Has Disney's Magic Dried Up?

To combat the power of Netflix and Prime Video as streaming titans, as well as to tap into the popularity of streaming, Disney unleashed their own service, Disney+, to the world. Here would be stored some of the most profitable brands in cinema history: Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar, Disney's live-action remakes and Disney's animated classics. Through the acquisition of 20th Century Fox, the streaming service pumped up the more adult-orientated films and shows too. Disney+ came out at a great time too: just months before the Covid-19 lockdowns across the world. If families are stuck indoors, what else is there to do in the evening if not stick on an episode of The Mandalorian? The pandemic saw many challenges for studios, not least whether releasing films in cinemas at the same time as an at-home release is profitable. But since cinemas have reopened and 2022 has yielded some box office smash hits, it appears that the once titan of the 2010s is now working hard to catch-up with the other studios in 2022. Has Disney fatigue kicked in?

To look at Disney's successes and failures from 2019-2022, it is integral to provide context to the grosses for each film. In 2019, Disney had one of the most profitable years in film history due to the grand-slam achievment of Avengers: Endgame, which temporarily became the highest grossing film of all time due to the intense fan-service and ultimate pay-off for eleven years of films. Elsewhere that year, the live-action remakes of The Lion King and Aladdin grossed a billion plus each, even while Dumbo stumbled. To cap it off, Toy Story 4 and Frozen II hit a billion, Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker sneaked past that threshold and Captain Marvel made $1.1 billion. Regardless of the fact that a lot of those films are mediocre, audiences rushed to see them. In 2021, after a year hiatus, the Marvel franchise kicked things back into gear with Black Widow, which took under $400 million but its true profits are unknown as it also premiered on Disney+ for a fee (£16 in UK). Still, the film was never destined for record-breaking. To paraphrase Syndrome- "you're late, *five* years too late." Next came Shang-chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, introducing a new superhero character aimed at representing Chinese communities. Shang-chi's exclusive cinema release points towards Black Widow being unprofitable, with the $150-200 million budgeted martial arts flick accumulating $420 million worldwide. Now, the film may not have made Disney any raw profit due to marketing costs and splitting with the cinema. However, it was the biggest pandemic release until Spider-man: No Way Home, buoyed by very strong legs and word of mouth. Two months later came another 'new' Marvel property: Eternals. Again worth a $200 million price tag, this bloated film hit $400 million but was less likely to make a profit than Shang Chi and its smaller budget. 

Marvel Studios 

Of these three Marvel films two more things have to be considered. First, is that all three of these films did not get a release in China, where the MCU is very popular. Given Shang-chi's Chinese connections, a release there most definitely would have leap-frogged the film north of $600 million and towards the gross of 2018's Ant-man and the Wasp (which played like a lesser Marvel film that could be caught up with with ease). Besides the lack of Chinese money, the other factor is that a great many countries were experiencing lockdowns at different times. However, this excuse falls on its own sword when we look at Marvel's No Way Home. Distributed by Sony, the film smashed into the history books with the second biggest weekend ever and a final $800 million domestic tally and $1.9 billion worldwide. The film played throughout January due to zero competition as only tent-poles were trusted to bring in crowds. But it also played as the Omicron variant surged. In the UK, Covid was inescapable in December, yet the film still wormed its way into the all-time highest grossing. Eternals and Shang-chi may well have been affected by lockdowns, but for No Way Home to play as it did (without a dime from China, too) proves that maybe, just maybe, the once bulletproof iron man armour around the franchise seems to have been penetrated. 

Staying with Disney's lordship over the Marvel properties, Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness was marketed as an event level MCU addition. Benedict Cumberbatch told fans to expect more surprises than Infinity War, Endgame and No Way Home combined. Clearly this was a must-see event that had to be seen on opening weekend to avoid spoilers. When it was released in early May, reception was muted. The film felt underwhelming due to what it was positioned as. It made a colossal $187 million in its opening weekend but then suffered a big drop-off in weekend two, as if everyone flocked early to avoid spoilers. Why would Marvel advertise it like this? Why would they film re-shoots for the middle act (cameos everywhere)? The answer is undoubtedly to capitalise on No Way Home's extremely good run and for Disney to get in on that cash, not Sony. The advertising and reception to the film further nods towards Shang-chi and Eternals not turning a profit, with Disney seeking 'event MCU' cash and not 'Doctor Strange 2' cash. The film did still hit $400 million in the US alone, and $950 million worldwide. It not crossing a billion does not make it a flop; a release in China, Russia and the Middle-east most definitely would have secured over a billion. Even for a Doctor Strange sequel it had a huge increase on its predecessor, and that film did have the aforementioned markets. But was Doctor Strange 2 impacted by Disney+? The 2021 Marvel films wasted no time in getting onto the streaming platform, instantly devaluing the cinematic quality they had. Once word got out that DS 2 was not an event film that could be missed, did audiences decide to wait 45 days for the Disney+ release? My friends certainly did. 

Pixar Animation Studios 

    This is because Disney's output during     pandemics conditioned their audiences into seeing Disney content as suitable for home viewing. Through the release of Pixar's Luca, Soul and Turning Red, Disney+ made films from that esteemed, event studio feel like B-movies. Films that debut straight to streaming have no shelf life; they fizzle out as quickly as recent British Prime Ministers. What trends in one week is forgotten the next, which is why films debuting over WiFi is not economical for studios in the long run, especially if those films cost $200 million. The case in point is Lightyear. I originally had this film pegged at being a monster at the box office due to its association with the Toy Story brand, Chris Evans' involvement and that it was Pixar's first theatrical release since Onward collapsed right before the pandemic. Alas, the success of other summer tentpoles meant that one film had to bomb and Lightyear it was. Its dismal earnings will cost Disney quite a lot, but I am sure in a few months the amount of people who have rated it on Letterboxd or IMDb will have blown up because most are waiting to see it on Disney+. The studio is simply struggling to have event-level cinema films. Lightyear offered IMAX yes, but against Top Gun: Maverick and even Jurassic World: Dominion it had no chance, with parents unlikely to pay extra for a difference their kids won't realise. And with Star Wars seemingly operating exclusively as TV shows now, there is little in the can for Disney to rely on the big bucks. Even their live-action remake slate is stale: The Little Mermaid and Hercules are liked to be sure, but it already feels that audience appetite has been quenched. 

