# Has Hollywood become too Dependent On Blockbuster films?



## BAYLOR

At one time , you had big event films and the B movies. But now it seem ever film is a event film/ Blockbuster . The end result, smaller films that might potentially have wide appeal get squeezed out of the box office, and Blockbuster doesn't necessarily mean it's a good film. Then there's the problem of what happens if the film doesn't do well at the box office.  


Thoughts?


----------



## Foxbat

Even in the silent era you had blockbusters. D. W. Griffiths, Cecil B. Demille, Erich Von Stroheim and Abel Gance as creators of huge movies that, even by today's standards, would be called Blockbusters.

I think where the movie industry has changed is in the marketing of such films leading them to be seen as 'events' rather than just big movies. There is still a good number of smaller films being made and a lot are quite successful when comparing the costs of making them to the take at the box office. Sometimes the smaller movie gets a little lost in the marketing hype for the biggies but they're still there. You just need to look a little harder for them.


----------



## Vladd67

The film industry these days seems to mainly to do with the profit and not the art. Not only do you have the profits of ticket sales but ever since Star Wars it seems every film has tons of merchandise, to succeed the prevailing view today seems to be that every new film has to be a bigger event than the previous one. No longer can a film just be released with a premier and critic screening to garner publicity, now so much money is invested in films that the studios feel they have to be a major cultural event to recoup their expenses, maybe if a little more thought went into a decent story, decent cinematography,  and actors who can give a decent performance instead of just looking good while wearing tight/few clothes and a little less reliance on SFX and CGI, then maybe we would get films that are worth watching but don't need to be marketed as though they are the latest must have product to make your life complete. Also stop making films just for people under 30, loose the focus groups, and stop making films for accountants. So much money is spent on nearly every film a studio makes nowadays it seems that every film is now a make or break for the studio, have a flop and a director's career can be over, after all who is going to risk letting someone who killed a studio loose on a film set ever again? The end result is a reluctance to risk something new, instead of new and innovative script ideas we end up with the multi million dollar tried and tested franchises turning out their formulaic products with all the now traditional hype, toys, lunch boxes, MacDonalds Happy Meals etc. etc. Strip a lot of recent films of their SFX and they are barren of ideas, no substance, just bubblegum movies helping to shift the latest toy range. Of course the latest trend now seems to be take a franchise that has run its course, had every drop of possible story, and very possible profit wrung out of it, and whose leading actors have grown to old for the roles and make a new film using new actors in updated clothes using updated props but the old story ideas and call it a reboot. You take the old films fill the cracks and dents with filler, give them a re spray, new tyres, and bingo! You get the original fans watching out of nostalgia and hopefully you grab a new younger audience who weren't either born or old enough to spend money on all the tat released with the franchise's logo sloshed all over it but are now a whole new market to be exploited. Let's face it when you are selling a product that is either a shiny new rehash or a vacuous piece of bubble gum you need as much razzmatazz as you can muster, so now every film is now pushed as a blockbuster, every film is now a must see cultural event, every film will now fill that empty part of your life, that hole in your soul, every film now seems to be the greatest thing every to grace the medium of film, and if you miss it, well how can you chat on social media when everyone else has experienced this life event that you missed....... I'm sorry this has drifted into a bit of a rant, I'll stop now, I'm sure the earlier part made sense before I wandered into Rantville.


----------



## BAYLOR

Nothing wrong with a good rant and raises good points.


----------



## MWagner

The mid-budget movie (just like the mid-list author and mid-selling band) is pretty much extinct. The entertainment industry has become a winner-take all affair. You either have movies with massive budgets and marketing campaigns, expected to earn hundreds of millions of globally, or modest films - indie movies, comedies, horror - with small budgets and modest expectations. I personally dislike the modern model, because I like a mid-budget historical drama or adventure film, and there's no place in Hollywood anymore for movies like that.


----------



## Overread

There's a good slew of films which seem to be little more than advertising for CGI effects - Avatar is an extreme example, but you get others too where you can see them working with something "new" or different in the CGI and that effect is carried forth a lot more than the story itself.

The industry is certainly pulled to the extreme, but then again things like merchandise and money drove things in the past; heck many of the old 80-90s cartoons which were staples on the TV and did well were built off the backs of wanting to shift huge volumes of childrens toys (I don't know but this market seems to have died and moved to the big screen - I suspect in part due to the fact that there are now dozens to hundreds of TV channels and thus its a lot harder to pin down every kid watching 1 or 2 shows at once on the childrens hour).

I think also the teams have gotten bigger, there's so much money riding on  film now that the writer and director are not the only significant stake-holders in control. In Hollywood this fast pulls films apart because all teh changes and all the cutting that takes place often boils a film down. Key bits get left out; subtle elements changed which breaks later plot development and support; etc... 


And yes the system is broken. They know its broken because they are addicted and reliant upon these reboots. They know they must land so many millions on seats watching that marketing a brand new film is a vast risk beyond count. So they pick something from the past that they know will get a huge number on seats - even if it doesn't do well most will still go watch it. So they focus on that; they reboot. Yet you can tell they don't want to really - when you get significant story changes or even the whole focus shifts. Look at Transformers - the recent films focus only marginally on the robots; indeed key characters like Prime are almost totally ignored for greater part. They weren't making a Transformers film; they were making an action "robots invade the Earth, humans triumph" film mixed with a "teen romance". 

I also think they've gotten too formula focused. Every film now "has" a JarJar Binks - a comic character whose only role is pure comedy. They are there to play the childish fool, but because its the only reason they are shoehorned into the film it breaks and they stand out like a sore thumb. Viewers also recognise those characters more readily - they can see the formula (even if they don't get it).


----------



## BAYLOR

What they ought  to do is get the movie executives out of the writing and creative process of the film.  A movie executives job to finance ,okay the film and is to sell the audience  what is produced , that should be their only functions in the process .


----------



## Vladd67

I see the trailer for the Christmas release of Point Break is out, I also read today about Fox rebooting The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and that Vincent D'Onofrio is to be the villain in the film CHiPs. Two remakes and a film based on an old TV series, what happened to new ideas?


----------



## MWagner

Vladd67 said:


> I see the trailer for the Christmas release of Point Break is out, I also read today about Fox rebooting The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and that Vincent D'Onofrio is to be the villain in the film CHiPs. Two remakes and a film based on an old TV series, what happened to new ideas?



The studios have hundreds of scripts available that are full of new ideas. It's a matter of risk. The new ideas have to build an audience from scratch. If they fail, a bunch of people lose credibility, maybe don't work in the industry again. Keep in mind that most movies lose money. Action movies cost so much to make that those losses can cripple a studio.

Digital delivery and piracy play a role here. Films used to have a long tail. Even if they didn't open big, they could earn a profit over a couple years worth of DVD sales. That source of income has dried up. What kind of chump buys a movie a year after it's released anymore? So movies today are reliant on their opening weekend. Waiting for word of mouth to build over a number of weeks or months isn't a luxury investors can afford, especially for expensive action movies. So they need a seedling audience that's pre-grown from existing properties - a book, an old movie, a TV series.


----------



## MWagner

BAYLOR said:


> What they ought  to do is get the movie executives out of the writing and creative process of the film.  A movie executives job to finance ,okay the film and is to sell the audience  what is produced , that should be their only functions in the process .



Easy to say when it's someone else's money. Investors aren't going to hand someone $220 million and say 'surprise us!' Given their cost, and the failure rate, I'm surprised movies get made at all.


----------



## Vince W

Vladd67 said:


> I see the trailer for the Christmas release of Point Break is out, I also read today about Fox rebooting The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and that Vincent D'Onofrio is to be the villain in the film CHiPs. Two remakes and a film based on an old TV series, what happened to new ideas?



Wait. What? There's going to be a CHiPs film? That was one of the worst bits o' crap ever and they're making a film about it? I'm calling it.


----------



## hardsciencefanagain

Hollywood is not a real place, it's an age bracket (14-20 yr)
with the result that anything resembling logic,plausibility,enduring suspension of disbelief,things like giving unknown actors,director or scenario writers a chance,innovative cinematography and (argh) decent_ denouements_ is thrown out.
I've seen movies with plotholes ....
.....I mean,there were more holes than plots
(some movies that were actually quite decent are remakes from French movies
Not all French movies consist of people staring disconsolately out of a window,bemoaning their fate,and quoting Sartre)


----------



## J Riff

The kids of the movie moguls get to make movies. They are spoiled hollywood kids. They won't pay real writers, but will steal their ideas. The movies come out like written by immature violent goofy kids. There's and A team and a B team. They will trash the opposition any way they can. Stop giving them money if you don't like it.


----------



## Overread

It isn't that we detest what they make; but that we'd like them to make some different things too. The problem is that new generations are always coming along; so long as Hollywood sticks to the younger generations as their prime target audience they will win. Because each time one group gets bored there's a fresh group of young ones ready for a new slew of films. I suspect that is why they pitch a lot of films into that young-adult age bracket because its so fast to refresh itself.


----------



## MWagner

High-frequency theatre-goers tend to be teens and young adults, which is why they get most of the love from studios. Does Hollywood neglect to make movies for older people because older people don't go to the movies, or have older people stopped going to the movies because Hollywood neglects to make films for them? Hard to say. But I do know that whatever else Hollywood is about, it's about making money. And it's a very competitive industry. So if there really were a potentially profitable market out there being neglected, I'd be curious to hear theories why.


----------



## Overread

I'd argue that its likely that there just hasn't been a "BIG" film for adult audiences that draw older generations more so than younger ones. Most adult films will draw in the teen to young adult market anyway so its hard for the older- generation to stand on its own.

So because there hasn't been enough "big" name films to do it there isn't the drive to copy-cat. Hollywood is all about copy-catting the latest or current thing (sometimes the marvel films do it so fast that they are copy-catting at the same time - sometimes even on the same film if you look at the speed with which Hulk and Spiderman alternate films came out). 

Of course the problem builds on itself; there isn't a big film that does it so no one does it and thus there is not market research to defend such a move so no one decides to invest into such a venture -- and it repeats. It's very likely that the system is playing to itself and that its built up such a focus that its focus groups, reviews, research is all skewed toward that end result. 

It's rather like the "well the market wants this so we are just doing what the market wants" line whilst not admitting that they are only viewing hte section of the market which "wants" it and just tell the rest "well that's what you want isn't it?"


----------



## MWagner

Overread said:


> I'd argue that its likely that there just hasn't been a "BIG" film for adult audiences that draw older generations more so than younger ones. Most adult films will draw in the teen to young adult market anyway so its hard for the older- generation to stand on its own.



I have to disagree. When we're talking about adult movies here, I assume we're talking about movies that likely won't appeal to 15-24 year olds. That's what makes them adult movies. How many 17-year-olds out on Friday night with their bros would go to see Dr. Zhivago if it were released today? Or One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest? I think a 45-year-old is more likely to go to Age of Ultron out of curiosity (or lack of options) than a 17-year-old is likely to watch Philomena.

And "BIG" means different things to people. Annie Hall was a huge hit when it was released, and became a cultural touchstone. Is it a "BIG" movie? Lawrence of Arabia was about as big as it gets. And yet if it were remade today, it would have to be a whiz-bang war movie (with a love interest) in order to justify the huge budget. Even then it's probably too sophisticated (read: slow) for modern audiences to embrace the way they did in 1962. 

There are genres where you still get originality. Usually small-budget indie films. Sometimes comedies. And there are great films being made every year. The Oscars are full of them. 12 Years a Slave was intelligent, beautiful, nuanced, and gripping.  And it made  $187 million. That's pretty good.


----------



## Foxbat

I'd rather watch a good, thought provoking low budget foreign movie than a whizz-bang loud, fancy effected, blockbuster with cardboard characters spouting 'witty' one-liners as they fire their next RPG into our rear speakers in the hope that we all forget how shallow the film is and just go_ Wow! Look at all the pretty lights and listen to all those cool noises!_

In the 80s, there was a wonderful comedy called _The Strike_. It was about the UK miner's strike of that time but the movie was made as imagined if Hollywood got its hands on the script. It had (supposedly) Al Pacino as Arthur Scargill riding to the House Of Commons on a motorbike to save the day. 
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0544893/

I think that kind of summed up (in a comedic way) the general problem with Hollywood scripts. 

And, yes, I loved Dr Zhivago, Lawrence Of Arabia _et al_. And, yes, I shudder to think how they would be remade today.


----------



## J Riff

There are so many great old movies, and even the bad ones have some kind of charm, usually. Maybe in fifty years time it will be considered charming to see people's heads blow up a hundred times in slow motion. Maybe.


----------



## hardsciencefanagain

Hollywood has always been formulaic and market driven.
Proven formulas will tend to be re-used,over and over again.
And Hollywood has the star system,of course.
Star actors,star directors.
I'm surprised the Coen Brothers or Wes Anderson even get movies made


----------



## Cli-Fi

To say that Hollywood has become more cautious about originality (despite the hipsters and so-called open minded liberals that fill its coffers) is an understatement. While the internets ramble on about how there are no original movie ideas in Hollywood, but that there should be. The very few that do get out there, have not done well at all in the box office.

Take the recent example of Tomorrowland. It was a completely original idea, based off only a theme park ride, and cool scifi movie plot at that. On a $130 million budget. It only made $42 Million.

Ironically, the Hollywood budgets and marketing departments are becoming extremely defined and albeit conservative tentpoles for well known franchises and brands people know and love. Simply put, its too hard to sell an original movie idea (unless its under X brand name here). With Ant-man's ridiculous premise coming up next in the Marvel Universe it's still projected to make at least $800 Million. Thanks to the Marvel name. Try selling a movie with a man who can shrink himself that's not Marvel!

However, I am not so sure what the difference between Tomorrowland and say the Lego Movie is? Did Tomorrowland miscast Clooney? Was the Lego Movie marketed better to younger kids? Did people not understand the plot of Tomorrowland? Did the Lego Movie have just the right amount of humor? These are the types of questions that keep studio heads up at night.

On the flip side, there are plenty of indy movies that come out during film festival season which highlights all the glory of film-making without the blockbuster effects. I myself fall into the franchise category. I do not enjoy most indy films and I am not willing to waste $20 to see a movie that might not be good in the theaters. With Marvel, X-men, Transformers etc... I know what I am going to be getting. I know the style and am interested in the continuation of the storyline. Sometimes even reboots can be fun too.

Here is the story from screenrant: http://screenrant.com/tomorrowland-box-office-original-movies-sequels/


----------



## Vince W

The problem with Tomorrowland is marketing. Disney was being too clever for their own good. They were very secretive in the way they presented things, but they didn't give us enough to intrigue the average person. Sure nerds like me weren't going to miss it, but what about the casual viewer?

Was it a kid's film? An adult film? No one knew until it was released and then it was too late. They should have billed it as a return to old science fiction that would have appealed to adults. Sure the kids will love it (the kids in my cinema certainly did), but it's really a film for old duffs who remember the way we looked at science fiction and the future in general when we were young.

I thought Clooney did a very good job, but it was Raffey Cassidy that stole the film.


----------



## Overread

Marketing is a huge thing for the Box-office. 
It's nearly make or break because that first few weeks of Box-office time is when they make their most income from the film as is - as such if you market really well you'll get bums on seats fast. Most won't wait for reviews; they'll get enticed off the trailers and marketing and hype. 

I'd argue for many the script, visuals, acting, CGI is all incidental to the marketing (which also includes the actors - its why you sometimes get smaller films having big actors in support roles just so they can market the name)


----------



## BAYLOR

Why can't they find a way to make films cheaper then they do?


----------



## Overread

Well I recall Sigorny Weavers wages for the second Alien film were more than the whole budget for the first film. 

It's a strange world, but seems that the problem is if you want the talent you've got to pay through the nose to get it. But with the wages so insanely high (and I'm sure its not limited just to actors) I suspect that its hard. Esp if you want to then make something fantasy or sci-fi where you have to also invest in either high end CGI or massive sets


----------



## BAYLOR

Overread said:


> Well I recall Sigorny Weavers wages for the second Alien film were more than the whole budget for the first film.
> 
> It's a strange world, but seems that the problem is if you want the talent you've got to pay through the nose to get it. But with the wages so insanely high (and I'm sure its not limited just to actors) I suspect that its hard. Esp if you want to then make something fantasy or sci-fi where you have to also invest in either high end CGI or massive sets



Big name stars is part of the problem, two things they could do is offer the actor a lower salary and percentage of the Gross to compensate. I might be wrong here but didn't George Lucas do that with Sir Alec Guinness?   Another thing they could do hire cheaper actors, that might have some Box office draw.  As to special effects they cant a lot of them on television budget.


----------



## Cli-Fi

BAYLOR said:


> Why can't they find a way to make films cheaper then they do?



It's a lot more complicated than that. Not to mention that we are dealing with creative people who have the largest egos in the world. I would say that even us unknown creative people have egos, but that's nothing compared to Hollywood actors, writers, producers, and directors +more who are called talented their whole career. (regardless if they've done one great thing or hundreds of little things) The ego and the drama inside Hollywood is the very reason we have tabloid newspapers and reality TV shows. It's very easy to bruise egos in Hollywood. I know this from personal experience. One of my friends just came back from Cannes, he's nobody big, just a writer, but he's been called talented. Even though, I don't like any of his material. It's personally not my style. Hollywood is a lot like a big High School. And lots of deals get done or not just because people may or may not like working together.


----------



## BAYLOR

Cli-Fi said:


> It's a lot more complicated than that. Not to mention that we are dealing with creative people who have the largest egos in the world. I would say that even us unknown creative people have egos, but that's nothing compared to Hollywood actors, writers, producers, and directors +more who are called talented their whole career. (regardless if they've done one great thing or hundreds of little things) The ego and the drama inside Hollywood is the very reason we have tabloid newspapers and reality TV shows. It's very easy to bruise egos in Hollywood. I know this from personal experience. One of my friends just came back from Cannes, he's nobody big, just a writer, but he's been called talented. Even though, I don't like any of his material. It's personally not my style. Hollywood is a lot like a big High School. And lots of deals get done or not just because people may or may not like working together.



Hollywood sounds like a truly depressing and despicable place. I think if I were a filmmaker, I would stay away from it and it's gaggle of spoiled Superegos.


----------



## MWagner

BAYLOR said:


> Why can't they find a way to make films cheaper then they do?



We need to distinguish between two kinds of movies here. The first kind are action or fantastic movies. The second is movies that just feature people in normal settings.

Audiences expect the first kind of movie to have cutting-edge technology and effects. The next time you watch a movie like Inception,  the Avengers, or Guardians of the Galaxy, look at the list of credits. Thousands of people work on these films. Often, a half-dozen skilled professionals will work for 18 months to animate one character. Those are the kind of resources (money) it takes to create the magic on the screen that modern audiences expect.

If you try to cut costs on that stuff, the audience will almost certainly notice. Call is cheesy. Or cheap looking. 

