimenting. Both inside and outside of filmmaking, with hands-on marketing, back-end points, modes of distribution (at least with Mosaic, Unsane, Logan Lucky, now he's with Netflix). As for his arguably pioneering iPhone work: I'm very curious if he shot Mosaic (HBO this year that nobody has seen, hmmm) that way or not. I can't find the info online which is maddening. I also like how dedicated he is as a cinephile and mentor - always offering guidance to younger filmmakers, boosting under the radar guys like Lodge Kerrigan, giving thorough lectures on the business, re-editing classic movies just for fun on his own time, those year-end logs of what he watches, and he's worked on several great films just in the capacity of producer which is a credit he likes to earn. Final thought: in college, I always heard film students talking about Wes Anderson, Tarantino, Nolan, etc. But more students should look at Soderbergh who's someone they can really learn from in a practical way and from his successes and failures (many of which there are).
|
|
|
Post by Leo_The_Last on Dec 27, 2018 5:43:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jimmalone on Dec 27, 2018 11:15:38 GMT
It's amazing how many movies Soderberg has made in his 30 years as director. Especially considering his "retirement". ;-)
Really looking forward to his two movies next year. I'm a basketball fan so this tweet seems to be good news for me.
|
|
|
Post by Leo_The_Last on Jan 11, 2019 0:26:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Jan 11, 2019 1:54:13 GMT
Here's a bigger version of that first picture which is a great shot (iPhone!). It's crisp, well lit, the game of basketball haloing his head, but behind him. In front of him the incongruous distillation of his job: a pen and a basketball. Loads of fascinating themes that could be at play here - contracts, cunning, decision-making, talent vs commodity, sport culture, big biz, etc. And hope Zazie Beetz has a decent role, she's a major star in the making.
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Jan 17, 2019 17:10:07 GMT
Not too sure about this one.
Are they trying to make me believe that a one-on-one basketball league could take down the NBA?
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Jan 18, 2019 0:08:59 GMT
Eh...this is looking like a pass for me.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Jan 27, 2019 0:38:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Jan 27, 2019 1:33:37 GMT
Cool interview... but I'm still super skeptical about how the film will actually turn out.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Jan 28, 2019 3:32:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Leo_The_Last on Jan 30, 2019 16:14:49 GMT
|
|