The one thing Disney do have is 20th Century Studios. With that acquisition came the mighty Avatar franchise and all the towers of money that that will provide. Avatar 2's December release should take full advantage of the cinematic spectacle and not put the film on streaming within 45 days. We have seen with Encanto that just letting a film play in cinemas, even in Covid times, can be worth it. Disney sabotaged themselves by sticking that popular animation onto streaming too early and not offering the sing-along showings sooner (if at all), and doing the same for Avatar will be as disastrous as their Star Wars sequels. 

What we are left with is a titanic studio that is effectively locked out of China (whether that is down to perceived politics within the films or that Disney represents America's all consuming capitalism beats me) and with a progressively rotting body of films. With Marvel not unleashing event films for some time, Star Wars out of action, Pixar struggling to attract audiences, live-action remakes running out of popular material and the general public seeing their output as suitable for home-viewing before cinema viewing, it seems Disney is in a pickle. Sure, it will most likely end up having the biggest marketshare at the end of the year, but the fact that Paramount dominated the first six months is quite a feat, with Universal not far behind. 

Disney Studios 

The answer may be to do what Disney tried in the 00s and early 10s: starting new franchises. Jungle Cruise in 2021 could have been a good start, but all it succeeded in doing was reminding people how fun The Mummy is. But it would be the smart move to try and make all those fresh films that people once flocked to, like The Curse of the Black Pearl. Sure, John Carter and The Lone Ranger were as successful as the Bay of Pigs invasion, but times are different now. Here's hoping that existing franchises are rubbed out by new ones. 

Review: Obi-wan Kenobi

I belong firmly to the generation of Star Wars fans who grew up on the prequel trilogy, playing the corresponding videogames, buying the LEGO sets and loving the characters and gonzo special effects. The 'prequel revival' that has emerged in the 2010s through meme culture and the release of the sequel trilogy is less about naysayers changing their opinions on those films and more how people my age are the upcoming journalists, YouTubers and comment section keyboard warriors of the film world. Those that loved George Lucas' prequels are now platformed to explain why they do. So, it makes a tonne of sense for Disney+ to make Obi-wan Kenobi, a six-part series that summoned Ewan McGregor and Hayden Christensen, now two of the most bulletproof actors on social media, back as Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker / Darth Vader respectively. Hotly anticipated, it is a shame that the show lived up to my criticisms from when it was announced. Chief of these is the question: what story do they have to tell here?

Lucasfilm

The answer is laid out in the opening episode, and it is more convoluted than Tenet. Kathleen Kennedy and the Lucasfilm team described the show has the "rematch of the century" in reference to a Kenobi-Vader fight. But how can these two characters come face to face between Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope? How can they fight and neither of them will be injured or killed? If Kenobi is stationed on Tatooine to look after Luke, does that mean Vader has to come to his home planet and not wonder why on earth his Jedi Master is hanging around there? The resolution to this is the introduction of a ten year old Leia Organa (Vivien Lyra Blair), who is kidnapped by the Empire's Inquistors to draw out Obi-wan. Why? Because one of the Inquistors found out that Leia's adopted father Bail Organa and Obi-wan had a connection in "the records." Keeping Luke tied to Tatooine, the show then draws Kenobi offworld to several other planets to rescue her, fending off the usual Imperial accomplices as he goes. Meanwhile, the Inquistor (essentially former Jedi who work for the Empire but are not Sith) Reva / Third Sister (Moses Ingram) has a Gangs of New York-inspired agenda of her own. The plot is immensely mediocre for what should have been the premium Star Wars show; contrivances are applied so thickly that the crimes of Rise of Skywalker are almost forgiven. Leia is captured (twice) and rescued (twice), whilst a supporting cast of universe cliches dip in and out: a redemptive small time crook, a stubborn but good rebel leader, a turncloak Imperial, a protective droid, and a snarky, British villain. Furthermore, following The Mandalorian, Logan and The Bad Batch, it has become tiresome to see the 'seasoned warrior gains a heart by looking after a child' storyline reappear. 

It is easier to acknowledge the strengths of the show than it is to deconstruct it, because the positives are few and far between. First and foremost, it is great to see Ewan McGregor and Hayden Christensen reprise their roles. Both actors clearly love it, and I can only imagine the happiness Christensen must feel after his outing by fans in the prequels (hopefully Moses Ingram will have a similar arc and be embraced without the unnecessary hate she has taken). The final episode is easily the best, even if it radiates the impression that the final fight was thought of first and then the show was spun around that confrontation. This is down to an exchange between Kenobi and Vader that really nails the emotion, strengthening the Duel on Mustafar and setting the stage for the originals. In a great touch, Kenobi slashes Vader helmet off one side of the face, a great moment that provides a nice touch with the voicework flicking between James Earl Jones and Christensen, but it also mirrors Star Wars: Rebels. In that, Anakin's apprentice Ahsoka shaves off the other side of Vader's helmet, showing how the master and the apprentice of Anakin could not save him, and it is his son, Luke, who manages to get the whole helmet off Anakin. That is largely it for genuine praise towards the show; when the two actors are not together it feels horribly disjointed. 