The other kind of movie just has people on screen. These tend to be comedies, romantic comedies, low-budget horror films, independent movies, and Oscar-worthy serious films. Comedies and romantic comedies rely on established stars to put bums in seats. Audiences will go to see a Will Ferrell comedy, or a Kate Hudson romantic comedy. They won't go to a Kevin McPherson comedy, or an Alice Jones romantic comedy. So those genres rely on star power, the stars know it, and can set their compensation accordingly. Indie movies and horror movies cost relatively little. Lots get made, and the vast majority fail to find wide distribution, or they open and the close quickly, unnoticed by the ticket-buying public.

And the problem with 'small' movies is fewer people are willing to pay the high ticket prices to watch them at theatres (which, remember, have been equipped to show sensory-gigantic tentpole movies at great cost). They'll wait until they come out on iTunes or Netflix, and save their money for the spectaculars where every penny of that $350 million is up there 20 ft high on the screen.

So the motto is go big or go small, but don't try to go in-between.

Anyone really curious about the role of money in film should play around on the Hollywood Stock Exchange. Real people invest fake money on film projects in development, and gain or lose depending on how those films perform at the box office. It's fascinating. Let's say a studio announces thatait's developing a script based on Redshirts by John Scalzi. It has a director attached (tentatively). That's it. So it might cost $8 a share when it's first offered. There it languishes for half a year. Then a hot young actor like Chris Hemsworth is attached. The stock soars to $22 a share. Still not greenlit. The original director backs out and someone with less of pedigree steps in. Stock back down to $17. This goes on until the most likely scenario - the development is dropped and it becomes a penny stock - or it beats the odds and goes into production. The stock climbs steadily. Anticipation builds. And on the second week after release, the stock pays out. You may win big. Or you may lose your shirt. That's the way capitalism works.

Do you want serious, intelligent movies made with love and attention to writing and character? Then those indie movies and Hollywood prestige films are what you're after. Want a spectacular action movie? Expect dumbed-down franchises aimed at 16-26 year old men.


----------



## BAYLOR

There are so many books that would make good films.


----------



## BAYLOR

I think the loss of the B movies was an unfortunate thing.  B films even at their worst at least had entertainment value and on occasion they were as good if not better then  A list films.


----------



## Overread

Tarantino can still turn out a good B-movie every so often


----------



## BAYLOR

Other then Mad Max, I've pretty much not bothered with going to the movies of late.


----------



## Toby Frost

I think it's too dependent not on blockbusters, but on the money of 15-year-old boys. If films like _Aliens, Predator _or _Terminator _were being made today, I'd be in the cinema every day. _Mad Max_ made me realise how you can make a violent, fantastical, sometimes comical entertainment with a massive budget and not make it dumb.


----------



## hardsciencefanagain

Hollywood is getting caught up in the whole CGI thing.
Attention is drawn, and has moved to, the visual side of storytelling.
Believable characters,intelligent plotlines,an ending that no-one saw coming......it all goes out of the window
What i liked about IRON MAN wasn't the special effects,it was Downey's acting


----------



## MWagner

hardsciencefanagain said:


> Attention is drawn, and has moved to, the visual side of storytelling.



One of the problems is that Hollywood relies on the overseas market (and foreign language) box office to turn a profit with these hugely expensive movies. So whatever story you're trying to tell has to not only appeal to 17 and 20 year old boys, it has to appeal to 17 and 20 year old boys who don't speak English and aren't overly fond of subtitles.


----------



## hardsciencefanagain

Very clever observation,MW.
you might have hit the nail on the head there
(Presses "like") button)
i like it better every time i read that

Hollywood speaks the international language of explosions,disaster.
Everybody understands that language


----------



## willwallace

The Grand Budapest Hotel budget around 27 million, made about 175 million.
Birdman, 17 million budget, made 103 million.
The Theory of Everything, 15 million budget, 121 million box office.
The Imitation Game, 14 million budget, 220 million box office.  

It is possible to not spend a boatload of money and make films that are critically acclaimed, are actually worth watching,_ and _make money.  Mostly happens with films that aren't associated with major production companies, though.


----------



## hardsciencefanagain

Again,valid point.
Some directors can work "around" the problem of a lesser budget.
a good scenario is half the job done.
i googled IMITATION game.
I think the director is from Norway
that would explain a lot!!

anyone ever seen VARG VEUM???

GBH: direction AND scenario By Wes Anderson
Anderson is HUGELY talented

maybe Hollywodd has a shortage of really talented directors????


----------



## willwallace

Wow.  Just surfing around I ran across the newest reboot of a franchise, Jurassic World.  150 million budget!!!  That's more than double the budget of all four movies mentioned in my previous post combined.


----------



## BAYLOR

willwallace said:


> Wow.  Just surfing around I ran across the newest reboot of a franchise, Jurassic World.  150 million budget!!!  That's more than double the budget of all four movies mentioned in my previous post combined.




3 films and done . They shouldn't have bothered with this one.


----------



## BAYLOR

There is possibility that we might get new Indiana Jones films.


----------



## soulsinging

MWagner said:


> High-frequency theatre-goers tend to be teens and young adults, which is why they get most of the love from studios. Does Hollywood neglect to make movies for older people because older people don't go to the movies, or have older people stopped going to the movies because Hollywood neglects to make films for them? Hard to say. But I do know that whatever else Hollywood is about, it's about making money. And it's a very competitive industry. So if there really were a potentially profitable market out there being neglected, I'd be curious to hear theories why.



Maybe it's because the theater experience is so bad. You get robbed on tickets, then robbed again if you want anything to eat or drink. Then once the movie starts, the sound and picture aren't THAT much better than your home theater (except in the case of the big blockbusters that do still get made), and you have to contend with idiots talking or chatting or checking cell phones the whole time. Why WOULDN'T you rather just stay home?

I'd also say that the decline in "mid-level" movies has been matched by a significant and noticeable surge in quality tv programming. Think Sopranos, Game of Thrones, House of Cards, Orange is the New Black, Breaking Bad, Mad Men, etc. This may be the medium of the future... it gives non-blockbusters a chance to find an audience rather than forcing them into a one-shot, 2-hour, do-or-die film.


----------



## BAYLOR

Jurassic World is box office champ which mea s more expensive  sequels.


----------



## Alter Business

I am disappointed by blockbusters like Transformers. They are like two-hour toy commercials. And the "remakes" like Point of No Return, Death at a Funeral, etc. Leave the originals alone. But if the public would stop going to bad blockbusters, Hollywood would give us better fare.


----------



## Maieius

I'm losing hope in film, nowadays. Everything's the same, always sequels to franchises that haven't been seen for ten years, superhero sequels that are just boring me now and the splurge of live-action remakes. I'm wondering when the Lion King's going to be done with living animals playing the roles.
The Hobbit was a great idea, but many are in agreement that there didn't need to be three films. I love a battle scene just as much as the next guy, but that was just ridiculous to make an entire third film because of it. And the new Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them surely doesn't need to be three films either, it's all about the money.

Speaking of HP, that's another thing people have done is the whole Part 1, Part 2 thing. I actually agree that HP were right to make two, it was a little long but having Deathly Hallows as just one would have been very rushed and too long for one sitting. However, Breaking Dawn and Mockingjay are just for more profit. It's not necessary.

If anybody here writes something that Hollywood decides they want, turn them away, please for the love of god!


----------



## BAYLOR

Alter Business said:


> I am disappointed by blockbusters like Transformers. They are like two-hour toy commercials. And the "remakes" like Point of No Return, Death at a Funeral, etc. Leave the originals alone. But if the public would stop going to bad blockbusters, Hollywood would give us better fare.




The first film wasn't bad, the subsequent films leave a lot to be desire.


----------



## BAYLOR

Maieius said:


> I'm losing hope in film, nowadays. Everything's the same, always sequels to franchises that haven't been seen for ten years, superhero sequels that are just boring me now and the splurge of live-action remakes. I'm wondering when the Lion King's going to be done with living animals playing the roles.
> The Hobbit was a great idea, but many are in agreement that there didn't need to be three films. I love a battle scene just as much as the next guy, but that was just ridiculous to make an entire third film because of it. And the new Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them surely doesn't need to be three films either, it's all about the money.
> 
> Speaking of HP, that's another thing people have done is the whole Part 1, Part 2 thing. I actually agree that HP were right to make two, it was a little long but having Deathly Hallows as just one would have been very rushed and too long for one sitting. However, Breaking Dawn and Mockingjay are just for more profit. It's not necessary.
> 
> If anybody here writes something that Hollywood decides they want, turn them away, please for the love of god!



Anyone think that Mazerunner an be the next Hunger games ?


----------



## Mark Ragland

Maieius said:


> I'm losing hope in film, nowadays. Everything's the same, always sequels to franchises that haven't been seen for ten years, superhero sequels that are just boring me now and the splurge of live-action remakes. I'm wondering when the Lion King's going to be done with living animals playing the roles.
> The Hobbit was a great idea, but many are in agreement that there didn't need to be three films. I love a battle scene just as much as the next guy, but that was just ridiculous to make an entire third film because of it. And the new Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them surely doesn't need to be three films either, it's all about the money.
> 
> Speaking of HP, that's another thing people have done is the whole Part 1, Part 2 thing. I actually agree that HP were right to make two, it was a little long but having Deathly Hallows as just one would have been very rushed and too long for one sitting. However, Breaking Dawn and Mockingjay are just for more profit. It's not necessary.
> 
> If anybody here writes something that Hollywood decides they want, turn them away, please for the love of god!



Totally agree with your sentiment. Hollywood has run out of original ideas, it seems. Movies these days are either updated remakes or sequels.


----------



## soulsinging

As true as most of this discussion is, I'm still stupidly excited about the trailers for the Suicide Squad and Batman v Superman movies that just debuted at Comic Con.


----------



## Vince W

Blockbusters are great and I enjoy them when they are done well. It's just that random splodey bits interspersed with angsty looks and dialogue can get tedious. Story should trump FX and not the other way around.


----------



## Mark Ragland

soulsinging said:


> As true as most of this discussion is, I'm still stupidly excited about the trailers for the Suicide Squad and Batman v Superman movies that just debuted at Comic Con.



Loved the Batman vs. Superman trailer. Still haven't decided on the Suicide Squad trailer which I saw yesterday.


----------



## hardsciencefanagain

as i've said before,don't trust trailers


----------



## BAYLOR

A bad trailer can sink a potentially good film.


----------



## BAYLOR

*Fantastic Four* didn't work out for Fox .


----------



## Mark Ragland

BAYLOR said:


> *Fantastic Four* didn't work out for Fox .



I think the director tweeted a day before the film came out that it was a bad film. That is, it wasn't the movie he envisioned.


----------



## BAYLOR

Mark Ragland said:


> I think the director tweeted a day before the film came out that it was a bad film. That is, it wasn't the movie he envisioned.



Executive meddling.


----------



## soulsinging

Mark Ragland said:


> I think the director tweeted a day before the film came out that it was a bad film. That is, it wasn't the movie he envisioned.


Eh, sounds kind of like an excuse. By all accounts, the movie was awful from top to bottom, no plot, hack writing, etc. This isn't like 16 Candles, where studio execs inexplicably changed the ending in the worst way imaginable but the rest of the movie stood strong.


----------



## BAYLOR

soulsinging said:


> Eh, sounds kind of like an excuse. By all accounts, the movie was awful from top to bottom, no plot, hack writing, etc. This isn't like 16 Candles, where studio execs inexplicably changed the ending in the worst way imaginable but the rest of the movie stood strong.




It's possible that this one might end up with a sequel.


----------



## BAYLOR

The next blockbuster Star Wars 7 . Im looking forward to that one.


----------



## Rodders

Me too.

As for the question, i think that Hollywood needs the blockbusters so that it can make enough money to fund the movies that it wants to make.


----------



## BAYLOR

Rodders said:


> Me too.
> 
> As for the question, i think that Hollywood needs the blockbusters so that it can make enough money to fund the movies that it wants to make.




But they crowd out everything else.


----------



## Rodders

I'm not so sure. It's difficult for me to be objective. As a Star Wars fan, my favourite movies are block busters.


----------



## BAYLOR

Rodders said:


> I'm not so sure. It's difficult for me to be objective. As a Star Wars fan, my favourite movies are block busters.



Fair enough.


----------



## BAYLOR

What we need is a good sequel to Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer.


----------



## Vince W

I disagree, what we need is a Dredd sequel.


----------



## soulsinging

It's almost to the point where I'd welcome a sequel. At least they're more interesting/original than remaking the same movies over and over and over.


----------



## Vladd67

Vince W said:


> I disagree, what we need is a Dredd sequel.


Checkout Facebook you are not alone.


----------



## Vince W

Vladd67 said:


> Checkout Facebook you are not alone.



I know. I've signed many online petitions and taken part in Day of Dredd. It's truly a disgrace that Dredd couldn't do well enough to get a sequel.


----------



## Vladd67

I like the idea of a Netflix series.


----------



## Brian G Turner

I posted a link explaining the Dredd situation before, in case anyone hadn't seen it:
https://www.sffchronicles.com/threads/551769/


----------



## Temperance

BAYLOR said:


> What we need is a good sequel to Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer.


Sheridan's March to the Sea is a response to I Am Legend occurring in Atlanta?


----------



## BAYLOR

Vince W said:


> I disagree, what we need is a Dredd sequel.



Indeed


----------



## Droflet

Yeah, okay, I'm onboard. Just no more Stallone versions.


----------



## Vince W

Droflet said:


> Yeah, okay, I'm onboard. Just no more Stallone versions.



What is this 'Stallone' version you speak of? I recall no such travesty.


----------



## BAYLOR

Vince W said:


> What is this 'Stallone' version you speak of? I recall no such travesty.



If that film had been written by the the people that did the Judge Dredd Comic, It would have fared a lot better at the box office and might have down a sequel or two.

I liked the the more recent with Karl Urban , that one was excellent film and definitely deserved a sequel.


----------



## Droflet

Yay!!!!


----------



## Vince W

BAYLOR said:


> If that film had been written by the the people that did the Judge Dredd Comic, It would have fared a lot better at the box office and might have down a sequel or two.
> 
> I liked the the more recent with Karl Urban , that one was excellent film and definitely deserved a sequel.



The first thing they got wrong was having Stallone take off his helmet! The next was having him speak! I Am Duh LAAWR! What pish.


----------



## BAYLOR

Vince W said:


> The first thing they got wrong was having Stallone take off his helmet! The next was having him speak! I Am Duh LAAWR! What pish.



Why doesn't Dredd ever take his helmet off?


----------



## Vaz

Yes too many remakes/sequels. The least Hollywood could do is buy up one of my old Screenplays for say what a nice cheap 60k then never make the damn thing...


----------



## HareBrain

BAYLOR said:


> Why doesn't Dredd ever take his helmet off?



I'm dreddging up some old memories here, but I think I read an episode in _2000AD_ where he did, and we only see his head from the back, but it's clear he has hideous scarring or somesuch.


----------



## Vladd67

HareBrain said:


> I'm dreddging up some old memories here, but I think I read an episode in _2000AD_ where he did, and we only see his head from the back, but it's clear he has hideous scarring or somesuch.


----------



## BAYLOR

Vladd67 said:


> View attachment 25733



How bad could his face be?


----------



## Delfilm

Before Jaws there were still many films that made lots of money. It is Money that Hollywood is dependant on and successful Blockbusters make them lots of money. Business and creativity are an odd mix that is hard to get right. True creativity cannot be formulated, but in business everyone wants to find that secret formula. If you try to predict what the next big thing is going to be, you will fail. Hollywood most of the time plays it safe and will churn out the same stuff over and over again until audiences reject it. They then go through a period of experimentation where they have no choice but to take risks. In the 1970's it was Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, today it is James Gunn and J.J.Abrams. However there does seem to me a lack of original work being made. The only studio to really balance sequels with originality over the last 20 years has been Pixar. Everyone else is still very reliant on existing material even if it's just used for inspiration like the wonderful Big Hero 6.


----------



## BAYLOR

Steven Spielberg and George Lucas gave the movie industry a huge boost right when it needed it. They were the start of the modern blockbuster era that we have today. When Star Wars and Close Encounters  hit the theaters and made unexpected and unbelievable millions. Every studio  wanted their own Star Wars. In the process, this elevated science fiction films. It Took them from B movie to mainstream. Unfortunately, it further hastened the demise of  B Movies.


----------



## Overread

Pixar actually has quite a few formulas that they work with. However they are more subtle in how they function and as such allow the creative team a lot more latitude on how to craft and tell the stories that they tell. There's a few "making of" documentaries out there on Pixar and its interesting to hear of some of the formulas that they work with and that even when you start to see patterns they are subtle story telling tools rather than flat out copy-catting. 
One that I recall is that they use a formula where they present the beginning of the film with the key characters having something, often an idealistic lifestlye or at the very least a happy one. They then create a point of drama, a major event very early on that destroys this period of happyness and presents conflict and challenge for the lead character(s). 

Hollywood in general though is more poaching fans at present; they are re-releasing all these old classics with new-modern takes to try and get a guaranteed early boost of fans who will be there in the cinema to watch it for that box-office week.


----------



## BAYLOR

Overread said:


> Pixar actually has quite a few formulas that they work with. However they are more subtle in how they function and as such allow the creative team a lot more latitude on how to craft and tell the stories that they tell. There's a few "making of" documentaries out there on Pixar and its interesting to hear of some of the formulas that they work with and that even when you start to see patterns they are subtle story telling tools rather than flat out copy-catting.
> One that I recall is that they use a formula where they present the beginning of the film with the key characters having something, often an idealistic lifestlye or at the very least a happy one. They then create a point of drama, a major event very early on that destroys this period of happyness and presents conflict and challenge for the lead character(s).
> 
> Hollywood in general though is more poaching fans at present; they are re-releasing all these old classics with new-modern takes to try and get a guaranteed early boost of fans who will be there in the cinema to watch it for that box-office week.



And in doing that , they are diluting the product, which could in the  long run, effect their bottom line.


----------



## Overread

True they could; but on the flipside the mechanics they work with tend to be more in the background of their storytelling. As a result it more establishes a theme and style that generally is something which tends to work in favour than against. Because it means that each time something comes out the audience has an expectation of its content, direction, quality etc... So long as that remains positive the formula is working - small tweaks here and there are all that is needed. 

Authors use the very same tools when they produce long running series - they establish a writing voice that they try to stick to - more or less even though it will evolve over time subtly - they establish a style of writing within that world-set and character grouping. If you pick up a Discworld book you have some idea of what style and presentation you'll get within - not so much story structure (although it wouldn't surprise me if there are patterns of events that can be identified within them - be they accidental or deliberate mechanics).


----------



## BAYLOR

*Specter  *continues to do big box office 

I wonder what the New Star Wars film is going to earn .


----------



## BAYLOR

*Star Wars The Force Awakens  *breaking all the records


----------



## Overread

How to get Hollywood to make better films - reduce the population so that there are less and less people to go see films and thus all the "record breaking" records stop happening; thus forcing them to make better films to get more back per person 


Of course chances are they'd respond by doing a slew of films about family and having lots of babies


----------



## Teresa Edgerton

I know that Hollywood has become dependent on producing movies that I have no desire to see.  In the past twelve months I think I have (to the best of my recall) gone to a move theater exactly once, and that was because my daughter paid for me to go along on a family outing.

