My Top 25 of the Last 25 - Movie Trailers

I've thoroughly enjoyed all the "Best of" lists celebrating the superlatives of the first quarter of the twenty-first century. And I'm going to be fashionably late to the party and make some of my own lists this year, looking at media from 2001 to 2025.  However, I'm not going to make "Best Movie" or "Best Show" lists.  No, I'm going to do the fun stuff.  This month, I'm spotlighting my favorite movie trailers.

Each list will get 25 entries, but only the top ten will get write-ups. 

Comedian (2002) - Let's start with the meta.  The "Comedian" trailer is listed on IMDB as a short, because though it's supposed to be a trailer for a Jerry Seinfeld documentary about comedians, it also functions as a funny stand-alone sketch making fun of movie trailers and their tropes, especially the deep-voiced narrator, performed here by the legendary Hal Douglas.  "In a world…" style trailers have largely gone out of style, and I like to think this trailer had something to do with it.

Kill Bill (2004) - Music choices have a massive impact on how well a trailer works.  Tomoyasu Hotel's "Battle Without Honor or Humanity" instrumental plays a big part in setting the tone here, for our first look at "The 4th Film By Quentin Tarantino."  It becomes clear that the movie is going to take no prisoners, as the action and the characters keep getting wilder and more over-the top as it goes.  The instrumental got a lot of play after this, becoming cultural shorthand for incoming badassery

Sin City (2005) - A prime example of a trailer that's better than the movie it's promoting.  The big selling point of "Sin City" was translating comic book visuals to the screen in a novel way.  This novelty wears off quickly over the length of a whole movie, particularly one that's not very well written or well put together.  However, a two-minute trailer is the perfect length to show off some of the creative applications of this very specific aesthetic, based on Frank Miller's grimly beautiful artwork.  

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008) - Then you have the trailers that are selling you on a premise, and it was a tall order to sell "Benjamin Button," the tale of a man who ages in reverse.  The trick here is that you think you see the whole movie, but it's only giving you the broadest outlines - the love story and the peculiar circumstances of the title character.  Crucially, it also provides confirmation that Fincher and crew nailed the special effects wizardry to do all the aging effects right.

A Serious Man (2009) - I love this movie, and this is the perfect trailer for it - a trailer that asks a lot of questions and throws a lot of balls in the air, and offers absolutely no answers or guarantees, except that the characters will be Coen brothers characters.  It establishes a very specific tone and type of humor, full of anxiety and middle-aged neurosis, and does it perfectly.  I also like to think that the rhythmic thwacking of Michael Stuhlbarg's head against the wall is a tribute to the "Point Blank" trailer.

Where the Wild Things Are (2009) - Some trailers are vital for setting expectations.  You'd think that an adaptation of Maurice Sendak's Where The Wild Things Are would be a typical children's adventure picture.  Instead, the trailer immediately shows us that we're in for something much more thoughtful, poignant, melancholy, and strange.  It's absolutely a children's film, but one that is likely to hit the adults much harder.  I still tear up watching this sometimes, and I can never quite say why.  

Godzilla (2014) and Godzilla: King of Monsters (2019) - Here's my token representation of the big blockbusters.  What I like about these trailers for movies from the "Godzilla" franchise is that they're so good at conveying a sense of scale.  You've got the immersive halo jump from the first "Godzilla" trailer, and then all the reveals of the new kaiju designs in "King of Monsters," presented in the most epic way possible.  It's an absolute delight to see these familiar monsters fill our screens once more.    

Barbie (2023) - I can't resist a "2001: A Space Odyssey" reference.

28 Years Later (2025) - This is the first trailer in ages that I've seen that feels like it's willing to experiment with the format.  In this case, the long-anticipated horror movie set its images of a dystopia and zombie carnage to an evocative reading of a Rudyard Kipling poem about WWI, written more than a century ago.  It's a piece that's absolutely lousy with historical significance, sounding a dire warning against the worst sins of man - which are of course the really scary parts of "28 Years Later."   

The Next Fifteen:

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

Shining (parody trailer) (2005)

The Fountain (2006)

Little Children (2006)

Be Kind Rewind (2008) (sweded version)

Cloverfield (2008)

The Social Network (2010)

Inception (2010)

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)

Hail, Caesar! (2016)

Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)

Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

Killers of the Flower Moon (2023)

One Battle After Another (2025)

---

Recalibrating My Hype Meter

Marketing media has always been all about building movies and television shows into events, but I've reached the age where I'm anticipating fewer and fewer titles than I used to.  I'll happily watch whatever everyone else is talking about, but there are very few projects anymore that I'll track obsessively months and years in advance the way that I did in the past.  2025, like 2019, saw the releases of several long-awaited pieces of media that I'd been looking forward to for a while, like the last season of "Stranger Things," and I'm realizing that there's not much left in 2026 and beyond that I'm really anticipating.

Sure, I'm curious about "Project Hail Mary" and "Dune: Part 3," and even the new "Mandalorian" and "Avengers" films, but the excitement that I always associated with being a film fan has largely ebbed.  I recently sat down and wrote up a list of everything coming up that I was actively looking forward to, and it was barely a dozen titles.  I know a lot of this is due to me being in my forties and no longer in the audience that the majority of media is aimed at - especially in the case of genre media.  However, there are a couple of contributing factors and specific nuances that I want to take some time to talk about.  I've written similar posts a few times before, but this time I want to get a little more analytical.  

A big issue is the nostalgia wave moving on to Millennial and early Gen Z properties.  I count myself as a late GenXer, and all those remakes and legasequels of 80s and 90s media are becoming scarce.  "Spaceballs" is probably the last big one on the horizon, which does sound like a lot of fun.  Most of the targets for cultural strip mining are now 2000s media like "Freaky Friday," "The Devil Wears Prada," and our recent billion dollar hit, "Lilo & Stitch."  The new "X-men" movies should be right on time.  I have fond memories of a lot of these, but not the kind of emotional connection I have with the big hits of my childhood.  There are a few new attempts being mounted to reboot older kids' properties like "Masters of the Universe" and "The Chronicles of Narnia," but in most cases I've already seen multiple versions come and go, so it doesn't feel like anything special.

I used to have a significant list of projects stuck in development hell that I was waiting for - "Ender's Game," "The Sandman," and "Watchmen" among them.  I think watching a lot of these Holy Grail projects actually get made, and dealing with the inevitable tempering of expectations, influenced me to stop pinning my hopes on them prematurely.  Would I love to see a new version of "The Last Unicorn" or big budget adaptations of "Akira" or "Evangelion" finally hit the big screen?  Sure.  However, I no longer automatically assume that any of these would be an improvement on the media that already exist for these titles.  The big exception, of course, is "The Dark Tower," because there's no way that any new adaptation of that one wouldn't be an improvement on the terrible 2017 film.      