Lucasfilms

On a technical level, there are fan films on YouTube that look better than what director Deborah Chow has assembled. The lightsabres are hideously bright, the sets feel made for TV (as opposed to The Mandalorian actually feeling like a film), the score has little continuity with the prequels and is drastically louder than it needs to be, the shot choices and shaky-cam are jarring, the lightsabre fight is agonisingly edited so that the decent choreography does not get the full visual treatment it deserves, and Tatooine continues to be the most boring planet in sci-fi history.                                                                 Character wise, Obi-wan spends far too long being incompetent and Reva's entire arc has more holes than a cheese grater. People survive fatal wounds without breaking a sweat and are left to not die far too often. Ingram tries her best, but from the get-go she lacks any intimidation and comes across as angry, angry, and angry. Her arc is highly predictable and, what is worse, after her utterly non-sensical mission to kill Luke Skywalker because... he might be Anakin's son, Obi-wan lets her go to be free. Now, this is a character who cut an innocent's hand off, lynched a Jedi, has killed other Jedi despite, you know, wanting to avenge the Jedi Younglings, and was fully intending to torture a ten-year old for information. Obi-wan witnessed most of these but is happy to let her go, forgiving her and wishing her a speedy emotional recovery. If Darth Vader had survived killing the Emperor, you are damn well sure he would have been put on trial for war crimes. One good act does not erase the bad.                                    Regarding Leia, it is a shame that Disney have congested the iconic character into a Hermione Granger-type: from a young age they are headstrong and brave, and will grow up to be effectively the same person but older. Using Leia across all six episodes could have been a better opportunity to give her an arc; have her find her courage by the end of it as opposed to being innately adventurous and capable. It screams of laziness. 

Lucasfilms

By the final few moments of Obi-wan Kenobi, the show has wrapped up in the exact same way as Revenge of the Sith did in 2005: Obi-wan is content to look over Luke and train him when the time comes, whilst also beginning his Force Ghost training with Qui-Gonn Jinn. We are left scratching our heads, wondering about the risk of continuity errors or how a few words in the original trilogy now take on a larger meaning. Sure, the final scene with Vader and Kenobi does strengthen both Revenge and Hope, but the two films were already flourishing without this show. When we know that the leading characters will survive because of it is their destiny to appear in the later films (a problem Andor will face), it makes the show feel like another crude way of Disney maintaining its subscribers. This is absolutely content, to be eaten up like a 99p cheeseburger and enjoyed for the fleeting seconds before you feel disgusted with yourself for having it in the first place. I'm glad McGregor and Christensen got to engage with the franchise again, and enraged that the comment section mobs abused Moses Ingram, but I was never wowed or swept up by this show. For the most part, I was simply sad. 

'They dont make 'em like they used to' - Fact Checked

It was good, but they don't make like them used to." Such is the famous review of most people over the age of 30. Most commonly used to talk about Westerns, war films, spy films, musicals and epics, it is been bandied around by even more people (myself included) in the wake of Hollywood's objective nose-dive in quality. Quantity of content is the machine of filmmaking in the West, a safe, riskless task that milks successful franchises dry and renders genres mute. Hollywood essentially has two types of films: the mega-budget blockbuster with a $100-250 million budget, and the smaller, independent type of film that becomes well known in awards season but fails to make a splash with general audiences. Granted, there are occasional outliers in this; Oscar-bait biopics often combine established directors, a notable actor and a reasonably hefty budget (Bohemian Rhapsody, for instance) and can go onto success. Because of this production style, many genres have dried out. Comment sections will often find people lamenting the death of the mid-budget thriller, a 1990s trend whereby a decent director will work with one or two popular movie stars to make a solidly entertaining thriller on a budget between $30-90 million. Look at Tony Scott's 90s films, the Bond films before they ballooned in costs, and adaptations of John Grisham novels. 

However, it has come to my attention that the films people say they want (non-franchise originals, essentially) are actually getting what they want. The problem though is that people aren't turning up to see them. Or, to put the blame on the usual suspects, studios are simply failing to be bold with risks and, when they do take them, seem scared to properly market and promote them. Below are a variety of film templates that people thought have disappeared but have popped up recently, albeit to often poor results. 

The big-budget historical epic

Historical epics have often performed well at the box office and at the Oscars. Biblical epics were all the rage in the 1950s, then the 1960s unleashed David Lean's sweeping 20th century epics. Things fizzled out once sci-fi took over, but there was a resurgence in the 1990s after Braveheart's Oscar success. Titanic revived romantic epics and then Gladiator fully ignited the renewed passion for historical action: Kingdom of Heaven. Troy, Alexander, Master and Commander, 300. In the 2010s this has dried out. Film lengths seemingly got shorter, with three hour films failing to make a splash. Audiences were apparently clamouring for these masculine, bloody historical films. A lot of people look at Gladiator and say that that wouldn't get made today because of its budget and genre- but is that actually true? 2018's Outlaw King went to Netflix and was generally well received. 2021's The Last Duel also married a 2 1/2 hour length with brutal medieval combat (as well as a stellar cast and crew). Yet The Last Duel was a box office bomb, failing to attract audiences who were otherwise engaged with Dune, Venom 2 or No Time to Die. Indeed, its target audience still hadn't properly returned to cinemas in the pandemic era. But the film was appalingly marketed, with only one trailer released. It was a sacrificial lamb, one that hopefully finds an audience. Even more recently, Robert Eggers' The Northman is a $70 million arthouse action revenge epic that has drummed up a lot of online chatter. Historical epics never really came more than once a year, so the recent releases do feel like the genre has not completely gone. 

The mid-budget thriller 

The mid-budget thriller can be defined as an exciting story (action, adventure, courtroom) that utilises one or two notable stars and a solid director, all within a $30-90 million budget. They are the definition of a 7/10 film or a great popcorn flick. Perhaps the most notable one of these in the 2010s is John Wick, which tapped into Keanu Reeves' committment and likeability and also paved the way for how action films should like. Its sequels grossed more money and thus earned their bigger budgets. Also in 2014 was Denzel Washington's The Equalizer, which also got a sequel. However, this type of filmmaking has waned. Directors like Tony Scott and John McTiernan tried hard to keep it afloat, but once their careers stopped there were few other filmmakers capable of delivering the goods. Michael Bay's Ambulance stars Jake Gyllenhaal and is a decently reviewed (anything over 60% is usually acceptable for this) action picture, just one that has failed to properly make a splash despite literally being what people want. The demise of this escapist filmmaking can be attributed to streaming: if something is not particularly cinematic (no fan base, mid-tier production values) then streaming sites lap it up. Audiences probably saw Ambulance's trailers and thought they would wait for it on Netflix where they can watch it with a takeaway and some beers. Extraction was popular on Netflix but I highly doubt it would have been a box office hit in cinemas. 