I don't mind that all these blockbuster movies exist and so many people are enjoying them.  That's a good thing.  I just wish that Hollywood would spread the pleasure around more and not put zillions of dollars into a few films instead of sparing a few millions here and there for more variety.


----------



## BAYLOR

More so with the Box off success of* Star Wars The Force Awakens* .


----------



## BAYLOR

Even China's movie industry  has gotten into the act with the success of *The Monkey King *film.


----------



## BAYLOR

Teresa Edgerton said:


> I know that Hollywood has become dependent on producing movies that I have no desire to see.  In the past twelve months I think I have (to the best of my recall) gone to a move theater exactly once, and that was because my daughter paid for me to go along on a family outing.
> 
> I don't mind that all these blockbuster movies exist and so many people are enjoying them.  That's a good thing.  I just wish that Hollywood would spread the pleasure around more and not put zillions of dollars into a few films instead of sparing a few millions here and there for more variety.



They like to play it safe when it come to the types of films they do. They prefer known commodities when it comes to movies.


----------



## BAYLOR

If they're good solid films , why not?


----------



## Cathbad

They're too chicken to try new things.


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> They're too chicken to try new things.



One way  they could take risks and do something new only limit the budge to 20 million or less.  If it fails , they can still make back their money on dvd sales. It if  the film makes alot of money, then they get to keep most of the profit and maybe get a potential franchise. It's a win win situation for the studio.


----------



## BAYLOR

A remake of Ben Hur ? That's all we need.


----------



## BAYLOR

*Star Wars Rogue One *which looks really really good is one of the next blockbusters on the horizons.


----------



## Cathbad

What we _need_ is a movie with well-acted, believable characters.  Drama without the hoopla _or_ CGI.

Oh, how I long for the old fashioned movies!


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> What we _need_ is a movie with well-acted, believable characters.  Drama without the hoopla _or_ CGI.
> 
> Oh, how I long for the old fashioned movies!



Absolutely.


----------



## Cathbad

hardsciencefanagain said:


> Not all French movies consist of people staring disconsolately out of a window,bemoaning their fate,and quoting Sartre)



Are you sure?


----------



## BAYLOR

I find most french cinema bewildering .


----------



## Frost Giant

Films like The Grand Budapest Hotel, Birdman (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) and Ex Machina give me hope that not every film is put through the blockbuster formula.


----------



## BAYLOR

Frost Giant said:


> Films like The Grand Budapest Hotel, Birdman (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) and Ex Machina give me hope that not every film is put through the blockbuster formula.



Indeed.


----------



## BAYLOR

The China market's importance will probably make Hollywood more dependent on the Tentpole Blockbuster.


----------



## BAYLOR

Ghostbuster has been the hit they'd hoped it would be.


----------



## Vince W

BAYLOR said:


> Ghostbuster has been the hit they'd hoped it would be.



Really? Last I heard it was on track for a $70 million loss and a the sequel shelved.

'Ghostbusters' Heading for $70M-Plus Loss, Sequel Unlikely


----------



## BAYLOR

Vince W said:


> Really? Last I heard it was on track for a $70 million loss and a the sequel shelved.
> 
> 'Ghostbusters' Heading for $70M-Plus Loss, Sequel Unlikely



Typo .  I meant to say Hasn't been the hit they hoped.  I skipped this film.


----------



## Vince W

BAYLOR said:


> Typo .  I meant to say Hasn't been the hit they hoped.  I skipped this film.



Yeah, I've given it a wide berth too.


----------



## BAYLOR

Vince W said:


> Yeah, I've given it a wide berth too.



I would have preferred a film with the remaining original cast members. In the film, I would have had them had the mantle of tho a new generation. That would have been cool.


----------



## Toby Frost

There was an article in the _Sunday Times_ today, in which the writer was effectively saying that there were now two types of films: art house and comic book. The argument was that the middle ground of adult entertainment films like _Fatal Attraction_ or _L.A. Confidential_, had basically disappeared.


----------



## BAYLOR

They've had more then a few box office flops this year.


----------



## Keith Taylor

BAYLOR said:


> The China market's importance will probably make Hollywood more dependent on the Tentpole Blockbuster.



True, sadly. I live in Asia and my friends flock to the dumbed down, bright lights and pretty colours blockbusters. It's just too large a market to ignore, and it's too difficult to sell complex plotlines and dense dialogue to non-English speakers who just want to see awesome explosions


----------



## BAYLOR

Keith Taylor said:


> True, sadly. I live in Asia and my friends flock to the dumbed down, bright lights and pretty colours blockbusters. It's just too large a market to ignore, and it's too difficult to sell complex plotlines and dense dialogue to non-English speakers who just want to see awesome explosions



Which  means more crappy special effects driven films.


----------



## Keith Taylor

Unfortunately, yes. Well, I say unfortunately. I actually *like* crappy special effects driven films every so often, but I'd also like something intelligent and low key. I don't mind at all if the pie expands as the Asian market grows, but I'd be annoyed if big budgets special effects driven movies take an ever larger slice at the cost of good cinema.


----------



## BAYLOR

Keith Taylor said:


> Unfortunately, yes. Well, I say unfortunately. I actually *like* crappy special effects driven films every so often, but I'd also like something intelligent and low key. I don't mind at all if the pie expands as the Asian market grows, but I'd be annoyed if big budgets special effects driven movies take an ever larger slice at the cost of good cinema.



Movie executives like profits so very likely ,  we will see more and more big dumbed down special effects movies and fewer quality films.


----------



## BAYLOR

Perhaps the Blockuster bust will make them rethink things a bit?


----------



## logan_run

imagine Hollywood today  making  a mash or the candidate film,  I dont think Hollywood today has it  them to do such a film.I wish they would get back to basics  of  good film making.


----------



## BAYLOR

logan_run said:


> imagine Hollywood today  making  a mash or the candidate film,  I dont think Hollywood today has it  them to do such a film.I wish they would get back to basics  of  good film making.



I agree.


----------



## BAYLOR

So has anyone Seen the Matt Damon Film *The Great Wall*?


----------



## Vince W

More to the point, _will_ anyone go to see the Matt Damon film The Great Wall?


----------



## BAYLOR

Vince W said:


> More to the point, _will_ anyone go to see the Matt Damon film The Great Wall?



The two reviews I've seen don't inspire much confidence.


----------



## BAYLOR

*Skull Island* looks like it might have possibilities.


----------



## bedlamite

I think that there are plenty of thought provoking and well crafted movies out there which aren't tentpole events - all we have to do is look out for them. Here's just a few from the last few years that I recently caught for a second time on TV after seeing them in the cinema: Birdman, The Babbadook, Whiplash, Rams, A Field in England, The Witch, Men and Chicken. 
As an aside, I think that indie/small film makers are missing out on massive exposure. With the various platforms available to them, they could be offering a streamed film at £2, and they will probably triple their incomes, as their showings are so limited. Or, why not find out where their film is being shown - they certainly can do this, and if it's a local film club/small community theatre, offer a deal - if you liked the film, for example, a great deal on the DVD/BR. They would then be recouping production cost of DVD in advance. Plus it's another strand to get mentioned on social media - it all raises profile.


----------



## BAYLOR

I did finally get to see *Skull Island . *It was a very enjoyable film.


----------



## BAYLOR

The King Arthur film hasn't exactly wowed the movie critics.


----------



## WaylanderToo

BAYLOR said:


> So has anyone Seen the Matt Damon Film *The Great Wall*?



to be fair it wasn't dreadful... the problem is that it wasn't actually very good either. In all honesty I did enjoy it so no issues there I guess it was just a little too generic


----------



## KGeo777

I think the problem with Hollywood is that good art has to be truthful and relevant to audiences and it no longer is.
Film started in Western Europe and the dramatic principles also originated between Greece and England.
But these days, you would be hard pressed to find people from that part of the world controlling the companies or making the films (the ones that do, for the big companies, are under very strict control in what they can show and do). The big media says it is all about money and profit but I don't believe it anymore. I think the companies (6 of them-based on Wall Street) want message control. And they have had that in mind for a few decades at least.

This is why, at least for me, movies have become increasingly unsatisfying.
Imagine being Japanese and living in Japan, and discovering your films were made by Norwegians and starring Mexicans. Or vice versa. We are not making our own film art in the West. Not the big stuff. And the nature of these monopolies has made it difficult for filmmakers (and writers) who are not in the club to be able to get a market and a living. I believe the culture is in a withered state, compared to the 1960s when you had lots of national cinema from various places--there was even Hammer in England which was as close to an Anglo-Saxon storytelling sense---they made film for their society, even though they got funding from distant Hollywood. 

In the 1930s there was also variety, and the Hollywood film companies were spread out  among Universal, Warner Bros. Fox, Paramount (started by people from outside Western Europe), RKO (started by Americans), Walt Disney Studios (ditto) and a few smaller ones (Columbia and MGM had some connection to Eastern Europe as well but were also fairly American in foundation so they didnt have quite the same "tastes" as the first four--this is one reason I suspect Ray Harryhausen found a home at Columbia, none of the other big studios were interested--and his producer partner Charles Schneer had family ties with Columbia).

Nowadays, all the companies, including Disney, are controlled by people with a multicultural and global ideology. They do not want to make films for the home audience.

It is an interesting and broad topic, one could explore for example how demoralizing messages crept into the big Hollywood film studios since the 60s, and characters--especially characters of a Western European background, became neurotic, or weak, often failing or dying, or became caricatures of alpha males.
There are many many examples.

I was never quite satisfied with big studio films of the 1960s, but there were so many mid budget and low budget films out there, so it didn't feel like one was missing entertainment.
But these says, the film business has totally squeezed out the small companies-so you are left with the big budget corporate, or low budget stuff done for youtube, or something from Asia where multicultural art is regarded as foolish.

I am hoping that the West can come to its senses and make films relevant to the home audiences--but it will require rebooting and allowing small, homegrown companies to exist. I fear the Wall Street club will resist such endeavors. They are kind of like an untalented singer standing on a street corner, who you are forced to listen to because he has the biggest megaphone, while there may be much more talented singers nearby who you would like, if only the other guy would turn down the sound levels.


----------



## Steve Harrison

Years ago, I used to go to the movies at least twice a week, but now I go to the cinema, at most, once a month.

There is far more quality on TV these days, IMO, so a movie has to be really compelling for me to go and see it. As for blockbuster movies, CGI has spoiled the spectacle for me and none of them can compete with films like WATERLOO and the old Hollywood epics which featured huge numbers of real people.

I'll now retire back to my porch rocking chair and grizzle at passing teenagers.


----------



## logan_run

I rather listen to old time radio broadcast


----------



## KGeo777

Speaking of OTR, I have been listening to the Lives of Harry Lime.
It's really good. Available on Archive.org


----------



## BAYLOR

Steve Harrison said:


> Years ago, I used to go to the movies at least twice a week, but now I go to the cinema, at most, once a month.
> 
> There is far more quality on TV these days, IMO, so a movie has to be really compelling for me to go and see it. As for blockbuster movies, CGI has spoiled the spectacle for me and none of them can compete with films like WATERLOO and the old Hollywood epics which featured huge numbers of real people.
> 
> I'll now retire back to my porch rocking chair and grizzle at passing teenagers.



I think that in the writing department , most of the films coming out are rather lacking. Right now the best story telling seems to be on television.


----------



## BAYLOR

KGeo777 said:


> Speaking of OTR, I have been listening to the Lives of Harry Lime.
> It's really good. Available on Archive.org



Was it ever adapted to either film or television?


----------



## Overread

I feel as if we've got a whole generation of film makers who can't really make films, or rather can't tell stories in films very well. 

They can do action without any trouble, but they can't write films nor scripts nor pace things well. Even with all the fast paced action we get today they cover less story ground than many older films that had a far slower pace and yet were finished in as much or less time. 
I think its a failing of the whole machine that builds films from the ground up and at some point its going to have to be fixed. Marvel/DC films are actually prolonging this because they can sort of get away with it. Heck you can even remake them a few times and fans are happy with that as comic books (least in the USA) have done this for so long that the fanbase expects it.


----------



## BAYLOR

Overread said:


> I feel as if we've got a whole generation of film makers who can't really make films, or rather can't tell stories in films very well.
> 
> They can do action without any trouble, but they can't write films nor scripts nor pace things well. Even with all the fast paced action we get today they cover less story ground than many older films that had a far slower pace and yet were finished in as much or less time.
> I think its a failing of the whole machine that builds films from the ground up and at some point its going to have to be fixed. Marvel/DC films are actually prolonging this because they can sort of get away with it. Heck you can even remake them a few times and fans are happy with that as comic books (least in the USA) have done this for so long that the fanbase expects it.



Eventually, the law diminishing returns and audiences will catch up to the movie industry and it will either have to drastically improve the quality of its films or  go out of business.  Unlike past eras,  The movie industry now has more competition from television with its abundance  of content  ravenous channels and the internet. They really can't afford complacency and indifference to their audiences anymore and especially not at the prices they charge for their movies.


----------



## BAYLOR

I saw *Valerian *last week, I rather enjoyed it.


----------



## KGeo777

BAYLOR said:


> Was it ever adapted to either film or television?


Sorry I took so long to respond!
I didnt see it until now.
No it wasn't adapted to film or tv.
It was a loophole in the Third Man film contract allowed others to do adapted works of Harry Lime, but maybe only for radio--funny thing about Harry Lime--he's a charming child murderer! in the radio plays they make him much less homicidal though.

On the subject of filmmakers lacking skills. Yes, I think this is what happens when merit is replaced by ideological loyalty.
Most filmmakers seem to get jobs now if they are obedient to the ideology of the owners--audience tastes are totally left out of consideration.

Case in point, Paul Verhoeven had an idea for a Robocop sequel where he is taken out of storage to deal with a crime wave.
Sounds like a good idea to me--much better than a remake, but no, studios aren't interested.

Hollywood itself desperately needs  a reboot.
There are many people doing things on the internet, but how many make some kind of professional living and real artists need to earn some money and have access to audiences.
The internet at the moment is too much of a big wild world with only the corporations having their network space.


----------



## BAYLOR

This year , It seems to be a bit more miss than hit.


----------



## BAYLOR

So far, the summer of 2017 has become the summer movie box office thuds.


----------



## Cathbad

Seriously?


2 *Wonder Woman* 6/2/2017 Warner Bros. Action PG-13 $402,908,376 46,579,003
4 *Spider-Man: Homecoming* 7/7/2017 Sony Pictures Action PG-13 $309,801,381 35,815,188
5 *Despicable Me 3* 6/30/2017 Universal Comedy PG $249,700,520 28,867,112
14 *Dunkirk* 7/21/2017 Warner Bros. Action PG-13 $158,808,079 18,359,315
15 *Cars 3* 6/16/2017 Walt Disney Adventure G $148,523,767 17,170,377
16 *War for the Planet of the Apes* 7/14/2017 20th Century Fox Action PG-13 $138,947,203 16,063,260
18 *Transformers: The Last Knight* 6/21/2017 Paramount Pictures Action PG-13 $129,928,855 15,020,676
23 *Baby Driver* 6/28/2017 Sony Pictures Thriller/Suspense R $100,833,441 11,657,045
24 *Girls Trip* 7/21/2017 Universal Comedy R $100,142,145 11,577,126
27 *The Mummy* 6/9/2017 Universal Adventure PG-13 $80,101,125 9,260,245



Doesn't look too bad to me, so far.


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> Seriously?
> 
> 
> 2 *Wonder Woman* 6/2/2017 Warner Bros. Action PG-13 $402,908,376 46,579,003
> 4 *Spider-Man: Homecoming* 7/7/2017 Sony Pictures Action PG-13 $309,801,381 35,815,188
> 5 *Despicable Me 3* 6/30/2017 Universal Comedy PG $249,700,520 28,867,112
> 14 *Dunkirk* 7/21/2017 Warner Bros. Action PG-13 $158,808,079 18,359,315
> 15 *Cars 3* 6/16/2017 Walt Disney Adventure G $148,523,767 17,170,377
> 16 *War for the Planet of the Apes* 7/14/2017 20th Century Fox Action PG-13 $138,947,203 16,063,260
> 18 *Transformers: The Last Knight* 6/21/2017 Paramount Pictures Action PG-13 $129,928,855 15,020,676
> 23 *Baby Driver* 6/28/2017 Sony Pictures Thriller/Suspense R $100,833,441 11,657,045
> 24 *Girls Trip* 7/21/2017 Universal Comedy R $100,142,145 11,577,126
> 27 *The Mummy* 6/9/2017 Universal Adventure PG-13 $80,101,125 9,260,245
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't look too bad to me, so far.



The Mummy, Valerian and Alien Covenant didn't make quite as much. money as was hoped for for.


----------



## Cathbad

According to reports, 2017 is lining up to be better than the very successful 2016.

13 *The Mummy* $404,558,810 $80,101,125 $324,457,685 0.25
24 *Alien: Covenant* $231,682,252 $74,236,713 $157,445,539 0.47


I sure wish I had problems like making only $404m...


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> According to reports, 2017 is lining up to be better than the very successful 2016.
> 
> 13 *The Mummy* $404,558,810 $80,101,125 $324,457,685 0.25
> 24 *Alien: Covenant* $231,682,252 $74,236,713 $157,445,539 0.47
> 
> 
> I sure wish I had problems like making only $404m...



Many. Hollywood executive have some rather bizarre notions of what constitutes a hit and what constitutes a box office disappointment.


----------



## BAYLOR

This year I've seen only two films so far, it's fewest films I've ever seen in a given year.


----------



## Cathbad

You've probably missed some great ones.


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> You've probably missed some great ones.



Maybe so..

I find that I just don't have much enthusiasm for the cinema offerings.


----------



## Cathbad

BAYLOR said:


> Maybe so..
> 
> I find that I just don't have much enthusiasm for the cinema offerings.



You realize, that by not going, you are feeding the Monster that is Streaming?


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> You realize, that by not going, you are feeding the Monster that is Streaming?



IM starting to think that maybe the cinemas days are numbered. Interestingly the Series Max Headroom  predicted this possibility.


----------



## Cathbad

BAYLOR said:


> IM starting to think that maybe the cinemas days are numbered. Interestingly the Series Max Headroom  predicted this possibility.



And several since...


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> And several since...



GIven all the entertainment alternates  that have emerged, cinemas long term future looks pretty bleak.


----------



## Cathbad

BAYLOR said:


> GIven all the entertainment alternates  that have emerged, cinemas long term future looks pretty bleak.



And it's all your fault, Baylor!!


----------



## HanaBi

BAYLOR said:


> Maybe so..
> 
> I find that I just don't have much enthusiasm for the cinema offerings.



Same here, chiefly because of the expense, hassle of parking and noisy/inconsiderate patrons (but that's for another thread). Unless a particular film demands a large screen experience I'm quite happy to stream from the comfort of my own home. And I think Hollywood will quickly catch onto this to the point where cinema-going will be a thing of the past in the next 10-20 years.