My tastes and attentions have gradually shifted away from IPs and genres and towards specific actors and directors.  I know, for instance, that I will generally enjoy a Christopher Nolan or Greta Gerwig film, but this is not a certainty.  After "Doctor Strange" I've become much more wary of films that look great on paper.  I have never seen a project waste such a fantastic cast on such underwhelming material.  There have also been far too many director and actor passion projects that have turned out badly.  It's honestly a nice surprise when a "Sinners" or a "Life of Chuck" turns out well.  Or even an "Alien: Romulus."    

This doesn't mean that I'm no longer looking forward to new media, or that I'm not going to write up my yearly lists of anticipated films and series.  However, it's an unavoidable fact that many projects fail to meet expectations, and in the case of the ones from development hell there's often a reason why it took so long for something to reach our screens.  I'm going to miss the fun of the hype, but I guess I've been around the block enough times that this aspect of my fandom experience is probably over for good.  The movies aren't any better or worse in the end, though, and this way I avoid a lot of disappointment.    

---

My 2024 Holiday Wish List

Okay, it's time to ignore politics for a bit and get into the state of Hollywood.  It's been an interesting year, and a lot of long-running concerns about the industry are coming into better focus.  The strikes are mostly over, but the labor issues are not.  Streaming is quickly becoming a worse deal now that it has more of a monopoly on our attention, and broadcast is continuing to limp along.  The box office is in recovery, but the movies coming out seem to be safer and blander than ever.  Looking back on last year's wishlist, things have gotten better and things have gotten worse.  

So this year for the holidays, I want…

For seasons of television to be longer.  There were too many seasons of ongoing shows this year that were eight episodes and barely progressed their stories.  It seems to be a cost-cutting measure, exacerbated by the strike, and it's driving viewers nuts.  Some of the bigger budget series like "House of the Dragon" and "Rings of Power" take multiple years to produce a season, and the momentum and interest just die if they don't deliver something more substantive to keep the anticipation going.  There are a lot of big titles on their way in 2025, including "Stranger Things," so this is definitely going to come up again.  

For the demonetization of the culture wars.  After the anti-woke mobs set their sights on titles as disparate as "True Detective: Night Country," "The Acolyte," and the upcoming "Snow White" live action movie this year, it's pretty clear that this is all an excuse for the online deplorables to harass women and minorities.  The primary targets are almost always women.  The primary tactic is endless online vitriol about what women are doing or saying or making.  A big contributing factor that has emerged this year is that anti-woke content gets lots of attention on platforms like Youtube, which means there's a significant monetary incentive to keep generating more ragebait.  Youtube and their ilk could fix this - if they wanted to.  Instead, I expect they'll wait until things get out of hand again.  And they will. 

     

For the superhero movie industrial complex to proceed with caution.  2025 is going to see James Gunn's rebooted DC cinematic universe release its first film with the new "Superman," and Marvel release at least three new MCU superhero titles.  If the past few years have shown us anything, it's that less is more when it comes to superhero media.  The flow of Sony Spider-verse movies seems to have finally dried up, but Marvel and DC seem determined to maximize their output.  If we're not careful, things could quickly go back up to pre-"Endgame" levels.  At least the releases of new MCU series on Disney+ are slowing down.  For now.

For the streaming services to get better about marketing.  I'm not sure how anyone is finding out about shows these days, but I know people are looking for more to watch.  I don't know if I've ever had more requests for recommendations than I have in the past year.  My own watchlist is a mile long, but nobody else researches this stuff the way I do.  I'll note that it has been a little easier to keep up with new shows this year thanks to some delays, but there's no shortage of good stuff to watch.  The problem is definitely awareness. 

For one of the Twitter alternatives to gain enough steam to become a real contender in the social media race, because original recipe Twitter is pretty much FUBAR at this point.  I'm rooting for Bluesky myself, though it's quiet enough over there at the moment that I'm actually enjoying the environment.  

For my kids to latch on to a new musical with a soundtrack that doesn't make me want to strangle myself.  I curse the day that "Wish" was unleashed on the unsuspecting public.     

And finally, for all the media coming next year to exceed my expectations, and the creators behind them to have every opportunity to do good work.

Happy Holidays

  

---

The New Media Press Tour

Celebrities promoting their latest movie, television shows, album, fashion line, book, or other product, have always generated more media in the form of interviews and appearances.  However, these days a celebrity doesn't just show up on a few talk shows and sit for radio and print interviews.  In the new media era, the press tour can get pretty intense, and we've seen a big shift toward videos and shorts that are targeting social media audiences.

Promotional stunts have been around for a long time,  so there's nothing new about most of the video skits and games and silly stunts that we see celebrities like Awkwafina or Jake Gyllenhaal taking part in when their new movie drops.  These are often video versions of old features that we used to see in print magazines and other publications.  If you've spent any time on Youtube in the celebrity sphere, you'll have seen the videos of celebrities answering the "most searched questions" about them online, or getting quizzed on past movie roles.  Many of these are from familiar lifestyle magazines turned content creators like GQ, ELLE, and Harper's Bazaar.  So naturally, their interviews will have the celebs walk us through their fashion, diet, makeup and skincare, and home decor choices.   

Other outlets have gotten more creative.  Esquire conducts interviews while asking you to mix a drink.  Buzzfeed will cover you in puppies or kittens if you're lucky, and make you read thirst tweets if you're not.  Vanity Fair will subject you to a lie detector test or make you rewatch your past work.  LadBible will make you sample British snacks and rate them.  Complex will take you shopping for sneakers.  Then there's the Vogue mukbang videos.  This post came about because I couldn't stop thinking about a video that the Youtube algorithm kept recommending to me, titled "Florence Pugh Eats 11 English Dishes."  At the time of writing, the video is four years old and has a whopping 22 million views.  I haven't looked too far into mukbang videos, which I guess are part of the ASMR subculture, but they give me an uneasy feeling.  Watching other people eat to excess strikes me as disturbing.  Of course Florence Pugh didn't actually eat full servings of all the food that we see in the video, but linking her to content that is known for causing eating disorders and massive waste can't be a good thing.