Big budget originals 

Having looked at certain genre formulas, the other massive 'hole' people are crying out to be filled is the lack of original cinema. These are films not based off of existing franchises or established characters, but rely on an original premise, director power, starry casts, and word of mouth. Original cinema really isn't dead- but it is held back. If we look at some of the most high profile 'originals' since 2015, a pattern does emerge: 1917, Dunkirk, Tenet, The Hateful Eight, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Coco, Inside Out, Soul, Moana, Us and Mitchell's vs the Machines. What connects most of these is that they are original films operating within a brand. Tenet and Dunkirk both made over $300 million (Tenet would have made more in a non-Covid world) because they were sold under the Christopher Nolan name. Audiences know his work because of the mainstream appeal of The Dark Knight trilogy and then his other juggernauts like Inception and Interstellar. There is an expectancy for time trickery, big practical effects and a general confidence in the storytelling, therefore his original films sell tickets. Similarly, Quentin Tarantino's two films both had sizeable budgets and sold a fair few tickets because the director is as much a franchise as James Bond. Fans expect snappy dialogue and violence, and they get it. Us was sold under the banner of Jordan Peele following the breakout success of Get Out, whilst Disney and Pixar's films are almost encouraged to be original so that children have a greater chance of loving it and becoming obssessed by it. Mitchell's vs the Machines was also sold as being from the minds of Into the Spider-verse, so a brand connection has begun for Sony Animation too.                         With 1917's success, the originality of the film was less important. Whilst not a distinguished auteur, Sam Mendes' credentials have created a sense of trust with audiences, whilst the much discussed cinematic nature of the film and its cinematography led to word of mouth telling people to experience it. 1917 works as a pivot point between the brand 'originals' from directors and animation studios to the true originals that manage to break out. Such examples include Knives Out, whose old-school style and dashing cast, not to mention general quality, made it a box office smash. Then there is Ad Astra, a roughly $100 million space film that failed to profit but was well received. Parasite rode a wave of success and frantic online acclaim to breakout internationally. A Quiet Place was marketed more as a cinematic event than a standard horror-thriller, one that had the John Krasinski-Emily Blunt involvement to further carry it to break-out success. There are numerous other mid-budget originals: Logan Lucky, Hostiles, Passengers, The Accountant, La La Land, The Nice Guys, Baby Driver etc. Some of these scored, some failed. But the point remains Hollywood does still make originals, it is just a matter of audiences going out their way to watch and support them. 

The 'True' Types of Films I Like

 "Oh you like films? What sort of films do you like?"

"I like... Westerns... Sci-fi films... I like most films really."

Such is the repeated conversation I have with new work colleagues, fellow students, family members and the occasional total stranger sitting on a dirty Southeastern train. What I really want to say, but don't for fear of scaring anyone off, are the niche, genre-bending films I love; the type of selective stories that have similar themes, environments and plot points. The following categories all need snappier names, but if a film falls into any of these, I will enjoy it. 

1) Period revenge films 

Revenge films are essentially a sub-genre already as they are quite numerous, but I particularly love revenge films set in a historical era. The two leading examples of this are Gladiator and The Revenant, both of which absorb you into these bygone worlds and combine bloody violence with muscular filmmaking and a terrific leading performance. Weaker, but still very enjoyable, examples include Inglorious Basterds, Gangs of New York and The Outlaw Josey Wales (which is outstanding, but the vengeance is not a constant enough thread throughout).

2) Men form mutual respect for each other despite moral or cultural differences 

When I look at my favourite films, this theme seems a constant. Scenes in war films where a German and a British soldier have a chat like they are friends have always moved me, such as the wire-cutting scene in War Horse. This theme is essential to the whole film, however. Take Heat, where Robert De Niro's bank robber and Al Pacino's weary cop realise they are effectively the same, work-driven person on different sides of the moral compass. The final shot, in which Pacino holds De Niro's dying hands, is masterful as it makes a Pacino a tragic character with little in his life to fill the new hole. The Last Samurai sees a US cavalry officer grow to respect the traditions and culture of samurai leader Katsumoto, with Tom Cruise ultimately embracing the Japanese way of life. Despite being enemies, they two find a mutual bond that is very moving. Some of my other favourites include L.A. Confidential, 3:10 to Yuma, For a Few Dollars More and In the Heat of the Night. Another similar moment in films is when servants of justice let the 'hero' have a headstart at the end because they do have some moral qualities (Curse of the Black Pearl, Face to Face).

3) 'One last job'

The 'one last job' film comes in a multitude of genres: heists, crime, war, action, Western. Because jobs, like pints, never really stop after one. So when Clint Eastwood rides out for one last bounty hunt in Unforgiven, the audience knows he will either die or will end up down the same violent path again. Logan, a spiritual remake of Unforgiven, also does a great job of the ageing hero having one more chance to save the worl- a girl. In the sensational Carlito's Way, Al Pacino has sworn off crime but soon finds the people around him don't feel the same way, sucking him back in despite our frustrations. Se7en is meant to be Morgan Freeman's final job before retirement, whilst The Wild Bunch uses the weary outlaw gang's final blaze of glory as an elegy for the demise of the Old West. And, again, Heat is the final bank robbery before a retirement to New Zealand. There is always a strong sense of quitting whilst you are ahead with these films, as destiny looms. 

