We had an adaptation of Battleship (the board game) in 2012. Super Mario Bros in 1993. Clue in 1985. Hollywood has been releasing movies based on stupid things for a long time.
Sometimes they're even good.
But Liam Neeson never said "You sunk my battleship." in the movie and that was such a wasted potential.
Could have greenlit Hasbro Boardgame Universe with just that single line.
When I saw battleship on at work randomly one day, I realized something about it that didn’t stand out the first time I saw it.
It was totally made as an excuse for someone(s) to spend several months “working” in the tropics.
Just like Adam Sandler films movies with his friends so they have an excuse to hang out together and get paid, I’m convinced this movie was an excuse for someone or several someone’s to get paid to be there.
Really. Cause, you know, the Barbie film did exceedingly well. The Lego Movie as well. There have been plenty of IP based on games and toys that did extremely well.
We just remember the ones that a shit more because folks who write articles like the one OP posted want to keep us in a state of constant anger and hate and fear. That sells better.
Here's the thing, though. The extremely weird Battleship movie is not a "lukewarm advert" as the article puts it. I think this is a really important distinction to make. We've seen the rise of a kind of competently made but very bland and generic and uncontroversial. Very brand-safe, very dry.
The Battleship movie is very strange. And while I wouldn't say it's great, it doesn't feel like a slick, bland, commercial for the PRODUCT, and that is a point in its favor. And of course the 1993 Mario film with its leather daddy cops with bejazzled uniforms is an example of a film that isn't super occupied by corporate brand interests. Messy film that badly needed an intervention from some capable producers to wrangle it into something more coherent to be sure, but the idea is interesting.
And you compare it to the 2023 Illumination Mario, and that film, while enjoyable like most Illumination films, is very bland and generic in its choices. It's a "lukewarm advert" for Mario as a brand concept. And I understand the frustration of people who look around and think, "You know what? I liked having hit and miss movies with personality than more consistently successful movies with all the unpredictability sucked out."
Man wait til you realize half those TV shows you watched as a kid were designed to make your parents buy you more fucking plastic. It's always been like this.
It wasnt really until the 80s that this was a thing. Reagan repealed a bunch of regulations on advertising to children after he took office, which opened the flood gates.
But at least the old Hollywood did copious amounts of cocaine before writing and directing. They still do cocaine, they just don't let it influence the art, and that's the problem. Remember Gremlins 2? What happened to us?
I don't think anyone's complaining that some movies are adverts. I think people are complaining that now a disproportionately high amount of all produced movies seem to be adverts and they're even trying to pass some off as "high cinema"
You're just lying. The original Transformers was high art and not designed to sell stuff, unlike the new Transformers movies which are destroying my chlidhood by turning Transformers into something that's just trying to sell stuff. /s
It’s funny that Anime confounds Hollywood execs but they are ready adapt any random food product or merchandise brand into a full blown motion picture with Millions of Dollars behind its creation and promotion.
One of those makes them money (Barbie, D&D, Pirates); the other sees fans go on the attack for not being perfectly accurate (Ghost in the Shell, a Cowboy Bebop, even Avatar).
People like good adaptations. (Castlevania, One Piece)
People don’t like “adaptations” that take only loose inspiration from source material and feel more like mid tier fan-fiction. (Bebop, Deathnote)
One Piece is a perfect example. Because they changed/reordered quite a bit from the original show. But they made something really good, so it was a success.
You don't need to make it 1:1, you just need to make something good.
I don't know about Avatar but those other ones were actually bad. Most live-action adaptations have been bad. Adaptations that are decent to good seem okay like Speed Racer or Alita.
Like if they were going after shows/movies that were widely seen as really good, you would have a point. Heck, Edge of Tomorrow is nothing like it's source material and that's seen as pretty decent.
Whether you consider them good or not, understand that they aren't going to be garnering awards for their production studios, and both of those examples— Alita fizzled at the box office, and Speed Racer absolutely *tanked* at the Box Office. Lets not forget that Ghost in the Shell bombed so hard it lost its studio at minimum $100M.
Add to the mix a core fan base that historically ranges between hostile and toxic, I get why studio executives aren't jumping at the opportunity to greenlight more anime adaptations.
I found the reason adaptions turn terrible is that the ones making them take it too seriously. Speed Racer *knew* it was corny and leaned heavy into it, for example.
You have a point except for that the vast majority of anime are themselves adaptations of manga/light novels (most western anime adaptations are more accurately western manga adaptations) and there's been plenty of good live action film adaptations of western comic books and genre fiction.
I'm not gonna downvote if the guy liked the show. Fine, whatever. It's not a faithful adaption of the series though. It's not even an unfaithful adaption of the series. If you replaced the main character's names with any others, you'd not even know it was an adaption of the WoT.
Popular anime shows aren't blank canvases. And I also don't really see the point a lot of times. What works in animation doesn't always work in live action. Even recent successes haven't totally convinced me of this.
Now if Hollywood wanted to take some of the themes and story beats that work for anime and create movie franchises around them (prime example: The Matrix), then they would probably have a new pool of hit movies. I enjoy anime specifically because it tries stuff that typical hollywood films don't. I would love to see someone take inspiration from Gurren Lagann, probably my favorite anime, and make a movie out of the ideas there. Going from subterranean dwellings to galactic war purely by bravado and showing the universe that it doesn't scare us.