----------



## Vladd67

Is Bright the shape of things to come? A major star making a movie for Netflix rather than the cinemas.


----------



## Dave

Vladd67 said:


> Is Bright the shape of things to come? A major star making a movie for Netflix rather than the cinemas.


Not unless they improve their quality control. All the made-for-Netflix films I have seen have been poor. Their TV shows, on the other hand are quite good. 

I can't see the end of cinema. People like watching films on big screens, they like an event, they like audience participation (but not too much, they also like the lack of interruption that darkness and no-mobile-phones ringing and no other distractions gives.) They will certainly evolve but if they were going to be wiped out then the advent of TV in the 1950's-1970's would have done that. They recovered.


----------



## Cathbad

Dave said:


> They will certainly evolve but if they were going to be wiped out then the advent of TV in the 1950's-1970's would have done that. They recovered.



But with the lower costs for bigger screens, I fear the cinema _will_ be lost.


----------



## Vladd67

I can remember seeing Battlestar Galatica at the cinema and on the big screen it seemed like a film, not two tv shows tacked together. The cinema does improve the experience of watching, if only it wasn't for your fellow viewers, for example whilst watching a film that lasted about two hours it seemed every half hour or so people were getting up to go and buy food and drink, one guy even took his boots off every time he sat down. Add to that people chatting throughout the film and it's just not worth the hassle, my wife is a little deaf in one ear and if she has people chatting on her good side she gets wound up. Given how much an evening at the cinema can cost, you would think people would realise they aren't in their living rooms anymore.


----------



## Overread

I think the trick is that cinema has gotten more expensive whilst DVDs, home streaming, home cinema kits etc.. have all become a lot lot cheaper. People also far more easily see the overpricing on food for cinemas as well. 

Cinema isn't offering anything "special" besides the film now, but the prices on everything related to it for the customer have gone up; whilst prices for many other forms of recreation have gone down. Also it used to be that it took years for a film to go from cinema to rental to retail - now on DVD and streaming a film is out only a few months after cinema.

It takes away that pressure to watch a film at the cinema, because you know in 6 months or less it will be on DVD and you can watch it at home on the TV with the surround sound and have the pause button for when you want to make the tea/go to the loo. 


Honestly I think that cinema has to find ways to make itself cheaper or at least appear cheaper to the masses to get people back in. Unique offerings might also help a lot, or other ways to enhance the experience. It always surprises me, for example, taht merchandising happens a lot with most big films yet most cinemas don't retail anything but food. If it were me I'd want to have a "gift shop" right there to sting all the customers with merchandise right there and then when the film is fresh in their mind -


----------



## HanaBi

With the advancement of home-cinema technology, with 4k and 8K QLED TVs from 40" to 72" roll-up screens with 21:9 aspect ratios, coupled with dedicated stream boxsets, I still believe cinema will become a niche market is 20 years; more so if the off-on technology that is VR really takes off, thus being able to immerse oneself into the TV experience from the comfort and privacy of one's home.


----------



## Overread

VR is hit and miss - I think we've entered an age where VR is now affordable and of good enough quality for commerical home marketing and will stick around. But at the same time it still induces headaches in many people; still changes the whole experience and also requires some significant changes to home design before its going to be mainstream. VR films will become a thing that is certain, but I don't think the old 2D market will ever go away fully if at all.


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> And it's all your fault, Baylor!!



It's bad enough that your lame me.For Trump winning the election,,GLobal Warming and the hole  Ozone layer. Now your blaming me for Bad moves ?


----------



## Dave

BAYLOR said:


> It's bad enough that your lame me.For Trump winning the election,,GLobal Warming and the hole  Ozone layer. Now your blaming me for Bad moves ?


And for the general decline in grammar and spelling too?


----------



## Vladd67

Not to mention sloppy typing.


----------



## Dave

And an overuse of emoji?


----------



## Vladd67

Well what's wrong with that?


----------



## BAYLOR

Dave said:


> And for the general decline in grammar and spelling too?



OKay, you've got me on the grammar.  But I was nowhere near the Antarctic at the time of the ozone holes.


----------



## Cathbad

BAYLOR said:


> OKay, you've got me on the grammar.  But I was nowhere near the Antarctic at the time of the ozone holes.



You do realize I have had a GPS chip implanted in you?


----------



## SilentRoamer

BAYLOR said:


> OKay, you've got me on the grammar.  But I was nowhere near the Antarctic at the time of the ozone holes.



Let's have the hole truth please.


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> You do realize I have had a GPS chip implanted in you?



So that wasn't a filing my dentist put in my tooth.


----------



## Cathbad

BAYLOR said:


> So that wasn't a filing my dentist put in my tooth.



Oh, it's filled...


----------



## Connavar

The trouble of Hollywood imho is the blockbuster type film dominance of the options you can see in the big cinemas.

I go much more often watching smaller, foreign films from Cannes,festival scene, action,SFF films from Asia etc in the smaller local cinema.  I rather watch something else now and then like Sofia Coppola,Nicole Kidman Cannes winning film, serious drama by lesser known directors, great Korean directors than Fast & Furious, The Mummy type all the time it seems these days from Hollywood.

Also Streaming like Netflix, HBO Nordic (like HBO go in US) and co produce quality tv shows who are often better than Oscar winning film.  Then i think why waste time, money on *La La Land* when you can watch *Breaking Bad, The Americans, The Deuce, Next of, Daredevil, The Affair, The Crown, House of Cards *etc.  Martin Scorsese said it best US,Brit, other western quality tv shows has surpassed Hollywood.   

I saw *Wonder Woman* because it was the first female lead superhero film after 30+ male superhero movies and *Spidey* is the first suphero i loved as a kid but i was dissapointed that i paid money to se *Guardians of the Galaxy 2 *because it was cliche superhero film, i avoided every other big film this summer.

The best, most fun i had at the cinema this year was watching *Baby Driver, *which was a gem, a great film that was fun and more films like that would make me go see more films in the cinema and i want to see much less of Disney using Pixar films to dominate BO, all the blockbusters meantioned in this thread.  Im even tired of Superhero after so so many and i have tons, tons of superhero comics as superhero fan for decades....


----------



## Cathbad

Because of the outlandish salaries paid to actors and directors, low-budget films are becoming, more and more, a thing of the past.

A film like Citizen Kane could be made for a couple million - tops!  But then the lead actor would want ten o twenty million, the director about the same.  Not to beat out, the producers are going to want to make at least as much, so they'll add some explosions and special effects scenes, multiplying the movie's cost ten-fold... you get the picture.

So, we'll see fewer and fewer of the finest films, and soon, we'll see nothing _but_ blockbusters!  Until the cinema dies, that is.


----------



## Connavar

Cathbad said:


> Because of the outlandish salaries paid to actors and directors, low-budget films are becoming, more and more, a thing of the past.
> 
> A film like Citizen Kane could be made for a couple million - tops!  But then the lead actor would want ten o twenty million, the director about the same.  Not to beat out, the producers are going to want to make at least as much, so they'll add some explosions and special effects scenes, multiplying the movie's cost ten-fold... you get the picture.
> 
> *So, we'll see fewer and fewer of the finest films, and soon, we'll see nothing but blockbusters!  Until the cinema dies, that is.*



God i hope not even if i agree with the rest of your post.  Its clear that the big movies are so expensive they have to make 100s of millions not to be a flop. I dont care how those movies fail or not as long as there is quality smaller films as there are out these days.

You can make big BO without making an expensive movie: *Deadpool

Budget:$58 000 000 *
*Gross: **$363 070 709 (USA)*
Ryan Reynolds made a fun, great superhero movie for almost no money in superhero, hollywood standards and that was possible only because the director had his own effects film studio that was creative with less money.


----------



## Cathbad

Connavar said:


> *Deadpool
> 
> Budget:$58 000 000 *



I'd bet the second one will cost a bundle more!

Unfortunately.


----------



## Overread

Honestly $58 million doesn't sound cheap to me. 

That said yes actor fees can be utterly insane; but its a product of the market as well. When the film sells for hundreds of millions in the box-office suddenly the actors feel they should be getting a bigger slice of that pie. As a result when getting hired for a film they feel they should get a bigger slice of that pie before its baked. Also lets not forget some actors are so big that just having them alone nets you a audience. Get Will Smith or such in your film and without any marketing you've already got yourself a large loyal core force who will go watch it. Actors that manage to secure good film contracts all the time also act like a seal of approval - you know what you're getting or at least a minimum quality.


----------



## Vince W

The outrageous sums of money spent on name actors is one thing, but it's the massive use of CGI that lets down most films for me. It seems Hollywood uses massive explosions to distract the audience from the lack of story. People kept telling me how great Wonder Woman was, but when I finally got to see it (for free) it was very ho-hum and bland. There was nothing very interesting going on and I don't know what all the fuss was about.

They would have been better off giving us a great story and fewer, over long set pieces that add little to nothing to the plot.


----------



## Connavar

Overread said:


> *Honestly $58 million doesn't sound cheap to me.
> 
> That said yes actor fees can be utterly insane; but its a product of the market as well. *When the film sells for hundreds of millions in the box-office suddenly the actors feel they should be getting a bigger slice of that pie. As a result when getting hired for a film they feel they should get a bigger slice of that pie before its baked. Also lets not forget some actors are so big that just having them alone nets you a audience. Get Will Smith or such in your film and without any marketing you've already got yourself a large loyal core force who will go watch it. Actors that manage to secure good film contracts all the time also act like a seal of approval - you know what you're getting or at least a minimum quality.



58 million is crazy cheap by blockbuster, superhero dominated Hollywood era,  Superman: Man of Steal spent double that money CCI alone according to the reports.

*Man of Steal (2013)*

*Budget:*
 $225 000 000 (estimated)
*Gross:*
 $291 045 518 (USA)

*Superman vs Batman (2016)*

*Budget:*
 $250 000 000 (estimated)
*Opening Weekend:*
 BRL 39 061 298 (Brazil) (27 March 2016)
*Gross:*
 $330 360 194 (USA)

200-300 million dollars is the price it takes to make a big superhero film, so *Deadpool* other than being loved by the fans, critics its mostly famous of making Fox, Hollywood studios drool for the chance of making more BO profit on 58 million dollars than movies that cost 5-7 times that.  Having the biggest BO record ever for R rated film.  Its not indie film cheap but Hollywood films that this thread is about, its insanely cheap.


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> Because of the outlandish salaries paid to actors and directors, low-budget films are becoming, more and more, a thing of the past.
> 
> A film like Citizen Kane could be made for a couple million - tops!  But then the lead actor would want ten o twenty million, the director about the same.  Not to beat out, the producers are going to want to make at least as much, so they'll add some explosions and special effects scenes, multiplying the movie's cost ten-fold... you get the picture.
> 
> So, we'll see fewer and fewer of the finest films, and soon, we'll see nothing _but_ blockbusters!  Until the cinema dies, that is.



Which why you look for actors who will work for less.  Because actors , even good ones are a dime a dozen.


----------



## Cathbad

BAYLOR said:


> Which why you look for actors who will work for less.  Because actors , even good ones are a dime a dozen.



Not really.

Not that they're not out there, but because how _good_ an actor I no longer matters - as long as they're good-looking and popular, the studios want them - even for roles they're so obviously not fit for!


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> Not really.
> 
> Not that they're not out there, but because how _good_ an actor I no longer matters - as long as they're good-looking and popular, the studios want them - even for roles they're so obviously not fit for!



Then the  movie moguls are really stupid. If ditched star power and substituted good acting and writing, they could actually keep more of the profits because they won't have to shell out the money to the movie star hacks. Good films would also better insure a steady audience . If you give people a good movie with good actors na stories, they'll come to the theaters.


----------



## DelActivisto

Vince W said:


> The outrageous sums of money spent on name actors is one thing, but it's the massive use of CGI that lets down most films for me. It seems Hollywood uses massive explosions to distract the audience from the lack of story. People kept telling me how great Wonder Woman was, but when I finally got to see it (for free) it was very ho-hum and bland. There was nothing very interesting going on and I don't know what all the fuss was about.
> 
> They would have been better off giving us a great story and fewer, over long set pieces that add little to nothing to the plot.



I'd have to disagree. I thought it was pretty good movie with some good lines, storyline, and some good cinematic effects but really not too much. I thought it helped emphasize how ambiguous the human focus on good vs. evil and right vs. wrong were. Or maybe that's just me trying to justify my flimsy moral standards. 

That said, Wonder Woman was touted to me as being a breakthrough movie for feminists. I really didn't see that when compared to other movies with strong female leads like.... maybe so maybe they had a point.


----------



## DelActivisto

BAYLOR said:


> Then the  movie moguls are really stupid. If ditched star power and substituted good acting and writing, they could actually keep more of the profits because they won't have to shell out the money to the movie star hacks. Good films would also better insure a steady audience . If you give people a good movie with good actors na stories, they'll come to the theaters.



I think you're being overly optimistic. A sophisticated person, and moreover a writerly type person who enjoys plot and story over eye candy, will enjoy such a film. I think the point for star-studded casts is that people, basically literally, worship these stars, and so movies devoid of them fail to render something nearly akin to a religious experience. *prepares for incoming rotten fruit*


----------



## BAYLOR

DelActivisto said:


> I think you're being overly optimistic. A sophisticated person, and moreover a writerly type person who enjoys plot and story over eye candy, will enjoy such a film. I think the point for star-studded casts is that people, basically literally, worship these stars, and so movies devoid of them fail to render something nearly akin to a religious experience. *prepares for incoming rotten fruit*



Ive long since lost my respect for Movie stars, They are way overpaid and any many of them don't have great acting skills or even good acting skills.


----------



## Cathbad

BAYLOR said:


> Ive long since lost my respect for Movie stars, They are easy overpaid and any many of them don't have great acting skills or even good acting skills.



Bo Derek.

Great eye-candy.  Dumb as a rock, but almost as good an actor as one!


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> Bo Derek.
> 
> Great eye-candy.  Dumb as a rock, but almost as good an actor as one!



Yes She looked great, but had no concept acting.


----------



## BAYLOR

If you replaced the acts in the movies with life like animatronic dummies, the audience probably wouldn't notice.


----------



## Narkalui

If anyone has already commented on this, my apologies for arriving so late to the party.

Has anyone ever noticed the slew of films that get released between November and early February are all in a genre that I like to call 'Oscar Fodder'?

You take a director who has successfully made a few franchise blockbusters i.e. Christopher Nolan; add a few stars whose acting is thought better than average (maybe having starred in a blockbuster franchise) i.e. Christian Bale or Leonardo Dicaprio; and the studios will chuck heaps of cash at an original idea in the hopes it wins best film or best director or best actor.

American Hustle was a good example of an Oscar Fodder film...


----------



## Vince W

It was also an example of utter tosh.


----------



## BAYLOR

To this day , In still at a loss as to how Fames Cameron's film *Titanic* won best picture .


----------



## Narkalui

Titanic: steaming pile of dross!


----------



## Vince W

BAYLOR said:


> To this day , In still at a loss as to how Fames Cameron's film *Titanic* won best picture .



Lobbying most likely. I think it's fairly standard practice for studios in Hollywood to lobby the Oscar people for votes. Of course that means huge wads of cash passing hands.


----------



## BAYLOR

Narkalui said:


> Titanic: steaming pile of dross!



Why didn't the boat get a best supporting actor nod?


----------



## Cathbad

To me, *Titanic* was _the_ example that Hollywood executives are too scared to try new things.  And yes, older versions were far better acted!

On another note:  I have no problems with DiCaprio's acting:  But that face!  It's like watching a six-month old talk like an adult!  It's distracting, and makes me wonder why it attracts grown women?


----------



## Vince W

Mothering instinct?


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> To me, *Titanic* was _the_ example that Hollywood executives are too scared to try new things.  And yes, older versions were far better acted!
> 
> On another note:  I have no problems with DiCaprio's acting:  But that face!  It's like watching a six-month old talk like an adult!  It's distracting, and makes me wonder why it attracts grown women?



*A Night to Remember*  directed by Roy Ward Baker   by far the best Titanic movie.


----------



## BAYLOR

And we have more superhero films on the horizon.


----------



## Vladd67

BAYLOR said:


> *A Night to Remember*  directed by Roy Ward Baker   by far the best Titanic movie.


A relative of my wife went along to the premier of that film, he was fourth officer on the Titanic.


----------



## Narkalui

Ok, can't post a link on this device but chuck this into a google video search:

The nerd crew episode 6

I think it perfectly and hilariously makes the point


----------



## BAYLOR

Soon the next Star War film will be upon us.


----------



## Cathbad

BAYLOR said:


> Soon the next Star War film will be upon us.



LET THE BITCHING AND COMPLAINING BEGIN!!!


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> LET THE BITCHING AND COMPLAINING BEGIN!!!



Its a long standing venerable tradition.


----------



## Vince W

Cathbad said:


> LET THE BITCHING AND COMPLAINING BEGIN!!!



Begin?


----------



## Cathbad

Vince W said:


> Begin?



Yeah, I know.


----------



## BAYLOR

This conversation dovetailes into the growing importance of The China film market.


----------



## Cathbad

The China film market has become important??


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> The China film market has become important??




It has, not to long ago a Chinese business group acquired Legendary pictures and then there were films like The Wall with Matt Damon,which  was directed and produced by one Chinas best directors. I finally got to see that film and I rather like it. This film was made with their US and world market in mind. Us moviecompanie Sara looking to China more Andy more to help shore up the box office.


----------



## KGeo777

If this is true then it should be ample opportunity for Western filmmakers and producers to restart the Western film industries in the US, England, etc. to cater to Western tastes again, employing people at home. I think the small Utah-based genre studio Arrowstorm Entertainment may be an encouraging trend. It is completely detached from Hollywood--doesn't follow Hollywood ideological policy. Need more like that. The big internationalist studios as well as Netflix and Amazon are just too "global"  in philosophy--need regional film focus again the art can flourish.
In the late 1950s when cheaper film stock came on the market there were dozens of small studios and they carved out a huge part of big Hollywood's market because they catered to the public tastes much better than the big ones did--but then for some reason all these companies were gobbled up as Hollywood downsized with the blockbuster. Thus you not only had companies like Toho, and Hammer and AIP, but the Italian film studios, as well as in other parts of Europe.

The Hollywood blockbuster was essentially  blockbooking V. 2. Another way to corner the market. Monopolies are unhealthy for art and culture.


----------



## BAYLOR

The Mavel superhero and Star Wars franchiseses just keeps rolling.


----------



## Phyrebrat

Oh yes, I recall _The Wall_ - I was forced to watch that culturally offensive claptap with my dad... 

Synopsis: One of the greatest civilisations of history relies on the West to solve their problem...Thank God for Matt Damon and Mr Grumpy.

pH


----------



## BAYLOR

Phyrebrat said:


> Oh yes, I recall _The Wall_ - I was forced to watch that culturally offensive claptap with my dad...
> 
> Synopsis: One of the greatest civilisations of history relies on the West to solve their problem...Thank God for Matt Damon and Mr Grumpy.
> 
> pH



Yes,  Jason Bourn  heroically saves China from the hoard of  slobbering monsters  !