4) Sci-fi that goes crazy at the end

'Goes crazy' is rather vague wording but what this usually means is a third-act that goes into visually and aurally spectacular places that the audience did not see coming. The definitive example of this is 2001: A Space Odyssey's stargate sequence, which assaults the senses with lucid colours before blowing the mind with its final scene in the room. It is the scene that makes people debate its meaning afterwards. Star Trek: The Original Motion Picture has a similar moment where Spock enters this sublime space of vast scale and size as it works out the VGER mystery. In Contact, Jodie Foster's experience with extra-terrestials is another splendid, bombastic set-piece that stuns with its emotion too. That film's companion piece, Arrival, goes further with the emotion by providing an explanation to the entire film's structure and wowing with the potent use of Max Richter's 'On the Nature of Daylight'.

5) Man in wilderness 

Essentially survival cinema, these films tell stories about man's relationship with the natural world. Beautiful cinematography inbound. The Revenant is the best recent example of this, showing Hugh Glass' battle to survive the cold, Native American attacks, an empty belly and his bear-sustained wounds. Jeremiah Johnson is slightly tamer, showing a mountain man building a home and raising a family in the wild. Life of Pi translates the story away from the cold mountains and onto a small boat shared with a tiger. The finale of Predator pits Arnie against the horrors of the jungle whilst Cast Away stranded Tom Hanks on an island and The Martian left Matt Damon on Mars. Then there's Deliverance, in which four men find themselves weakened and brutalised by the river, emotionally cut off from each other rather than geographically. Watching nature's violence gives you a new found appreciation for living in a nice home. 

6) Lone person comes to town / hero has to leave because of the violence committed

This is the staple of a lot of Westerns, for which we have to thank Shane. Yojimbo did this effectively too, laying the foundations for A Fistful of Dollars and Django with their recycled plots. The loner enters this new place and acts as the audience surrogate to see the workings of this new environment. The Mad Max films also revolve around the perpetual loner. The latter part, that the protagonist must leave at the end because they represent the violence and suffering that led to the town's alleviation, is not always connected with the inital loner, though Shane does have to ride off with his gun come the end. The Searchers is undoubtedly the most famous of this, with the iconic final shot sentencing John Wayne's morally disrupted Ethan Edwards to wandering the southern deserts. This is also Frodo in The Return of the King, whose quest has left a toll that means he can never find peace at home. Ryan Gosling too goes to ultra-violent methods in Drive to protect those he cares about, even if it means scaring them off forever. It is often a bittersweet ending.

2022 Oscars Wrapped Up

The much maligned Academy Awards have been struggling for viewership for years. In the last five or six years the respect for the Oscars has rotted away: overly political messages from the wealthy elites, a focus on representation rather than quality, honouring films that the general public have not seen, cringe-inducing hosting and humour or audience Twitter competitions- take your pick which is the biggest factor. But if the Academy wanted to get people talking, all that was required was the Fresh Prince of Bel Air smacking The Rock... sorry, Chris Rock before a packed auditorium. The moment is one for the history books, especially considering Will Smith's Oscar win a few minutes later (his defence amounts to how he embodied what Richard Williams did in King Richard). 

Whilst a great moment of drama, it has already been discussed, memed and blasted enough. So let's focus on the winners. 

Best Picture: CODA

Was Sam Elliot's sandblasting of The Power of the Dog the coup de grasse for its Best Picture chances? Jane Campion's Western drama seemed the surefire win for much of the awards race, but some last minute pit-stops at the Producer's Guild of America boosted CODA's chances. It became the first film released on a streaming service (Apple) to win the top prize, and that's where the first issue comes. Nobody really has Apple TV+, nobody has really seen this film, and nobody had even heard of it beforehand. It's been logged on IMDb and Letterboxd dramatically fewer times than The Power of the Dog, Nightmare Alley, West Side Story and Dune. Giving a mediocre cinematic text like Spider-man: No Way Home a Best Picture nomination just because everyone went to see it should not be the case, as that film will get sequels and the cast will be rich. And whilst smaller made films rely on awards prestige to gain greater distribution, there should be a middle ground where popular films are awarded. The Last Duel may well have been a big box office bomb, but it only grossed $9 million less than King Richard and, because of availabilty on Disney+, has over double the number of logged views on IMDb / Letterboxd. In fact, it isn't too far behind West Side Story. Streaming views, limited box office runs and tickets sold should be taken more into account here, especially if the Oscars wants viewership to be back to its peak in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Ultimately, Best Picture winners are like X-Factor winners: the runner ups are usually better remembered (Mad Max: Fury Road > Spotlight, Whiplash > Birdman). Giving the Best Picture to The Power of the Dog would only make those that disliked it louder. 

The Technical Oscars: Dune Sweeps

Ten nominations, six wins. Dune repeated Fury Road's Oscar blitzkrieg by hoovering up Sound, Editing, Visual Effects, Cinematography, Production Design and Original Score (if Sound was still split with Mixing and Editing then it undoubtedly would have seven Oscars). This is entirely worthy: no other technical film was on the same level as Denis Villenueve's passion project. Hans Zimmer, the greatest composer of the 21st century, got his second (!) Oscar. His snubs for Interstellar, Dunkirk and Inception are still felt, however. Greig Fraser's win in Cinematography is perhaps the most joyous win: Fraser has emerged as one of the leading visonaries of the 2010s through films like Zero Dark Thirty, Rogue One, The Mandalorian and Dune, whilst his work on The Batman perhaps tipped him over the finish line as more and more people take notice of him. Dune's wins for Cinematography and Visual Effects matches Villeneuve's success with Blade Runner 2049 and emphasises how hand-in-hand these two categories have been in the 21st century: The Fellowship of the Ring, Hugo, Life of Pi, Avatar, 1917, Gravity and Inception. Dune deserved to win big- its $400 million box office gross is a remarkable feat, pandemic or no. In fact, the nine other Best Picture nominees have a total box office gross of $240.2 million, meaning an average of $26.7 million per film. Let that be a sign. 

