27
votes
Francis Ford Coppola predicts ‘we’re on the verge of a golden age’ of cinema after Barbie and Oppenheimer success
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Authors
- Christian Zilko
- Published
- Jul 30 2023
- Word count
- 37 words
Two good movies does not a golden age make.
That said, if studios learn the right lessons from these movies, which is that audiences want studios to take risks on unique films instead of more superhero movies, then we may indeed see another golden age of cinema.
The slew of upcoming Mattel movies tells me they did not learn the right lessons.
I see where Coppola is coming from here. A lot of what we're seeing happening right now already happened in the 1960s. A joint SAG/WGA strike, multiple big budget failures, the rise of a new medium (TV then, streaming now). It took New Hollywood directors that emerged in the late '60s and early '70s like Coppola, Lucas, Bogdanovich, Friedkin, Hopper, De Palma, Scorsese, Spielberg, etc. to revitalize interest in moviegoing again.
A huge part of Barbie and Oppenheimer's success is that they are director-driven movies; you can see Gerwig and Nolan's fingerprints all over them. Remember: the Barbenheimer meme started among film nerds who were excited about seeing two big movies from talented directors coming out the very same weekend.
I see his points and hope he's right. History rhymes, hopefully.
As a person who didn't see Barbie because I'm assuming that's basically like Lego movie but with different merchandise, am I wrong? What's so unique about it?
Yes and no. Both Lego and Barbie rely on comedy, but I would say that Barbie had a more cohesive moral and message to the story being told. I also think elements of its narration lend to the story, as well as it being live action. I'm trying to avoid spoilers, but both Lego and Barbie and enjoyable comedies, with Barbie packing in some social commentary and jokes that an animated Lego can't.
Barbie beats the Lego movie in terms of sheer movie-making ambition. They built those sets. They designed those costumes. Those actors learned those dance routines. Don’t get me wrong I love animated films and the ways they let you go beyond what can be achieved in real life, but the Lego movie doesn’t do anything that pushes the medium forward, it looks and feels like many other CGI animated movies. Barbie feels like something from another era of film making entirely. I see where Coppola is coming from, because I felt it in the theater.
Agreed. Barbie feels like it will be a long term milestone in the film industry.
It's hard to talk about it without spoiling things. I went in without seeing any of the marketing, and the movie felt really subversive to me. It touches on some deep themes and has a funny, relevant and eerily accurate commentary on feminism & toxic masculinity.
The script is also very smart, and the direction + production (sets, costumes, props) are simply insane. The only way I could compare it with the LEGO movie would be by saying that they are both subversive comedies about toys.
But it would really do a disservice to Barbie; overall, it has the more mature underlying themes & commentary.
And don't get me started on the actors, Ryan Gosling especially...
This of it more as a movie that uses the Barbie context as a springboard for more social commentary. I'd say it targeted more at a 20+ age demographic. Content is appropriately rated at PG13 but many themes are going to go over the heads of people who have not managed life or thought about gender dynamics as an adult.
I love a lot of Coppola's films, but I really don't know where he got this idea from. As expected, Mattel smelled blood in the water and they're now embarking on a feeding frenzy of toy-based films. I too wish that studios would take some chances on unique movies rather than keep trodding out the same safe, predictable slop that shareholders love. There's still plenty of interesting indie films out there, but it can be hard to be heard above the din of noisy CGI blockbusters.
While I don't 100% agree, we do need more original movies to be seen. Annihilation was a great thriller with an all female cast and no one cried that it was woke. But no one saw it and that scares studios.
Haha, I mean, annihilation also didn't contain multiple explicit references to the patriarchy :p
Not saying anything négative about Barbie, but it's not totally crazy that one attracted woke allegations and the other didn't.
How does two good movies being made at the same time signal a "golden age" of cinema? I wish people would stop relying on fortune teller predictions; it sounds like a way to attempt to get people to mindlessly flock to the cinema or "have faith" in the cinema industry that is not really deserved. Make good movies and there will be a "golden age of cinema." Make uninspired sequels or safe "cinematic universes," and get unenthusiastic audiences. Barbie was amazing, I think it was like lightning in a bottle. It was novel, fun, energetic, emotional, and magical. I'm not going to watch a Barbie sequel or a Polly Pocket movie; it seems Mattel missed the hype of Barbie entirely. It sounds like Coppola is hoping investors are paying attention and take chances with more original films. Yes, I agree, I hope that happens.