And that brings us, inevitably, to "Hot Ones."  Ten  years ago I never would have guessed that a regular stop on the American celebrity press tour would be an extreme eating challenge.  Since 2015, celebrity interviews have been conducted while consuming chicken wings with increasingly spicy sauces - all available for purchase of course - ensuring at least some kind of honest response from the interviewee.  Sweating profusely is a common reaction, and it only gets worse from there.  However, the format of "Hot Ones" absolutely works in attracting more attention.  Matt Damon's oft cited interview where he bemoans the loss of mid-budget films was a "Hot Ones" interview where steam was practically coming out of his ears.  This kind of stunt feels crass at first, but is this fundamentally any different than the racetrack challenge on "Top Gear," or taking part in "Celebrity Fear Factor," or agreeing to be on CBS's yearly "Circus of the Stars" specials, where celebrities literally performed circus tricks?  Actually, considering that Linda Evans was bitten by a 200 lb jaguar while training for "Circus of the Stars," the hot wings are probably safer. 

There are some trends that I've appreciated seeing in online content.  There's more emphasis on celebrities interacting with each other, minimizing the roles of interviewers.  Awards season means a new round of "Actors on Actors" interviews from Variety, and The Hollywood Reporter Roundtables, which are designed to foster face to face celebrity conversations.  Many interview videos have celebrities appear in pairs or groups  so they can quiz each other or be pitted against each other in friendly competitions.  Podcast appearances are becoming more common, which allow for less structured, more casual interviews.  The most popular ones tend to be hosted by other celebrities, like "Conan O'Brien Needs a Friend" and "Smartless."

There are plenty of the old fashioned type of celebrity interview in circulation too, of course.  Not everyone is comfortable with new media stunts, and you're not going to see Dame Judi Dench making ASMR or shopping for sneakers.  The late night and morning chat shows upload their interviews on Youtube for extra views like everybody else, and red carpet coverage remains plentiful.  And it's been nice to discover that some of those lifestyle and fashion magazines are still hanging around in some form, still foisting puzzling photoshoots on us.  

And the more things change, the more they stay the same.

---

The 2024 Update Post

I haven't done an update post, where I write updates for a bunch of previous posts all at once, since 2021!  We're definitely due for one of these.  If you're unfamiliar with this feature, I address multiple posts  in the same entry because I don't have enough to say about each of them individually to warrant separate entries for each one.

Are the Midbudget Films Coming Back?  - A little over a year ago, before all the summer tentpoles started crashing, I wrote up a post on the modest success of films like "M3GAN," "Cocaine Bear," and "Knock at the Cabin," speculating that the studios might be turning their attention back toward the midbudget film.  And so far, so good.   There's been a lot of talk of "improving ROI" lately, with the studios getting more budget conscious.  The box office has been pretty quiet over the past few months, but there has been a steady stream of smaller films like "Anyone But You" and "Bob Marley: One Love" making money at the box office.  The streamers also noticed that titles that get theatrical releases first tend to do better on their services, so we're seeing more theatrical premieres for small films.   

A Short Ramble About Twitter  - Nothing has changed.  Elon Musk has essentially turned the platform into an alt-right coddling cesspool and hasn't suffered any real consequences for it.  I mean, it's now worth a lot less than Musk paid for it, advertisers fled, lawsuits are ongoing, and the user experience is awful, but Twitter is still chugging along with plenty of activity.  Alternatives like Mastodon and Threads never got off the ground.  Bluesky, which I've joined, would be a decent alternative if more people were using it.  However, there hasn't been enough momentum to get people to switch.  There are too many users whose livelihoods are still tied to Twitter.  The one positive development is Twitter's implementation of the "Community Notes" feature to combat misinformation.  This has led to some hilarious examples of Twitter users being called out for their nonsense, including Elon Musk himself.  No, I'm never going to call it "X."  That is a terrible name.

Regime Change at Warner Bros. - Well, everybody hates David Zaslav now.  Despite his cost-cutting making Max profitable, and a couple of wins at the box office, the WBD stock has been tanking and there is a ton of terrible press still floating around because of the decision to write "Coyote vs. Acme" and several other finished projects off for tax purposes.  Despite massive outcry and promises to consider selling "Coyote vs. Acme" to another distributor, it looks like we're never going to see Wile E. Coyote have his day in court.  The wildest part of this story is that James Gunn, currently running the new cinematic DC universe for WB, is a producer and writer on the film.  If WB can do this to him, they can do this to anybody.   

Investor Calls, Fandomes, and Tudums  - Thanks to the 2023 strikes, we haven't had a decent fan event in a while, and I've definitely been feeling it.  The level of hype for everything in the pipeline feels significantly reduced, especially the superhero media that was such a major driver of the box office for so long.  Part of the reason is that the studios don't have as much to promote, with so many projects delayed and left in limbo.  Another is that the superhero bubble burst, and everyone is trying to proceed more carefully.  However, it still strikes me as a little sad that everyone had to find out the new cast of the "Fantastic Four" from a tweet instead of a proper event.  I'm looking forward to the next batch of summer conventions.    

Collapsing the Window  - We're still seeing very short theatrical windows for films that don't perform well, such as "Lisa Frankenstein" and "The Book of Clarence," which both hit VOD less than a month after they were released in theaters.  Bigger titles like "The Marvels" show up after nine or ten weeks.  However, there are always exceptions.  I skipped seeing "The Boy and the Heron" and "Godzilla Minus One" in theaters over the holidays, and I regret it now. 

Finishing "The Nevers" - Finally, it's been over a year since the last six episodes of "The Nevers" dropped on Tubi, and they're still not available for purchase, can't be viewed on any other platform, and you still can't watch them on demand.  Tubi is still only airing them on a linear channel at seemingly random times.  Good grief.   

---

Going Woke - An Update

At the time of writing, we have a new live action version of "Avatar: The Last Airbender" that has recently premiered on Netflix.  Unlike the film adaptation from 2010, "The Last Airbender," this version has a much more diverse cast.  We can argue about the relative quality of the productions, but I already count this as a major win and a welcome sign of the times.  Part of the reason I started this blog back in 2010 was because I needed somewhere to vent about how Hollywood was handling "The Last Airbender" and other projects where Asian characters kept being cast with white actors.

And now it's 2024, and the old practice of whitewashing POC characters is firmly outdated and unacceptable.  Despite some setbacks, we are consistently seeing more representation of minority groups onscreen.  Moreover, it's common practice to cast POC actors in roles that previously went to white actors, which has sometimes caused a lot of controversy.  I've already written posts about this topic, like Who Gets To Exist in Fantasy Media?, so I won't rehash it all here.  But to sum up, I don't think that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, and I strongly believe that Hollywood still needs to be mindful of inclusion and representation.  

