Support NeoGAF

[BeardGawd]

Quentin Tarantino says Ryan Reynolds may earn $50 million for a Netflix movie, but streaming movies 'don't exist in the zeitgeist': 'It's almost like they don't even exist'

After joking about Ryan Reynolds' Netflix movies, Quentin Tarantino said he thinks the pandemic "hurried" the reliance on streaming services.

www.yahoo.com

He said: "I mean, and I'm not picking on anybody, but apparently for Netflix, Ryan Reynolds has made $50 million on this movie and $50 million on that movie and $50 million on the next movie for them. I don't know what any of those movies are. I've never seen them. Have you?"

Quentin couldn't be more on point with this statement. Noone talks about or even remembers these paint by the numbers streaming movies. They come a dime a dozen.

 

[FrankWza]

I just saw this and was going to post about it in deepenigmas thread.
Everything is changing and covid moved things up by many years. Hope he doesn't retire. We're going to lose Scorsese and him in a really short window

 

[IntentionalPun]

They just aren't having $100+ million in marketing like theater movies are with the goal of everyone on the planet seeing the advertisement so that a tiny fraction might see it.

100 million people saw Extraction in it's first month for instance; did it need a bunch of marketing? No.. it showed up in the Netflix UI.. so hundreds of millions of people saw the "ad" for it, for "free" to Netflix.

It's like how there are Twitch streamers and insanely successful music artists that aren't "famous" in the classical sense these days; they don't need to be.. their audience is massive because they show up on UI's and post on social media. The "marketing" for them isn't broadcast to everyone on the planet because it doesn't need to be.

There are huge "flops" more in the zeitgeist then movies that have been seen by exponentially more people. Why? Because even MORE people saw the advertisements for that movie.

But who really cares?

 

[FrankWza]

They just aren't having $100+ million in marketing like theater movies are with the goal of everyone on the planet seeing the advertisement so that a tiny fraction might see it.

100 million people saw Extraction in it's first month for instance; did it need a bunch of marketing? No.. it showed up in the Netflix UI.. so hundreds of millions of people saw the "ad" for it, for "free" to Netflix.

It's like how there are Twitch streamers and insanely successful music artists that aren't "famous" in the classical sense these days; they don't need to be.. their audience is massive because they show up on UI's and post on social media. The "marketing" for them isn't broadcast to everyone on the planet because it doesn't need to be.

There are huge "flops" more in the zeitgeist then movies that have been seen by exponentially more people. Why? Because even MORE people saw the advertisements for that movie.

But who really cares?

I think there's the issue of having to sub to more than one service if you want to watch everything. Theaters and traditional home media were more universal. It's happening with sports as well. MLB games have been exclusive to some and next season there's going to be a wildcard game in the NFL that will be exclusively on one for out of market viewers which is pretty crazy

 

[AV]

Hope he doesn't retire.

He may not direct another movie but I can promise you he'll produce or even write a few more.

 

[IntentionalPun]

I think there's the issue of having to sub to more than one service if you want to watch everything. Theaters and traditional home media were more universal. It's happening with sports as well. MLB games have been exclusive to some and next season there's going to be a wildcard game in the NFL that will be exclusively on one for out of market viewers which is pretty crazy

Sure which means less people see the "ad" for the movie, because it only shows up on the one services UI. (which was my point)

Whereas even huge flops are known about by everyone , because they have to spend 100's of millions advertising those movies.

Far more people saw Extraction than Morbius. But exponentially more people saw the shit advertising for Morbius which costs loads of money. That did not help Morbius make more money, it just made it more famous.. for not making money.

 

[Puscifer]

I was trying to explain this to someone at work. Netflix needs to explain to me how the The Gray Man with Ryan Reynolds cost the same as No Time to Die, they clearly think throwing tons of money means "it's just as good" when it reality it's all "Look at us we have high budget films too"

 

[Days like these...]

I think there's the issue of having to sub to more than one service if you want to watch everything.

Didn't think FOMO was real but I see it is.

 

[IntentionalPun]

I was trying to explain this to someone at work. Netflix needs to explain to me how the The Gray Man with Ryan Reynolds cost the same as No Time to Die, they clearly think throwing tons of money means "it's just as good" when it reality it's all "Look at us we have high budget films too"

Many streaming only movies were movies that were already in production, that everyone realized wouldn't do well in theaters, so they hoisted them up for a bidding war to streamers.