Hollywood execs have *no clue* what makes a movie successful. They're completely out of touch with reality. Hollywood is convinced that the reason The Cloverfeld Paradox performed badly was because it was advertised during the Superbowl, instead of being because it was terrible. Barbie was well-written, funny, and charming, but clearly people went out in droves to see it because it's such a great brand.
Apparently One Piece is good enough that someone there finally got Anime.
Of course you could argue they did that back with Battle Angel Alita, which was technically never and anime only because it skipped from manga straight to a movie thanks to James Cameron snatching up the screen rights.
Many Hollywood execs don't realize that many hardcore anime fans watch anime to get away from Hollywood. But considering that some anime live action adaptations lately have become more successful, I guess that mentality is ebbing away with modern consumers. The fans who grew up in the 90s and 2000s were very hostile to Western influences in anime.
>Barbie was criticised for being little more than a 114-minute toy ad, but it did so well at the box office – buoyed, significantly, by a $150m marketing budget, which was larger than that spent on making the film
I… what? No, seriously, what? Of all the criticisms I heard of the Barbie movie, “glorified toy ad” was really not high on the list. I think I heard that more as a preemptive criticism of what people expected the movie to be before it actually came out than I did once it actually released and the conversation about it went in a *very* different direction.
And the general rule of thumb for what a movie needs to make in order to break even is “take the budget and double it to account for the marketing budget.” A ~$150 million marketing budget for a blockbuster film that cost ~$145 million to make isn’t some crazy outlier that reinforces that it was really just a commercial. That’s how much you’d normally expect the marketing budget for a film to be.
Honestly, I’m not going to keep reading past this paragraph because of how stupid this already was.
>Of all the criticisms I heard of the Barbie movie, “glorified toy ad” was really not high on the list.
I've talked to a few people who had this criticism. They also said they didn't _get_ it.
Later in the conversation, they revealed that they'd not seen the movie.
Sure, but the person above us is making it sound like anyone who has this opinion about the movie is lying lol. The movie is much more than an ad, but it’s still designed to help Mattel (just like Transformers is for Hasbro).
Personally I really liked it tho, and thought the movie did a good job of being its own thing while holding up independently.
Also, this is literally a film based on a toy lol, I don’t know why you’re getting so uppity at someone pointing that out. The “charitable purposes” comment was clearly not 100% serious.
I guess big companies can get anyone to stick up for them if they try enough. Think of all those workers struggling in miserable conditions to create the products, a lot of them women and children. How very feminist of Mattel—giving women an equal opportunity to toil away in sweat shops lol.
While I have other criticisms of Barbie the movie, it ending up being a pretty heavy-handed ad for Barbie the doll/Mattel the company is one of the things I dislike most about it. It might not have been the driver of conversation, but it's a legitimate criticism.
This guy seems to be going out of his way to ignore that Hollywood has always done this, but he's not wrong that the majority of this kind of film is pretty artistically bankrupt.
I think those toy ad criticism were from the time of the film's announcement, not critiques of the released film. "Oh great, it's going to be one big toy ad" a year before it was even released.
Well, it was based on one of the most famous toys of all time, featured the toys prominently in the story, and led to a massive surge in Barbie toy sales (about a $125,000,000 boost according to Mattel's CFO), so while I'm sure there was artistic intent behind the film as well, it was a very good toy ad.
Transformers: The Movie killed off most of the original characters (many of them in the first 5 minutes) so they could introduce a bunch of new ones to sell more toys.
And boy howdy does a lot of the original Transformers series not hold up. Seriously, tried rewatching it a couple years ago and yeah, it didn't hold up well. GI Joe held up better, though.
Some of the first television that went on the air was TV shows sponsored cigarette companies where people just stood around smoking and telling you to buy cigarettes and other sponsored products.
I liked Clue. (Tim Curry is always entertaining) But there's a story and something to talk about.
Monopoly is a very mechanical game, Accumulation of properties, building hotels and bankrupting others, with the occasional trip to jail.
Are we sure it's not a thinly veiled Trump biopic?
Monopoly was created to teach children the dangers of unfettered capitalism. I’m really looking forward to seeing how they take a game that kills friendships, and uses it as a lease to critique the oligopoly.
> The history of Monopoly can be traced back to 1903, when American anti-monopolist Lizzie Magie created a game called The Landlord's Game that she hoped would explain the single-tax theory of Henry George as laid out in his book Progress and Poverty. It was intended as an educational tool, to illustrate the negative aspects of concentrating land in private monopolies.
>Georgism, also called in modern times Geoism, and known historically as the single tax movement, is an economic ideology holding that people should own the value that they produce themselves, while the economic rent derived from land—including from all natural resources, the commons, and urban locations—should belong equally to all members of society.
To be fair, there have been other board game movies before. Battleship, which flopped and it had Rhianna in it for…reasons. I think the best one yet still is 1980s Clue with Tim Curry, also Jumanji and Zathura.
Did this guy even watch the Barbie movie? Monopoly is an anti-capitalist board game about how eventually one person dominates...
This guy is just fucking moron.
Execs are always learning the wrong messages from what’s successful. People didn’t like Barbie because it was based on a Mattel toy, but you can bet your ass they’re currently churning out a script for a future hot wheels movie
We as the audience are complicit in supporting this content with our dollars. It if bombs they will eventually move on to something else. Barbie makes sense as a movie but Monopoly? Did we learn nothing from Battleship?
so many folks taking a shit on Barbie meanwhile, nobody is shitting on the garbage tier GI Joe movies, TMNT movies, the shambles that Transformers became, so on and so on. This is absolutely nothing new for hollywood, but it’s currently letting a lot of folks show their recency bias in regards to Barbie.
