TOP GUN: MAVERICK starring Tom Cruise (2020) 4 4

[Bosco685]

 

[drotto]

On 1/16/2023 at 6:50 AM, Bosco685 said:

 

Well deserved.  They way they revolutionized aerial photography in this film deserves recognition.

Edited January 17, 2023 by drotto

[Bosco685]

It's weird

[The Brain]

THIS IS HILARIOUS.

 

 

 

[Bosco685]

 

[drotto]

On 1/25/2023 at 6:08 AM, Bosco685 said:

It's weird

The cinematography in this film is groundbreaking.   It may be limited in impact, because how many films would demand these types of sequences,  but it is a massive snub. Just another indication the Oscar's are out of touch and becoming irrelevant. Yes, the film got other nominations, but I see those as pandering and not real.

Edited February 9, 2023 by drotto

[@therealsilvermane]

On 2/9/2023 at 1:13 PM, drotto said:

The cinematography in this film is groundbreaking.   It may be limited in impact, because how many films would demand these types of sequences,  but it is a massive snub. Just another indication the Oscar's are out of touch and becoming irrelevant. Yes, the film got other nominations, but I see those as pandering and not real.

Because what was amazing about Top Gun Maverick’s cinematography was really that the filmmakers were able to fit so many cameras on one fighter jet. For each of those camera setups, there was no inventive angle setup or lighting setup to create emotional impact. It was just getting as many cameras onto the jet to cover all the visual bases. The real “magic” was done in the editing, compiling all those camera angles into a single action, and Top Gun Maverick deservedly received a nomination for Best Editing. The real art of cinematography comes in the creative angle setups and lighting, not how many cameras you can cram onto a moving vehicle.

[drotto]

On 2/10/2023 at 7:14 AM, @therealsilvermane said:

Because what was amazing about Top Gun Maverick’s cinematography was really that the filmmakers were able to fit so many cameras on one fighter jet. For each of those camera setups, there was no inventive angle setup or lighting setup to create emotional impact. It was just getting as many cameras onto the jet to cover all the visual bases. The real “magic” was done in the editing, compiling all those camera angles into a single action, and Top Gun Maverick deservedly received a nomination for Best Editing. The real art of cinematography comes in the creative angle setups and lighting, not how many cameras you can cram onto a moving vehicle.

Sorry, it also includes all the outside arial shots, and external 1st person viewpoint flight shots.  Those were far more then just cramming cameras in a plane.  None of those flight exteriors are CGI in this film, yes CGI was used for some for the planes (very limited), but the massive potion of this movie was practically shot, and that falls under the umbrella of cinematography. Furthermore, cramming all the cameras in a plane did not mean it was going to going to work, you still needed to coordinate the shots, plan the sequencies, set the angles for all those cameras,  know the lighting for where filming was occurring, etc.  That is also all cinematography. Yes, a lot happened in editing, and the editing also deserved the node, but to discount the effort taken, development of new tech, and planning needed to get those shots as not cinematography is absurd. Also these shots were very creative, and different from anything that has been put on film before with regards to flying, and while they relied heavily on technology, you can not dismiss the creative aspect that was needed to  conceive and execute those shots.

 

So yes it deserved the node, because the end results was something new that looked great, and was visceral on a level I have never seen before in a movie. I can appreciate a vast array of moody lighting, creative angles, and sweeping vistas, but the reality is while this stuff looks great and is very well done, it has all been done before. This does fall on the side of being more technical, but it does not make it less valid, and it was new.  The rest of the stuff still falls within the narrow, and quiet frankly snobbish Hollywood view, of what films elites consider great movie making. What was done here is still art, but more art for the masses, not for a few.  

[Bosco685]

Spielberg pronounced 'Shang-Chi' incorrectly

[drotto]

On 2/14/2023 at 8:04 PM, Bosco685 said:

Spielberg pronounced 'Shang-Chi' incorrectly

Wait!!!!!!!! We finally found the movie that saved theaters!!!!!!!!  But our resident expert disagrees, how will we ever solve this dilemma. 

[Straw-Man]

you meanies!  but funny meanies...

[media_junkie]

On 2/14/2023 at 9:07 PM, drotto said:

Wait!!!!!!!! We finally found the movie that saved theaters!!!!!!!!  But our resident expert disagrees, how will we ever solve this dilemma. 

I'm sure the rebuttal will be "Well Spielberg has yet to direct for Marvel so he is a hack and doesn't know what he is talking about."

[@therealsilvermane]

On 2/14/2023 at 8:04 PM, Bosco685 said:

Spielberg pronounced 'Shang-Chi' incorrectly

What Steven Spielberg really meant was “You saved Hollywood’s arse and theatrical distribution from all those awful superhero movies that have taken the box office dollars from the rest of us for a decade!” 

Because even though he praised Iron Man and GOTG, Spielberg doesn’t really care for superhero movies and hasn’t since 1989 Batman. Where is Spielberg’s public praise for Spider-Man No Way Home which made more domestic and international than Maverick? 

When I say Shang-Chi saved movie theaters, I’m not only repeating the sentiment of actual movie theater chain owners at the time, I’m saying it in the context of a time when everybody thought the pandemic not only hastened the death of the movie theater, but also hastened  the rise of home streaming as the preferred way to watch big movies, and Shang-Chi proving that sentiment wrong with two highly unexpected record box office weekends, and practically creating a domino effect regarding confidence in the power of the box office going forward.

