---

But you cannot say that about all commercially successful films, and that's what he's doing, and he's wrong. Many indie films are crap.

---

I agree, not all commercially successful films are bad and not all indie films are good. Like I wrote in the previous post, I have nothing against blockbusters, but I don't like the current situation in the movie industry. I mean, what happened to variety and originality?
I miss seeing GOOD, INTELLIGENT commercially successful movies...
Ah, the 90s. :(

A great majority of "commercially successful" films are garbage. Many indies are fantastic but never get commercial success. There are a whole host of other issues too, for example - "big budget studio films" take up half the screens in a theater with double or triple screens for one film.

That leaves less availability for indies to get wider audiences. It is one reason that VoD is the future and one reason that much of what is great is on TV now instead of at the theater.

If a studio can't sell the rights to McDonald's for toys in Happy Meals they aren't necessarily interested. It is about marketing and rarely about the Art of Film.

I guess that I need to go get my hip waders, because it's getting deep, as we were told that it would a while ago. All very well to play that game, but I reserve an equal right to call bullshit on it.

Creative people can afford to live and let live, and the mature ones know it.

Oh the movie was pretty and filming it was no doubt a huge task for the actors and crew involved but it didn't *move* me. It was big on cinematography, thin on story.

Compare it with 47 Ronin. Beautiful cinematography, beautiful story - NOT a box office success. It is still a great film, despite it not being a huge success.

Now, Elwes knows his work, Wachowskis' do too. Happen to agree with them, you don't whatever, that is fine but don't put words in a post that aren't there.
Like saying:

---

"I do not think that Keanu is wrong to do more commercial films in able to get smaller films made, and to say otherwise is one hell of an entitled value judgment."

---

Seriously? It is not I who is making an "entitled value judgement" here. Lol. You sure do like to pretend people who disagree with you are not allowing you to express your opinion. It is a theme with you.

KR has always done far more indie films than studio pics. Just look at IMDB.

"Still, having preferred to work in indie films like Henry's Crime (2010) and this year's ultra-low budget Generation Um. But Keanu hasn't been slacking during this time - on the contrary, most of his attention over the last few years has been focused on his directorial debut - Man of Tai Chi - a martial arts film which he shot in Beijing and Hong Kong."

http://www.whoaisnotme.net/articles/2013_1223_kea.htm

One can disagree without being disagreeable, don't you think?

---

I mean, what happened to variety and originality?
I miss seeing GOOD, INTELLIGENT commercially successful movies...

---

I agree. IMHO, what happened is marketing and licensing and willing to take risks isn't there anymore. It has always been a huge corporate business making movies; but there was a balance and the scales seem to be tipped more towards "cost benefit analysis" than art, risks and originality and it is why we are seeing great stuff on AMC or HBO.

Eye opening documentary called Seduced and Abandoned takes a fun, inside look with an obviously fake movie idea they attempt to sell at Cannes.

http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/seduced-and-abandoned/synopsis.html#/

---

Now, I don't think that movies like The Avengers or Captain America shouldn't be made, because there is, after all, a lot of people who enjoy seeing them and find them entertaining. However, calling such movies "great" or "masterpieces" is ludicrous.

They are fun, yes, but there is nothing more than that to them.
Seeing that The Avengers got 92% on Rotten Tomatoes, and 8,2 on IMDb makes me question people's common sense.

Are Marvel superhero movies really better than classics such as the original Star Wars trilogy (the prequels were quite awful, though) or The Matrix (1999)

---

*claps* Bravo, Becauseichooseto22 and I loved Cloud Atlas. Both the book and the film. Read the book first, read it several times in fact - it moved me.

One of my personal opinions [Mine. Personal.] is that many movie goers are lazy. They do not want to think, they want to be spoon fed. Which is why critics were mixed on Cloud Atlas.

Sometimes a silly action flick is perfect for the mood, rarely do I go to a theater to see one though.

Look at all the marketing money that is made from Captain America and Avengers, too. Huge $$ beyond the theater.

But hey, axie, you win. I don't need to do this again.

---

Who decides is my question? It feels like politics.

---

It is politics. HW, politics is its own flavor.

With the way things are marketed today? It comes down to money and money always comes with politics of some kind.

Lots of people like Gravity or other movies I don't care for; no big deal we aren't stepford people having to fit one mold.

My opinions are my own - Your mileage may vary :D

But that said, it doesn't mean that all such movies are crap, let alone all commercially-successful ones - heck, The Matrix franchise was definitely a box-office success and the sequels at least were definitely out to make money, and it's awesome. Film has multiple purposes for different people. Most people do just want to be entertained - not necessarily because they can't think for themselves, but because many of us watch movies to take a break from life and work, and are happy with simple, uplifting stories that are fun and make us feel good for a while. (Most days I'd take a mindless but entertaining comedy over a deep, soul-searching drama, because I don't have the mental energy for the latter.)

And if a movie can do that, people will like it, and rate it highly. That doesn't always mean that they think it's a masterpiece; it just means they like it.

fwiw, I didn't like Gravity or Cloud Atlas. :/