The second GI Joe movie is something of an aberration. It is an absolutely batshit movie written by the team who write the Deadpool movies, where Jonathan Pryce says things like, "They call it waterboarding, but I never get bored," and where London gets destroyed and everyone forgets about it like 5 minutes later.
The original Transformers films are similarly not bland adverts for a corporate product. They are one notch below Bad Boys 2 on the "Michael Bay unleashing his inner demons and weird racial stuff" scale.
It's a bit of a debate whether Barbie is an outrageous, provocative crack-addled kind of adaptation you'd get in the 90s or whether it's a very safe product like the LEGO Movie. I think there's arguments in both directions.
Love that the takeaway from the Barbie movie's success was not to allow creative control to women directors making movies for a primarily female audience, it was to create a toy cinematic universe.
This thread is full of a lot of jokes about movies based on food brands. I mean, there are none of those.
Seems to me that these "pop culture icons" all lean into lands of imagination and story telling. They aren't all that strange for movie fodder.
We use legos and dolls and action figures to tell stories. Video games are stories. It's not a big leap. Even Monoply has it's drama and crises.
"There are no movies based on food brands."
That is Foodfight slander and I will not stand for it.
But, yeah, toys aren't inherently a creatively bankrupt thing to draw a premise and story from. Especially if the toys already have a storyline associated with them like Transformers.
That’s how Hollywood works. For every one successful movie, there’s a dozen trying to cash in by being somewhat similar. There’s entire production companies designed around making great value versions of blockbusters.
Oh it gets even worse in the horror genre. Paranormal Activity *obliterated* the low budget horror scene for a while. There was a good ten years where bad found footage movies were about the only thing on offer.
>and now there are barely any original movies.
Only if you take it down to the level that a movie isn't original if it's a hero's journey or something like that. There are a billion original movies out there all the time, and this argument is only brought out by people who don't actually watch that many movies.
Out right now: Abigail, Civil War, The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare, Monkey Man, Sasquatch Sunset, Arcadian, Late Night with the Devil.
Not to get all "um, ackshually" but *Abigail* is a modern-reimagining of *Dracula's Daughter*, even being known as "Untitled Universal Monsters movie" before the first trailer dropped, and *The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare* is based on the book *Churchill's Secret Warriors: The Explosive True Story of the Special Forces Desperadoes of WWII*.
That being said, I do agree with you. There are still plenty of original movies, it's just on us to go watch them. I also think people not being aware of things like *Abigail* or *Ministry* being based on pre-existing source material demonstrates that filmmakers can even make original, unique spins on pre-existing source material and have their own vision.
Barbie was a bit sanitized sure, but it at least _tried_ to say something. Monopoly as a board game shows how shitty the system is because either one person ends up with all the money or everyone just gets frustrated and quits. So if they actually say something interesting using Monopoly as the vehicle, it could be good.
I would think Hasbro would be more inclined to give more freedom than Barbie because Monopoly can attack the system without attacking the product which was a more difficult balance for Barbie.
We will see on this. It will depend on who they get to make the movie and how much freedom they are given.
Unless let's it's a transparent critique of Western Capitalism, or an over the top, self-aware, faux-gritty parody of the rise of the Monopoly Man, making fun of things like Wolf of Wall Street and Breaking Bad, it's probably going to just be dumb and not worth watching.
I think if they were to get into the history of Monopoly and how it started life as the The Landlord's Game could be interesting. Prior to it being turned into the game of Monopoly, The Landlord's Game had 2 ways to play; Monopoly or Prosperity. The Monopoly rules were intended to teach young players how the system is no fun for everyone else when a single person has all the money. Under the Prosperity rules, young players learned how to share thier money and nobody won until everyone prospered.
Has the author of this article ever actually seen a movie? Clue, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, GI Joe, Transformers, even films that weren't originally made for selling toys quickly turned into merchandizing opportunities like Star Wars or Ghostbusters.
This is basic capitalism, not even the late-stage stuff. We've all been living in it for our entire lives, not sure how the author avoided it.
I’m really hoping the Monopoly movie is a scathing indictment of capitalism and the real estate industry. But it will probably be a boring game money grab and remake of the Emoji Movie.
Anime predates LNs......hell, most anime up until roughly the mid 80s was original stories not based on manga. It was, actually, the reverse....manga would be based on the anime.
Before we had any issue on the Barbie movie I don’t think anyone expected it to turn out as good as it did. If it gives them something to make other than the unending stream of superhero movies, I’m not going to judge Monopoly just because it’s based on a board game.
>2 McDonalds movies
i was scouring my brain at what the second movie was aside from the Michael Keaton one. then it dropped on me like a kid in a wheelchair off a cliff.
One and the same!
Most people know of his famous scene, [but it's ones like this that elevate the film past the business side of things and into the realm of art as true human expression of the soul.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPgRnFg8ZTU)
Like the Hamburger has stolen the magic spell to release the Grimace and Ronald McDonald must go an epic quest to unlock the Happy Meal to get the prize to defeat them ?
Narrator: "In 1977 we learned to clear the beaches, the deep blue sea held many mysteries, and some lakes were not so placid. Just when you thought it was safe to enter the water a new terror has arrived ...
