Martin Scorsese takes aim at Marvel

Foxtrol

The original comment from the directors and many posts here seem very much of the old man yells at cloud variety.

Rather than facing up to changing tastes of the wider cinema going audience and the economics of movies/streaming, they complain about the 'hot thing' that they don't like or at times understand and target it to be the cause of their issues. This has been happening for decades across most media and has even started seeping into other failing ventures ("Millennial are killing x")

ErnestBorgnine

Foxtrol wrote: »

The original comment from the directors and many posts here seem very much of the old man yells at cloud variety.

Rather than facing up to changing tastes of the wider cinema going audience and the economics of movies/streaming, they complain about the 'hot thing' that they don't like or at times understand and target it to be the cause of their issues. This has been happening for decades across most media and has even started seeping into other failing ventures ("Millennial are killing x")

He's right you know. You really should lay off the Big Mac Meals w/ Large Coke. Comfort food & the sugar rush does give you a bit of a high but it's not long before it swings the other way and you're feeling empty inside.

You know it's not healthy for you in the long run.

Foxtrol

ErnestBorgnine wrote: »

He's right you know. You really should lay off the Big Mac Meals w/ Large Coke. Comfort food & the sugar rush does give you a bit of a high but it's not long before it swings the other way and you're feeling empty inside.

You know it's not healthy for you in the long run.

He was having a moan about not having easy access to cash and pointing at the boogeyman being the cause rather than taking the time for some self reflection. Per your random fast food tangent, it is like someone that is trying to open a new restaurant in a shopping center moaning that it is hard because of there being a McDonalds there.

ErnestBorgnine

Foxtrol wrote: »

He was having a moan about not having easy access to cash and pointing at the boogeyman being the cause rather than taking the time for some self reflection. Per your random fast food tangent, it is like someone that is trying to open a new restaurant in a shopping center moaning that it is hard because of there being a McDonalds there.

Scorsese wants to feed you a Fillet Mignon with a nice glass of Roija, eat what you want but no need to be offended at his opinion on Big Macs!

Foxtrol

ErnestBorgnine wrote: »

Scorsese wants to feed you a Fillet Mignon with a nice glass of Roija, eat what you want but no need to be offended at his opinion on Big Macs!

He wants to open a fine dining restaurant in a shopping center and because it isn't as easy as it was in the past he is now moaning about McDonalds and claiming they aren't selling food. As I said, old man yells at cloud.

I am about as offended about his opinion as he is of mine. There was probably plenty of similar comments about his early movies by older generations, there always is. Moaning and ranting seems to sooth them though.

ErnestBorgnine

Foxtrol wrote: »

He wants to open a fine dining restaurant in a shopping center and because it isn't as easy as it was in the past he is now moaning about McDonalds and claiming they aren't selling food. As I said, old man yells at cloud.

I am about as offended about his opinion as he is of mine. There was probably plenty of similar comments about his early movies by older generations, there always is. Moaning and ranting seems to sooth them though.

Old man gives opinion as far as i can see, i didn't see any ranting.

Foxtrol

ErnestBorgnine wrote: »

Old man gives opinion as far as i can see, i didn't see any ranting.

Not Scorsese, his was just a standard moan. I was shaping the rant part of my comment more towards some earlier posts on this thread.

Foxtrol

Foxtrol wrote: »

Not Scorsese, his was just a standard moan. I was shaping the rant part of my comment more towards some earlier posts on this thread.

The wider audience of course being the Chinese market. The wider opinion in this forum leans the other way.

Foxtrol

Deleted User wrote: »

The wider audience of course being the Chinese market. The wider opinion in this forum leans the other way.

What does the Chinese market have to do with anything? It is only a fraction of MCU box office if that is what you're implying.

Is Scorsese trying to feed me Chinese food now?

CalamariFritti

I dont get anything out of the umpteenth superhero remake. The first Iron Man was ok but really Marvel bores me to death. Having said that yet another mob movie with de Niro and Pacino isn't exactly revolutionary stuff either. It feels like I've seen at least ten of those already.

Foxtrol

Foxtrol wrote: »

What does the Chinese market have to do with anything? It is only a fraction of MCU box office if that is what you're implying.

Is Scorsese trying to feed me Chinese food now?