The past few years have been very encouraging as we've watched the talent pool diversity.  These last few months have been all about Native American representation, with "Killers of the Flower Moon," "True Detective: Night Country," "Echo," and the last season of "Reservation Dogs" all making waves.  A year ago, the big push was for Asian-American talent to be recognized, with "Everything, Everywhere, All at Once" and "Beef" getting lots of attention.  However, even when the attention dies down, the awareness remains.  The actors and filmmakers get more work and more opportunities.  Other projects about Asian-Americans and Native Americans and African Americans and Latinos and other minority communities get made.  Could "Joy Ride," a raunchy comedy with four Asian-American female leads, have made it to the big screen five years ago?  How about a "Mr. & Mrs. Smith" adaptation with an interracial couple, neither of them Caucasian?    

It's being proven over and over again that there is room for everybody.  And it's so much better when there is room for everybody.  You simply can't make the excuse anymore that a POC lead or a POC story won't sell, because after "Bridgerton" and "Black Panther" and "Crazy Rich Asians," and "Abbott Elementary," and "Ghosts," it's clear that they do.  You can't argue that the talent isn't there to cast POC roles correctly, because now we can point to excellent Middle Eastern leading men and South Asian leading ladies, and there are more breaking out every day.  I love that up and coming stars like Ayo Edibiri and Charles Melton aren't automatically being talked about in terms of their race or their skin color like they might have ten years ago.  I love that there's less ghettoization of media - there are plenty of shows made with specific audiences in mind, but I'm not going to be asked why I'm watching that "black" show or movie, the way I remember being asked when I was a kid.  And since "Squid Game" conquered Netflix,  American viewers finally seem more willing to explore foreign television.   

At the same time, there have been massive strides in LGBT representation over the last fifteen years.  For a point of reference, "Modern Family" started in 2009, a year before "The Last Airbender" movie.  Transgender representation in particular has made such significant leaps that cisgender actors playing transgender roles isn't really okay anymore.  It feels like we're still taking baby steps with nonbinary representation, but it's been exciting seeing that community start to make some progress too.  None of this is happening in a vacuum and all of this matters.    

Of course, the culture war rages on.  There are people who want to pretend it's still 2010, and being white, male, straight and cisgender is the default.  And there's still plenty of media to cater to their tastes.  Half of this year's Best Picture nominees hardly have any POC presence at all.  When you get past all those nicely packaged narratives about how representation matters, and look at the numbers, there's always plenty of room for improvement.

I celebrate our victories, but I believe in constant vigilance.

---

Are the Midbudget Films Coming Back?

I write this post very tentatively, because I don't have a lot of data points yet.  Originally, I intended to write a post about the mild superhero film slump we saw in February and March, with the latest "Ant-man" and "Shazam!" films taking a bath.  Instead, I realized that the trend I should be focusing on is the quiet success of several smaller films, especially a string of hits enjoyed by Universal.  This year they've had "M3GAN," "Knock at the Cabin," and "Cocaine Bear," which were all small, but decent hits at the box office.  And this is in spite of Universal's much shorter theatrical window that put "Knock at the Cabin" on VOD three weeks after the theater premiere date.  

Also consider the sleeper success of films like "A Man Named Otto" and "80 for Brady," both gentle comedies aimed at older audiences.  Neither cost much, and they didn't make much, but it was enough to turn a profit.  A notably young and diverse audience also made "Creed III" a hit.  Sure, it's a franchise film, but it's a sports drama that reportedly only cost $75 million.  Horror films have always had a dependable audience, and this year they came out for "M3GAN" and "Scream VI."  Other smaller budget projects like the thriller "Missing," the action film "Plane," and the faith based "Jesus Revolution" have also made an impact on the box office.  Maybe streaming and the pandemic haven't killed off the mid-budget theatrical release quite yet.  "Ant-man" still made more than most of these films combined, but  the playing field is looking less lopsided than it has in years.           

I love the convenience of having more films premiering on streaming services and VOD, but it's clearly not good for the films in question or the theaters, which were scrambling for content for much of 2022.  "Catherine Called Birdy," "Matilda the Musical," and many of my other recent favorites went under the radar because they were streaming exclusives, and the streaming services have shown over and over again that their marketing efforts are very hit-or-miss.  There was a lot of uncertainty over whether audiences would show up to theaters in the wake of the pandemic, and some pointed to the overwhelming success of movies like "Top Gun: Maverick" last year as proof that the demand is still there for great movies.  However, the unfortunately titled Variety article "Could Mediocre Movies Save Movie Theaters?" points out that the demand is still there for merely okay movies too, and that's even more heartening.  It suggests that casual moviegoing, rather than event-movie-driven moviegoing, is still going to be a thing.    

And while we're on the subject of event movies, my armchair movie mogul theory of the week is that superhero movies have become so numerous and so commonplace that most of them no longer qualify as event movies in the minds of the public.  Disney overloaded Disney+ with blah MCU content over the past two years, and is now trying to space things out and give individual offerings more breathing space.  As for the DCEU, it's more complicated, but "Shazam! Fury of the Gods" being such a bust had less to do with the quality of the film and more to do with dull marketing and most people having finally lost patience with the franchise - which is all set to be rebooted soon anyway.  I suspect that the low ebb is only temporary, but we're not going to see superhero movies dominating the box office again like they did in the past.    

I confess that I've largely fallen out of the habit of theatergoing.  The last movie I watched in a physical movie theater was "Babylon," and I'm not planning further trips until "Barbie" and "Oppenheimer" hit the screens.  However, this is mostly because theatergoing has been a social activity for me, and my social life is only starting to recover from the pandemic.  The prospect of going to a theater to see the latest "Magic Mike" or "Creed" movie by myself is frankly pretty depressing.  Fortunately, this doesn't seem to be a problem most audiences are having.  And that's great, because I do hope to get back into the groove of theatergoing some day.  And I want the movie theaters to be alive and well when I do.           

---

Nepo Baby Critical Mass

Well, The New Yorker wrote the article that I was trying to write, off and on, for a couple of years now, about nepotism in Hollywood - what it is, why everyone is mad about it, and why everyone is so mad  about it right now.  I figured I should throw in my two cents while they're still kinda relevant.

So, my take on the "nepo babies" (good grief, what a moniker) as far as the ones in acting go, is that they're inevitable, and actually kind of a fun phenomenon from an audience standpoint, even the bad ones.  I've got a pretty macroscopic view of Hollywood, and nepotism is absolutely not new in any respect.  We've had actors who are the kids of other famous actors as far back as Douglas Fairbanks Jr. and Lon Chaney Jr.  And that's understandable when such a big part of being a bankable star is what you look like and the relationship you can cultivate with an audience. 