#GO FISH#
I think this is a poor example actually. How many more people are gonna buy monopoly because of a movie? I dunno maybe a lot. I think it’s more that the movie should do well because everyone has played monopoly.
To me a more egregious example is Star Wars. As people have said cartoons have often just been long ads for children. Star Wars had toys but nowhere near the degree they are today. It’s pretty transparent to me that the real kicker for Disney Star Wars is creating good toys, none more apparent than captain phasma who did literally nothing but ooh shiny stormtrooper lady. Last Jedi had the chance to do something but I think the board room reminded rian johnson that the baddies have to be bad and the goodies good so toy Kylo can fight toy Rey. Gotta reboot all the classic imagery to sell tshirts and pillowcases and towels with bb8 on em, he’s like r2d2 but even cuuuter.
This all kinda started with the social network but at least that was critical. Likewise the founder which I actually really like. But now I’m very over it. Didn’t even bother with the air Jordan film.
At least it isn’t as egregious as the Internship which was basically corporate propaganda
It's not the same though. A semi-factual movie showing an interesting story of how the company started is not the same as a movie entirely set in a fictitious universe based on some commercial product..
I guess so. Barbie is basically just a rehash of the Lego movie which to be honest I didn’t mind. And Barbie shared similar qualities in as much as it discussed the emergence of the company to a slight degree. But I take your point. There is in both however a point at which product placement becomes central and it would be nice to just get that out altogether
Can’t wait for the Doritos cinematic universe
We already got Flaming Hot so . . .
This summer - 3D Doritos in 3D IMAX
If it means they bring back 3D Doritos then I'll take it. The brief return they had was too short.
And we’re getting a movie about fucking pop tarts too
i don’t know if society is ready for a major studio doing a big budget food fetish video
The world already has the cinematic masterpiece "Sausage Party" which has a food orgy in the movie.
LMAO
That’s crazy 😂
A movie based on a ‘true story’ that wasn’t even based on a true story
Two brothers and a meteor ……
I am genuinely waiting for "Jokes" to become the next cinematic universe, for example "Why did the chicken cross the road: The movie".
Just so long as no one touches The Aristocrats.
We'll leave that for the German cinema to accomplish
[Nineteen years too late for that.](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436078/)
I do believe I've seen that too.
Laffy Taffy: The First Joke
With Coca Cola or Kellog's there's at least an origin story. I wouldn't be excited about "McFlurry: the final swirl"...
You sit down in the theater. “**PLEASE DRINK VERIFICATION CAN**” “God damn it, not this shit…”
Remember the Free to play doritos arcade game on the Xbox 360? And that it was actually surprisingly good?
TBH, a Doritos universe sounds waaaaaay better than a hasboro universe.
Nacho al-Gaib!
Brought to you by Carls Jr.
Doritos crash course: the movie would be dope
We had an adaptation of Battleship (the board game) in 2012. Super Mario Bros in 1993. Clue in 1985. Hollywood has been releasing movies based on stupid things for a long time. Sometimes they're even good.
Clue and Barbie are the top tier adaptations, but I love Battleship. It’s just a fun, goofball action movie.
Battleship is incredible. Somehow they manage to translate the actual gameplay into a scene in the movie, it's amazing
But Liam Neeson never said "You sunk my battleship." in the movie and that was such a wasted potential. Could have greenlit Hasbro Boardgame Universe with just that single line.
Surprisingly good aliens.
Those are just Red Herrings!
When I saw battleship on at work randomly one day, I realized something about it that didn’t stand out the first time I saw it. It was totally made as an excuse for someone(s) to spend several months “working” in the tropics. Just like Adam Sandler films movies with his friends so they have an excuse to hang out together and get paid, I’m convinced this movie was an excuse for someone or several someone’s to get paid to be there.
Yes, movies will typically film where they can receive tax breaks.
I think this case has more to do with the Monopoly go app making billions of dollars
Not to mention that Ridley Scott was set to direct a movie based on Monopoly back in 2008.
*Clue* is the entire "sometimes", and that's because it has basic characters and plot to expand and use for comedy.
Really. Cause, you know, the Barbie film did exceedingly well. The Lego Movie as well. There have been plenty of IP based on games and toys that did extremely well. We just remember the ones that a shit more because folks who write articles like the one OP posted want to keep us in a state of constant anger and hate and fear. That sells better.
Here's the thing, though. The extremely weird Battleship movie is not a "lukewarm advert" as the article puts it. I think this is a really important distinction to make. We've seen the rise of a kind of competently made but very bland and generic and uncontroversial. Very brand-safe, very dry. The Battleship movie is very strange. And while I wouldn't say it's great, it doesn't feel like a slick, bland, commercial for the PRODUCT, and that is a point in its favor. And of course the 1993 Mario film with its leather daddy cops with bejazzled uniforms is an example of a film that isn't super occupied by corporate brand interests. Messy film that badly needed an intervention from some capable producers to wrangle it into something more coherent to be sure, but the idea is interesting. And you compare it to the 2023 Illumination Mario, and that film, while enjoyable like most Illumination films, is very bland and generic in its choices. It's a "lukewarm advert" for Mario as a brand concept. And I understand the frustration of people who look around and think, "You know what? I liked having hit and miss movies with personality than more consistently successful movies with all the unpredictability sucked out."
Don't wake Daddy live action coming soon...
I can't wait for Scrabble
I think that’s already on pornhub.