Marvel make billions of dollars in China and many more billions across the rest of Asia. And on top of that cinema revenue you have massive amounts of merchandise sales


https://www.google.ie/amp/s/variety.com/2019/film/news/avengers-endgame-first-day-box-office-china-1203196389/amp/

€100m on the first day for the last movie

Foxtrol

Deleted User wrote: »

Marvel make billions of dollars in China and many more billions across the rest of Asia. And on top of that cinema revenue you have massive amounts of merchandise sales


https://www.google.ie/amp/s/variety.com/2019/film/news/avengers-endgame-first-day-box-office-china-1203196389/amp/

€100m on the first day for the last movie

It made $150m in its first day in the US market alone and $1.2bn worldwide over the first weekend.

China helps but I've still no idea what it has to do with what Scorsese said.

Greyfox

ErnestBorgnine wrote: »

Scorsese wants to feed you a Fillet Mignon with a nice glass of Roija, eat what you want but no need to be offended at his opinion on Big Macs!

Yeah but sometimes your in a hurry somewhere else and don't have time for a full sit down meal so having the choice between the 2 places is better than having 1 food option.

Foxtrol

Foxtrol wrote: »

It made $150m in its first day in the US market alone and $1.2bn worldwide over the first weekend.

China helps but I've still no idea what it has to do with what Scorsese said.

You were talking about facing up to the changing tastes of cinema. The taste is Asia because that is where the money is. That’s where the growth is and that’s the biggest market for lowest common denominator movies

ErnestBorgnine

Greyfox wrote: »

Yeah but sometimes your in a hurry somewhere else and don't have time for a full sit down meal so having the choice between the 2 places is better than having 1 food option.

What if your choices are only between McDonalds, Burger King, Eddie Rockets 3 & a reboot of Supermacs??

I want a ****ing steak!

Greyfox

ErnestBorgnine wrote: »

What if your choices are only between McDonalds, Burger King, Eddie Rockets 3 & a reboot of Supermacs??

I want a ****ing steak!

The fancy restaurant owner should be working harder at getting more customers to want steak rather than moaning at the popularity of fast food

ErnestBorgnine

Greyfox wrote: »

The fancy restaurant owner should be working harder at getting more customers to want steak rather than moaning at the popularity of fast food

He was only drawing attention to the gimmicky nature of Happy Meals

Tony EH

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Ken Loach up now :pac:

https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1186380912428228608?s=21

Veteran Male Directors Talking About Superhero Movies will be a feature-length documentary soon, and I’m there for it.

I think all three (Scorsese, Coppola and Loach) are entirely correct. Although I think Coppola's choice of word is a bit much. LOL.

These things are soulless products pushed at a purpose built consumer base. People go to these things, look at the flashing lights and stuff their faces for a couple of hours and then go home, forgetting most of what they saw after 30 minutes.

They're empty calories in screen form and the problem is is that they are pushing out other types of film as every studio is now in pursuit of "their" franchise to milk.

Foxtrol

ErnestBorgnine wrote: »

He was only drawing attention to the gimmicky nature of Happy Meals

No he wasn't, he was moaning that he couldn't get funding.

Foxtrol

ErnestBorgnine wrote: »

What if your choices are only between McDonalds, Burger King, Eddie Rockets 3 & a reboot of Supermacs??

I want a ****ing steak!

Then go get one, there are plenty of places to get what you want. It just mightn't be in the shopping centre because the people who go there don't have the same taste as you.

ErnestBorgnine

Foxtrol wrote: »

Then go get one, there are plenty of places to get what you want. It just mightn't be in the shopping centre because the people who go there don't have the same taste as you.

Ok so, enjoy your Happy Meal

Foxtrol

Deleted User wrote: »

You were talking about facing up to the changing tastes of cinema. The taste is Asia because that is where the money is. That’s where the growth is and that’s the biggest market for lowest common denominator movies

As I pointed out, if they bring out an MCU movie that alienates the US market alone (not even account other nations) in favour of the Chinese one then they'll hurt themselves more than they gain.

You're trying to make it sound like making a movie that is accessible to a worldwide audience is something to be ashamed of.

Foxtrol

ErnestBorgnine wrote: »

Ok so, enjoy your Happy Meal

I will, along with steak from time to time.

The happy meals will taste even better knowing how much they annoy some people

Greyfox

Tony EH wrote: »

These things are soulless products pushed at a purpose built consumer base. People go to these things, look at the flashing lights and stuff their faces for a couple of hours and then go home, forgetting most of what they saw after 30 minutes.