Some degree of pushback is to be expected, as increased nepotism means fewer chances for everyone else trying to get into the entertainment industry.   You can absolutely get by for years being a mediocre actor with the right name, but to really be a success requires more.  Hollywood actually is a meritocracy when it comes to the really visible acting gigs that everyone wants, and audiences and critics are merciless if someone doesn't live up to expectations.  All of us can tell the difference between someone genuinely talented and charismatic, and, well, somebody's kid.  For every nepo baby who made it, there are just as many who didn't, who gave up after a few flops and had to move on to something else.

As a movie fan, tracing the nepo baby connections can be a source of nerdy joy.  Who hasn't had that moment of flabbergasted astonishment, when they learned that Nicolas Cage was actually born Nicolas Coppola, and is the nephew of director Francis Ford Coppola?  Or marveled that Maya Hawke's screen presence is a perfect combination of Ethan Hawke and Uma Thurman?  As someone who watches a lot of old movies, I'm constantly finding the parents of future stars.  In "The Sting," for instance, I came across an older actor who sounded exactly like James Earl Jones - his father Robert Earl Jones, of course.  If you recognize a famous last name in the credits, there's a good chance it's not by accident. 

There's a lovely sort of irony in discovering an older actor's work through their kids.  Jane Birkin, Jill Clayburgh, Jayne Mansfield, Bruce Dern, John Mills, and Roy Kinnear all have actor offspring whose work I was familiar with first, before learning their parents were also celebrated actors a generation ago.  It's just like recognizing Michael Douglas is Kirk Douglas's son, only backwards.  Inevitably you run across the Barrymores, the Richardsons, the Carradines, the Bridges, and the Arquettes.  There are third and even fourth generation screen actors who are active now, with roots stretching all the way back to the silent era and vaudeville and beyond.  Acting is a much less disreputable profession than it used to be, so it's no wonder that these legacies are getting more common.

Still, most nepo babies aren't talented or tenacious enough to last in the entertainment industry for very long.  I suspect the majority of the prime targets of the current anti-nepotism wave are on their way out already.  It's a nasty business, especially when it involves younger kids, but their parents can't claim they didn't know what to expect.  However, when an actor with a legacy appears who does have an interesting screen presence, or who does display good acting chops, I guarantee that that's what you'll notice first.  Probably the best compliment that you can pay to someone like Zoey Deutch or Lewis Pullman is that you had no idea they were related to so-and-so.     

I'm purposely leaving out a lot of specifics and a lot of examples, because I have no wish to comment on any of the individual spats going on.  However, as usual, both sides have a point, however muddled or blown out of proportion.  There will always be nepo babies.  It's not fair.  Nepo babies will always get flack.  It's not fair.  I just hope that someone will come up with a better term soon, because I cannot keep a straight face reading about the "nepo baby" issue, let alone writing about it.

---

Legacyquels Are Getting Old

Spoilers ahead for "The Matrix Revolutions," "Ghostbusters: Afterlife," "The Mandalorian," and "Spider-man: No Way Home."

I watched "Ghostbusters: Afterlife" recently, and I was struck by how it fits so perfectly into a pattern that other films from older franchises have fallen into lately.  I like the term "legacyquel" that Matt Singer used to describe "Star Wars: The Force Awakens," which reboots a franchise while soaking in the nostalgia for that franchise, via numerous callbacks, cameos, and references.  2021 was full of these, including "The Matrix Revolutions," "Ghostbusters: Afterlife," "Space Jam 2," "Halloween Kills," "Coming 2 America," "Candyman," and "Spider-man: No Way Home."  2022 already gave us another "Scream," and "Texas Chainsaw Massacre," and coming up is "Top Gun: Maverick."

I'm still sorting out my feelings about "Ghostbusters: Afterlife" - it's not a bad movie, but it's also not a good one.  The first hour with McKenna Grace and Finn Wolfhard digging up their deceased grandpa Egon's old ghostbusting equipment and having themselves a new adventure is fun.  It's an Amblin film more than anything else, up until it decides to replay the third act of the original "Ghostbusters," capped off with an awkward reunion of the original cast.  The fact that Harold Ramis was dead couldn't save him from having to participate, via CGI doppelganger.  Watching a very tired-looking Bill Murray snark at Gozer the Gozerian, all I could think was that this was at least twenty years too late for the "Ghostbusters 3" that the fans wanted.  Audiences seemed receptive to the film anyway, but I couldn't get past that shameless tearjerker finale that overshadowed everything else.

The list of films and series that have elicited similar responses from me keeps getting longer.  I thought that Luke Skywalker's appearance at the end of the last season of "The Mandalorian" bothered me so much because the effects technology wasn't good enough to get across Uncanny Valley, but the truth is really that his presence was a huge distraction and deus ex machina that disrupted the rest of that show.  The "Star Wars" franchise has been a terrible repeat offender here, especially J.J. Abrams' contributions, which just stacked callbacks upon callbacks while neglecting its major characters and storylines.  "Bill & Ted Face the Music" had some good ideas, but watching Keanu Reeves and Alex Winter trade surfer bro shtick in their fifties often felt more depressing than funny.  Arnold Schwarzenegger and Linda Hamilton finally reunited for "Terminator: Dark Fate," and got to be properly badass for about two scenes apiece before it sunk in that neither of them were in the physical shape to be in this kind of movie anymore.  

Maybe it's because I'm getting old, but watching these older actors return to the genre franchises of my childhood has rarely paid off as well as the filmmakers think it will, because so many of the projects are just so badly conceived.  They claim to want to give the fans what they want, but usually give the fans what they wanted when they were kids - and often far, far too late.  At this point I don't feel any excitement for another "Indiana Jones" film because the last time Harrison Ford put on the fedora, he was already pretty creaky, and Spielberg was clearly out of ideas.  The few I have liked, including "Blade Runner 2049" and "Creed," have taken pains to keep their older actors in more age-appropriate roles and lean on thematic connections instead of recreating elements of the original films.  An interesting recent case has been "The Matrix Resurrections," which was self-aware about its status as a legacyquel to the extent that this became a part of the plot.  I think it did better than most, doubling down on the romantic relationship between the leads, and deemphasizing the bullet ballet that the original "Matrix" was known for.  Neo never even fires a gun in any of the action scenes.                 

