[ SECRET POST #6029 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6029 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.


























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 31 secrets from Secret Submission Post #862.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I mean, frankly, I doubt it.

I think studios will probably cut back on some of the excessive production costs for blockbusters - stuff where it's like $250 million or $300 million instead of $150 million, totally unnecessarily.

But I just don't see any reason to think that filmgoers would prefer to watch a $20 million or $50 million movie over a $150 million action blockbuster. Sure, there are exceptions on each side - there are really well-done mid-budget movies that catch fire and there are action tentpoles that flop. And for creative reasons and for the sustainability of the industry, it's important to have more mid-budget movies in the pipeline. But I think at the end of the day, most moviegoers just prefer big action blockbusters over other kinds of movies.

[(Anonymous)]

Somehow, I really can't picture anyone looking over their life when they're dying and thinking "I watched so many cars blow up on TV. Time well spent."

There are movies that I feel lucky I got to experience, but "big action blockbusters" rarely qualify.

[(Anonymous)]

Unfortunately - much as I might wish it were otherwise - major film studios are not in the business of giving people experiences they can look back on at the end of their days and find meaningful.