Last month I was obligated to set the record straight regarding Marty Scorsese's view on the cinema (see CMG post, "Marty Scorsese, You're Biting the Hand That Feeds You!), now the attention shifts to Spielberg.
In a recent interview with the Hollywood Reporter, Spielberg stated, "I might be open to making a film for a streaming service in the future, but it must be on my terms", - what a pompous twit.
Of course, he is going to make films that go directly to streaming, just like Scorsese does. Why? Because they are greedy and know that their projects won't make any book at the box office. So, they go for the lesser but guaranteed money from Netflix, Apple, or Amazon.
They do this to stay relevant and hedge on their films flopping at the box office. For example, Spielberg's 2017 pre-pandemic 'The Post" which starred Tom Hanks (a Stephen fav) and Meryle Streep, grossed $179 million worldwide - not bad for a film that cost only $50 million.
|Hanks in 'The Post'|
However, Spielberg says, "The Post, which was nominated for six Oscars, had lackluster attendance because it wasn't streamed" - and not because most moviegoers chose not to view it.
Come on Stephen, own-up to your gaps. According to Spielberg or Scorsese, it's never the filmmakers fault it's always the audience's lack of understanding and appreciation of their work.
News flash Stephen, just because a film is streamed doesn't ensure success. Not all Netflix or Prime films are viewed by the millions and millions - they have flops just like in the cinema.
'The Post', for example, would have been only offered to people that skew to that genre of film. All streamers utilize AI (artificial intelligence) to feed films to subscribers based upon their 'viewing' profile.
Anyway, enough ranting. Moviegoers, at this point in time, want (no desire) high-impact, action, fantasy, horror, and superhero films or sequels of same. That what brings in the big box office bank.