A new variation, as embodied by "Spider-man: No Way Home" is the legacyquel crossover.  Those franchises that have seen multiple reboots can now pull their cameos and callbacks from multiple versions of any given set of characters, resulting in three different Spider-men teaming up to face foes from all of their respective universes and timelines.  It's still technically a legacyquel, because Tom Holland's Peter Parker finally experiences the level of tragedy that has largely driven the other versions of the character.  However, the emphasis is definitely on the crossover, and the fun of having Holland, Tobey Maguire, and Andrew Garfield getting to interact and play off of each other for an hour of screentime.  Maguire, fortunately, isn't too old to get back in the suit, and it helps that Disney and Sony were able to corral so many supporting players to take part.  A lot of its success was also due to good timing and unusual circumstances that will be hard to duplicate.

Legacyquels tend to make money, so we'll be seeing plenty of them for the foreseeable future. Filmmakers' attentions have been shifting to newer material, and "The Matrix Resurrections" and "No Way Home" seem to be signaling that we'll be seeing more variations on the concept.  I've remarked before that legacyquels aren't new - I've found a few from as early as the '80s - but I hope to see fewer of them going forward.  We're currently being deluged with so much nostalgia that I'm starting to become averse to any familiar property making a reappearance.  Some are a good time, but mostly they've just been reminding me, over and over, of the merciless passage of time and how none of us are getting any younger.    

---

Investor Calls, Fandomes, and Tudums

So, Comic-Con was stuck being a virtual event again because of the pandemic, and most of the bigger media players decided not to participate.  However, Hollywood has latched on to these big, splashy webcast announcements for their upcoming projects.  Everyone has been putting on their own events to premiere new bits of marketing and make announcements.  Many of these are being dubbed "fan events" of some kind, because the companies want fans to tune in and hopefully generate some hype.  The DC Fandome, Paramount's Star Trek Day, and Netflix's recent Tudum come to mind.  And then there's Disney, which saves many of their big announcements for investor events, but also does their own fan events like Disney+ Day, and special one-offs for some of their bigger franchises, like "Star Wars."  Even Apple, home of the Steve Job product launches that greatly influenced this style of event, had their "Unleashed" digital event in October.

I've seen a couple of these now, including parts of Netflix's Tudum, DC Fandome, and the wild 2020 Disney "Investor Day" that was largely devoted to detailing all the content that was coming to Disney+.  These are marketing exercises more than anything, meant to deliver sneak peeks, trailers, announcements, and updates on upcoming media.  I didn't watch the full events, and I doubt anyone can be expected to, because all of the disparate bits and pieces are meant to be split up and posted separately on Youtube or Twitter once the event is over.  Watching the presentations roll out, one after another during the actual events gets pretty tedious in a hurry and these things go on for hours.  Disney's investor event devoted time to highlighting every major brand in their content portfolio, including ESPN, National Geographic, FX, and Hulu. The content is usually pretty basic too.  You get a parade of different presenters talking up the various shows, movies, games, or apps, and then showing a clip or making an announcement.  

Tudum had around forty different segments for various Netflix media, averaging about ten minutes apiece.  The segment devoted to next year's "The Sandman" series offered brief appearances by creator Neil Gaiman, stars Tom Sturridge and Kirby Howell-Baptiste, and a "first look" teaser.  Sturridge presented the teaser, and all Howell-Baptiste got to do was to announce that the show's social media accounts were going live.  The Duffer Brothers, Gaten Matarazzo, and Joe Keery introduced new "Stranger Things" teasers, John Cho showed off the opening credits of "Cowboy Bebop," and Imelda Staunton made an appearance on behalf of "The Crown" to assure us the production was going well, and to offer a projected release date for the next season - November of 2022.  As far as I could tell there wasn't any real opportunity for fan interaction, or really any kind of content other than announcements and promos.  A Zoom call with Regina King, Noomi Rapace, Zazie Beetz, and Charlize Theron was billed as an "Action Panel," but was really more of a group interview.  It was so tightly edited and slickly overproduced that it had none of the energy of a real panel discussion. 

Frankly, I miss the Comic-Con crowds.  There's something about a hyped up audience reacting to seeing celebrities and oohing and aahing over new footage that is so much fun to see.  The virtual conventions that they've tried to put on haven't been too successful - essentially limited to prerecorded panels conducted over Zoom.  However, they're still much more interesting to watch than events like Tudum because they offer more content and don't just feel like people reciting marketing copy and bingeing trailers.  The DC Fandome event is easily the best of these webcast style events, because it's following the Comic-Con model.  It devotes much longer stretches of time to each piece of individual media, and includes a few interviews, discussions, and Q&As with the creators involved.  Fandome also manages to combine a few live appearances with prerecorded material and fancy graphics in a way that makes it feel a little more dynamic and exciting.   

 

I don't think Comic-Con is in any danger of being replaced, especially once in-person events start happening again, but the Tudums and the Disney+ Days are probably here to stay, with a few adjustments.  The fight for attention online is only intensifying, and with other avenues for advertising shrinking, creating events like this to attract media coverage and curious viewers seems irresistible.

                     

---

The Pandemic Superbowl Ads

This post is about the Superbowl LV commercials and presentation and not the actual game. I don't have much interest in professional football, and I have no business commenting about gameplay. However, I am a fan of spectacle, and a Superbowl being conducted during a pandemic is something that hasn't happened in living memory. So, I actually watched the game live for the first time in ages. I was curious to see how the various advertisers were going to handle the Superbowl ads this year.

Because if you haven't heard, the major corporations have been nervous this year about pandemic politics, and spending so much on big game ads. So was no Budweiser commercial this year (though Sam Adams still brought the Clydesdales, and Anheuser Bush had ads for two of its other brands). There are no Pepsi or Coke ads. Nothing from Hyundai or Audi. Movie ads were largely MIA, except for "Raya and the Last Dragon," "Coming 2 America," "F9," "Nobody," and the M. Night Shyamalan film "Old," and only three of those aired during the game proper. Many companies cited economic instability for sitting out the event, while others, like Planters, are donating to charities instead.

The ads that did run were noticeably more subdued this year. There was little frat-boy behavior or crass humor, little partying on display, and even overt sexuality was in short supply (with one exception discussed below). Instead, there were a lot of more earnest, life-affirming ads that were all about getting through adversity together, and looking toward the future. There were also a lot of unexpectedly poignant spots, like the one for the Indeed job search platform reminding us about the unemployment crisis, or the Jeep ad with Bruce Springsteen coaxing us toward national reconciliation while carefully dancing around specifics. Only one ad directly alluded to the recent election - a Fiverr ad set at Four Seasons Total Landscaping. Probably the best ad of the night was an Anheuser Busch ad produced by David Fincher and scored by Atticus Ross, showing groups of co-workers and friends drinking beers together. It may be the happiest thing that David Fincher has ever been involved with.

