Movies

if the purpose of giving someone 500 million dollars for a whodunit, is NOT to try and kill the theatrical aspect of it, then what IS the purpose? 

Give me a break. 

It's not different from the whole LIV Golf thing. "Hey, we'll give you 20 times as much money as the PGA Tour", and then you get people living under the capitalist way of life who would do ANYTHING for that kind of money. They create the illusion for themselves, they rationalize that there are no implications with them taking that money. 

Charles Barkley tried to make a joke out of it. When he was considering becoming an "analyst" for LIV Golf, you'll remember he said: 

"I'd kill a family member for 200 million dollars". Trying to be funny, glib about it. 

But then a couple of the journalists turned out to be considerably wittier than Charles, saying something like: 

"Hey Charles, you don't understand this LIV Golf thing. YOU don't have to KILL anybody. The guys with the money are the ones that MURDER all the people. All YOU have to do is take their money". 

Now THAT is funny. And the truth. As they say, great humor has a little truth lurking within it. 

Net Trix is similar, except the blood money isn't as literal; it's just taking the money to help kill theatrical. 

Seriously. 500 million dollars to make an Orient Express type mystery. Who exactly are we kidding here? Nobody, that's who. That ridiculous kind of money, which they unfortunately have to waste, is simply thrown at people, to PREVENT theatrical from getting at that money, that franchise. 

And most Americans, most Westerners, they'll easily turn their back on what the movies mean. Money is more powerful than Art. Just ask Rian Johnson. What makes people angry is the hypocrisy at play. Yeah, take all that MONEY. Then complain about it too, after screwing the film industry over. It's ****eyed. 

Even Scorsese. Think long and hard about Scorsese. Here you have a man who, perhaps as much as any other commercial filmmaker, has clearly demonstrated a passion, a love for going to the movies. For the history of cinema, how a film is exhibited to an audience. Now, I'm positive that Scorsese figured out long ago how to sleep at night over this, and I have no doubt that he can watch any of these TV movies he makes on a big screen in a movie theater any time he likes. But those movies are TV movies. Plain and simple. And he knows it deep down. 

Please explain how, a couple years ago when that last TV movie he made didn't get a wide theatrical release, why was he pleading with the media about that, why was he talking to the media about the idea of a wide theatrical release for that TV show? He took the Net Tricks money, he got hundreds of millions of dollars to make a gangster picture (ridiculous again), and he gladly took that money, and yet he STILL was having conversations about how what he REALLY WANTED was for that TV movie to play WIDE in THEATERS, and BEFORE Net Trix would do what they'd do with his FILM. Why is that? And why doesn't Scorsese understand what he's doing? He wants his cake and eat it too, when clearly, CLEARLY, it does not work that way. You take that money, you're helping strangle theatrical. At least have the guts and the ideals to acknowledge that and play with it. Don't rationalize it away; don't make it out to be something other than what it is. 

Again, why didn't Scrosese explain to the media, how his last TV movie was made with the "audience" in mind? How he planned his TV movie to be watched on TV screens, 13 inch monitors, and IPODS, which is where they are mostly watched. I am flying home later today from Kauai. When i flew here, i saw dozens of people watching stuff on their little 5 inch phone.  And i'm sure that later today when i come home i'll be seeing the exact same thing. That's what Scorsese chose, when he took the Net Trix money. Not a theatrical film. There is no memories of world wide audiences seeing those TV movies in a dark movie theater, on a big screen, with memorable audio and visual components. It will never be a communal experience for those TV movies. Millions of people turned off their TV's in the middle or earlier of that TV movie, and went to go to the store, or went to work, or took calls from Mom, or did whatever they did, instead of watching those TV movies with anything near the committment of going to a film in a theater. 

I am not making the argument that people want to watch TV movies in that manner instead of going to a theater. That's a subject changer, like somebody saying that Colin Kapernick should be fired for kneeling during the National Anthem. A whatabout. Nice try. That's definitely NOT what this is about. 

Look, this whole thing is what it is. I don't deny it. But let's just not try to lie about it at or rationalize it away at the same time. And again, ask your average movie fan what their favorite Scorsese movies are, and see how many of them tell you it's the TV movie he made instead of Goodfellas, or Raging Bull, or Taxi Driver . We all know the answer to that question, and why. Let's just not lie to ourselves about it. It's not Scorsese's fault; he was just a good officer, following capitalist orders from the higher ups. He took the money, like any good Westerner is supposed to. Just have the guts to call it what it is and move on. 

Remember William Costigan's dad in The Departed? Frank Costello speaks of him; he says something like "I respected him. But I couldn't use him, I couldn't do anything with him. He wouldn't take my money".  Well, Rian Johnson is definitely NOT William Costigan's dad LOL. So take your 500 million dollars and quit complaining that your TV movie isn't getting a wide theatrical release. Or at best a "theatrical" release which most people couldn't care less about because your bosses will destroy it by releasing your TV movie on TV at the same time. At least have the balls to be honest about it.  You take the money;  why is he doing this to Net Trix? He took half a billion dollars LOL. That's not enough? You're still going to run on about a theatrical release? 

It's a sad joke is what it is. 

I've loved sitting in the Alamo as much as anyone, watching Rian Johnson's commercials about being quiet in the movie theater. But it's definitely lost alot of its joy now. He doesn't give as much of a sh*t about the theatrical experience as he will claim. He danced with the devil. Move on.