MovieChat Forums > The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018) Discussion > This was made on Netflix because....

This was made on Netflix because....


Someone knew they would get laughed out of the theatres if they tried to do a regular release.

Coen Brothers are good example of what happens when you build up a base of "fanboys" who tell you that every time you use the toilet that it was "brilliant." Pretty soon it goes to your head and you lose the ability to tell the difference yourself anymore.

reply

It made Netflix because it was 6 completely different stories that wouldn't have played well with movie theater audience.

The fact that with just 15 minutes, they can "shit" a better western story than 90% of the crap that comes out these days proves how talented they actually are.

reply

"The fact that with just 15 minutes, they can "shit" a better western story than 90% of the crap that comes out these days proves how talented they actually are."

Such true words.

reply

Amen, this movie was friggin fantastic.

reply

I'm inclined to agree with the OP here about the fanboyism factor and there are several Coen brothers films that I liked and feel are truly good films. Ultimately though I think they are hit or miss filmakers and i found most of this film to be a tedious test of patience.

reply

The Coens are the thinking man's version of Quentin Tarantino, except their movies don't suck. They do have a cultish following, but the movies I have seen from them, Blood Simple, Raising Arizona, O Brother, No Country, True Grit, & Buster Scruggs are all first rate and deserve a cult following. I have no idea about the other movies they made, because the subject matter doesn't really interest me.

reply

Really? I like both the Coen Brothers and Tarantino... but hey I guess I am not as sophisticated as you...

reply

"Really? I like both the Coen Brothers and Tarantino... but hey I guess I am not as sophisticated as you..."

Don't worry, you are not the only one. Both are in my Top 10 of my favorite filmmakers.

reply

Ultimately though I think they are hit or miss filmmakers


Who isn't? Even God made the cockroach.

reply

Even their misses are entertaining and typically leagues better than their peers.

reply

"Ultimately though I think they are hit or miss filmakers"

Yes, but so are any filmmakers. Ridley Scott is, in my opinion, the ultimate champion in this category (even though I'd tend to say that he is more "miss" than "hit, especially now.

reply

I disagree. Streaming Services have made large inroads with garnering movie watching audiences and a service like Netflix is a more effective venue to showcase a movie to a broader audience.

Your comment on fanboyism makes no sense either.

reply

Theatres are still the big league and Netflix is still the minor leagues. That has not changed, despite the dumptruck loads full of money Netflix has blown on films such as "Buster Scruggs" in a failed attempt to make the narrative you support into actual reality. I read this week that Netflix is almost certainly going to go under in the near future due to it's massive debt load and furious competition on the horizon form competitors like Disney that have the actual content people want to see (aka, big league movies released in the theatres).

As for fanboyism, you can wander over to imdb and read all the reviews from fanboys falling over themselves calling "Buster Scruggs" the most brilliant film of all time. In reality, "Buster Scruggs" will be down the memory hole in 6 months or less.

reply

LOL. Nice link to your proof about Netflix "going under" in the very near future.

Take your haterade and/or jealousy of Netflix's success out of your argument before spewing your Pro-Disney propaganda.

Btw, Disney streaming will be limited to the library that they choose to control and limit to their own service which in turn limits access to the consumer. Netflix creates original content as well as licenses movies from other studios not owned/controlled by Disney.

reply

I freaking hate disney and most of what they do, but they are home to the blockbuster movie libraries that the masses want to see (Star Wars, Marvel, etc). When these masses have to choose between getting "Buster Scruggs" on Netflix or "Every Star Wars and Marvel movie ever made" on another service, which one do you think they will choose? Netflix may survive, I don't really know, but to claim that it's the première venue for films to be released is fantasy.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/the-rise-and-fall-of-netflix-here-are-5-reasons-why-netflix-stock-is-crashing-as-the-company-heads-for-oblivion

reply

You might be right, Disney has a lot of the content people want to watch (at least it does in the USA, as it might have sold that content for the foreseeable future in other markets). On the other hand, it doesn't have all the content you might want to watch. If the content creators all go alone and try to build what Netflix built, they may indeed bury Netflix (I don't see it despite the article you posted, which sounds pessimistic: Netflix is still adding new users and having profits), but people won't have one single platform where they might find what they like. If the majors are greedy (lol) they might set their price target too high and people will not want to pay up. They would for one platform, they won't for three. The obvious winner is .... Vpn companies selling subscriptions to people looking to download torrents?