There were still plenty of funny ads, and an avalanche of celebrities. It was absolutely gobsmacking how many celebrities were in these ads, often so many they were cancelling each other out. A Michelob ad even mocked this by casting their ad with a cavalcade of celebrity look-alikes, including a Christopher Walken sound-alike for narration. The celebrity-heavy ads were often the worst ones, including a truly awful Cheetos ad where Ashton Kutcher attempts a Jamaican accent while singing "It Wasn't Me." The better celebrity-fronted ads were the more absurdist ones, like the Tide ad featuring a hoodie with Jason Alexander's face on it, and a Jimmy Johns ad with Brad Garrett playing a sandwich-obsessed mobster. Also, all props to whoever got Timothée Chalamet to play the son of Edward Scissorhands in the Cadillac ad. I'm always a little wary of car ads revisiting the beloved movies of my childhood, but this one was so well conceived, it won me over.

Then there was the Amazon Alexa ad, which sexually objectifies Michael B. Jordan in the same way that Superbowl ads have objectified women for many decades.  While I'm aware of the double standard and understand the concerns, on the other hand sexualizing a black man and depicting a black woman's sexual desire is still rare enough that it's actually kind of empowering to see.  Also, it was clearly self-aware enough and tongue-in-cheek enough that it strikes me as pretty harmless.

The Superbowl itself did its part in signaling unity and caution. The opening montage highlighted the work of health care workers, there were masks everywhere on the field and in the bleachers (even incorporated into the halftime show), and there were a slew of other pandemic safety protocols in place, including the event being totally cashless, and stadium attendance being capped at 20%. Production limitations meant that 4K and HDR streaming were unavailable. Somehow, a streaker still got through during the fourth quarter, apparently part of a misguided porn site marketing stunt.

He was more memorable than a lot of the expensive ads this year, so I'll give him that.


Here's a quick top ten of my favorite ads of Superbowl LV, unranked and ordered by when they were aired during the game.

 

TurboTax 

M&Ms 

Chipotle: Can a Burrito Change the World? 

Indeed: The Rising 

Tide: The Jason Alexander Hoodie 

Jimmy Johns: Meet The King 

All-Electric Cadillac LYRIQ 

Anheuser Busch: Let's Grab a Beer 

Jeep: The Middle 

Amazon: Alexa's Body

---

Entertainment Weekly, No More

When I was a kid in the '90s, who loved movies but didn't know anything about them, the publication that I would read cover to cover whenever I had the chance was "Entertainment Weekly." Issues were only available to me through the dentist's waiting room, mostly, and sometimes the hairdresser's. They weren't as informative as "Variety" or "Hollywood Reporter," obviously but I had to make do with what I could get. Unlike the other glossy pop culture magazines, it had bits of actual hard data that I couldn't get anywhere else, including weekly box office tallies and the ratings charts for prime time network television programs. There were home media, theater, and book sections. Until my parents started buying the Los Angeles Times regularly, "Entertainment Weekly" was often the only way I could stay remotely current on anything going on in the entertainment industry. The seasonal movie preview features were my favorites.

And now, a few decades later, "Entertainment Weekly" is becoming a monthly publication with a shift in focus towards its online content. The July 5th issue was the final issue of the weekly version. No, the name isn't changing. I can't help feeling a little sad, even though I haven't cracked open an issue in at least a year. It was always nice to see the magazine on the publication stands, even after their biggest selling point seemed to be endless variant covers for the "Twilight" movies. And it wasn't a good sign when their exclusive photos would be all over social media within hours of being published. With the way that the internet has decimated the print industry, I guess it's impressive that "Entertainment Weekly" held out against the inevitable for as long as it did. As of 2017, it still had a circulation of around 1.5 million.

Of course, "Entertainment Weekly" wasn't really a weekly magazine. Last year it cut its frequency from 38 issues a year to 34. Even at its height, the subscription was for 40 issues, advertised as 55 because of several "double length" special issues. Their behind-the-scenes troubles have been well documented, as the magazine bounced from publisher to publisher for years. It never really recovered from previous attempts at retooling that chipped away at its editorial distance and critical integrity. There was always an uneasy balance between catering to populist tastes and maintaining the quality of the entertainment journalism, and in recent years the magazine has gotten noticeably dumber and duller. I stopped collecting issues around the time when there was a drastic revamp in 2008, increasing font size and shortening articles noticeably.

Thirteen staff members were let go as part of the latest transition, including veteran critic Chris Nashawaty, who took over after the long-reigning Lisa Schwarzbaum and Owen Gleiberman were ousted in 2013 and 2014. I poked around on the "Entertainment Weekly" website to try and figure out which critics (if any) were still there, but the site is one of those dreadful things designed for mobile devices that has gigantic graphics plastered everywhere and navigation is a pain. Seriously, this recent trend of breaking up articles every paragraph with slow-loading ads and pictures is the worst. If online content is going be the main focus of the publication from here on out, you'd think that they'd spend a little time and effort to actually make it readable.

Oh well. Unlike other publications, I don't find I have much trouble saying goodbye to "Entertainment Weekly." It had its time and place, but the world has changed and there are so many, many sources of news and criticism available to me now. Occasionally they'll put out a really eye-catching cover, but otherwise it's off my radar completely these days. No doubt it'll stick around or a while yet in physical form, if only because the splashy cover stories and exclusives can be a good marketing platform. I haven't thought of it as real entertainment news for a long time, though. And I haven't read their reviews since Glieberman and Schwarzbaum left. I'll still page through "Entertainment Weekly" issues at the dentist's office - but maybe not if I have the option of reading TIME or Newsweek instead.
---

Trailers! Trailers! Fall 2018 and Beyond

A big batch of trailers premiered over the past few days, so I've decided to write a bit about the ones I found interesting. All links below lead to Trailer Addict, because those little pre-trailer trailers on Youtube are really starting to irk me.

Mortal Engines - It's good to find that Peter Jackson is still working after the whole debacle with "The Hobbit." However, as interesting as the idea of these mobile cities are, the actual plotting and characters ping as pretty typical YA fantasy. And the YA fantasy genre is supposed to be on its way out, right? There are enough glimpses of good worldbuilding here that I'll give this one a watch eventually, but I'm tempering expectations.

The Lego Movie 2 - I love the whole idea of the "Lego" universe turning into a wasteland - did the kid grow up and abandon them? Are they in storage or lost, maybe? The return of Chris Pratt as super-peppy Emmett was the best bit though. Chris Pratt is so good as that character, I keep forgetting that it's Chris Pratt. After the underperformance of the other "Lego" movies, I hope this one does better, because we really could use more kids' films in this vein.