They're empty calories in screen form and the problem is is that they are pushing out other types of film as every studio is now in pursuit of "their" franchise to milk.

Your just making up words. Theirs nothing soulless about most of the Marvel films, their mostly just very good films. Does Scorsese or Coppola have the ability to tell a story on the same scale? Of course they dont. It's a consumer base that want witty dialogue, interesting characters, action and fun and Marval is delivering where other films are failing. Flashing lights? You really don't know what your talking about

Forgetting what they saw? Hahahaha.. that's funny.. you really don't know what your talking about. Fact is their not forgetting what they saw and are spending hours and hours talking about what they saw because theirs a massive world mythology for them to get lost in. Films like infinity war give fans tons of things to talk and speculate about which help with building a buzz for the film

Empty calories is just talking nonsense, sounds like you haven't watched part of any of the films yourself. Marvel are successful as most of their films are good or excellent. Maybe the people who make non superhero films need to stop whinging and work harder

Tony EH

They are soulless, corporate, machine produced, committee designed items for mass consumption by a carefully groomed audience.

Some of whom get their knickers in a twist when they're called such. :pac:

Greyfox

Tony EH wrote: »

They are soulless, corporate, machine produced, committee designed items for mass consumption by a carefully groomed audience.

Your post is garbage talk, you may as well be saying Star wars and star trek are the same thing or the godfather part 3 is better than 1 & 2.

Tony EH

Greyfox wrote: »

Your post is garbage talk

Convincing post, well done.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

They are soulless, corporate, machine produced, committee designed items for mass consumption by a carefully groomed audience.

Some of whom get their knickers in a twist when they're called such. :pac:

4 Legs good, 2 legs bad Tony

artvanderlay

Breaking news: Scorsese has been confirmed as the director of a new Iron Man reboot with a de-aged De Niro playing Tony Stark. Not sure what to make of this one :P

Tony EH

Well, Ken Loach directed a McDonalds ad, so anything's possible. :pac:

Mark Hamill

Tony EH wrote: »

They are soulless, corporate, machine produced, committee designed items for mass consumption by a carefully groomed audience.

Some of whom get their knickers in a twist when they're called such. :pac:

How are they soulless?
How are they any more soulless than any big budget movie of the last 100 years?

brianregan09

I think it's a big old load of bollocks talk from some posters on here , I love the likes of Goodfellas ,Casino etc but I also love the marvel stuff , any one who doesn't like them fair enough your entitled to your opinion but to come on a forum and then rubbish them is pretty hollow reallly

There is room for all types of genres for people to pick and choose from I know I sure do , but i don't go around insulting other people's favorite films

Marvel Studios was created from nothing and they had most of there best properties at other studios that were sold off when they were going bankrupt , so in my mind they've earned there spot at the top they are currently they built it up from nothing and on the back of an actor that not many people wanted to take a chance on at the time

brianregan09

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

What an utterly redundant thing to post. "In your opinion"? Yes, he's posting words on a message board, I think it's safe to assume it's his own opinion.

But ironically, it's also a fact. The Marvel films are abysmal.

Besides destroying modern cinema with what they produce, Disney are a horrible company because of their involvement in copyright law. I can never support anything Disney does because of that.

How is it a fact though ? what can you back that up with ?

Tony EH

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How are they soulless?

I don't see any heart in them. They're factory produced items for consumers. Every one of them acts like a marketing ploy for the next one and they are all essentially the same story.

That doesn't mean they are entirely without any entertainment value. I enjoyed some of them myself, such as the first X Men films or 'Iron Man'. But they have a short shelf life. I cannot remember a single scene in 'Age of Ultron' or any other Avengers film that I've seen.

Too many of them are just tiresome and boring.

The overriding issue with them, however, is the smothering nature they are having on cinema as a whole.

Tony EH

brianregan09 wrote: »

I love the likes of Goodfellas ,Casino etc but I also love the marvel stuff

Nobody is saying that you shouldn't.

brianregan09 wrote: »

There is room for all types of genres for people to pick and choose from I know I sure do

Except this is the problem. There isn't. The proliferation of these superhero movies is having the effect of blocking out other kinds of films and a lot of them are getting relegated to the likes of Netflix or not being made at all.