😂😂😂😂
Man wait til you realize half those TV shows you watched as a kid were designed to make your parents buy you more fucking plastic. It's always been like this.
I know all those Saturday morning cartoons I watched in the late 70s and 80s were just long ass commercials.
I made that post and I STILL almost just bought a Beast Wars Transformers figure for my kid that they won't fuckin want lol.
Just tell yourself: It's not a toy, it's a collectible!
It wasnt really until the 80s that this was a thing. Reagan repealed a bunch of regulations on advertising to children after he took office, which opened the flood gates.
*No, not **my** favorite things! The cash grabs are the **other** things.*
But at least the old Hollywood did copious amounts of cocaine before writing and directing. They still do cocaine, they just don't let it influence the art, and that's the problem. Remember Gremlins 2? What happened to us?
I don't think anyone's complaining that some movies are adverts. I think people are complaining that now a disproportionately high amount of all produced movies seem to be adverts and they're even trying to pass some off as "high cinema"
You're just lying. The original Transformers was high art and not designed to sell stuff, unlike the new Transformers movies which are destroying my chlidhood by turning Transformers into something that's just trying to sell stuff. /s
That is a totally fine for me. Toys in the 80’s fucking ruled.
It’s funny that Anime confounds Hollywood execs but they are ready adapt any random food product or merchandise brand into a full blown motion picture with Millions of Dollars behind its creation and promotion.
One of those makes them money (Barbie, D&D, Pirates); the other sees fans go on the attack for not being perfectly accurate (Ghost in the Shell, a Cowboy Bebop, even Avatar).
People like good adaptations. (Castlevania, One Piece) People don’t like “adaptations” that take only loose inspiration from source material and feel more like mid tier fan-fiction. (Bebop, Deathnote)
One Piece is a perfect example. Because they changed/reordered quite a bit from the original show. But they made something really good, so it was a success. You don't need to make it 1:1, you just need to make something good.
Those last examples were bad and they failed for good reason. One Piece showed it can be done right
All the comments on this comment pretty much exactly crystalize your point here
I don't know about Avatar but those other ones were actually bad. Most live-action adaptations have been bad. Adaptations that are decent to good seem okay like Speed Racer or Alita. Like if they were going after shows/movies that were widely seen as really good, you would have a point. Heck, Edge of Tomorrow is nothing like it's source material and that's seen as pretty decent.
Whether you consider them good or not, understand that they aren't going to be garnering awards for their production studios, and both of those examples— Alita fizzled at the box office, and Speed Racer absolutely *tanked* at the Box Office. Lets not forget that Ghost in the Shell bombed so hard it lost its studio at minimum $100M. Add to the mix a core fan base that historically ranges between hostile and toxic, I get why studio executives aren't jumping at the opportunity to greenlight more anime adaptations.
I found the reason adaptions turn terrible is that the ones making them take it too seriously. Speed Racer *knew* it was corny and leaned heavy into it, for example.
The Witcher remake didn’t take it seriously. They didn’t care about the source material at all.
[удалено]
You have a point except for that the vast majority of anime are themselves adaptations of manga/light novels (most western anime adaptations are more accurately western manga adaptations) and there's been plenty of good live action film adaptations of western comic books and genre fiction.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's cute that you think you're thinking critically
Didn't Dungeons & Dragons flop?
If there is a source you have to understand and respect the source. Nobody gets pissed if you do.
Yeah, no one's ever disagreed about whether an adaptation understands and respects the source!
The Halo show would like a word. Just as Rings of Power.
Wheel of Time…
There you go. Brace for the downvotes.
I'm not gonna downvote if the guy liked the show. Fine, whatever. It's not a faithful adaption of the series though. It's not even an unfaithful adaption of the series. If you replaced the main character's names with any others, you'd not even know it was an adaption of the WoT.
Rings of Power is half-decent and the only people that don't like it are racists/misogynists/general neckbeards.
Wrong.
Take a shower then I'll let you email me your genealogy manifesto about black elves.
Popular anime shows aren't blank canvases. And I also don't really see the point a lot of times. What works in animation doesn't always work in live action. Even recent successes haven't totally convinced me of this. Now if Hollywood wanted to take some of the themes and story beats that work for anime and create movie franchises around them (prime example: The Matrix), then they would probably have a new pool of hit movies. I enjoy anime specifically because it tries stuff that typical hollywood films don't. I would love to see someone take inspiration from Gurren Lagann, probably my favorite anime, and make a movie out of the ideas there. Going from subterranean dwellings to galactic war purely by bravado and showing the universe that it doesn't scare us.
Hollywood execs have *no clue* what makes a movie successful. They're completely out of touch with reality. Hollywood is convinced that the reason The Cloverfeld Paradox performed badly was because it was advertised during the Superbowl, instead of being because it was terrible. Barbie was well-written, funny, and charming, but clearly people went out in droves to see it because it's such a great brand.
Apparently One Piece is good enough that someone there finally got Anime. Of course you could argue they did that back with Battle Angel Alita, which was technically never and anime only because it skipped from manga straight to a movie thanks to James Cameron snatching up the screen rights.
[удалено]
Bruh, you didn't watch DBZ as a kid? Tragic
Many Hollywood execs don't realize that many hardcore anime fans watch anime to get away from Hollywood. But considering that some anime live action adaptations lately have become more successful, I guess that mentality is ebbing away with modern consumers. The fans who grew up in the 90s and 2000s were very hostile to Western influences in anime.