Widows - Well, there's no confusing this one with "Ocean's 8." I am very excited that this appears to be the most audience-friendly film that Steve McQueen has made yet, and just look at that cast! Look at who's playing the villains! I also can't help comparing this to all those slick action movies where Liam Neeson has played an action hero recently. This time around, he gets bumped off in he first act, and has to be avenged by the female leads. Of all the films on this post, this is the one I'm the most excited to see by far.

Suspiria - I confess that I'm not a big fan of the original Argento "Suspiria," and I'm hoping that the Gudagnino version might be more to my tastes. With the appearance of Tilda Swinton, it's certainly looking that way. I'm very interested to see how Gudagnino is going to handle a horror film - or even if this is going to properly be a horror film. The trailer is wonderfully moody and atmospheric, but tells us almost nothing about any story or character specifics. And that's perfect.

Bumblebee - This looks better than the Michael Bay "Transformers" films, which is not a high bar. Still, I like that the series is going back to its roots with the old VW bug design for Bumblebee and what appears to be the original Starscream as the villain. Hailee Steinfeld has left me a little cold on her previous outings, but she's looking much more surefooted here. And John Cena's involvement is always welcome. As much beef as I've had with the series over the years, I hope this one turns out well for them.

The Old Man & the Gun - Reportedly Robert Redford's final acting performance. Everything about the marketing is referencing Redford's films from the '70s, from the posters to the title font. I've had mixed reactions to David Lowery's films, but this project looks like a good fit for his sensibilities. And it's certainly always nice to see Sissy Spacek. This is likely being primed to be an awards contender, so we'll probably be hearing a lot more about it in the months to come.

The Girl in the Spider's Web - Claire Foy has definitely shown why she got the role of Lisbeth Salander. The look, the accent - all of it works. I haven't seen either of Fede Álvarez's previous films, but he seems to have a good handle on the tone and the visuals here. It's been long enough since the David Fincher film that a quasi-reboot of the Millennium series makes a certain amount of sense. I still have some misgivings, but this looks a lot better than I was expecting.

Spider-man: Into the Spider-verse - This looks so different from every other cinematic take on Spider-man, and I mean that in the best way. I love the style of the animation, the shady older Peter Parker, and the Lord & Miller humor. If the tug-of-war between Sony and Marvel for the Spidey rights was good for nothing else, at least it meant that an alternate universe project like this could get off the ground.

A Star is Born - I'm still a little disappointed that the Clint Eastwood version of this project never got off the ground, but I'm willing to give Bradley Cooper's a shot. There are a lot of questions that remain unanswered. Can he sing? Can Lady Gaga act? The trailer suggests they can, but trailers can be misleading. We'll just have to wait and see.

Bad Times at the El Royale - I feel that I might have already seen too much here. Drew Goddard's latest is supposedly filled with neat twists and double-crosses, and the trailer appears to give away several key pieces of information it probably shouldn't have. I definitely want to see this movie, but will be avoiding all further marketing from this point on.


---

Netflix v. Cannes

Netflix has been having quite a year in the movie business.  First, they went on an acquisition spree at Sundance to help shore up its original offerings, nabbing the rights to Dee Rees' "Mudbound," Marti Noxon's "To the Bone," and a slew of documentaries.  It already had the rights to Macon Blair's "I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore," which wound up winning the Grand Jury prize, and was released on Netflix's streaming services in February.  That same month it signed its most high profile acquisition deal yet - for Martin Scorsese's upcoming "The Irishman," which will reunite Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, and Joe Pesci.

However, the real fireworks would come in May, when the Cannes film festival decided to make a significant rule change in response to two of the films in competition having been produced by Netflix: Bong Joon-ho's "Okja," and Noah Baumbach's "The Meyerowitz Stories."  The new rule states that entries have to have French theatrical runs starting next year, which means that Netflix may be forced to keep its  films out of future competitions.  Unlike in the US, France has stringent rules that require a 36 month delay between a film's theatrical and subscription service streaming releases.  Netflix's current practice is to release its films simultaneously in theaters and online, if it releases the films theatrically at all.

Cannes jurors and commentators have debated the move, while there have been reports of Netflix's production credit being booed during the festival's screenings of its movies.  American theater owners have been pushing back against the various studios' efforts to cut into theatrical exclusivity with SVOD services and other changes to the current distribution model, but the Cannes reaction has been far more vocal.  This year's jury members, including Pedro Almodovar and Will Smith, made a few headlines as they debated the merits of theatergoing  versus streaming.  The response didn't carry over to the movies themselves, however.  "Meyerowitz" has received excellent notices, while the response to "Okja" has been more mixed.  

This has been the most visible example of the clash between the boosters of traditional theatrical distribution and Netflix, which has been the most extreme of the content producers pushing for a distribution model that bypasses or greatly reduces the theatrical window.  Amazon has also been acquiring and producing films lately, including "Manchester by the Sea" and "The Lost City of Z," but have generally followed the existing distribution models, holding back their streaming premieres until after the usual theatrical and rental windows have passed.  

Netflix, however, very pointedly doesn't follow the established rules.  And this is going to continue to be an issue as bigger and  bigger films start coming out of the Netflix pipeline.  As it gets harder to fund or sell certain projects in the traditional way, Netflix's pocketbook keeps attracting more talent.  It's going to be difficult to ignore all the star power of "The Irishman" at Oscar time, but what happens if Netflix won't give it more than a cursory qualifying theatrical run?  What if theaters refuse to play it, as some did with "Beasts of No Nation"?    

I'll admit that my first reaction to hearing that "Mudbound" had been acquired by Netflix was to hope that it wouldn't affect the film's award season chances the way I felt it had impacted some of their past films.  "I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore" had almost no press whatsoever when Netflix released it, except for a round of complaints from some critics, who thought that that it was too difficult to find on the service.  "War Machine," despite all the attention and big names, also came and went very quietly.  

However, as director Macon Blair spelled out, the benefits of a Netflix release are obvious: more eyeballs having more access to a film faster than anyone else.  In the end the distribution fight is really about money, and the theaters worried about losing it if the audience decides to stay home.  When it comes to the talent, ultimately the filmmakers are going to go wherever they'll be able to make the films and shows that they want to make, and have them seen.    

These days, that's as likely to be with a streaming services as it is a traditional studio or distributor.  The festivals and the rest of the moviemaking world are just going to have to adjust expectations.    

---