Every studio now wants their "franchise", to the detriment of everything else. This is why the likes of Scorsese and the others are saying what they're saying.

brianregan09 wrote: »

but i don't go around insulting other people's favorite films

Did your films feelings get hurt?

brianregan09 wrote: »

Marvel Studios was created from nothing

Whatever Marvel is, it certainly was not "created from nothing". It literally has decades of comic material behind it.

Tired Gardener

They are utter trash, the very fact that they are usually followed by a wave of cheap plastic crap (toys, toothbrushes, etc) shows who their target audience is.

They all bleed into one another, and this is somehow labelled as a Cinematic Universe that has never been done before... no, it is just an endless franchise that people have heavily invested in.

Films can be artistic and entertaining, Disney films are mildly entertaining. Why limit the experience to one, demand both.

One of my all time favourite films is 12 Angry Men. The film is 62 years old, it still stands up to today's standards. I doubt any of the Special Effects films that are so common today will. For example, how many times do people watch Flubber again? Or any film from the 90's who's main point of interest was the CGI... because that is all these Marvel, and Star Wars films have. People say the characters are interesting, they aren't characters, but rather a walking collection of traits and witty one liners.

Foxtrol

Tired Gardener wrote: »

They are utter trash, the very fact that they are usually followed by a wave of cheap plastic crap (toys, toothbrushes, etc) shows who their target audience is.

They all bleed into one another, and this is somehow labelled as a Cinematic Universe that has never been done before... no, it is just an endless franchise that people have heavily invested in.

Films can be artistic and entertaining, Disney films are mildly entertaining. Why limit the experience to one, demand both.

One of my all time favourite films is 12 Angry Men. The film is 62 years old, it still stands up to today's standards. I doubt any of the Special Effects films that are so common today will. For example, how many times do people watch Flubber again? Or any film from the 90's who's main point of interest was the CGI... because that is all these Marvel, and Star Wars films have. People say the characters are interesting, they aren't characters, but rather a walking collection of traits and witty one liners.

I didn't know how angry the MCU made people, it is fascinating.

I've never seen so many rants about something that people can just ignore. I just don't buy the moaning about how it is at fault for ruining the movie industry, it ignores the more complicated problems that are there.

Tired Gardener

Foxtrol wrote: »

I didn't know how angry the MCU made people, it is fascinating.

I've never seen so many rants about something that people can just ignore. I just don't buy the moaning about how it is at fault for ruining the movie industry, it ignores the more complicated problems that are there.

I would ignore it, but sadly whenever I go to the pictures, the majority of films available to watch are CGI trash fests. It doesn't make me angry... just disappointed, and baffled that adults find them entertaining.

Greyfox

Tony EH wrote: »

I don't see any heart in them. They're factory produced items for consumers. Every one of them acts like a marketing ploy for the next one and they are all essentially the same story...

The overriding issue with them, however, is the smothering nature they are having on cinema as a whole.

Your post shows a clear lack of film knowledge. You don't like a film so you make up a load on nonsensical bullsh*t. Its so much easier to blame Marvel rather than accept the fact that the rest of Hollywood need to up their game and make better films. I get the fact that people want original ideas but it's a chicken and egg scenario now. If new films came out on the same level as Braveheart, Gladiator, Pulp fiction or Shawshank then I'd much prefer to watch these over Marval but the fact is Hollywood doesn't make films that good any more. Cinema has changed, if Marval disappeared theirs no guarantee that we'd get Hollywood upping their game so I'm happy with the excellent work Marval are doing.

Tired Gardener wrote: »

They are utter trash..
One of my all time favourite films is 12 Angry Men.

For me theirs 6 or 7 Marval films that are better than 12 angry men

Tired Gardener wrote: »

just disappointed, and baffled that adults find them entertaining.

People who think Superhero films are for kids are people with a very limited knowledge of films

Greyfox

Greyfox wrote: »

Your post shows a clear lack of film knowledge. You don't like a film so you make up a load on nonsensical bullsh*t. Its so much easier to blame Marvel rather than accept the fact that the rest of Hollywood need to up their game and make better films. I get the fact that people want original ideas but it's a chicken and egg scenario now. If new films came out on the same level as Braveheart, Gladiator, Pulp fiction or Shawshank then I'd much prefer to watch these over Marval but the fact is Hollywood doesn't make films that good any more. Cinema has changed, if Marval disappeared theirs no guarantee that we'd get Hollywood upping their game so I'm happy with the excellent work Marval are doing.