Bond Song Hatrick

Billie Eilish won an Oscar for 'No Time to Die' in the Original Song category, following the success of Adele's 'Skyfall' (amazing!) and Sam Smith's 'The Writing's on the Wall' (terrible!) to show that Bond songs are either the easiest vote because of the credit song being inside the film (and not at the end like so many are) or because they are just always popular songs... Either way, it was great to see No Time to Die get a little gong to coincide with the franchise's 60th anniversary. Eilish's win has one explanation: 'We Don't Talk About Bruno' was egregiously not nominated. Encanto's nominated song, 'Dos Oroguitas' lacked the ubiquity to pursue the win, reflecting Disney's failings to predict which song would be the one everyone loved. 

Acting Awards are as Predictable as Ever 

Ariana DeBose, whose career is about to skyrocket, deservingly won Supporting Actress for her role as Anita in West Side Story. Her win is notable for trivia-heads: following Rita Moreno's win as the same character in 1961's West Side Story, there are now three characters who have had double Oscar wins (Heath Ledger and Joaquin Phoenix for Joker, Marlon Brando and Robert De Nero for Vito Corleone). Troy Kotsur lapped Kodi Smit-McPhee to become the first deaf actor to win an Oscar, to much praise. As for Best Actor and Actress it was a tiresome affair as Will Smith and Jessica Chastain won Oscars for, yes, biopic performances. Since the 2001 Oscars, 22 of the 44 lead actor wins have been for biopics / true stories. That number does not include performances like Olivia Colman in The Favourite (too expressionistic) or Leo DiCaprio in The Revenant (too little to actually base a performance off of). It is a remarkable figure, one that epitomises the Oscar-bait nature of the biopic. A great deal of respected actors have won Academy Awards for their biopic performance, even if public sentiment is that they have done many other much better performances (e.g. Gary Oldman in Darkest Hour). The Eyes of Tammy Faye was honoured with a Make-up and Hair Oscar but it has become tiresome to see actors win for what are essentially impersonations. Benedict Cumberbatch crafted a new, multi-layered character with Phil Burbank, but that no longer seems enough if you are up against an 'overdue' actor. It is a lot more refreshing when Emma Stone wins for Mia or Anthony Hopkins wins for... um... Anthony. 

The Oscars Fan Favourite 

We have seen what Boaty McBoatface can do to social media polls. Why the Oscars thought doing a Fan Favourite Twitter competition would be a great idea is beyond comprehension. The bizarre nominees for 'Oscars Cheer Moment' were the three Spider-men, the Avengers assemble sequence, Neo dodging bullets, Effie White singing in Dreamgirls (!) and the Flash speed force scene from Zack Snyder's Justice League (which didn't even go to cinema). The Flash won. How? Thousands of Twitter accounts and bots plugging the polls every day to honour Zack Snyder. You have to feel sorry for the guy- his films are worshipped by a totally monomaniacal fan base who are gagging for the restoration of the Snyderverse. There is no other conceivable way for that Flash scene to outmatch the two MCU entires. The Oscars Fan Favourite Film for 2021 was even stranger: Cinderella came second, beating tick tick... BOOM!, Johnny Depp's Minamata and No Way Home. The winner was Zack Snyder's Netflix disappointment Army of the Dead. Boaty McBoatface indeed. 

All told, as irrelevant and unecessary as ever. 

Review: The Batman

Minor spoilers follow.

Like James Bond, Bruce Wayne has had his fair share of actors, with each one offering a different style and tone. It seems rather surprising then that since 2012, we have had three Batman actors. Christian Bale bailed out with The Dark Knight Rises, Ben Affleck took over in 2016 and now Robert Pattinson, teenage-vampire-hearthrob turned indie-darling, has embodied the Caped Crusader with The Batman, directed by Matt Reeves. Was it necessary to bring in a new Batman so soon after Batfleck? Whilst the character has been mercilessly exploited since 1989, this new incarnation is fully justified and worthy of the greats. 

Batman in comics and video games is acknowledged as the 'world's greatest detective' but, besides a few moments in The Dark Knight trilogy, there is very little evidence of this cinematically. Matt Reeves has plunged himself into the detective aspect, making his Batman an observational master of deduction within two scenes of meeting him. He makes the professional cops look like they flunked their forensic's exams. As a detective tale told over three hours, Reeves draws on David Fincher's crime dramas Se7en and Zodiac to establish his creative desires. The perpetual rain in Gotham echoes Se7en's neo-noir desires and the Riddler's (Paul Dano) puzzles and crime scenes are highly evocative of the Zodiac killer. It is an apt choice for inspiration. 

As Bruce Wayne (but mostly as Batman), Robert Pattinson is a triumph of casting. All the naysayers that only see him as Edward Cullen and have not seen Good Time, Tenet and The Lighthouse are wonderfully proven wrong in moments. There is no ridiculous Bat-voice and his physicality is lean and powerful rather than the battering ram approach of Ben Affleck. One sequence at a funeral sees Wayne silently observe a recently orphaned boy staring at his dad's grave. Pattinson's eyes tell it all: the pain, tragedy and the desire to stop this boy from following in his path of vengeance are beautifully portrayed. 

Orphans are pivotal to the film's narratives and themes. Wayne's relationship to Alfred (Andy Serkis) is fractured; we get the feeling that the butler thinks his employer is rather insane whilst Wayne is too emotionally splintered from his parents' death to connect to anyone else. The opening scene uses binocular vision to create a sense of dread and voyuerism. Later on, the same shot is used to watch someone else. The misdirection makes us assume its the original 'watcher' but instead it's another orphan character who took on the pains of his past with a completely different approach. In one of the most graceful moments in superhero history, the orphan boy from the funeral is rescued under the deep reds of a flare, an act of heroism that redeems our protagonist and solves his angsty mindset. 