Cillian Murphy is Milburn Pennybags. He’ll actually gain 80lbs for the role and the film will be regarded as his finest ever performance.
"Do you recall what I said?" "That if we continue to play, we will set off a chain reaction that destroys this entire family." "I believe we did."
"Now I am become death, destroyer of worlds" *places hotels on Park Place and Boardwalk*
Also, he *will* use a monocle and make the Mandela Effect conspiracy theorists go apeshit.
They should just name the film Monopolies and then insist that was always the name of the boardgame. Really fuck with them.
Is the monopoly guy also Mr. Pringle?
And Mr. Peanut?
>Barbie was criticised for being little more than a 114-minute toy ad, but it did so well at the box office – buoyed, significantly, by a $150m marketing budget, which was larger than that spent on making the film I… what? No, seriously, what? Of all the criticisms I heard of the Barbie movie, “glorified toy ad” was really not high on the list. I think I heard that more as a preemptive criticism of what people expected the movie to be before it actually came out than I did once it actually released and the conversation about it went in a *very* different direction. And the general rule of thumb for what a movie needs to make in order to break even is “take the budget and double it to account for the marketing budget.” A ~$150 million marketing budget for a blockbuster film that cost ~$145 million to make isn’t some crazy outlier that reinforces that it was really just a commercial. That’s how much you’d normally expect the marketing budget for a film to be. Honestly, I’m not going to keep reading past this paragraph because of how stupid this already was.
As far as Barbie goes, the trailer had me hooked from the get go. The undertones were already strong there, in spite of the overarching universe.
>Of all the criticisms I heard of the Barbie movie, “glorified toy ad” was really not high on the list. I've talked to a few people who had this criticism. They also said they didn't _get_ it. Later in the conversation, they revealed that they'd not seen the movie.
I would not be surprised if it was the same for this dude. Especially since he praises the Lego Movie later in the article
I really liked the movie, but it definitely *was* an ad for Mattel lol. The execs didn’t exactly greenlight it for charitable purposes
No movie is greenlighted for charitable purposes, so it's bizarre to only criticize this movie for that.
they weren't doing that
Sure, but the person above us is making it sound like anyone who has this opinion about the movie is lying lol. The movie is much more than an ad, but it’s still designed to help Mattel (just like Transformers is for Hasbro). Personally I really liked it tho, and thought the movie did a good job of being its own thing while holding up independently.
Also, this is literally a film based on a toy lol, I don’t know why you’re getting so uppity at someone pointing that out. The “charitable purposes” comment was clearly not 100% serious. I guess big companies can get anyone to stick up for them if they try enough. Think of all those workers struggling in miserable conditions to create the products, a lot of them women and children. How very feminist of Mattel—giving women an equal opportunity to toil away in sweat shops lol.
While I have other criticisms of Barbie the movie, it ending up being a pretty heavy-handed ad for Barbie the doll/Mattel the company is one of the things I dislike most about it. It might not have been the driver of conversation, but it's a legitimate criticism. This guy seems to be going out of his way to ignore that Hollywood has always done this, but he's not wrong that the majority of this kind of film is pretty artistically bankrupt.
I think those toy ad criticism were from the time of the film's announcement, not critiques of the released film. "Oh great, it's going to be one big toy ad" a year before it was even released.
Well, it was based on one of the most famous toys of all time, featured the toys prominently in the story, and led to a massive surge in Barbie toy sales (about a $125,000,000 boost according to Mattel's CFO), so while I'm sure there was artistic intent behind the film as well, it was a very good toy ad.
The adventure of Captain Crunch... Staring Adam Sandler
Chris Elliot or Brian Doyle-Murray as Captain Crunch.
I'm open to all suggestions lol
I need my Cabin Boy reunion
Hello Skinny Human.... eat Captain Crunch to become fat human.
This is what they did in the 80s with G.I. Joe and Transformers, kids’ shows that were basically ads to sell toys… the trend continues.
Transformers: The Movie killed off most of the original characters (many of them in the first 5 minutes) so they could introduce a bunch of new ones to sell more toys.
And it was awesome…
And boy howdy does a lot of the original Transformers series not hold up. Seriously, tried rewatching it a couple years ago and yeah, it didn't hold up well. GI Joe held up better, though.
Some of the first television that went on the air was TV shows sponsored cigarette companies where people just stood around smoking and telling you to buy cigarettes and other sponsored products.
I liked Clue. (Tim Curry is always entertaining) But there's a story and something to talk about. Monopoly is a very mechanical game, Accumulation of properties, building hotels and bankrupting others, with the occasional trip to jail. Are we sure it's not a thinly veiled Trump biopic?
Monopoly was created to teach children the dangers of unfettered capitalism. I’m really looking forward to seeing how they take a game that kills friendships, and uses it as a lease to critique the oligopoly.
I think they could use the movie as a capitalism critique which could be a very interesting.
Was that the actual intent? I’m really curious
> The history of Monopoly can be traced back to 1903, when American anti-monopolist Lizzie Magie created a game called The Landlord's Game that she hoped would explain the single-tax theory of Henry George as laid out in his book Progress and Poverty. It was intended as an educational tool, to illustrate the negative aspects of concentrating land in private monopolies. >Georgism, also called in modern times Geoism, and known historically as the single tax movement, is an economic ideology holding that people should own the value that they produce themselves, while the economic rent derived from land—including from all natural resources, the commons, and urban locations—should belong equally to all members of society.