----------



## BAYLOR

There has to come a time whe economics will render blockbusters non viable.


----------



## Overread

I can't see that happening and the way the market has gone its reinforced the need for blockbusters. 

Films (and computer games, and music to a lesser extent) rely heavily upon the initial launch period for making their profits. For a film that's in the cinema and then again in DVD. In general the best price (highest price) and the most customers happen in those early weeks/months from launch. Because of how fast products devalue in today's market, if your product hasn't made it by then there is a very good chance it won't make it at all. 

Of course this has a backlash effect because it means everything prices itself around the blockbuster concept - high investment high return in a tiny timeframe. Not forgetting that the pay-off is likely after several years of heavy investment. 
That in turn means that some viable series and products that are not bad, but don't make the big launch figures, get overlooked. There's many a TV series or film that is viable, has a healthy market and fanbase and turns a good profit; that doesn't make it and gets closed down because its not as profitable as other things. 


But by and large I can't see the blockbuster mentality going away at all. The closest we might see to a counter would be patron style film production; ergo where instead of profiting from sales the studio would cover running costs via donations during production from fans. However I can't see that working outside of "indie" studios. Even then its a risky situation as one bad week of publicity could totally destroy the funding (which when you consider how many people are involved with a film could result in staff moving on and then suddenly the film is scrapped).


----------



## MWagner

I think soon the blockbuster will be the_ only_ genre of movie that gets theatrical release. It wouldn't surprise me if in 15 or 20 years there are only a handful of movies released to theatres a year, maybe a dozen or so, each one a blockbuster tied to a mega-franchise. The number of screens will be much lower. Going to a movie will be more like going to a stadium music show - expensive, infrequent, and spectacular. An experience that cannot be captured sitting at home in front of your TV.


----------



## BAYLOR

MWagner said:


> I think soon the blockbuster will be the_ only_ genre of movie that gets theatrical release. It wouldn't surprise me if in 15 or 20 years there are only a handful of movies released to theatres a year, maybe a dozen or so, each one a blockbuster tied to a mega-franchise. The number of screens will be much lower. Going to a movie will be more like going to a stadium music show - expensive, infrequent, and spectacular. An experience that cannot be captured sitting at home in front of your TV.



Television will benefit .  quality stories shut out of cinema will go to that medium and so will more Hollywood A list actors and actress. In fact , thats  happening now.


----------



## Overread

Agreed, it wasn't long ago that you had to wait for the likes of just the BBC to make a solid drama; now there's several competing companies making such programs (and even buying them off the BBC after a season or two). As a result we can expect a big rise in TV dramas which focus on story and long term arcs rather than just "event of the week" structures.


----------



## BAYLOR

Overread said:


> Agreed, it wasn't long ago that you had to wait for the likes of just the BBC to make a solid drama; now there's several competing companies making such programs (and even buying them off the BBC after a season or two). As a result we can expect a big rise in TV dramas which focus on story and long term arcs rather than just "event of the week" structures.




The BBC stands to make a lot of money.


----------



## Overread

At the same time the BBC could easily lose out. It's been a long time since there were only 4 channels of which 2 were BBC. I think the likes of Amazon have poached off solid series from the BBC and will continue to do so (esp if the BBC puts them up for sale); but at the same time they've got resources to make and distribute their own series. It only takes a few big series and for them to establish a market and they can be off and away and not have to buy anything else off the BBC.



Right now I'd honestly say wildlife is about the only area the BBC really dominate in which would be a heavy investment to overcome. Otherwise they've some strong period dramas, but a lot of that is just sets and costumes and actors; all three of which any growing other company can steadily invest in (esp when they get things like the entire set, costumes and cast from something like Ripper Street). 

BBC could well lose out as much as it can potentially gain. It's biggest risk is a change to TV as such that we reach a point were the TV licence is done away with. If that were to ever happen the BBC could fast be on the way out.


----------



## Narkalui

I think one of the biggest changes to the Beeb's fortunes is that since 2010 they've not actually been able to own any of their ideas. If someone at the BBC has a new idea they are obliged to ask an external (private) production comany to make it for them. The external third party then obtains ownership of the new show and at the end of the contract they can shop the show to other broadcasters. Bake Off is a prime example of this, it was actually the brain child of a low tier assistant at the BBC who saw their baby pimped out to Channel Four...


----------



## BAYLOR

Narkalui said:


> I think one of the biggest changes to the Beeb's fortunes is that since 2010 they've not actually been able to own any of their ideas. If someone at the BBC has a new idea they are obliged to ask an external (private) production comany to make it for them. The external third party then obtains ownership of the new show and at the end of the contract they can shop the show to other broadcasters. Bake Off is a prime example of this, it was actually the brain child of a low tier assistant at the BBC who saw their baby pimped out to Channel Four...



What about the current incarnation of  Dr Who for example? Or Quatermass or Blake` 7?


----------



## Vince W

Some things don't translate well away from their original producers. Just look at how Hollywood handled The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. They had a huge opportunity and made a hash of it.


----------



## BAYLOR

Vince W said:


> Some things don't translate well away from their original producers. Just look at how Hollywood handled The nHitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. They had a huge opportunity and made a hash of it.



The 2005 film was far from perfect, I love Tom  watch it. It’s a bit of a guilty pleasure. And the original Marvin did have cameo in that film.


----------



## Vince W

BAYLOR said:


> The 2005 film was far from perfect, I love Tom  watch it. It’s a bit of a guilty pleasure. And the original Marvin did have cameo in that film.



It's somewhat watchable. The British casting was quite good, but the girl who played Trillian and the fellow they had as Zaphod (Sam Rockman?) were terrible. Also the story was altered too much and muddled. The highlight was the appearance of the original and proper Marvin.


----------



## Narkalui

To my knowledge, all of the BBC's property from before that date remains theirs; just anything after (until a new (not Conservative) government amends their charter) has to be given away.


----------



## BAYLOR

Narkalui said:


> To my knowledge, all of the BBC's property from before that date remains theirs; just anything after (until a new (not Conservative) government amends their charter) has to be given away.



I would love to see a quatermass tv series , As to who I would like to see produce it?  Chris Carter.


----------



## Vince W

You're not the only one to wish for a Quatermass series. I think they should redo the original series to replace the one that was lost.


----------



## Cathbad

BAYLOR said:


> There has to come a time whe economics will render blockbusters non viable.


Did you think this through?

At what point do you feel making millions will become non-viable?


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> Did you think this through?
> 
> At what point do you feel making millions will become non-viable?



The law odimishing returns.


----------



## Cathbad

BAYLOR said:


> The law odimishing returns.





BAYLOR said:


> The law odimishing returns.


So you mean when they're no longer "blockbusters"?


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> So you mean when they're no longer "blockbusters"?



That will happen unles they get costs under. Controll. And that another thing that bothers me,Movie studios should be abl le to produce theatrical films for far less.


----------



## Cathbad

BAYLOR said:


> That will happen unles they get costs under. Controll. And that another thing that bothers me,Movie studios should be abl le to produce theatrical films for far less.


You want it to change?  Stop paying $20 to see a movie.  It'll change.  Personally, I couldn't care less what they pay to produce a movie.  I want quality.  And that commodity is getting harder to find.


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> You want it to change?  Stop paying $20 to see a movie.  It'll change.  Personally, I couldn't care less what they pay to produce a movie.  I want quality.  And that commodity is getting harder to find.



Never allowing MIchael  Bay produce,write or direct a film ever again would be a good start.


----------



## MWagner

Cathbad said:


> At what point do you feel making millions will become non-viable?



Film-making is risky. Historically, most movies lose money or barely break even. The big hits subsidise the many misses. With the growing dominance of blockbuster, studios are making fewer movies, but the ones they make cost buttloads of money. This has mad a risky business even riskier, because the risk is no longer spread around.

When the bombs (and there are bombs) are no longer subsidised by the hits. The studious are playing a dangerous game with blockbusters. If you release five $300 movies in a year, two of them turn a $200 mil profit each, two earn a modest $50 in profit, and one of them bombs for a $200 mil loss, and you still make a healthy profit. But if you have two bombs in a year, you're in big trouble.


----------



## Cathbad

I've looked... and the one entity not talking about _not_ making more Star Wars films... is Disney.


----------



## Vince W

How Disney sees Star Wars:


----------



## Vince W

Disney's reaction to Solo flopping.


----------



## Narkalui

Tommy Boy. Always wanted to see that film


----------



## Vince W

Hardly a blockbuster, but there's nothing stopping you.


----------



## Narkalui

Except that it's never been on telly and isn't on Netflix or Amazon Prime


----------



## BAYLOR

Narkalui said:


> Except that it's never been on telly and isn't on Netflix or Amazon Prime



 This one is not a bad film


----------



## Anthoney

I find it interesting that while corporate Hollywood relies more and more on big blockbusters that the Academy (Oscars) have mostly went the other direction.  For more than 20 years I have watched every film nominated for best picture.  The last few years it has gotten harder and harder.  I'm sure some of it has to do with my being older and more cantankerous but not all.  I was really surprised that Get Out  was nominated (of course it didn't win).  It's not that I don't like quiet niche films.  Two years ago I might have voted for Room (which almost no one saw).  Even if waterboarded I would not have voted for The Shape of Water.  It was quirky and weird and not half bad.  It was not the best picture of the year/


----------



## BAYLOR

Anthoney said:


> I find it interesting that while corporate Hollywood relies more and more on big blockbusters that the Academy (Oscars) have mostly went the other direction.  For more than 20 years I have watched every film nominated for best picture.  The last few years it has gotten harder and harder.  I'm sure some of it has to do with my being older and more cantankerous but not all.  I was really surprised that Get Out  was nominated (of course it didn't win).  It's not that I don't like quiet niche films.  Two years ago I might have voted for Room (which almost no one saw).  Even if waterboarded I would not have voted for The Shape of Water.  It was quirky and weird and not half bad.  It was not the best picture of the year/



*Lord of the Rings *which was popular and blockbuster won for best picture. Actually they were nominating the whole trilogy .  This is first time a fantasy film won best picture .


----------



## KGeo777

There were rare years where a financially successful film also won Best Picture (Ben Hur, Titanic, LOTR). The Oscars are political and always were and winners were chosen to make a statement (I don't believe it was ever a truly free vote on BP).  It just feels more obvious now.
So, it seems guaranteed Black Panther is going to get either Best Picture or Most Popular. Or both.

The elimination of mid budget films tends to heighten the contrast between Summer season and Oscar season films. Seems like they will eventually merge into one.  Black Panther may demonstrate that process under way.  However, it would be an error to assume that the winning of films with fantasy themes (Shape of Water or Black Panther) represents the mainstreaming of genre concepts--- since these works have a significant sociopolitical component which is of greater significance to the corporations than the popularity of fantasy (which has always enjoyed popular support from the public--the 20th century critical establishment merely distanced itself from including public tastes in their assessment of artworks).
I feel the domination of genre subjects in Hollywood now is in much the same spirit that they use popular songs from the 60s or 70s in advertising cars or running shoes.


----------



## BAYLOR

One the most unfortunate developments in cinema  was the demise of the B Movies.


----------



## Vince W

BAYLOR said:


> One the most unfortunate developments in cinema  was the demise of the B Movies.


What are you on about? Marvel churns them out by the cartload. And then there's DC...


----------



## BAYLOR

Vince W said:


> What are you on about? Marvel churns them out by the cartload. And then there's DC...



I meant Good B movies like Roger Corman and Samuel Z Arkoff  used ot make. Those kinds of films.


----------



## KGeo777

Also Hammer, Amicus, Toho, Tigon, Charles Band (still around apparently). Plus various other European companies in Spain, Italy, Germany, France....


----------



## logan_run

I hate how they use  songs of 60s and 70s in  advertisements//


----------



## KGeo777

I enjoyed *the Adventures of Captain Marvel *serial (recommended by Baylor in fact) much more than recent superhero movies. It wasn't trying to be important or melodramatic-just tell a decent adventure story with super powered action (using all the FX they could muster on a low budget). *The Phantom* serial also starring Tom Tyler (and "Ace the Wonder Dog") was also good.  If modern movies used that approach, superhero films would be much better. In a superhero movie I don't want a lot of scenes where the super characters are discussing UN treaties and their feelings about their parents. For pete's sake can we dial down the emo? lol


----------



## WaylanderToo

BAYLOR said:


> One the most unfortunate developments in cinema  was the demise of the B Movies.



you obviously haven't got Amazon Prime or NetFlix!!


----------



## BAYLOR

WaylanderToo said:


> you obviously haven't got Amazon Prime or NetFlix!!



I don't have either.


----------



## Vince W

In all honesty, I can't think of one Netflix show or film I've watched that I've really liked. Most I never even finish. I've only just got Prime, but I haven't watched any of their in-house offerings yet.


----------



## BAYLOR

Vince W said:


> In all honesty, I can't think of one Netflix show or film I've watched that I've really liked. Most I never even finish. I've only just got Prime, but I haven't watched any of their in-house offerings yet.



I have no enthusiasm for Netflix


----------



## Vince W

BAYLOR said:


> I have no enthusiasm for Netflix


Nor should you. You really aren't missing anything.


----------



## WaylanderToo

BAYLOR said:


> I don't have either.





BAYLOR said:


> I don't have either.




prime's offerings are, on the whole, VERY poor. That being said there are some very good offering among the dross. NetFlix, on the other hand, does screen a lot of good stuff (there is dross there too, to be honest).

Having them though gives me my fill of 'b' movies (and some of them not in a good way!)


----------



## Overread

Amazon Prime has some good stuff in my view. From stuff they've pinched/bought from the BBC (Grand Tour and Ripper Street) to originals and others (Preacher, The Tick, Beyond the Borderlands, Black Sails). 

There are also some interesting Russian films that they've got in fantasy/scifi/entertainment which are as good as a general Hollywood action flick ( so not outstanding but entertaining enough). One or two I've seen are let down really only by poor dubbing into English


----------



## BAYLOR

Overread said:


> Amazon Prime has some good stuff in my view. From stuff they've pinched/bought from the BBC (Grand Tour and Ripper Street) to originals and others (Preacher, The Tick, Beyond the Borderlands, Black Sails).
> 
> There are also some interesting Russian films that they've got in fantasy/scifi/entertainment which are as good as a general Hollywood action flick ( so not outstanding but entertaining enough). One or two I've seen are let down really only by poor dubbing into English



Apple is going into television and film production too?


----------



## Ian

It's a depressing situation, but fun as it is to blame crass Hollywood executives, the rotten fact of the matter is that if the mass audience were still turning out for "Dr.Zhivago" or "Annie Hall" (which by the way, never even reached my local cinema when it was released) then those are the type of films that would still be made. Back in the late eighties, I was friends with a cinema manager who had to close down because the only films that drew audiences were the big holiday blockbusters, and the rest of the year the smaller films on offer simply didn't generate enough revenue to keep the business viable. Sorry to add to the general air of doom and gloom.


----------



## Vladd67

When The Point cinema opened in Milton Keynes, the first multiplex in the U.K., one of its ten screens was put aside for arthouse and classic films. This lasted a few months before it was replaced with the latest blockbuster.


----------



## BAYLOR

Ian said:


> It's a depressing situation, but fun as it is to blame crass Hollywood executives, the rotten fact of the matter is that if the mass audience were still turning out for "Dr.Zhivago" or "Annie Hall" (which by the way, never even reached my local cinema when it was released) then those are the type of films that would still be made. Back in the late eighties, I was friends with a cinema manager who had to close down because the only films that drew audiences were the big holiday blockbusters, and the rest of the year the smaller films on offer simply didn't generate enough revenue to keep the business viable. Sorry to add to the general air of doom and gloom.



Welcome to Chrons Ian.


----------



## KGeo777

It is like politics. You know how we keep getting politicians who serve special interests and not the public? The movie business is like that. They are beyond supply and demand considerations. Look how many franchise remakes we get--how many Batmans in the last few years. This has zero to do with audience demand. Zero. It is all about the tastes of the executives and not having to worry about competition. It's no longer a merit-based thing. And to add to the lunacy, at the same time they claim to cater to audiences in the West, they want to cater to audiences in China. You cannot make films that appease two different cultural identities. This has never been attempted in the history of the world in art. It's a new phenomenon. It is corporate-controlled and artistically stifling. It wasn't like that in the 1960s.  The big studios were pretty stale but all the money was being made by the B movies and international indies. Hammer, Toho, AIP,  Italian genre film etc.
The problem today is that you have a handful of giant corporations who control all the gates and media advertising. Guaranteed that if it went back to the old supply and demand system, the quality would miraculously improve.  Movies today are made by hedge fund managers, not artists.


----------



## Narkalui

Amen


----------



## BAYLOR

Avengers Endgame topped 2 billion.  And the superhero movie trend continues


----------



## Cathbad

Sounds like it's doing them well... why would they change?


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> Sounds like it's doing them well... why would they change?



With box office like that , they won't.


----------



## Cathbad

If I was making gazzilions selling widgets, I'd have absolutely no incentive to change over to thingamabobs.


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> If I was making gazzilions selling widgets, I'd have absolutely no incentive to change over to thingamabobs.



Avengers Engame made 2 Billion worldwide , Unbelievable.


----------



## Cathbad

BAYLOR said:


> Avengers Engame made 2 Billion worldwide , Unbelievable.


Not at all!  It's what the viewers want!


----------



## Harpo

Tableau Public
					






					public.tableau.com
				




Although these graphs cover IMDb and not just Hollywood, they are a good indication of when each film genre was at its peak, and when it was not. 
Westerns have largely been replaced with horror. Perhaps there'll be a hybrid genre someday - the Horror Western.


----------



## Vince W

BAYLOR said:


> Avengers Endgame topped 2 billion.  And the superhero movie trend continues


Just goes to show you that 10-year-old boys of all ages have far too much money now.


----------



## Harpo

Endgame is about to surpass Avatar as the highest grossing film ever.


----------



## WaylanderToo

Harpo said:


> Endgame is about to surpass Avatar as the highest grossing film ever.



Won't do it on this release - if there's another release in 2020 though.....


----------



## Harpo

WaylanderToo said:


> Won't do it on this release - if there's another release in 2020 though.....


Why won't it? It's less than 75 million behind, which isn't much comparatively


----------



## KGeo777

In essence the term "Hollywood Accounting" means lying about profits. Hollywood accounting - Wikipedia

It is considered a standard thing with Hollywood. They lie about profits when it suits a purpose.
And  these big corporations really cannot lose money-they are way too big to fail. Digital film releases are dirt cheap, and Disney has so many subsidiaries (and tax money from the public) that they cannot lose a profit. Walt Disney was supply/demand. Modern Disney is not. It really does have more money than some governments GDP.
Another interesting cultural phenomenon is how people are interested in movie profits. It used to be of no interest to the public. Now it is like horse racing and is often of more entertainment focus than the story content.
Do people really want all to wall superhero movies?
Did people in Moscow really want to stare at giant Lenin posters all day?
Where's the alternative choice?