[Gatsby77]

On 2/15/2023 at 6:47 AM, @therealsilvermane said:

When I say Shang-Chi saved movie theaters, I’m not only repeating the sentiment of actual movie theater chain owners at the time, I’m saying it in the context of a time when everybody thought the pandemic not only hastened the death of the movie theater, but also hastened  the rise of home streaming as the preferred way to watch big movies, and Shang-Chi proving that sentiment wrong with two highly unexpected record box office weekends, and practically creating a domino effect regarding confidence in the power of the box office going forward.

For the 50th time, Fast 9 came out months before Shang-Chi - and grossed nearly $300 million more worldwide.

It was also (gasp!) a better movie.

[bentbryan]

[@therealsilvermane]

On 2/15/2023 at 6:54 AM, Gatsby77 said:

For the 50th time, Fast 9 came out months before Shang-Chi - and grossed nearly $300 million more worldwide.

It was also (gasp!) a better movie.

Well, Shang-Chi got waaay higher scores than F9 with Metacritic, IMDb, and RT critic and audience, so I’m not sure what your better movie metric is other than your personal opinion. 

Yes, F9 came out in June 2021, months before Shang-Chi. F9 made $179 million domestic, not bad for a pandemic release. But what needs to be considered is that movie theaters still had an awful box office the rest of the summer while streaming got more and more popular over the summer..  It was expected Black Widow might be the end of summer spike the box office needed, but instead made it worse with its rapid diminishing  box office compared to its record streaming premiere numbers. Black Widow was almost like a seeming nail in the coffin for movie theaters because of its streaming success. F9 wasn’t up against that doom and gloom sentiment, Shang-Chi was. And after Shang-Chi’s two record box office weekends, all talk of streaming as the new future of big movies was dead. F9 didn’t do that. Shang-Chi did that.

Also, what the North American movie theater industry was worried about during the pandemic was North American theater chains: AMC, Cinemark, IMAX etc. F9’s $300 million overseas had no bearing on AMC or Cinemark’s profits. 

Edited February 15, 2023 by @therealsilvermane

[Gatsby77]

On 2/15/2023 at 8:33 AM, @therealsilvermane said:

Yes, F9 came out in June 2021, months before Shang-Chi. F9 made $179 million domestic, not bad for a pandemic release. But what needs to be considered is that movie theaters still had an awful box office the rest of the summer while streaming got more and more popular over the summer..  It was expected Black Widow might be the end of summer spike the box office needed, but instead made it worse with its rapid diminishing  box office compared to its record streaming premiere numbers. Black Widow was almost like a seeming nail in the coffin for movie theaters because of its streaming success. F9 wasn’t up against that doom and gloom sentiment, Shang-Chi was. And after Shang-Chi’s two record box office weekends, all talk of streaming as the new future of big movies was dead. F9 didn’t do that. Shang-Chi did that. 

1) Lockdowns - and public fear of crowded spaces like theaters - was far higher when F9 was released than was Shang-Chi -- so the fact that it broke through and still made 76% of Shang-Chi's domestic take was incredibly important to domestic theater chains - at the very time that they needed a win.

Translation: It saved domestic cinema.

If it had failed, Shang-Chi would have been pushed back even further.

2) Which one is getting a sequel?

[drotto]

On 2/15/2023 at 6:47 AM, @therealsilvermane said:

What Steven Spielberg really meant was “You saved Hollywood’s arse and theatrical distribution from all those awful superhero movies that have taken the box office dollars from the rest of us for a decade!” 

Because even though he praised Iron Man and GOTG, Spielberg doesn’t really care for superhero movies and hasn’t since 1989 Batman. Where is Spielberg’s public praise for Spider-Man No Way Home which made more domestic and international than Maverick? 

When I say Shang-Chi saved movie theaters, I’m not only repeating the sentiment of actual movie theater chain owners at the time, I’m saying it in the context of a time when everybody thought the pandemic not only hastened the death of the movie theater, but also hastened  the rise of home streaming as the preferred way to watch big movies, and Shang-Chi proving that sentiment wrong with two highly unexpected record box office weekends, and practically creating a domino effect regarding confidence in the power of the box office going forward.

It takes some special level of guts to try explain what Speilberg was trying to say.  He said what he said, there is no way you can infer or reinterpret what he ment to say. The man is a Hollywood legend and knows the business like few others, I think the statement stands for itself.

 

I agree he may have been putting some emphasis on non superhero films,  but that was not in the statement.  Also just superhero films, especially the fading MCU is not going to be able to hold up the theater business going forward.  No one film can save the theaters, we need a broad and healthy slate. 

Edited February 15, 2023 by drotto

[godzilla43]

plus he wanted to compliment his friend for making a great and successful film.

[Bosco685]

On 2/15/2023 at 8:33 AM, @therealsilvermane said:

Well, Shang-Chi got waaay higher scores than F9 with Metacritic, IMDb, and RT critic and audience, so I’m not sure what your better movie metric is other than your personal opinion. 

Yes, F9 came out in June 2021, months before Shang-Chi. F9 made $179 million domestic, not bad for a pandemic release. But what needs to be considered is that movie theaters still had an awful box office the rest of the summer while streaming got more and more popular over the summer..  It was expected Black Widow might be the end of summer spike the box office needed, but instead made it worse with its rapid diminishing  box office compared to its record streaming premiere numbers. Black Widow was almost like a seeming nail in the coffin for movie theaters because of its streaming success. F9 wasn’t up against that doom and gloom sentiment, Shang-Chi was. And after Shang-Chi’s two record box office weekends, all talk of streaming as the new future of big movies was dead. F9 didn’t do that. Shang-Chi did that.

Also, what the North American movie theater industry was worried about during the pandemic was North American theater chains: AMC, Cinemark, IMAX etc. F9’s $300 million overseas had no bearing on AMC or Cinemark’s profits. 

next post...