The Film Twitter-friendly casting is largely spot on. Jeffrey Wright's Jim Gordon has a similar Felix Leiter feel- not quite as expert as the main character but his heart is in the right place. Zoe Kravitz's Selina Kyle (Catwoman) gets the lion's share of characterisation due to her complicated relationship with Gotham's top criminals whilst also proving an athletic fighter. The trifecta of villains steal the show though. Dano's Riddler is frightening from the get go. His performance is a fusion of Dano's characters from Prisoners and There Will Be Blood with the twisted logic of Heath Ledger's Joker. Then there is Colin Farrell, clad in effectively jarring facial make-up, as the Penguin. Like Joe Pesci in Casino, he is an ugly, violent right-hand man with an eye on being top dog (or bird). He isn't in it much, but he steals the Batlight when he does. The real surprise is John Turtorro as Carmine Falcone, the crime lord who has turned the police and politicians into poisoned pawns that step aside for him wherever he goes. He too belongs in a Scorsese film, what with all these mentions of rats too. 

The crooks of Gotham very rarely emerge in the daylight, but then neither does Batman. Greig Fraser, the talented cinematographer, rarely allows daylight into his frames. The film is dark and rain-lashed whilst the oranges are infernal. If Hell exists, then the fiery outlines of Gothic buildings and the sepulchral chaos on the dirty streets must be the closest depiction of it. In complete cohesion with Fraser's aesthetic is Michael Giacchino's muscular, sombre score. Unlike Hans Zimmer and Junkie XL's more action orientated beats for Batman, Giacchino goes for something more akin to the Imperial March, whilst also delivering some nice themes for Catwoman and the Riddler. Batman's first introduction, a real knock-out scene, sees the central theme build from the darkness as we hear footsteps approaching some ill-fated goons. It is one of Giaccino's best efforts in years, enough to make you wonder why he wasn't properly applied to Spider-man: No Way Home (or why Marvel films never let their scores breathe). It is the second time Giacchino and Fraser have worked together (Rogue One) and it would be great to see them work together again in the future. Matt Reeves' cast and crew is a dream, and everyone pitches in work that ranks among the best of their respective careers. 

For a three hour film, modern audiences will be amazed at how swiftly the film flies. It is paced well due to its bursts of action, variety of characters and intrigue in the mysteries and riddles. The fistfights are worthy of Zack Snyder's warehouse crash-course in beating up red shirts, with Batinson delivering awesome coup de grasses. One sequence, lit entirely by the muzzle flash of semi-automatic rifles, is exquisite. Batman is at his best when his actions aren't entirely caught; it is left to the audience's imagination. Furthermore, it feels like we actually are watching the chaotic movements of a bat, which move at such rapid rate its hard to keep track of their course. The film's undisputed best scene has to the Batmobile chase. This is a riot in sound design and rain drenched carnage. It is like Prisoners' race to the hospital but with a loud muscle car instead. The low angle, rear wheel mounted shots capture corners and drifts with eye-popping pleasure. And the alighnment of a breaking ramp for a big jump sequence is deeply, incredibly cathartic (as is the speeding up of frame rates before a collision). Not since Mad Max: Fury Road has a car chase been so crazy and visually breathtaking. 

Despite this high praise, The Batman is not faultless. The first half's world building is so immersive that once everything is established and the plot moves to focus on Bruce, interest Waynes a little. Furthermore, whilst not fully turning into a CG spectacle finale, there is a 'big' moment that was costly to film that seems a little out of touch with the rest of the film's close quarters engagement. It isn't too overwhelming, but the final set piece could have been a little smarter. Finally, there is an egregious moment of sequel-baiting in the epilogue sequence that induced yawns. It could have served as a credit scene or it could have been cut- perhaps Matt Reeves had total creative freedom as long as he included it? Either way, it killed off the satisfying closure. 

At its best, The Batman is a brilliant, vital new version of the character in his early years. The inner conflict and need for vengeance works so well for a new version of the character. Even the black eye mask that still adorns Bruce's face without the mask emphasises how little of the playboy is alive in him- he is pure shadow and nightmare. An audio-visual triumph with a predictable but nonetheless immersive detective story. 

Hollywood and China - what is the future?

The film market is constantly changing due to factors like streaming services, coronavirus, studio competition and technology. Recently there has been one potentially seismic shift: the rejection of Hollywood properties by China. 

China emerged in the 2010s as one of the leading markets for internatinal film distribution, often 'saving' or massively boosting the profits of Hollywood blockbusters. Pacific Rim made $411 million worldwide in 2013 from a $190 million budget, an amount that meant it barely pushed through a profit. Of that total, a symmetrical $114 million came from China alone, its biggest market. This breakout success earned it a sequel. Similarly, in 2014 Transformers: Age of Extinction made a record-breaking $300 million in China, almost double the $167 million gross of 2011's Transformers: Dark of the Moon. This boost in China secured the film $1 billion worldwide, even while it grossed significantly less in other markets than Dark of the Moon. 

More recent examples include the success of the Fast and Furious films, Warcraft and Venom, which made an outstanding $262 million in China alone, contributing to a whopping $856 million worldwide. Superhero films and 'dumb' action films seem to be Hollywood's most successful film exports to the Middle Kingdom, with the MCU, whilst not relying on China for profit, often finding success there. DC's Aquaman surprised everyone with its mammoth performance in China as well. This therefore created a mutually beneficial relationshiop between Hollywood and China: films that underperform in the USA can make it back with overperformances in China, whilst already big blockbusters like Avengers: Endgame can challenge Avatar for the title of highest grossing film ever because of China's massive expanse of cinemas and audiences. 

This model has changed of late. The effect of the pandemic has challenged filmmaking in the West, with delays in production and scheduling creating a vacuum internationally, as countries like China and New Zealand managed to evade long lockdowns and kept cinemas open. Looking at the highest grossing films of 2020, half of the top ten are Chinese films (and one is Japanese). This emphasises how the domestic takings in China for their own films far surpassed those of Hollywood's and cemented in the Chinese film industry's mind that they did not need Hollywood to keep their cinemas open- they were making enough blockbusters already. In 2021, even with film business largely going back to normal in the second half of the year, three of the top ten were again Chinese films. Of note is The Battle of Lake Changjin  which earned over $900 million in its domestic market; the second biggest single gross for a country behind The Force Awakens' $937 million gross in the USA. Elsewhere on the list, the performances of F9 and Godzilla vs Kong were only so strong because of China's massive boosts (both much larger than their success in the US). 