----------



## WaylanderToo

Harpo said:


> Why won't it? It's less than 75 million behind, which isn't much comparatively



The drop-off in the take has been very big, to the point where last week it 'only' took 16m and now the next big summer films are taking the audience (& screens). Now I agree that 16m isn't chump-change but that's an ever reducing amount being taken....


----------



## BAYLOR

Dark Phoenix is not going to match Endgames Numbers.


----------



## Harpo

BAYLOR said:


> Dark Phoenix is not going to match Endgames Numbers.


Nothing will, for a decade or so. The top three films (Avatar, Endgame, Titanic) are about a decade apart. So anything coming close will be in ten years give or take


----------



## Dave

KGeo777 said:


> Where's the alternative choice?


YouTube, Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, HBO, Sky and very soon Apple too.

Those powerful Hollywood studios won't feel it overnight, but people are watching much better quality TV and watching films that have never had a cinematic release. Unless they also change then they will wake up one day and find that the world has moved on, and left them behind. 

However, (as already discussed) people like the group experience of watching films, so cinemas will never die. I'd say for an analogy that Hollywood studios are like train companies and the others are car manufacturers. How you decide to make your journey is yours.



Harpo said:


> The top three films (Avatar, Endgame, Titanic) are about a decade apart.


Of those three, I have only seen Avatar at the cinema (and didn't think it was that good.) I won't be seeing Endgame, and still haven't seen all of Titanic.


----------



## Overread

Isnt Lord of the Rings in the top film charts and surely Lion King original?


----------



## Anthoney

Overread said:


> Isnt Lord of the Rings in the top film charts and surely Lion King original?



Return of the King is #24 and Lion Ling is #42.


----------



## WaylanderToo

BAYLOR said:


> Dark Phoenix is not going to match Endgames Numbers.



looks like it'll be lucky to make its budget


----------



## Narkalui

I heard that Dark Phoenix only suffers from having a release so close on the heels of Endgame...


----------



## KGeo777

Dave said:


> YouTube, Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, HBO, Sky and very soon Apple too.
> 
> Those powerful Hollywood studios won't feel it overnight, but people are watching much better quality TV and watching films that have never had a cinematic release.



The problem is they are doing the same thing as the other corporates--Netflix seems to favor films made outside North America or Europe--how does that help American or European artists?
Youtube has been malicious in defunding people who had an audiences. 
I suppose Amazon offers some alternative since anyone can upload a video. The best solution is to get as far away from Silicon Valley and Hollywood as possible--the content quality and variety will go up. 
CNN has dismal ratings and yet still goes full speed ahead. 
A movie can lose $200 million and no one gets fired-that's how irrelevant the box office has become!


----------



## Cathbad

KGeo777 said:


> A movie can lose $200 million and no one gets fired-that's how irrelevant the box office has become!


The fact is, movies don't lose that much.  You are seeing two factors when you see this much money 'lost':  Projected Totals first run, and Creative Finances - for which Hollywood is well known for.

People aren't getting fired, because the movies aren't actually losing that much money.  Trust me, those companies are as interested in making money as any others.


----------



## KGeo777

Cathbad said:


> People aren't getting fired, because the movies aren't actually losing that much money.  Trust me, those companies are as interested in making money as any others.



There was a time when a studio executives or two might lose their job after a particular movie did badly-those days are gone. But the companies are too big to care (they do care about having audiences for their message but they seem to operate from the mentality that the public has no where else to go). If you listen to a Hollywood Reporter roundtable discussion with the heads of production--they do not care at all about film-as a business or an art. They are appointed by the head office. The reporter asked them what they would do if they weren't making films and only one executive said he liked it-the rest said they would be selling shoes or hedge funds. They also get a huge amount of money from governments in the form of subsidies. And someone like Weinstein couldn't have been able to fire and blacklist people if they were running a serious business. Mira Sorvino was blacklisted for reasons that had zero to do with business. The fact that other film companies (allegedly Weinste's competitors) went along with the blacklist-is the most telling part. Totally corrupt. If a pencil manufacturer operated like Hollywood they would go broke.  It's not a merit-based business-not for the big studios (and truthfully it never was--even in 1930 Hollywood was looking to dominate foreign screens--England, Italy, and other countries had to enact rules to protect native artists. Unfortunately it never worked for long.


----------



## BAYLOR

KGeo777 said:


> There was a time when a studio executives or two might lose their job after a particular movie did badly-those days are gone. But the companies are too big to care (they do care about having audiences for their message but they seem to operate from the mentality that the public has no where else to go). If you listen to a Hollywood Reporter roundtable discussion with the heads of production--they do not care at all about film-as a business or an art. They are appointed by the head office. The reporter asked them what they would do if they weren't making films and only one executive said he liked it-the rest said they would be selling shoes or hedge funds. They also get a huge amount of money from governments in the form of subsidies. And someone like Weinstein couldn't have been able to fire and blacklist people if they were running a serious business. Mira Sorvino was blacklisted for reasons that had zero to do with business. The fact that other film companies (allegedly Weinste's competitors) went along with the blacklist-is the most telling part. Totally corrupt. If a pencil manufacturer operated like Hollywood they would go broke.  It's not a merit-based business-not for the big studios (and truthfully it never was--even in 1930 Hollywood was looking to dominate foreign screens--England, Italy, and other countries had to enact rules to protect native artists. Unfortunately it never worked for long.



Eventually , it has has to fail.


----------



## BAYLOR

Movie studio executives ruined the summer movie.


----------



## Vince W

BAYLOR said:


> Movie studio executives ruined the movie.


FTFY.


----------



## BAYLOR

Vince W said:


> FTFY.



Yep.


----------



## KGeo777

There are constant remarks by well known film people (Martin Scorsese most recently) complaining about the lack of variety but it's mostly set up as "us vs them" media sound bites. The old man moaning about the good ol days and others telling him he's wrong. The conversations are so narrow. None of them are saying maybe there needs to be new companies---the ones who are getting mentioned are all still active in the current environment (Netflix etc.).
Feels like people are arguing about the selection of music the band is playing on the sinking Titanic. One also wonders if Scorsese speaks only because he has to promote his new film and this is the only way to get attention--talking negatively about Disney movies.
I also heard there's a new software or technology Disney is promoting to search out gender privilege in movie scripts. Truly bizarre. I cannot believe they could do these things if not for the fact that they have no worries about competition or profit loss--and there is absolutely no way that most audiences can favor the shrinking variety and recycling. I do wonder how younger people who have never seen movies from the 70s or earlier might regard cinema--like perhaps they do not really see it as different from a video game or youtube video--some diversion that they don't really engage with. I hope not.


----------



## Dave

My 2 cents (possibly things I've already said but forgotten):

There will always be new talented writers and directors to take the place of those who get over confident and tired. 
TV quality and home cinema choices will make cinema obsolete if it cannot maintain quality and originality.
Script writing by software and machines does not produce quality or originality.
People are still cinema-going in large numbers and while they continue nothing will change.
There are still original, high quality and quirky films shown in cinemas, but they don't get high box office.
You get what you pay for. While you still watch it, producers will make it.
UK cinema audiences are younger than they were. These UK statistics make interesting reading: https://www.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.or...statistical-yearbook-audiences-2018-12-17.pdf


----------



## KGeo777

Another factor (although this doesn't impact the corporate cinema world given how micromanaged it is) is that artists need to be inspired by other artists. In the current mass market climate, what inspiration is there?  Decades ago when there was more novelty and innovation in cinema storytelling, it likely would have been inspirational to others in the field. Individual creative decision is only promoted when it is something "arthouse" which is the equivalent of abstract expressionism--devoid of audience consideration and cultural traditions. 
Movie ad posters have become really dull too compared with decades ago. Usually the standard corporate movie poster has people standing to face the viewer with little expression or the "floating pasted head" type.


----------



## Vladd67

Not just posters that have changed.


----------



## BAYLOR

KGeo777 said:


> Another factor (although this doesn't impact the corporate cinema world given how micromanaged it is) is that artists need to be inspired by other artists. In the current mass market climate, what inspiration is there?  Decades ago when there was more novelty and innovation in cinema storytelling, it likely would have been inspirational to others in the field. Individual creative decision is only promoted when it is something "arthouse" which is the equivalent of abstract expressionism--devoid of audience consideration and cultural traditions.
> Movie ad posters have become really dull too compared with decades ago. Usually the standard corporate movie poster has people standing to face the viewer with little expression or the "floating pasted head" type.



The blockbuster phenomena  and the the millions and later billions  it generated,  bred arrogance among the movie executives. They felt that audiences would come to the films no matter what they put up on the big screen and for a long time, this was true . Think thats staring to change given that thye have alot more competition. then they had in past decades.


----------



## Mirannan

What annoys me about Hollywood is that they keep doing sequels and reboots, despite the enormous number of potentially brilliant movies that could be made from various SF and fantasy novels. Just off the top of my head:

Footfall
Lucifer's Hammer
The Fountains of Paradise
Ringworld!!
Saberhagen's Berserker series
The Bolo books
Riftwar series
Dragonlance trilogy
Ringo's Posleen stuff
The Dahak books
Neuromancer
And most of Ben Bova's near-future SF.

I don't think Orion's Arm, the Culture books by Ian M Banks, or any other far-future stuff would make very good movies. Too much explanation required, and too far outside anyone's experience.


----------



## BAYLOR

Mirannan said:


> What annoys me about Hollywood is that they keep doing sequels and reboots, despite the enormous number of potentially brilliant movies that could be made from various SF and fantasy novels. Just off the top of my head:
> 
> Footfall
> Lucifer's Hammer
> The Fountains of Paradise
> Ringworld!!
> Saberhagen's Berserker series
> The Bolo books
> Riftwar series
> Dragonlance trilogy
> Ringo's Posleen stuff
> The Dahak books
> Neuromancer
> And most of Ben Bova's near-future SF.
> 
> I don't think Orion's Arm, the Culture books by Ian M Banks, or any other far-future stuff would make very good movies. Too much explanation required, and too far outside anyone's experience.



All of those wold make great films and franchises, but the executives won't take risks. Thats is amjor reason as to  why they are by far the most useless component in movie making.


----------



## KGeo777

Ha yeah. I can't stand that piano tinkle the


BAYLOR said:


> The blockbuster phenomena  and the the millions and later billions  it generated,  bred arrogance among the movie executives. They felt that audiences would come to the films no matter what they put up on the big screen and for a long time, this was true . Think thats staring to change given that thye have alot more competition. then they had in past decades.



I don't see  what the competition is.
If someone makes a movie-they will be shut out of distribution and or media ads by the big companies. They only tolerate like-minded kin such as the people making constant Halloween remakes or that Chinese giant shark movie or the cable networks with their serial franchises. Youtube's predatory attitudes towards monetization is probably influenced by making sure alternative media cannot easily thrive. 
I look at CNN and how, despite ratings in the lowest range-have no panic-they just opened a brand new facility because Time Warner subsidizes them. Too much money behind these corporations.


----------



## Vince W

Mirannan said:


> What annoys me about Hollywood is that they keep doing sequels and reboots, despite the enormous number of potentially brilliant movies that could be made from various SF and fantasy novels. Just off the top of my head:
> 
> Footfall
> Lucifer's Hammer
> The Fountains of Paradise
> Ringworld!!
> Saberhagen's Berserker series
> The Bolo books
> Riftwar series
> Dragonlance trilogy
> Ringo's Posleen stuff
> The Dahak books
> Neuromancer
> And most of Ben Bova's near-future SF.
> 
> I don't think Orion's Arm, the Culture books by Ian M Banks, or any other far-future stuff would make very good movies. Too much explanation required, and too far outside anyone's experience.


I agree with several of these choices, however, Ringworld, and Neuromancer are not good options as yet. I would love to see both, but Ringworld could never show the scales required with today's film technology and your average punter would be lost in Neuromancer in the first five minutes.


----------



## Dave

Mirannan said:


> What annoys me about Hollywood is that they keep doing sequels and reboots...


But that is not a new development at all. Early Hollywood produced endless melodramas with the same story, and the sequels of _Tarzan_, the _Mummy_, _Dracula_, _Frankenstein_ and the _Wolf Man_ can still beat Marvel hands down. The OP questions was "Has Hollywood *become* too dependent..." 

There are "high brow" films being made; films that critics and moviegoers would even consider "art," and which win awards and shiny trophies. Today we do consider "film" to be an art-form, while in the early days of motion pictures it was cheap entertainment for the poor, and few would consider it to be art. However, you really need to seek hard to find these films. They are shown only for a single week at limited times, or on obscure small local cinemas, or at festivals. In London, I'm lucky that I can travel 10 miles and pass by tens of cinemas, if you live in a rural village your chances of catching one of these films at a real cinema is very slim.

However, the fault lies, at least in part, with the moviegoers. If *you* didn't continue to go to see _Avengers Disassemble,_ or the "must see sequel to _The Shining,_" or _Jaws XXIII, _or_ Crocodile Dundee in Tokyo, _or_ Terminator: Jurassic Park _then they would stop making them tomorrow.


----------



## Rodders

I think TV is far outdoing the Movies. So many excellent series and the episodic format really allows a story to be told fully.


----------



## WaylanderToo

Mirannan said:


> What annoys me about Hollywood is that they keep doing sequels and reboots, despite the enormous number of potentially brilliant movies that could be made from various SF and fantasy novels. Just off the top of my head:
> 
> Footfall
> Lucifer's Hammer
> The Fountains of Paradise
> Ringworld!!
> Saberhagen's Berserker series
> The Bolo books
> Riftwar series
> Dragonlance trilogy
> Ringo's Posleen stuff
> The Dahak books
> Neuromancer
> And most of Ben Bova's near-future SF.
> 
> I don't think Orion's Arm, the Culture books by Ian M Banks, or any other far-future stuff would make very good movies. Too much explanation required, and too far outside anyone's experience.




Wasn't there a Lucifer's Hammer film in the 70's? As for anything D&D - I suspect that we can 'thank' Marlon Wayans for shooting that franchise to pieces with his execrably poor Dungeons and Dragons films


----------



## BAYLOR

WaylanderToo said:


> Wasn't there a Lucifer's Hammer film in the 70's? As for anything D&D - I suspect that we can 'thank' Marlon Wayans for shooting that franchise to pieces with his execrably poor Dungeons and Dragons films



*Meteor   *1979  staring Sean Connery , Natalie Wood, Brain Kielth Karl Malden , Martin Landau .  A  Samuel Z Arkoff film and wretchedly bad.


----------



## KGeo777

The thing with the remakes and sequels is the absurd out of proportion advertising. So they do a new Halloween movie with the lead returning, but they already did that 20 years ago, so they bring back the 70 year old guy behind the mask. That is not enough of an interesting marketing angle. Bringing back one of the kids from the 1978 movie is also not enough of an interesting marketing angle. There's something anemic about it. Like trying to wring water out of a worn-out rag. If they released the films with old fashioned standard marketing then ok-but instead they give it The Force Awakens treatment and completely bombard you with it--way beyond anyone's actual interest in it. ..the thing about Meteor is that in the same month that came out, there would have been probably a dozen other sci-fi or genre films that might be interesting. The Medusa Touch, the Boys From Brazil, Capricorn One, the Fury, off the top of my head...whoops we mean 1979--well there was a lot that year too.  Dracula 79, Time After Time etc..


----------



## BAYLOR

KGeo777 said:


> The thing with the remakes and sequels is the absurd out of proportion advertising. So they do a new Halloween movie with the lead returning, but they already did that 20 years ago, so they bring back the 70 year old guy behind the mask. That is not enough of an interesting marketing angle. Bringing back one of the kids from the 1978 movie is also not enough of an interesting marketing angle. There's something anemic about it. Like trying to wring water out of a worn-out rag. If they released the films with old fashioned standard marketing then ok-but instead they give it The Force Awakens treatment and completely bombard you with it--way beyond anyone's actual interest in it. ..the thing about Meteor is that in the same month that came out, there would have been probably a dozen other sci-fi or genre films that might be interesting. The Medusa Touch, the Boys From Brazil, Capricorn One, the Fury, off the top of my head...whoops we mean 1979--well there was a lot that year too.  Dracula 79, Time After Time etc..



*The Medusa Touch*.  Richard Burton's last film. Ive seen it , very entertaining stuff. .  *Capricorn One  *A Terrific conspiracy film  with a magnificent musical score by the late great  Jerry Goldsmith . Its not a well remembered film at all.* Boys from Brazil *had Gregory Peck and Lawrence Olivier, another gem from the past. Yes *Dracula 79 *with Frank Langella in the title role, with Lawerence Olivier as Dr Von Helsing , Kate Nelligan  and Donald Pleasance. This film is a joy to watch !


----------



## Overread

I've long said that we've lost a lot of directors who know how to pace a film out to work. Granted even some of the greats like Sergio Leone had great trouble getting their films to fit even into 3hours. That said you can't disagree that we've a lot more films (some of the marvel cross over films really show this well) where the film is more showing isolated scenes that don't often blend well together and where the overall plot feels very rushed. Everything is going at top speed without a pause. 

The result is a film that you can tell has a good underlaying story, but never has the time to develop characters or scenes properly to have that powerful impact on the audience. 

TV certainly wins out there, esp with the current attitude where more investors and channels are happy for non-episodic TV programs. Where you don't have to do the same thing you did last time and wrap up the whole episode as an isolated story within a story


----------



## Foxbat

BAYLOR said:


> *The Medusa Touch*. Richard Burton's last film. Ive seen it , very entertaining stuff


I like it too, but wasn't 1984 Burton's last film?

I see that both Scorcese and Ford Coppola have come out and criticised the glut of superhero movies (and you can't get any more blockbuster than them so I'm on topic). I love the movies of both those directors but I'm not sure why they have spoken out. Perhaps they feel threatened or they're struggling to get funding because of them. But they should just concentrate on their own work. Werner Herzog keeps on putting out quality stuff on a shoestring despite being sometimes unfashionable so it's still possible. 

Simple truth is there will always be fads and there will always be  movies that some people don't like - in fact - I don't particularly like the Avengers movies either  but I've found a solution to that - I just don't watch them anymore


----------



## KGeo777

I have seen people saying the superhero film is the new western but there are so many differences. The western is tied to US history, the characters do not usually wear masks, the actors in the roles are often a huge selling point for the stories--and you have a variety of dramatic situations--the shoot-out, the bar scene, the characters going to a poker game or a ranch etc. And for the people who hated westerns in the 40s or 50s, they could see a pirate movie or a crime movie or a mystery etc. There was a lot of equal-budgeted choices (since westerns were cheap to make).
These days, what are the alternatives? A Marvel movie occupies 10 screens in a cineplex. And the sequel is coming out in a few months or the next year. Or the prequel, or the spin-off. And instead of doing a straight adventure, they might make Thor fat, or Captain Marvel has the mind of a child, or the character says he urinates in his armor in front of a room full of people. This is a reason why i can't get behind the claims that the superhero is promoting hypermascunility or fascism like John McTiernan said. lol
I think Scorsese and Coppola have a little sour grapes because the studios that used to patron them no longer do, but the basic criticism of shrinking genre cinema variety they allude to is valid--and directors like James Mangold and David Fincher have focused on the lack of individual artistic footprint in Marvel films which I agree with. MCU movies have a cookie-cutter feeling.


