It’s like in a music video when the artist suddenly pulls out the new Samsung explosive device, and your heart sinks a little.

Not only is it necessary for even decent movies to be packaged within some IP, they also seem to rely on selling ad space within the movie itself.

Very bleak.

  • GCostanzaStepOnMe@feddit.deOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    “It’s capitalism” is an unsatisfying explanation because one the one hand it’s sort of trivially true, but on the other, good movies have been made under capitalism. Hindsight’s 20/20, but I don’t really buy that the execs didn’t see a massive ROT on Barbie beforehand, given it’s prestige, cast, director etc. I understand that some cruddy network TV show or “Tetris the movie” or whatever have to fall back on advertising to cover their costs, but this one? Seems entirely unnecessary, even more so considering the artist cost it came along with.

    The bleak thing is not advertising per se, which we are used to, but advertising in movies that seem far too big for it. And then of course crass, embarrassing way it was implemented here.

    • Gaybees@artemis.camp
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think you’re focusing too much on the ROI and and not the distinction between projected ROI and a guaranteed one. They can expect to make a return, but the cannot do so with any degree of certainty. Whereas with a sponsored segment, that is guaranteed money before the movie even opens.

      And you’re correct, good movies have been made under capitalism. Good movies are also made with sponsored segments. I’m arguing that they’re good despite the pressures of capitalism, not because of it.

      I mean look at Elemental, huge, expensive production, one of the biggest animation houses in America with a history of incredible and influential work, huge media and ad campaigns and yet… it was a flop (at least domestically). I’m sure they expected to make a lot more money than they did.

      The true evil is often banal.

      • imaqtpie@lemmy.villa-straylight.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The distinction between projected and guaranteed is irrelevant when you’re projected to make a billion dollars. The Barbie IP, paired with the cast and crew, was an absolute juggernaut from the beginning.

        You’re correct in that everything ultimately stems from capitalism, but in this particular instance, certain producers could have made less greedy decisions and the film would have been better for it.

        That’s what this discussion is supposed to be about. You’re kind of talking past OP.

    • sznio@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      “It’s capitalism” is an unsatisfying explanation because one the one hand it’s sort of trivially true, but on the other, good movies have been made under capitalism.

      But you went to watch a blockbuster. These are made to make money above all else. You just aren’t the target demographic.