Streamers will start getting more and more good directors on board over time; currently most good film makers are hugely snobbish about theaters. See: this thread. Some of that may come from them actually doing at least small theater releases to appease creators.

The Grey Man sucks because the Russo Brothers are hacks. They got a ton of money for the movie because they were attached to the MCU.

 

[FrankWza]

Streamers will start getting more and more good directors on board over time; currently most good film makers are hugely snobbish about theaters.

I think protecting something you enjoy because you know it will eventually lead to lowering the quality. Especially when you know they can make a lot more by making it available on a service. If QT put his last movie up for Netflix and apple to bid on he might make more than he ever has on any movie. They'd basically give him a blank check.
There have always been shit movies and remakes of classics but watching Netflix is like watching remakes of shit movies. They're really bad for the most part and very similar.

Didn't think FOMO was real but I see it is.

There's no way I would miss seeing a movie by certain directors. At least for now they are still showing their films in theaters even if they have a deal in place and are being funded by streamers like apple and Netflix. I saw the Irishman in theaters and I'll see KotFM in theaters too. If Scorseses last movie is only on apple id sub just to watch it. I enjoy going to movies even though it's becoming more annoying with people causing distractions and so on.

 

[Kacho]

He may not direct another movie but I can promise you he'll produce or even write a few more.

I thought he said he had one more in him before retiring. I hope that's the case at least.

 

[DKehoe]

He's right. I never hear anyone talk about those Netflix movies yet they sink huge amounts of money into them and Netflix talks about them getting huge numbers of views. Maybe they do but it just feels like they're from an alternate timeline or something.

 

[FrankWza]

He may not direct another movie but I can promise you he'll produce or even write a few more.

I think he's writing novels about film history and things like that. I don't think he would ever trust his screenplay to another director again. He did early in his career to help get his career off the ground and even then it was 50/50. He hated NBK but liked TR and he happened to be a huge Tony Scott fan.

 

[FrankWza]

I thought he said he had one more in him before retiring. I hope that's the case at least.

He's about to start on his last movie. It's about a film critic and it takes place in the 70s I believe

 

[AV]

I thought he said he had one more in him before retiring. I hope that's the case at least.

Far as I know he just wants to have his 10 movies. It's actually 11, but he's calling Kill Bill 1 because he wanted to release it as 1 and they wouldn't let him. Far as I remember.

I think he's writing novels about film history and things like that. I don't think he would ever trust his screenplay to another director again. He did early in his career to help get his career off the ground and even then it was 50/50. He hated NBK but liked TR and he happened to be a huge Tony Scott fan.

I can see him giving a script to a trusted friend like Rodriguez. Then again, he's not made a good film in over a decade, so maybe not.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I like his movies, but sometimes, these Hollywood types are so damned pretentious. Especially when it comes to feet.

The Netflix model is just forgettable junk food more often than not with a small handful of outliers once in a blue moon. All sub models are and we see it big time already in gaming as well.

 

[BossLackey]

Netflix original movies feel like nobody there actually knows how to make good movies. Like they're a bunch of Hollywood rejects on the back end and they probably are.

 

[FrankWza]

I like his movies, but sometimes, these Hollywood types are so damned pretentious. Especially when it comes to feet.

Big time. He's up his own ass But he genuinely loves movies.

But yes, the Netflix model is just junk food more often than not. All sub models are and we see it big time already in gaming as well.

Yup. Was going to post this in that thread you made. Definitely some parallels to be made.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Big time. He's up his own ass But he genuinely loves movies.

Yup. Was going to post this in that thread you made. Definitely some parallels to be made.

I mean, look at how many GOTY Contenders™ are forgotten about within weeks and never brought up again unless they need a list war. Supposedly great rated games, but zero staying power in conversation.

 

[FrankWza]

I mean, look at how many GOTY Contenders™ are forgotten about within weeks and never brought up again unless they need a list war. Supposedly great rated games, but zero staying power in conversation.

And throwing a bunch of shit to see if it sticks approach like with making GaaS games in numbers. All of these streamers try for it with teen and action movies trying to make a franchise. There's just too much value in IPs and Universe approach to content.

 

[Billbofet]

Netflix movies seem like they are all directed by Bret Ratner (soul-free) and the ones I have watched, I forget them in real time as I am watching them.
It is stunning how cheap these movies look considering the investment put in. I think Extraction is the only one I've seen that even looked theatrical.