----------



## Vince W

I've stopped watch superhero films in the cinema. They have all been relegated to streaming service only. The last few I watched left me feeling like I'd wasted my time.


----------



## BAYLOR

Vince W said:


> I've stopped watch superhero films in the cinema. They have all been relegated to streaming service only. The last few I watched left me feeling like I'd wasted my time.



The last superhero film I saw at theater  was *Captain America The Winter Solder .   *Ive seen most of the rest on television.


----------



## Toby Frost

The problem I have with superhero films - at least, most that I've seen within the last 15 years - is that the least interesting element to me is the "super" bit. I thought that the first Captain America film was a fun adventure and an interesting story about propaganda, and the second one was a promising take on a 1970s conspiracy thriller. But however they're dressed up, all such films have to ultimately default back to the same thing - magic dudes hitting each other, basically - which to me is hard to warm to.

For some reason, probably because I didn't really grow up with superhero comics etc, I find the concept much harder to buy into than, say, space opera or high fantasy. Oddly, I'm fine with films that are about people with super-powers - vampires like Blade (who was a superhero, sort of), the Jedi, or even stories like Indiana Jones where the hero has absurd adventures. It seems to be the whole tights and crimefighting bit where my brain says "no".


----------



## CupofJoe

For me it is the powers arms race in Superhero movies that wears me out.
There used to be Superman that was all but all powerful and that was it. 
Now there are half a dozen, maybe more, characters that are in the same league [okay not in the same universe].
There is no thrill and jeopardy if you know that X is stronger, faster, tougher etc...
I kind of liked _Infinity Wars_ because people lost and died. Thano was too powerful for them.
I kind of didn't like _Endgame_ because they found a loophole and most of them came back...
The film that supposedly started the Summer Blockbuster _Jaws_ is full of people that might die [and some do]. There are consequence to actions that the characters have to live with. You don't know who is going to win [okay it was never going to be the shark] but you also didn't know who was going to lose.


----------



## Venusian Broon

Toby Frost said:


> For some reason, probably because I didn't really grow up with superhero comics etc, I find the concept much harder to buy into than, say, space opera or high fantasy. Oddly, I'm fine with films that are about people with super-powers - vampires like Blade (who was a superhero, sort of), the Jedi, or even stories like Indiana Jones where the hero has absurd adventures. It seems to be the whole tights and crimefighting bit where my brain says "no".



I totally agree with the above.

Talk about comics and I get recollections of _The Beano, The Dandy, Battle Action _and _The Eagle _(the relaunched version in the 80s). Oh and _Oor Wullie _and _The Broons. _But they were more torture rather than Entertainment, along with the rest of the _Sunday Post_. And _Viz_ of course. But that's a UK upbringing. Anyone into US superheroes in the 1970s was either seen as weird or fabulously exotic, trust me. 

Today there is something about these Marvel and DC movies that feel as if it is some sort of corporate attempt to violently ram some particular other persons childhood squaring into the heads of the rest of the world. Via movies, plastic toys, computer games and anything else that will make a profit.

However, having been a bit negative, I have to say most superhero films I've found reasonably entertaining. Not great, but entertaining. A bit of fluff to pass a wet Sunday afternoon. Loads of other films have gripped me far more, so I can see where Scorsese is coming from.

And then I thought: Actually this superhero stuff is actually a very ancient genre. Just think of Hercules or Perseus, demigods with powers or fancy gadgets from the gods. Essentially magic buff dudes hitting each other or monsters, getting the princess. Then cheating on her. Goes all the way back to the great Granddaddy of them all, Gilgamesh. Mind you none of there stories really ended well; old-time audiences liked the tragic ends it seems. (Possibly Odyessus got a good ending, but he wasn't a superhero, just a man with a lot of bad luck and a terrible Sat-Nav, and it was a close run thing at the end.)


----------



## Toby Frost

This may seem like heresy, but I find old superhero comics exotic, but not very interesting. As you say, VB, it is like seeing someone else's childhood. So perhaps I just lack the right background. For what it's worth, I feel much the same about Halloween. It never featured greatly in my childhood, and it means little to me now, although it's meant to be "my thing" by default.

Scorsese probably has a point, but then _Casino_ and _Goodfellas _are very similar to my eyes, and while they're well made, I'm not sure that either has much to say. It might be that a lot of superhero films feel as if they're written by the same person (usually channeling Joss Whedon) and have that same quality of feeling a bit insincere that happens with uninspired attempts at that style. But at the end of the day it's something about my own preferences. I don't know why I can buy into the troubles of a policeman who gets turned into a cyborg, but can't get the troubles of a man with a magic hammer.


----------



## Rodders

I must confess that I am entertained by Superhero movies and there is a place for them. They are competently made films, after all. My problem is that there is no risk. You know they're going to come up against an overwhelming foe and be beaten, but ultimately overcome their adversary. The franchise has taken over and the stand alone movie is gone.

I'd love to see more 2000AD comic strips. Not many superheroes, but Law, Soldiers, psychopathic teenage aliens and Hitmen going about their business.


----------



## Vince W

It may take a few more years, but Rebellion is working on several projects to bring 2000AD to the screen, big and small.


----------



## Foxbat

Venusian Broon said:


> Oh and _Oor Wullie _and _The Broons. _But they were more torture rather than Entertainment, along with the rest of the _Sunday Post_


How many times did the bairn tell the family what granpa Broon was up to, only for them to march down there and for  it to be revealed that she'd misheard it (again)? Time somebody cleaned that bairn's lugs oot!   



Toby Frost said:


> Scorsese probably has a point, but then _Casino_ and _Goodfellas _are very similar to my eyes,


I always referred to Casino as The Goodfellas Go to Las Vegas


----------



## Venusian Broon

Foxbat said:


> How many times did the bairn tell the family what granpa Broon was up to, only for them to march down there and for  it to be revealed that she'd misheard it (again)? Time somebody cleaned that bairn's lugs oot!



Wait...there was another sort of story? Jings!


----------



## Dave

Toby Frost said:


> This may seem like heresy, but I find old superhero comics exotic, but not very interesting. As you say, VB, it is like seeing someone else's childhood. So perhaps I just lack the right background. For what it's worth, I feel much the same about Halloween. It never featured greatly in my childhood, and it means little to me now.


I also agree with this, so I think it might be more of a UK thing. One single guy at my school had Marvel comics, and he wasn't particularly exotic or cool, though he was the youngest of several brothers. I never saw a Mad Magazine until I was a teenager. In the USA, Marvel and Mad Magazine seem to be, like Halloween and Baseball, part of everyone's childhood. It is different today. Kids have access to, and therefore are influenced by, all kinds of world-wide culture such as Pokémon, Animé, Manga, but also weird European stuff like Moomins, Barbar the elephant, and Pingu. The only cartoons I can remember were Tom and Jerry, Hanna Barbera and the Pink Panther. Beano and Dandy comics seemed old fashioned even when I was a child. 



Toby Frost said:


> I don't know why I can buy into the troubles of a policeman who gets turned into a cyborg, but can't get the troubles of a man with a magic hammer.


I also agree with you, however this may be a bad example to use. Robocop was set in the future, but Superheroes have supposedly lived amongst us (in their tights and wearing underpants on the outside) for >80 years (and no one has filmed them yet.)



Venusian Broon said:


> Actually this superhero stuff is actually a very ancient genre. Just think of Hercules or Perseus, demigods with powers or fancy gadgets from the gods. Essentially magic buff dudes hitting each other or monsters, getting the princess. Then cheating on her. Goes all the way back to the great Granddaddy of them all, Gilgamesh. Mind you none of there stories really ended well; old-time audiences liked the tragic ends it seems.


This is exactly what it is and it is therefore Fantasy rather than Science Fiction, or else an alternative reality in which magic and Gods exist.


----------



## KGeo777

I perceive 4 types of hero characters in literature, generally speaking.

One is the Beowulf--the strong brave warrior who takes on the challenge to deal with a problem. Gilgamesh is an oriental equivalent but the moral of the story in his case is about the dangers of excessive passion. I don't think Beowulf is meant to be a moral warning or critical character.

Odysseus is another--he is the strong but not exceptionally strong mortal who uses his brains and invention to overcome problems. Batman is something of an Odysseus type. While Achilles the greatest Greek warrior, he was excessive in passion so not as exemplary a character as Odysseus.

Then there's David--the youth or physically weak character who triumphs through technology and magic (the favor of God). 

Aladdin is a related type-the youth who uses technology-magic to achieve success.

There are an awful lot of Davids and Aladdins in current genre movies, and very few Beowulf or Odysseus types. More often than not, the Beowulf is equated with Goliath as dumb or a bad guy or turned into parody (Fat Thor). If it is a character with physical strength like Captain America, it is through technology, not natural ability that he gets his power. He started out scrawny (the David/Aladdin). Same with Spider-man, the Hulk...

I suspect Hollywood is stuck with superheroes for the time being. I don't think they can lose enough money at the box office to make a change because they are so ideologically influenced. Bob Iger's reported response to Scorsese and Coppola indicates this-accusing them of racism.  He could have talked about box office or alleged popularity or tried to be polite, but he chose social political confrontation. It explains a lot of Disney decisions but also suggests they are not worried about money or audience apathy.


----------



## IAmTR

I think marvel mostly makes great films. I'm also a comics fan though. It was said above but I think it's brilliant they vary the type of film so much. Like winter soldier being a spy/espionage film, Guardians being a comedy/space opera, Thor being a tale or growing up, Ant-Man a heist movie, etc. Yes they're super hero movies but at their core they are much more. If it was just super hero action movies then they wouldn't last this long.


----------



## Foxbat

KGeo777 said:


> I perceive 4 types of hero characters in literature, generally speaking.
> 
> One is the Beowulf--the strong brave warrior who takes on the challenge to deal with a problem. Gilgamesh is an oriental equivalent but the moral of the story in his case is about the dangers of excessive passion. I don't think Beowulf is meant to be a moral warning or critical character.
> 
> Odysseus is another--he is the strong but not exceptionally strong mortal who uses his brains and invention to overcome problems. Batman is something of an Odysseus type. While Achilles the greatest Greek warrior, he was excessive in passion so not as exemplary a character as Odysseus.
> 
> Then there's David--the youth or physically weak character who triumphs through technology and magic (the favor of God).
> 
> Aladdin is a related type-the youth who uses technology-magic to achieve success.
> 
> There are an awful lot of Davids and Aladdins in current genre movies, and very few Beowulf or Odysseus types. More often than not, the Beowulf is equated with Goliath as dumb or a bad guy or turned into parody (Fat Thor). If it is a character with physical strength like Captain America, it is through technology, not natural ability that he gets his power. He started out scrawny (the David/Aladdin). Same with Spider-man, the Hulk...
> 
> I suspect Hollywood is stuck with superheroes for the time being. I don't think they can lose enough money at the box office to make a change because they are so ideologically influenced. Bob Iger's reported response to Scorsese and Coppola indicates this-accusing them of racism.  He could have talked about box office or alleged popularity or tried to be polite, but he chose social political confrontation. It explains a lot of Disney decisions but also suggests they are not worried about money or audience apathy.


I once read (although can't recall where) that the rise in superhero popularity in the USA (first in comics and now in cinema) was because, being a relatively young country, they had no myths and legends of their own (although I'm sure native Americans would strongly disagree). The superheroes, the author went on to explain, were essentially historical surrogates. I don't know how true this is but they could line up as surrogate Beowulf's etc.


----------



## Vladd67

Dave said:
			
		

> It is different today. Kids have access to, and therefore are influenced by, all kinds of world-wide culture such as Pokémon, Animé, Manga, but also weird European stuff like Moomins, Barbar the elephant, and Pingu.


I remember the Moomins and Barbar being on in the 70s in the UK.


----------



## Foxbat

You don't get any wierder (or scarier if you're a kid) in the 70s  than the Singing Ringing Tree. It had such an effect on me as a child that I bought it later in life  on DVD. It was interesting to watch it again as an adult and, yes, it still looks sinister.


----------



## BAYLOR

Foxbat said:


> You don't get any wierder (or scarier if you're a kid) in the 70s  than the Singing Ringing Tree. It had such an effect on me as a child that I bought it later in life  on DVD. It was interesting to watch it again as an adult and, yes, it still looks sinister.



I  had no idea this film even existed .  I just watched about a few minutes of this film .   Bizarre stuff.


----------



## Toby Frost

Here's an article on it: Return of the teatime terror

Bringing us back to superheroes, it's interesting that the article stresses that stories are increasingly being told in one way in the digital age: that there's effectively one shared pool of things you might make a film about. I would guess that we'll see some Chinese superheroes soon, to cater for that large market.


----------



## Vladd67

Toby Frost said:


> Here's an article on it: Return of the teatime terror
> 
> Bringing us back to superheroes, it's interesting that the article stresses that stories are increasingly being told in one way in the digital age: that there's effectively one shared pool of things you might make a film about. I would guess that we'll see some Chinese superheroes soon, to cater for that large market.


A reboot of this character?


			Black Mask
		

Maybe Jet Li could be persuaded to return to the role?


----------



## KGeo777

Foxbat said:


> I once read (although can't recall where) that the rise in superhero popularity in the USA (first in comics and now in cinema) was because, being a relatively young country, they had no myths and legends of their own (although I'm sure native Americans would strongly disagree). The superheroes, the author went on to explain, were essentially historical surrogates. I don't know how true this is but they could line up as surrogate Beowulf's etc.



There were folk legends like Paul Bunyan, Johnny Appleseed etc.
The most popular superhero of the 40s was said to be Captain Marvel--interestingly while he is also a magical character, the basic idea is that Billy Batson has natural qualities that makes him worthy of the power that comes from mythological figures  so he isn't a scientific accident or an alien and ties in closer to traditional myth characters than Superman the alien or Captain America the scientific experiment.


----------



## WaylanderToo

Vince W said:


> I've stopped watch superhero films in the cinema. They have all been relegated to streaming service only. The last few I watched left me feeling like I'd wasted my time.



truth be told I like superhero films (it doesn't hurt that I've got an 'unlimited' cinema card!), weirdly I really don't like superhero comics - I'm far happier reading the European stuff (like Arctica, Barracuda, Soda Soda (comics) - Wikipedia and Wunderwaffen of the SS).


----------



## BAYLOR

KGeo777 said:


> There were folk legends like Paul Bunyan, Johnny Appleseed etc.
> The most popular superhero of the 40s was said to be Captain Marvel--interestingly while he is also a magical character, the basic idea is that Billy Batson has natural qualities that makes him worthy of the power that comes from mythological figures  so he isn't a scientific accident or an alien and ties in closer to traditional myth characters than Superman the alien or Captain America the scientific experiment.



You might want to check out the 1995 movie *Tall Tales.*


----------



## BAYLOR

The latest Terminator film is number 1 at the box office .


----------



## Anthoney

And yet it opened way under the predictions.  Less than T2 opened with in 1991.  It will never make back what it cost.


----------



## Vince W

Not surprising after the quality of the last three Terminator films.


----------



## Rodders

Hollywood is obsessed with Franchises and branding and it's hurting the movie industry IMO.


----------



## BAYLOR

Anthoney said:


> And yet it opened way under the predictions.  Less than T2 opened with in 1991.  It will never make back what it cost.




It won't and this will likely be the Swann song for this  Franchise.


----------



## BAYLOR

Vince W said:


> Not surprising after the quality of the last three Terminator films.



*Terminator Rise of the Machines* and the concept of how Skynet  brought down the world started undercutting the franchise .


----------



## BAYLOR

Rodders said:


> Hollywood is obsessed with Franchises and branding and it's hurting the movie industry IMO.



 They're afraid to takes chance on new things .  They live by the Moto"  Play it safe "  .  Eventually , it will help cause be the demise of Hollywood as a major producer.


----------



## CupofJoe

BAYLOR said:


> They're afraid to takes chance on new things .  They live by the Moto"  Play it safe "  .  Eventually , it will help cause be the demise of Hollywood as a major producer.


For good or for ill, this has been prophesied since the 1940s. Hollywood has always found a way to reinvent itself and survive.
I think there will be more homogenisation between streaming and theatre releases especially when/if Disney+ takes off.
Maybe Netflix will buy Paramount [or whatever studios are left]. I'm just worried that this will kill off discs or one off downloads as I'm not about to take out 4+ subscriptions on the chance there might be something I want to watch on [BritBox, NetFlix, Apple TV+, Disney+, Hulu, HBO Max, BFI streaming etc].
I do think we have reached and passed the point where the film is merely the marketing point for the other revenue streams. Disney make far more money from the parks than they do the films. but they need the films to create new content [and sometime the other way around - Pirates of the Caribbean] for the parks. Think of the money made from Star Wars Merch. Last figures I saw, the merch was worth twice the film revenue and probably more reliable cash flow too.
It is the same with cars. Most mass car companies make more profit from selling you the financing for the car than they would do if you paid for the car in cash. They need you to take out the loan to make the product viable.


----------



## BAYLOR

CupofJoe said:


> For good or for ill, this has been prophesied since the 1940s. Hollywood has always found a way to reinvent itself and survive.
> I think there will be more homogenisation between streaming and theatre releases especially when/if Disney+ takes off.
> Maybe Netflix will buy Paramount [or whatever studios are left]. I'm just worried that this will kill off discs or one off downloads as I'm not about to take out 4+ subscriptions on the chance there might be something I want to watch on [BritBox, NetFlix, Apple TV+, Disney+, Hulu, HBO Max, BFI streaming etc].




I don't subscribe to any of the pay services . It's just not really worth it and  I don't care much for their offerings.  Increasingly,  Ive been doing more reading of books less  watching of Television and movies. Ive reduced my regular television viewing quite a bit as well.   Ive all but stopped going to the movies.


----------



## Vince W

I haven't been to the cinema in nearly two years. There hasn't been anything good enough to lure me back as yet. I have a feeling the new Dune film may be the last one if it isn't as good as it needs to be.


----------



## BAYLOR

Vince W said:


> I haven't been to the cinema in nearly two years. There hasn't been anything good enough to lure me back as yet. I have a feeling the new Dune film may be the last one if it isn't as good as it needs to be.



I would so like to see *Dune* be a successful film.


----------



## Rodders

Agreed Baylor, but it is still a remake. 

Sequels, prequels, series and remakes is pretty much what we're getting these days. I wouldn't say that things are in decline, either. I mean, someone is obviously buying billions of dollars of Marvel tickets, right?   

I'm still entertained by Hollywood. My love of Star Wars hasn't diminished. I'll go and see the new Terminator movie and the next Marvel and DC output, but they're all formulaic. I don't look toward the US for movies that'll take me out of my comfort zone. I'm looking more at foreign language movies for that.