For me theirs 6 or 7 Marval films that are better than 12 angry men



People who think Superhero films are for kids are people with a very limited knowledge of films

Tony’s film knowledge is fairly encyclopedic from reading his posts from the last decade in here

Tired Gardener

Greyfox wrote: »

People who think Superhero films are for kids are people with a very limited knowledge of films

All the cheap plastic toys, single bedding, kids happy meals, and other merchandise that are released along side the cinema release disprove your argument.

Frank O. Pinion

brianregan09 wrote: »

How is it a fact though ? what can you back that up with ?

My ability to read sarcasm online.

Tony EH

Greyfox wrote: »

Your post shows a clear lack of film knowledge.

I have never claimed otherwise. :pac:

Greyfox wrote: »

You don't like a film so you make up a load on nonsensical bullsh*t.

Which film? There's 23 of them across 3 different phases.

Into the bargain, I don't really "hate" any film. But I dislike how certain fads affect cinema. I love 'Jaws' and the original 'Star Wars', but loath the blockbuster mentality they imbued studios with that still lingers like a bad smell today and how they were responsible for killing 70's cinema, which I consider the real golden age of Hollywood.

So, while I don't "hate" 'The Avengers' or 'Thor', but couldn't care less about them, I don't like the very real effect they have on other types of films and film makers.

Greyfox wrote: »

Its so much easier to blame Marvel rather than accept the fact that the rest of Hollywood need to up their game and make better films.

This is just adorable.

The guys who made 'Taxi Driver', 'Apocalypse Now' and 'I, Daniel Blake' need to up their game and make films as "good" as Marvel movies.

"Mr. Scorsese, you're a slacker. Why can't you make a film as good as 'Antman'? I mean, com'on Marty, what the hell? 'Goodfellas'? Pfffffft, More like 'Shitefellas'. 'Captain Marvell' is your new benchmark."

Greyfox wrote: »

I get the fact that people want original ideas but it's a chicken and egg scenario now. If new films came out on the same level as Braveheart, Gladiator, Pulp fiction or Shawshank then I'd much prefer to watch these over Marval but the fact is Hollywood doesn't make films that good any more.

They can't get the finance. That's the point that these directors are making. The 'franchises' are drowning everything else.

Mark Hamill

Tony EH wrote: »

I don't see any heart in them. They're factory produced items for consumers. Every one of them acts like a marketing ploy for the next one and they are all essentially the same story.

That doesn't mean they are entirely without any entertainment value. I enjoyed some of them myself, such as the first X Men films or 'Iron Man'. But they have a short shelf life. I cannot remember a single scene in 'Age of Ultron' or any other Avengers film that I've seen.

Too many of them are just tiresome and boring.

This is all very subjective though. I feel almost the exact same about some other genres of movies.

I see as much heart in them as any blockbuster from the last 40 years at least. They have actors, directors and storytellers all working damn hard on material they all seem to be proud of and enjoy putting out. Them all being interconnected and leading to a bigger story was a well advertised feature from the start, it's no more a marketing "ploy" here than it is in serialised comics (or novels) in general.

Tony EH wrote: »

The overriding issue with them, however, is the smothering nature they are having on cinema as a whole.

That's more of a Disney and management issue though, rather than with the specific content of these movies.

Mark Hamill

Tired Gardener wrote: »

I would ignore it, but sadly whenever I go to the pictures, the majority of films available to watch are CGI trash fests. It doesn't make me angry... just disappointed, and baffled that adults find them entertaining.

Why shouldn't CG be entertaining? Is it just CG that you are annoyed by? Or do you have an issue with fantasty or sci-fi films in general, even if they used entirely practical effects (like the original Star Wars trilogy, Alien 1/2, Tron etc.).

Mark Hamill

Tired Gardener wrote: »

All the cheap plastic toys, single bedding, kids happy meals, and other merchandise that are released along side the cinema release disprove your argument.

There was a Robocop cartoon, along with plenty of Robocop toys in 80s, was Robocop a kids movie?

Tony EH

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This is all very subjective though.

Everything on this topic will be subjective.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That's more of a Disney and management issue though, rather than with the specific content of these movies.

Nobody is saying that it isn't a Disney issue.

