Great article as always. You perfectly expressed what audiences actually want from entertainment: quality, regardless if it's diverse or not. I do think, though, that in the case of the Disney live action remakes that were box office hits, they were successful purely because of nostalgia: The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast were poorly received even during their release, to say nothing of the discourse surrounding the ending of the Lilo and Stitch remake. This highlights another nuance to the conversation: that box office success does not automatically equate to objectively good movies, and there are plenty of examples at this point (especially in recent years) to support this. Of course, you were arguing purely from a financial standpoint, and you did bring up some of your favorite cult films that were box office bombs, but I felt that wasn't addressed when you mentioned the Disney live action remakes. Just my two cents, really.
Great comment! Absolutely. I agree the Disney remakes were not cinema’s finest hour. I struggle sometimes to articulate why audiences love movies critics despise like Venom. I want to write a longer piece examining just that, a zen and the art of motorcyle maintenance like examination of cinematic quality. I think it would have detoured too far from the main thread about money and diversity on this one.
Both sides need to understand what alienates an audience and what doesn't. Hitchcock said, "Make the audience your accomplice." In some cases, that means diversity, but diversity doesn't mean alienating an audience, as if going to the movies is a social-justice reckoning. Diversity means (as if you need me to tell you) a collective that reflects society as a whole. It was easy in 1965 with "Star Trek,"; why is it so difficult now?
Well said! Well written! Another banger of an essay from Hollywood Gadfly. Keep up the good work (and Thank you!).
Thanks! Means a lot!
Great article as always. You perfectly expressed what audiences actually want from entertainment: quality, regardless if it's diverse or not. I do think, though, that in the case of the Disney live action remakes that were box office hits, they were successful purely because of nostalgia: The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast were poorly received even during their release, to say nothing of the discourse surrounding the ending of the Lilo and Stitch remake. This highlights another nuance to the conversation: that box office success does not automatically equate to objectively good movies, and there are plenty of examples at this point (especially in recent years) to support this. Of course, you were arguing purely from a financial standpoint, and you did bring up some of your favorite cult films that were box office bombs, but I felt that wasn't addressed when you mentioned the Disney live action remakes. Just my two cents, really.
Great comment! Absolutely. I agree the Disney remakes were not cinema’s finest hour. I struggle sometimes to articulate why audiences love movies critics despise like Venom. I want to write a longer piece examining just that, a zen and the art of motorcyle maintenance like examination of cinematic quality. I think it would have detoured too far from the main thread about money and diversity on this one.
Both sides need to understand what alienates an audience and what doesn't. Hitchcock said, "Make the audience your accomplice." In some cases, that means diversity, but diversity doesn't mean alienating an audience, as if going to the movies is a social-justice reckoning. Diversity means (as if you need me to tell you) a collective that reflects society as a whole. It was easy in 1965 with "Star Trek,"; why is it so difficult now?