 

[Muffdraul]

Sure, streaming sucks, whatever. Dude, just release The Whole Bloody Affair 4K, stop talking shit about people like Kubrick and Hitchcock as if you're their peer, and make your next (last?) movie.

 

[IntentionalPun]

I think protecting something you enjoy because you know it will eventually lead to lowering the quality.

Why would it eventually lower the quality?

That makes no sense.

Films are made by creators using money. If streamers are willing to write even bigger checks, then why would creators not be able to create something just as great or greater?

 

[FrankWza]

Why would it eventually lower the quality?

That makes no sense.

Films are made by creators using money. If streamers are willing to write even bigger checks, then why would creators not be able to create something just as great or greater?

Because it's based on subs and churning out content and they're mostly treated as paycheck movies. Not to mention algorithm creations. Fantasy movies and will Smith were popular on Netflix so they made Bright. Ridiculous. So will Smith bagged a ton of $ to headline it and where did the rest go? And at that point Ayer had some clout in Hollywood. There's no creative freedom when you're being told to make a movie a certain way because 67% of viewers like Lord of the Rings and Bad Boys so hey! Let's combine the two.

 

[near]

The original interview which this is taken from is on Deadline. It's a really good interview. Talks about streaming platforms, television, almost working on a 007 feature film and more! I quoted some parts and the rest is at the link.

Breaking Baz @ Cannes: Quentin Tarantino Exclusive, Part 2 – Director Says He’s Open to Making TV Shows But Questions Role Of Streamers In The Business, Dishes On How He Once Flirted With Bond

In an interview with Deadline's Baz Bamigboye at the Cannes Film Festival, Quentin Tarantino says he won’t fully retire and talks TV and James Bond franchise.

deadline.com

He talks about why The Movie Critic will be he's last film:

“It’s just time. It’s just time to go out. I like the idea of going out on top. I like the idea of giving it my all for 30 years and then saying, ‘OK, that’s enough.’ And I don’t like working to diminishing returns. And I mean, now is a good time because I mean, what even is a motion picture anyway anymore? Is it just something that they show on Apple? That would be diminishing returns.”

On being open to do a TV show once he's done with films:

“No, I could do a TV show. I didn’t say I’m going to go into the night darkly, all right? I could do a TV show. I could do a short film. I could do a play. All kinds of things I could do, but I’ll probably just be more of a writer.”

Working with Sony again as a distributor because they both believe in the theatrical experience:

“Well, I’ve always thought that. And they eventually get to television. I saw a lot of them that way. I’m probably going to be doing the movie with Sony because they’re the last game in town that is just absolutely, utterly, committed to the theatrical experience. It’s not about feeding their streaming network. They are committed to theatrical experience. They judge success by asses on seats. And they judge success by the movies entering the zeitgeist, not just making a big expensive movie and then putting it on your streaming platform. No one even knows it’s there.”

 

[FullMetalx117]

I actually really liked The Gray Man and think it has been the best direct to streaming movie so far haha. And I wouldn’t have minded seeing it on the big screen. Action was great, love the cast, can clearly see it cost a lot of money, and it was fun. Even my mom, who hasn’t been to a theatre since Titanic re release in Feb, and then top gun mav before that, and then never again till 5 year prior, saw The Gray Man and enjoyed it.

I do think people no longer going to the theatres is a real thing. I go but it would for sure have to be either IMAX or some other PLF, something I can’t replicate at home.

Many people these days have 77 inch OLEDs, with above average sound systems (such as Sonos Arc/Sub), with dedicated 4k blu ray players that would tell you that the quality is actually better than a theatre. And even more convenient. That’s what legacy media is up against and I’m talking about enthusiasts here, most casuals don’t even care for that stuff.

 

[NecrosaroIII]

The only great Direct to Stream movie I've seen was Don't Look Up.

 

[jason10mm]

I was trying to explain this to someone at work. Netflix needs to explain to me how the The Gray Man with Ryan Reynolds cost the same as No Time to Die, they clearly think throwing tons of money means "it's just as good" when it reality it's all "Look at us we have high budget films too"

Netflix is CLEARLY laundering money with that stuff, writing off the building of entire backlots and production houses to a single film. Regular studios do it as well, but the streamers make it obvious.

Amazon, for example, probably wrote off every building, stapler, computer, and truck they bought for an entire year to Ring of Power.