In 2021, four Marvel films were released in varying situations: Black Widow had a simulataenous release with Disney+, Shang-chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings and Eternals were outright banned from China, and Spider-man: No Way Home emerged with the Omicron variant but still managed to gross about $600 million more than those three combined, even without China. Because of a Marvel film's standard $200 million budget, they often need to make over $600 million before they become profitable. Without China, Eternals and Shang-chi are technically flops, even if they did perform better than other pandemic films. On the other hand, the smaller budgeted Venom 2 also didn't get a Chinese release but still made a very respectable $502 million worldwide. This number is perhaps closer to what pundits expected the first Venom to make before it exploded in China, meaning that the sequel was a worthy hit still. But what is the impact of all of this?

Well, in the case of No Way Home, it means that Hollywood should not rely on China to cross a billion dollars. The Dark Knight and Joker also accomplished this feat without a Chinese release. Even Endgame would have passed $2 billion without China. But are these anomalies? No Way Home and Endgame were generational events designed to tap into nostalgia, the necessity to watch with packed audiences and to appeal to a large demographic. The Dark Knight and Joker are equally zeitgeist-hitting films that succedded on sheer word of mouth, controversy and awards potential. So not every Hollywood can guarantee to be a generational event or a nerve-striking critical success. 

But what must be considered is that a lot of films have relied on China for success and to cross a billion worldwide. China is perhaps responsible for the Transformers franchise continued existence, as well as the surival of the MonsterVerse and the Fast saga. Complications arrive when it comes to the Chinese censors not allowing films in: in the case of Eternals it was due to director Chloe Zhao's comments on the Chinese government (and probably the film's depiction of a gay relationship a la certain Middle-eatern countries). With Hollywood increasingly promoting representation of minorities and the LGBT+ community, decisions will have to be made about whether the studios should forget trying to appeal to China by removing such things in the trailers and films, or whether they should have an actual backbone and maintain the footage and see if the film never needed China to begin with (in the case of Eternals, it probably did need it). 

The next factor is the delayed release of Hollywood films in China. Uncharted, which has modestly overperformed in the West, has a Chinese release on March 14th, weeks after its initial release. The Batman's Chinese release is March 18th, again two weeks after its US release. The problem is that by the time these films get to China, momentum has subsided as pirated versions find themselves alone for Chinese fans to watch. The Batman is the first tentpole superhero film to release in China for a long time, so its underperformance from pirating will be a clear indication of the problems facing Hollywood. 

China has not shut out Hollywood quickly. Dune and No Time to Die had slight, if underwhelming, grosses there. Looking ahead, it is more than likely that a great deal of 2022's slate like Avatar 2, Aquaman 2 and Jurassic World: Dominion will also get profitable releases in the Middle Kingdom. But with the delayed release dates, rise of HD-piracy due to at home streaming and the strength and love for China's own film industry, it looks like box office success is no longer guaranteed. How can Hollywood combat this?

For starters- lower budgets. Unless a film is an event film in the vein of Avengers, Star Wars or any other popular IP, it would seem folly to keep pushing budgets of up to a quarter of a billion dollars on films if the return on investment is stunted by a lack of release in China or a delayed release there. A film like No Way Home can profit from a $200 million price tag because, as a Spider-man film, as an 'important' MCU film and as a multi-generational crowd-pleaser, it was a guaranteed smash hit in the US and abroad. Lower budget films have been gradually erased from Hollywood in the last decade. In the 1990s and early 00s, films that cost between $50-$100 million were very popular, often boasting one or two popular actors and fun action sequences. These are films like Enemy of the State, Ocean's 11 and The Bourne Identity, all of which were moderate box office successes for their studios. But since the serialisation of big franchises and the obsession with nostalgic classic films in the 2010s, the mid-budget film has lost its place, with only films like John Wick and The Revenant finding large audiences despite not belonging to an IP or being a tentpole film. 

It looks like Hollywood has already responded however. The Batman, despite a near three-hour runtime, has (according to Deadline) a budget of $100 million. Whilst others have seen it as closer to $185 million, the point remains that the film has a lot smaller budget than previous superhero films, meaning it won't have to break records to succeed. Uncharted has a reported $90 million price tag which seems a mature choice: a flop won't cost the studio too much and if the film is a hit, which it seemingly is, it can turn a profit quite quickly. Uncharted was produced for Sony Pictures, and Sony have now had four hit movies in the pandemic with No Way Home, Venom 2 and Ghostbusters: Afterlife. The latter two cost $110 million and $75 million respectively, and both became profitable films. Sony has surprised with its strong track record (the two recent Jumanji films both grossed over $800 million on $90-$130 million budgets) and it seems with the upcoming Morbius they can replicate their winning formula: don't give successful films massively upscaled budgets, keep budgets below $130 million, and keep runtimes at or under two hours to increase the amount of screenings in a day. Will other studios follow?

Disney is the largest film studio in the world, capable of churning out a frankly ridiculous volume of hyper-budgeted films a year through its Marvel, Star Wars, Disney Animation, Pixar and 20th Century Fox properties, not to mention its live-action remakes and wannabe franchise starters like Jungle Cruise. The length of production for animated films means they are almost always going to cost extorionate amounts, but these are almost always hits (particularly if they are musicals as the radio can boost media attention). When cinemas fully return to the same levels of business as 2019, Disney will still be churning out these enormous films because they know families will turn up for them (and then stream them on Disney+ two months later. But with future Star Wars films in limbo, live-action remakes running out of material and the decline of the MCU's most expensive stars like Robert Downey Jr., Scarlett Johansson and Chris Evans, it does not seem too improbable that Marvel films will slacken off to 'mere' $150 million budgets, a move that will make things easier without certain Chinese release dates. 

As the 2022 film calendar starts taking shape, here's hoping that mid-budget efforts like Bullet Train and The Lost City perform well among the tentpoles, proving to Hollywood that going big does not always mean better.