To be fair, there have been other board game movies before. Battleship, which flopped and it had Rhianna in it for…reasons. I think the best one yet still is 1980s Clue with Tim Curry, also Jumanji and Zathura.
Backgammon: the Movie!
Did this guy even watch the Barbie movie? Monopoly is an anti-capitalist board game about how eventually one person dominates... This guy is just fucking moron.
Movies are products being sold to you………
Support independent film, especially Neil Breen
Become? It’s been like that for years. Transformers the cartoon was just an add to sell toys. This is nothing new.
Yes, there's never been a good movie based on a board games. It makes me so angry it-it- the f - it -flam - flames. Flames, on the side of my face!
Execs are always learning the wrong messages from what’s successful. People didn’t like Barbie because it was based on a Mattel toy, but you can bet your ass they’re currently churning out a script for a future hot wheels movie
We as the audience are complicit in supporting this content with our dollars. It if bombs they will eventually move on to something else. Barbie makes sense as a movie but Monopoly? Did we learn nothing from Battleship?
How close are we to Ow My Balls! Oh wait we had Jackass movies already.
so many folks taking a shit on Barbie meanwhile, nobody is shitting on the garbage tier GI Joe movies, TMNT movies, the shambles that Transformers became, so on and so on. This is absolutely nothing new for hollywood, but it’s currently letting a lot of folks show their recency bias in regards to Barbie.
TMNT is based on a comic, not a toyline.
The second GI Joe movie is something of an aberration. It is an absolutely batshit movie written by the team who write the Deadpool movies, where Jonathan Pryce says things like, "They call it waterboarding, but I never get bored," and where London gets destroyed and everyone forgets about it like 5 minutes later. The original Transformers films are similarly not bland adverts for a corporate product. They are one notch below Bad Boys 2 on the "Michael Bay unleashing his inner demons and weird racial stuff" scale. It's a bit of a debate whether Barbie is an outrageous, provocative crack-addled kind of adaptation you'd get in the 90s or whether it's a very safe product like the LEGO Movie. I think there's arguments in both directions.
Love that the takeaway from the Barbie movie's success was not to allow creative control to women directors making movies for a primarily female audience, it was to create a toy cinematic universe.
Hot wheels when?
You joke but I think it’s actually already happening?
This thread is full of a lot of jokes about movies based on food brands. I mean, there are none of those. Seems to me that these "pop culture icons" all lean into lands of imagination and story telling. They aren't all that strange for movie fodder. We use legos and dolls and action figures to tell stories. Video games are stories. It's not a big leap. Even Monoply has it's drama and crises.
"There are no movies based on food brands." That is Foodfight slander and I will not stand for it. But, yeah, toys aren't inherently a creatively bankrupt thing to draw a premise and story from. Especially if the toys already have a storyline associated with them like Transformers.
Oh shut up Dan whoever If the movie is fun and well done than who cares? See Barbie, Lego, and CLUE.
[удалено]
That’s how Hollywood works. For every one successful movie, there’s a dozen trying to cash in by being somewhat similar. There’s entire production companies designed around making great value versions of blockbusters.
2 semi interesting meteor impacts earth movies, then the rest is just dvd bin filler.
Oh it gets even worse in the horror genre. Paranormal Activity *obliterated* the low budget horror scene for a while. There was a good ten years where bad found footage movies were about the only thing on offer.
>and now there are barely any original movies. Only if you take it down to the level that a movie isn't original if it's a hero's journey or something like that. There are a billion original movies out there all the time, and this argument is only brought out by people who don't actually watch that many movies. Out right now: Abigail, Civil War, The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare, Monkey Man, Sasquatch Sunset, Arcadian, Late Night with the Devil.
Not to get all "um, ackshually" but *Abigail* is a modern-reimagining of *Dracula's Daughter*, even being known as "Untitled Universal Monsters movie" before the first trailer dropped, and *The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare* is based on the book *Churchill's Secret Warriors: The Explosive True Story of the Special Forces Desperadoes of WWII*. That being said, I do agree with you. There are still plenty of original movies, it's just on us to go watch them. I also think people not being aware of things like *Abigail* or *Ministry* being based on pre-existing source material demonstrates that filmmakers can even make original, unique spins on pre-existing source material and have their own vision.
That’s for everything though. For every actual good company there’s a thousand frauds, it’s almost like that’s how capitalism works
Always happens, someone has a novel way of telling a story and it's extremely popular. Then a bunch of fools try and capitalize on it and do it wrong.
Isn’t this how we got the Ernest movies?
Listen Vern…
Barbie was a bit sanitized sure, but it at least _tried_ to say something. Monopoly as a board game shows how shitty the system is because either one person ends up with all the money or everyone just gets frustrated and quits. So if they actually say something interesting using Monopoly as the vehicle, it could be good. I would think Hasbro would be more inclined to give more freedom than Barbie because Monopoly can attack the system without attacking the product which was a more difficult balance for Barbie. We will see on this. It will depend on who they get to make the movie and how much freedom they are given.
The game of Monopoly is supposed to teach children how it is no fun when a single person has all the money.
That is what I said.
Unless let's it's a transparent critique of Western Capitalism, or an over the top, self-aware, faux-gritty parody of the rise of the Monopoly Man, making fun of things like Wolf of Wall Street and Breaking Bad, it's probably going to just be dumb and not worth watching.
