chickenwing

Fair point about DC and Indy but Disney has had a few flops recently as well. Pixar isn't a franchise but it was definitely a brand that normally would bring people to the theaters with just the name alone. Now they are struggling to get people to come to the theaters.

I really like the show. I've pitched it to friends as a mix of Lost and a Steven King book.

My hope is that like in the 70's American New Wave the studios panic and start doing weird experimental stuff with young directors. That's where a lot of the big name directors came from today. Back then US directors copied what the French were doing and it got people back in theaters. If I were a director I'd look at South Korean films there has been a ton of great films come out of there in the last 20 years or so.

I think Guardians 3 and Spiderverse may be exceptions though. Spiderverse has a cool visual style that makes it stand out and is riding of the goodwill of the last film. Guardians 3 is the last guardians film and I've seen a lot of people say it was the last marvel film they were interested in. I think audiences might need more motivation than just a marvel logo now. Captain Marvel got over a billion dollars while marvel was on the hype train but I doubt the sequel does that well.

WB was hyping it up like it was the greatest superhero film ever made. I've actually seen the movie and can assure you it is far from it. The whole thing felt like an inside joke from WB.

That was part of it. They are also getting stiffed by streaming services.

I think Ghostbusters did ok but I think this phenomenon of people avoiding franchises started after that movie, around Antman 3.

That's true. I should have titled the end of the "risk free" franchise film. Disney and WB drop 200 million on a movie and start filming without a coherent script because they knew that the film would coast on the name alone. I think those days might be gone. Marvel and others might need to step up their game to survive.

I'm glad someone was dedicated enough to do this but frankly this is too much work for that website. Moving away from the huge social media companies will be healthier for the internet and they are nothing without users. Best they remember that.

Just these monolithic social media companies really. And I don't really consider anything "web 2.0" to be traditional internet. Newgrounds was traditional internet.

You know the fediverse isn't perfect but it seems more sustainable than these big social media companies that are not profitable. Reddit and Twitter make no real money but want to host everything on their website and I'm not entirely sure why. Image boards like 4chan purge all their data and the fediverse is spread out to a bunch of different servers. What's the point of keeping everything forever on one server? Do they really think that all that junk data is valuable?

Also why did reddit go from just hosting text to hosting images and videos? It used to be a link aggregation site now it's a never leave our borders site I don't understand how that's going to be profitable with how much hosting that data is going to cost.

Years ago I used to hit like 15 websites a day just for video game news and discussion then it became all reddit.

This is true. I was having a lot of issues with lemmy.ml it's getting overwhelmed. I wish there was an easy way to carry over subscriptions between accounts.