As to the content, it's quite lacking as they are all essentially they same formula and there aren't any surprises. They're either an origin story or a team up to beat the guy who has the thing that wants to blow up the world. None of which are that compelling after you've seen one or two of them.

If comicbook fans get a kick out of seeing their hero on the big screen, that's grand. But, beyond that, they really don't have much to show.

Tired Gardener

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why shouldn't CG be entertaining? Is it just CG that you are annoyed by? Or do you have an issue with fantasty or sci-fi films in general, even if they used entirely practical effects (like the original Star Wars trilogy, Alien 1/2, Tron etc.).

I love Sci-fi and Fantasy... so much so that I used to work for Games Workshop.

What I don't like is the growing trend of reliance on CGI in place of good story telling. Modern cinema is now more about the spectacle and not the story. For example I'm not a fan of Comic books, yet I really enjoyed Christopher Nolan's Batman films, and the recent The Joker film. Yet I find Marvel/DC to be utter boring, as the story is formulaic at best.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

There was a Robocop cartoon, along with plenty of Robocop toys in 80s, was Robocop a kids movie?

And Aliens, those where in the 90's. They came out long after the release of the films. There weren't any McDonald's Aliens/RoboCop Happy Meals, no RoboCop tooth brush, no Aliens single bedding.

There was a kids cartoon of the franchise that was toned down to be suitable for kids that had the usual toys. This was due to license holders trying to milk out more money from their product... they saw how lucrative Star Wars and Star Trek toys and other paraphernalia were... looked at their 18 rates film franchise and wanted a piece of that money. So they made the cartoons.

It may seem similar on the surface, but it is a bit of a jump in logic to suggest what you are trying to insinuate.

Mark Hamill

Tony EH wrote: »

The guys who made 'Taxi Driver', 'Apocalypse Now' and 'I, Daniel Blake' need to up their game and make films as "good" as Marvel movies.

Maybe they need to make films as good for showing in a cinema as Marvel do?

What I mean is that cinema competes with just watching things at home. Back in the time of Taxi Driver, 1975, there was no competition. Watching things at home meant waiting for years for the movie to come to TV, and a top of the range TV (25 inch CRT screen) could cost about nearly $750 dollars in 1975 money.
Nowadays, movies are released to buy much quicker and that $750 dollars would be worth about $3500, that could get you a 75 inch 4k tv, a cinematic 4 speaker soundbar system and your own reclining sofa.

Cinema is changing, not really driven by the likes of the MCU or other CG laden blockbusters, they are the answer to it. It is driven by a public who are far more comfortable to watch movies at home.
How many posts and threads have there been from posters complaining about their cinema going experience? About noisy eaters, distracting phone use and the like? A big blockbuster, a load comedy or a jump scare horror can be heavily supported by a group viewing (and in general are not quite as effected by others being as noisy/distracting), but a thoughtful or quiet and intense drama can loose a lot with the wrong type of neighbors.

Tired Gardener

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Maybe they need to make films as good for showing in a cinema as Marvel do?

What I mean is that cinema competes with just watching things at home. Back in the time of Taxi Driver, 1975, there was no competition. Watching things at home meant waiting for years for the movie to come to TV, and a top of the range TV (25 inch CRT screen) could cost about nearly $750 dollars in 1975 money.
Nowadays, movies are released to buy much quicker and that $750 dollars would be worth about $3500, that could get you a 75 inch 4k tv, a cinematic 4 speaker soundbar system and your own reclining sofa.

Cinema is changing, not really driven by the likes of the MCU or other CG laden blockbusters, they are the answer to it. It is driven by a public who are far more comfortable to watch movies at home.
How many posts and threads have there been from posters complaining about their cinema going experience? About noisy eaters, distracting phone use and the like? A big blockbuster, a load comedy or a jump scare horror can be heavily supported by a group viewing (and in general are not quite as effected by others being as noisy/distracting), but a thoughtful or quiet and intense drama can loose a lot with the wrong type of neighbors.

That is a very good point, maybe Cinema is going to morph into a place where only CGI blockbusters and jump scare films are the films on offer. Due to the ease of home Cinema, however that being said, if production companies aren't willing to fund the more quiet intense dramas, they may become a thing of the past. That is a worry, especially with how big directors are having to go to streaming companies to finance their films. With Disney+ just around the corner and Netflix having $12.45 billion debt, it isn't looking to good for the variety of films that are going to be available.