Time will tell if he's right, but realistically either cinemas need to make the price of admission worth the experience, filmmakers need to make something worth paying to see in theaters, or both. As it stands tickets to a mediocre 2 hour movie are a waste of money and too expensive by far, and theaters charge an arm and a leg for anything more than admission.
I don't get the compulsiveness people have to add the price of concessions onto a movie. As if it's a requirement to do so, or to eat in general while watching a movie. You don't have to do either of those. And the teenagers that work there aren't going to care all that much if you bring your own can of soda or whatever (largely anyway there's some that take their job too seriously but at most they'll make you throw it away).
That being said, studios take such a large cut from the most profitable weeks of a movie run now that concessions are the only way the theaters stay alive.
I totally get why people lunp in the concessions. I used to sneak them in, but now I'll generally at least buy a popcorn simply because I want this theater to remain open.
It's kinda like the catch 22 with waitstaff (in the usa): Not tipping means they're making maybe $8 an hour, which is hardly a living wage. You can make a stand against tipping, but you have to be aware you're possibly making someone face eviction in doing so. Things like Lyft function a lot like that too. If nobody tips, drivers barely make minimum wage after factoring fuel and maintainence costs. But I digress...
My point is that if everyone didn't buy concessions, ticket prices would need to go up another $10 or more, because the margins are so low for the theater on the ticket sales themselves. If you pay for a $15 ticket opening weekend for a blockbuster, the theater might see $2 of that. Opposed to a $10 popcorn, which is roughly $9 after material costs.
So for a couple spending $40 on 2 tickets and a popcorn, studios and middlemen take $26, and the theater gets $13. That is not a lot of headroom for operations given the size of a movie theater.
This is kind of outdated. This used to be the case but now it’s a flat rate throughout a films entire theatrical run.
isn't it weird that they still rely on people for the concession instead of a bank of vending machines?
Most of the concession at my local theatres is automated. People are there basically to make popcorn.
it makes sense. I mean, sucks for teenagers and whoever else needs those jobs, but the theatres need a way to make more money during the initial run of a hit film.
Heck, the popcorn making process is basically automated too. Workers just add popcorn and oil into the popper and shovel them into buckets. I suspect they haven’t automated those parts simply because the style of popcorn maker they use has become iconic, or the costs of a fully automated one would not be worth the labor savings.
Nobody told you the trick?
The trick is to go see the earliest showing a couple of days after opening night. We like the early show on Sunday, which is 9am at my local theater. You'll be there alone or close to it and tickets will cost roughly half of what they did the night before.
You're also supposed to sneak as many snacks as you possibly can into the theater. My wife and I stuff her purse so full of snacks, I'm more worried that someone will think it's a bomb. I've yet to meet a minimum-wage theater worker who cares. I imagine we could probably bring our own pots and pans in there on a Sunday morning if wanted to cook breakfast and they still wouldn't care.
There are certain snacks I'll buy at certain times. My local theater has absurd prices on everything, but their pizza is totally reasonable so I don't mind buying that when the line isn't long.
Reading what people have been saying about Barbie has me thinking that Coppola might be right. I think that the movie producers have recently woken up and are starting to realize that their films need to have more heart to them and be less about spectacle. I just saw The Haunted Mansion and was pleasantly surprised when I saw that it was not only directed by Justin Simien, but had a pretty well realized emotional core, a unique voice, and was full of deep lore and details that actually came from the theme park rides that it was based off of. It was a dense, interesting, and entertaining film. It’s a huge contrast from the horrible movie with Eddie Murphy that came before it.
I’ve been annoyed at all of these “IP movies” coming out, but these newer examples have made me realize that I don’t really care if it’s based on another property as long as I don’t need special knowledge coming in and the movie is well crafted in all of the most important ways. In other words, it just can’t be a simple cash grab.