reply

Why would they have to pick one or the other?

reply

Well... if you speak about paid services, they will pick what they feel like they want to pay for. Now, if I have to pay 15 euro a month for Netflix, it's fine. If it's that plus another 15 for Disney's service and maybe another 15 for Sky or whatever... well... I may want to abstain.

reply

As soon as i read the part about "NetFlix going under" i knew your goose was cooked. You are hilarious...

reply

Enjoy that crow pie in the near future as you note with consternation the increasing popularity of “Buster Scruggs”

It never ceases to amaze me when people attribute the success of artists they dislike or don’t get to “fanboys.” When have “fanboys” ever given an artist or a film any more credibility than a flash in the pan? It bothers them that something they don’t appreciate for whatever reason is lauded, so instead of pondering what it is they don’t see that others do, or just chalking it up to “taste,” they trundle out the asinine “fanboy” argument as a way to appease their cognitive dissonance.

The reasons why the Coens enjoy such justified popularity are too numerous to go into here, plus, noting the OP’s entrenched opinions I am reminded of what Robert Heinlein said about trying to teach a pig to sing, however, amongst many other things, the Coens have assimilated most of the history of the art of storytelling via moving images to an amazing degree, and they are not afraid of drawing on, borrowing from, the best examples the art form has to offer, and using them in their films, from Preston Sturges snappy patter dialogue - even to the point of borrowing “O Brother, Where Art Thou,” through Cormac McCarthy, synthesizing them stylistically, and producing movies wholly original with no real definable historical precedent, such as “The Big Lebowsky,” or, “Raising Arizona,” or even “The Ballad of Buster Scruggs.”

reply

The fact that you have to provide a laundry list of films that are better than Buster Scruggs to prove that Buster Scruggs isn't awful says it all.

Not sure on what planet Buster Scruggs is increasing in popularity, but it's not this one. A couple token Oscar nominations in obscure categories, no buzz, no one cares. I can even see them winning the best costume one, as if that ever drove the masses to pick up a film.

I'm not saying the Coens are bad filmmakers, I'm saying they and their fan base have lost the objective ability to discern good films from bad. To a certain set, everything they make must be "brilliant," not because of the material itself but because of who made it (i.e., the laundry list of previous films).

reply

I fail to see anywhere in my comment where I said any of those movies were “better than Buster Scruggs,” so don’t put words in my mouth than argue against them, that’s the classic strawman and the hallmark of a weak argument.

Just because people like certain movies you don’t appreciate it doesn’t mean the “fan base have lost the objective ability to discern” doodley squat. Personally, before Scruggs, I think the last really great movie the Coens made was “A Serious Man,” but that’s because I rate their movies on how much they improve on multiple viewings, and how much they make me think about them after they ended.

The Oscars are fun, but nobody who takes the art of filmmaking seriously believes only the best movies are nominated and win. “In Bruges” was utterly ignored by the Oscars, and “The English Patient” won over “Fargo.” ‘nuff said.

Be happy you don’t like it and feel free to revel if it fails to win any accolades, but time will tell, and as far as I’m concerned, Scruggs marks a significant departure and somewhat of a turning point in the art of filmmaking for a variety of reasons, and history will acknowledge it for the visionary artistic achievement it truly is.

reply

"Coen Brothers are good example of what happens when you build up a base of "fanboys" who tell you that every time you use the toilet that it was "brilliant." Pretty soon it goes to your head and you lose the ability to tell the difference yourself anymore."

Wow, I didn't even care so much about this prticular movie but damn... you are arrogant. Like every directors no matter how great they are, they have hits and misses. Still, it doesn't change the fact that Coen brothers' body of work is quite impressive. The big Lebowski, Fargo, No country for old man and Burn after reading are all outstanding and show an original approach at film making.

You have all the rights to not like them. In this case, I suggest you to avoid them. But telling that they are making trash is highly exaggerated even if you don't care for them.

I'm personally not a big fan of Steven Spielberg. Do I say he is a bad director who makes trash? Well... he did direct a few shitty movies, but that is not representative of his potential as a filmmaker.

reply

Agree with the OP. It was weird, clunky, and just all around unentertaining. And I am a huge Coen fan, but this one sucked.

I kept thinking 'so what?' 'so what?' through the film. smh

reply