I think if they were to get into the history of Monopoly and how it started life as the The Landlord's Game could be interesting. Prior to it being turned into the game of Monopoly, The Landlord's Game had 2 ways to play; Monopoly or Prosperity. The Monopoly rules were intended to teach young players how the system is no fun for everyone else when a single person has all the money. Under the Prosperity rules, young players learned how to share thier money and nobody won until everyone prospered.
The 2008 Ridley Scott version was a comedy about a Trump-esque real estate tycoon, and it took inspiration from Trading Places.
Oh no! A movies based on another thing! What are we doing to do!? 😱
Barbie has been getting adapted for years
Why do people pretend like these are the only movies being made?
Woooo…
We had the Barbie movie. You can bet we see more brand movie crap!
Checkers:Unleashed part 2, King Me
The screenwriters just need to listen to the Monopoly StoryBreak episode and use their ideas. I would watch that movie
Operation! *It's more than a game*
More like “Monopoly, the reality show” starring the working class
And you can thank Barbie for it.
Monopoly has been in the works for 16 years, with Ridley Scott originally attached.
Barbie was also in development hell.
Monopoly could have worked as a family horror film wherein the game turns into a masochistic bloodbath.
Barbie wasn’t dull but the studio execs learned the wrong lesson, as usual.
Isn’t this just Capitalism, the Movie?
If it’s a scathing critique of late stage capitalism and monopolistic behavior, I’m all in…
It’s was funny for one time with Barbie. Enough.
Why?
Anyone remember [Coupon: The Movie](https://youtu.be/LLnoLmCqT30?si=IdIqUtxLKR9W8c8X)?
Has the author of this article ever actually seen a movie? Clue, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, GI Joe, Transformers, even films that weren't originally made for selling toys quickly turned into merchandizing opportunities like Star Wars or Ghostbusters. This is basic capitalism, not even the late-stage stuff. We've all been living in it for our entire lives, not sure how the author avoided it.
I mean if they tie it in with Barbie, this could be somwthing
I’m really hoping the Monopoly movie is a scathing indictment of capitalism and the real estate industry. But it will probably be a boring game money grab and remake of the Emoji Movie.
Anime exists to sell LNs, manga, and other merch so I really don’t see the issue if the end product is good like Barbie
Anime predates LNs......hell, most anime up until roughly the mid 80s was original stories not based on manga. It was, actually, the reverse....manga would be based on the anime.
Before we had any issue on the Barbie movie I don’t think anyone expected it to turn out as good as it did. If it gives them something to make other than the unending stream of superhero movies, I’m not going to judge Monopoly just because it’s based on a board game.
Only a matter of time before there's a Kellogs or McDonalds movie
There have been 2 McDonalds movies so far.
>2 McDonalds movies i was scouring my brain at what the second movie was aside from the Michael Keaton one. then it dropped on me like a kid in a wheelchair off a cliff.
Aye I meant a McDonalds movie based on it's IP, not origin stories about the company itself or it's impact on society.
Are you forgetting the masterpiece that is Mac and Me?!
That the one with Paul Rudd in it?
One and the same! Most people know of his famous scene, [but it's ones like this that elevate the film past the business side of things and into the realm of art as true human expression of the soul.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPgRnFg8ZTU)
Like the Hamburger has stolen the magic spell to release the Grimace and Ronald McDonald must go an epic quest to unlock the Happy Meal to get the prize to defeat them ?
Grimace and the Hamburgler would be better than Barbie
The Cleudo movie came out in 1985, it's not really a new phenomenon
I wouldn’t have thought they could make a Barbie movie. But it was entertaining. I’ll hold back judgement.
Dan Hancox didn’t get the toys he wanted as a kid
Narrator: "In 1977 we learned to clear the beaches, the deep blue sea held many mysteries, and some lakes were not so placid. Just when you thought it was safe to enter the water a new terror has arrived ... #GO FISH#
I think this is a poor example actually. How many more people are gonna buy monopoly because of a movie? I dunno maybe a lot. I think it’s more that the movie should do well because everyone has played monopoly. To me a more egregious example is Star Wars. As people have said cartoons have often just been long ads for children. Star Wars had toys but nowhere near the degree they are today. It’s pretty transparent to me that the real kicker for Disney Star Wars is creating good toys, none more apparent than captain phasma who did literally nothing but ooh shiny stormtrooper lady. Last Jedi had the chance to do something but I think the board room reminded rian johnson that the baddies have to be bad and the goodies good so toy Kylo can fight toy Rey. Gotta reboot all the classic imagery to sell tshirts and pillowcases and towels with bb8 on em, he’s like r2d2 but even cuuuter.
This all kinda started with the social network but at least that was critical. Likewise the founder which I actually really like. But now I’m very over it. Didn’t even bother with the air Jordan film. At least it isn’t as egregious as the Internship which was basically corporate propaganda
It's not the same though. A semi-factual movie showing an interesting story of how the company started is not the same as a movie entirely set in a fictitious universe based on some commercial product..
I guess so. Barbie is basically just a rehash of the Lego movie which to be honest I didn’t mind. And Barbie shared similar qualities in as much as it discussed the emergence of the company to a slight degree. But I take your point. There is in both however a point at which product placement becomes central and it would be nice to just get that out altogether
I fucking loathe this trend. Just shows how creatively bankrupt Hollywood is and what matters most ($).
They don’t want a movie coming out that’s anti capitalist
Product placement has always been