----------



## BAYLOR

Rodders said:


> Agreed Baylor, but it is still a remake.
> 
> Sequels, prequels, series and remakes is pretty much what we're getting these days. I wouldn't say that things are in decline, either. I mean, someone is obviously buying billions of dollars of Marvel tickets, right?
> 
> I'm still entertained by Hollywood. My love of Star Wars hasn't diminished. I'll go and see the new Terminator movie and the next Marvel and DC output, but they're all formulaic. I don't look toward the US for movies that'll take me out of my comfort zone. I'm looking more at foreign language movies for that.



I would like so see a  Berserker movie baed on Fred Saberhagen's novels .  or perhaps.  Kane the Mystic Swordsman or  William Hope Hodgson  *The House on the Borderland*. 

Yes Remakes , reboots an sequels do get to be tedious.   3 of my favorite  summer movie seasons 1977, 1981 and 1982. Those three seasons had a magic ive never really  seen again in subsequent summer movie seasons.


----------



## KGeo777

In the 1940s the major studios were in court for blockbooking--an anti-competition practice where they forced cinemas to take all their films even if they only wanted a few. This would harm the business of smaller companies that had films the public wanted to see. There was a recent report about Disney no longer allowing revival theaters to run old FOX films. The theory is they want to free space so they can have the screen for their films. It is even worse than the 1940s--since it isn't about having several films but just more copies of the same--and having the screen occupied whether anyone is watching or not.
I don't know what can be done, but you know it's bad when filmmakers of reputation won't even talk about it. Scorsese is the champion of old film-he should be slamming Disney for it. I think everyone is afraid to get on the bad side of Disney which is part of the growing problem.


----------



## Vince W

Clearly we are witnessing the beginnings of the Demolition Man effect. Soon all films will be Disney films.


----------



## Vince W

BAYLOR said:


> I would like so see a  Berserker movie baed on Fred Saberhagen's novels .  or perhaps.  Kane the Mystic Swordsman or  William Hope Hodgson  *The House on the Borderland*.
> 
> Yes Remakes , reboots an sequels do get to be tedious.   3 of my favorite  summer movie seasons 1977, 1981 and 1982. Those three seasons had a magic ive never really  seen again in subsequent summer movie seasons.


I still can't believe that no one has tried to do any of The Stainless Steel Rat or Retief. Both those characters should be easily filmed today.


----------



## BAYLOR

Vince W said:


> Clearly we are witnessing the beginnings of the Demolition Man effect. Soon all films will be Disney films.



There was a Simpson episode with predicted that Fox would end up getting owned by Disney. The scary part is that one came to pass.


----------



## BAYLOR

Vince W said:


> I still can't believe that no one has tried to do any of The Stainless Steel Rat or Retief. Both those characters should be easily filmed today.



Absolutely Yes! 

Also Retief and the Laumer's  Bolo books


----------



## Vince W

Massive, intelligent, super tanks should be a Hollywood no-brainer.


----------



## KGeo777

Opinion | Martin Scorsese: I Said Marvel Movies Aren’t Cinema. Let Me Explain. (Published 2019)
					

Cinema is an art form that brings you the unexpected. In superhero movies, nothing is at risk, a director says.




					www.nytimes.com
				




"And if you’re going to tell me that it’s simply a matter of supply and demand and giving the people what they want, I’m going to disagree. It’s a chicken-and-egg issue. If people are given only one kind of thing and endlessly sold only one kind of thing, of course they’re going to want more of that one kind of thing."


"Today, that tension is gone, and there are some in the business with absolute indifference to the very question of art and an attitude toward the history of cinema that is both dismissive and proprietary — a lethal combination. The situation, sadly, is that we now have two separate fields: There’s worldwide audiovisual entertainment, and there’s cinema. They still overlap from time to time, but that’s becoming increasingly rare. And I fear that the financial dominance of one is being used to marginalize and even belittle the existence of the other."

For anyone who dreams of making movies or who is just starting out, the situation at this moment is brutal and inhospitable to art. And the act of simply writing those words fills me with terrible sadness."


----------



## Dave

If you want to make a film it has never been easier with the equipment available at a reasonable price. If you want to put it up on YouTube, it has never been easier to find an audience for it.

If, however, you want to make a fortune, be watched by millions of people, and become a famous celebrity, well... you can always go on _X-Factor_.


----------



## KGeo777

But it is the loss of the small business film company that has been so destructive to western culture. Anyone can make an amateur film these days, but the loss is a business hub for those with merit. Like a new Walt Disney. If Walt Disney came out of Chicago now, his own company would not even let him in the front door. Merit is not a factor in their hiring practices.


----------



## Dave

I totally agree, but I'm not sure you can therefore blame this "evil" Hollywood and say that it is because it has "become" dependent on "blockbusters". Isn't what you describe true of any "mature" industrial sector? 

Try forming a new company to sell a Cola drink and see how far you get (even with the backing of a multi-millionaire i.e. Virgin Cola.) Try forming a new burger and shakes restaurant, and lasting past year one. Or just try breaking into any established market. It was different in Walt Disney's time because the "movie" industry was still relatively "new." To be that kind of success today, you should be starting up a company exploiting something also "new." Google, Apple, Microsoft; these companies had plenty of competition but beat them off, or are in the process of beating them off. You wouldn't want to try to form a rival company today unless you had something revolutionary to compete with them.



KGeo777 said:


> Merit is not a factor in their hiring practices.


On this separate point, if true, then that is bad business practice and will result in their eventual downfall. Companies need to keep up with their rivals and in the face of changing technology. You cannot do that with cronies and nepotism and restrictive hiring practises because you won't hire the best people and being mediocre is not an option if you want to stay top of your game. So, that will have a longer term effect.


----------



## Foxbat

Simple fact is that Hollywood is not the movie industry and 'western culture' is not simply american culture.

There is a good, strong and healthy foreign film market out there. You just have to look for it. Indeed, many of Hollywood's movies are simply remakes of earlier foreign fare (Three Men and a Baby, The Ring, The Magnificent Seven....the list goes on). I got fed up with much of Hollywood's output a long time ago (although there are still one or two worthy offerings now and then) but still enjoy watching movies - just not primarily american movies.


----------



## KGeo777

There are new cola companies! In fact, I was trying out a Canadian cola drink and that made me think: why is it so hard for a production company to come along when a new cola company can exist alongside Coca-Cola and other brands? You would think selling a movie for a return on investment would be easier than marketing and producing a boutique soft drink.

And Walt Disney was pretty much shunned by the entire major studio system-I think he got some help from Columbia for a little while which was poverty row in those days- he got some help from RKO which was a "mini-major" and eventually folded despite making King Kong, Citizen Kane and others. He became a household name because his content appealed to target audiences.
So I would say the problem is not a lack of talent or merit, but lack of business structure to accommodate them-and this is due in a major part to the narrow taste/anti-competition behavior of these companies. Hollywood is not the movie industry but they have eaten away much of Western film business.

But maybe it is heading for a crash and a reboot. I don't see how it can last-especially when the people in charge don't even like making movies--based on interviews and comments they have made in the press and their desire to remake  a franchise after 2-3 years. It does not suggest enthusiasm.


----------



## Nozzle Velocity

Scorsese's explanation of his comments in the NYT strikes me as inconsistent and largely Manichean in tone. There's a lot of merit in his description of the nature of cinema and how it has changed, but most of his attacks are too broad. If the Marvel Universe in not cinema due to its lack of risk and exploration, then neither are the 1930s and '40s adventure serials like _Flash Gordon_, _Buck Rogers,_ _The Phantom_ and about 15 other serials I've watched in completion from that era. It's no secret that these were the blueprints for _Star Wars_ and _Indiana Jones_, directed by Scorsese's friends, those students of film who, as he describes, "stood up for cinema as an equal to literature or music or dance." Generations of moviegoers were primed for the superhero era to come as they worshipped at the feet of Lucas and Spielberg. Not everything those directors did had Scorsese's vaunted element of risk, and not everything in the superhero genre is as soulless as its detractors claim. I could point to a lot of things in Scorsese’s piece that I think is wrong or right, but here's the crux: Scorsese doesn't understand the nature of mainstream American comics.

Ironically, he puts his finger directly on the pulse when he says the superhero films "lack something essential to cinema: the unifying vision of an individual artist." Every Wednesday Warrior at the comics shops knows the only unifying vision of the Marvel/DC worlds is the _illusion of change_. You may not like it (and I'm not wild about it), but that's the art form of mainstream comics in a nutshell. It's one big, crazy, violent soap opera. Surprisingly, Marvel Studios has successfully transferred this paradigm directly onto the big screen. It's never cinematically been done before (with the possible exception of those old serials I mentioned), and it's not clear how long Marvel Studios can keep up this global juggling act. But it's no surprise that this approach to films would be unnerving to Scorsese. Personally, I like it when it works (_Winter Soldier_, _Wonder Woman_), but I think most of the time it fails or is repetitive. A character's storyline will erupt, zig and zag, wander off into non-compelling spaces, come back again. In other words, these films are doing precisely what mainstream American comics have been doing for over 80 years. It may be cynical on the studio's behalf, but saying it's not cinema is too arbitrary and misses some larger points.

The question regarding the long-term effects of the Marvel/DC approach to film milking is an important one. That's a debate Scorsese should be able to engage in without raising artificial boundaries. It leaves him sounding like his friend Steven Spielberg who said videogames weren't an art form because they didn't make you cry. After half a century, the litany of “literature or music or dance” now includes cinema, yet predictably, the list is somehow still restricted. Scorsese’s piece in the NYT looks like the beginning of a much-needed debate. But don’t be distracted by narrow definitions of “cinema”. On this score, much like Spielberg, Scorsese is setting the barrier, then backfilling with his argument.


----------



## KGeo777

I watched an Italian peplum last night HERCULES VS THE MOON MEN-what struck me about it was how they, despite a limited budget, so easily avoided the narrative pitfalls of a MCU movie where they waste time with character banter unrelated to the story (I realize other comic book movies do this as well at times but not so regularly as a MCU film--even the musical scores are designed in executive board meetings). You have a hero dealing with threats, the plot drives the story. The average MCU movie has some stand up comedy routines and Pulp Fiction-type digressions. A superhero movie is supposed to be an adventure story first, not a comedy or discussion on global treaties or angst. The same goes for the 1930s serials. The Adventures of Captain Marvel was the first and probably remains the best costumed superhero film. It knew its audience. It did not waste time with things that had zero value to the story or purpose. That is the benefit of making films for a specific audience in stead of "one size fits all" approaches as Disney Corp tries to do.

Scorsese drew comic strips in his youth. He did Roman arena scenes. Maybe they were intended as storyboards. My feeling is that he didn't mind the shrinking film content and distribution as long as he was being catered to-and as the studio management became more corporate and indifferent, he lost it and understandably resents it.  However, he certainly is knowledgeable about film and seemed interested in many genres despite a limited theme range for his own films. He's turned up in documentaries on Hammer, Cronenberg, all sorts of things. I believe he helped in restoring EL CID--there's a film with elements of a superhero film (strong morally-driven hero, equally determined antagonist).
One cannot expect much artistic skill in a film where a bunch of hedge fund managers are standing over their shoulders telling them what to do and they obediently follow orders.


----------



## olive

First I want to say that I liked this thread, because in my very short time here yet, this is the first one I've seen in which people expressed their opinions in more black and white terms and less like a review. I don't know that if this is because it is always fashionable to bash the Tinseltown or simply again a 'what I like or don't like' issue, but the reason I am pointing this out, because this is related to the problem discussed in a micro level in my opinion.

Martin Scorsese is not just right, he is also being generous. It's not about enjoying these movies, loving American main stream comic culture, how popular it is, because providing reasons for why Marvel/DC blockbusters are so popular does not refute any of the points he raises, which he directly states anyway. Popularity doesn't point to 'good'. On the contrary, it usually points to 'bad'. This is not just about art.

He is merely saying there is no room for art, because there is no room for _risk _and by that he means there is no room for _conflict in the content._ Because there is no subtance. Without conflict, there is no art. That's why this genre has grown so fast and so big and they are all the same. So he is not talking about just taking a risk with making a big production.

It's the nature of the material. They jump to universes and worlds back and forth, forcing some epic scale, but the basic world of the stories is so small, it doesn't work. It can't work. There is no substance. And they are trying to use that nonsubstance from every possible angle which keeps falling short because there is no understanding left of 'good and evil' in this sense. So comes the stretching, embellishing in tons of grey...which is never enough. Finally we arrived to the celebration of the dark. Because these stories are sterilised. They are safe. They are traditional, conservative, politically correct respresentations of some bastardised notions -heroship, being saved, evil vs good, it is not people, but the evil...etc - pretending to create some 'conflicts' to the young generations who resemble each other far more than any previous generation existed in human history, despite of the culture or the country they were born and live in. The generations whose idea of 'conflict' in sense of development is creating-maintaining artificial identity wars online; the generations who are addicted to getting triggered by these fake conflicts to feel alive, feel like doing something; beat apathy and build a vision of life through those triggers by self-help.

What are the 'conflicts' these movies created? In a major sense, transforming villains into more relatable characters than superheroes who are by definition good guys. Which started with describing both types in more grey terms, trying to make them 'realistic', more substantial and far more complicated than they were intended to begin with, which is the point stretching has started. Looks fine, what's wrong with it, right?

When they started to play on _races_ and _genders_, _sexual orientations_, I found it good, refreshing. Esp. living in the culture I live in, it was really good news. But then I hadn't realised the actual main reason this genre developed this way because this general development had already gone through the other main stream genres. And that this was one of the last standing forts to 'attack' to create sensational response to make money without actually making anything.

So what happened? The nature of the material, its natural fan base, the soical identity politics of the product have turned this genre into some kaiju that is feeding on the fake identity and gender wars, fake victimhoods, generated sensational fandom wars and that is what it runs on. Provoking fandomships about how the characters -which are created long time ago- have been portrayed. Which is the 'correct' or most loyal version? 'Why did they kill the strongest heterosexul white male? Why did they make this character black? Why did they make that one female, and the other one gay?' I don't have any problem with any of it. On the contrary, I am rooting for it; breaking any kind of norms. I am a Middle Eastern woman ffs.

But what's the real 'entertainment' provided by these movies? Action? Seeing comic book characters come to life? Or they just stopped being comic book movies some time ago and what they provide is a very expensive, high tech, 'family friendly' cinema version of the material found in youtube channels that plays with human condition -to the point of abuse- to trigger people to take 'sides' of some group or movement so they can create new fake problems and existences, conflicts and victimhoods and stretch this toxic material further and further to some set of political beliefs?

You will say, people do the same thing with every material available that's how people work. No. We have passed a certain tipping point. There is an obvious bait and click here. Herding. OK, I get it's a phase of the social media age. Of course this won't go on forever, but there is a need of balance and LOUD criticism, different products. Do you realise how ridiculous it is that a director like Scorsese gets backlash for criticising a genre out loud?

Yes, I have seen _Joker_ on the big screen. Yes, it is very good. But why? Because it is the story of Joker the villain in the Batman story? No. Because we have a lot of Jokers that looks like cut out from paper compared to his amazing performance and an accumulation of movies that acts like a history to the character and the story. And it is the era of the villain. It's the 21st century, we agree with him, we are on board. 25 years ago, it wouldn't have meant anything. Is there anything original in it? No. Why is it so important? Because of the fanatic fandomship. What are they going to do with our Joker? We all went to see that.

Replace _Joker_ with _John Doe_, remove the Batman connection, you would enjoy that movie the same if you enjoyed the story itself. And it would have meant something 20 years ago, 40 years ago, 60 years ago. Dig further back, we would find the story of the failed, sad loser clown in crisis in many different forms. It's a very old story. But the chances are high that today, you wouldn't see this movie on the big screen and most people wouldn't even hear about it, because it is not a comic movie blockbuster.

So Scoreses is right, but it is not just Hollywood which is dependent on very specific kind of blockbusters. It's the main stream culture, politics, social issues. It's not some part of the pop culture anymore. It's become the basic mythology. People often don't like to acknowledge that 'culture' is not a positive term and a produced culture can create stupid or intelligent masses. What is going on with this particular one looks far from intelligent.


----------



## WaylanderToo

the big issue is that Hollywood is (when all is said and done) a _business _- they exist to make money. If cookie cutter films make money then that is what they'll do, if smaller indy films dragged in the big profits they'd do that instead.


----------



## KGeo777

The James Dean CGI thing is similar to the Joker. They have no reason to bring in a franchise character (James Dean is a brand name franchise character at this point) for the drama film. It's a marketing gimmick.  It suggests somewhere in the executive arena, people in charge who lack any kind of normal connection with audiences or understanding what film is about.  Audiences did not demand James Dean be resurrected, just as audiences did not demand superhero films to take over content. This was dictated entirely by the minority in charge of the current media monopoly. It has nothing to do with supply, demand, audience preference etc. You have people with no singing ability having a monopoly on all the megaphones in town-and they insist on sharing their lack of talent with everyone, not just the minority who may be deaf enough to appreciate what they do.
If they really were a business the Weinstein thing could not have happened.
They blacklisted actresses who did not do sexual favors. Beyond the obvious massive hypocrisy of Hollywood claiming to be feminist, that is is not sound business practice. It was confirmed by Peter Jackson that actresses he was considering for LOTR were off limits because the word got out in Hollywood that they were blacklisted.
There is no business like show business because no business could stay in operation if it had Hollywood business practices.


----------



## BAYLOR

KGeo777 said:


> The James Dean CGI thing is similar to the Joker. They have no reason to bring in a franchise character (James Dean is a brand name franchise character at this point) for the drama film. It's a marketing gimmick.  It suggests somewhere in the executive arena, people in charge who lack any kind of normal connection with audiences or understanding what film is about.  Audiences did not demand James Dean be resurrected, just as audiences did not demand superhero films to take over content. This was dictated entirely by the minority in charge of the current media monopoly. It has nothing to do with supply, demand, audience preference etc. You have people with no singing ability having a monopoly on all the megaphones in town-and they insist on sharing their lack of talent with everyone, not just the minority who may be deaf enough to appreciate what they do.
> If they really were a business the Weinstein thing could not have happened.
> They blacklisted actresses who did not do sexual favors. Beyond the obvious massive hypocrisy of Hollywood claiming to be feminist, that is is not sound business practice. It was confirmed by Peter Jackson that actresses he was considering for LOTR were off limits because the word got out in Hollywood that they were blacklisted.
> There is no business like show business because no business could stay in operation if it had Hollywood business practices.




To see the dead actors of yesteryear come alive again in todays  movies and be alongside their contemporaries , I know it's not really them but  only their image. given my complains about todays films , This something I actually ant see more of.   When I saw* Rogue Oneand *how they brought back Peter Cushing as Moff Tarkin , That was truly extraordinary  and It was a good thing to see.


----------



## Dave

There was another thread about that here somewhere: Doesn't it limit the opportunities for new young actors to get acting parts? How can a budding unrecognised actor ever compete with a computer generated James Dean?

This thread has gone off in all kinds of directions, taking in all kinds of questions. It wasn't originally about Martin Scorsese's comments (I haven't even read them.)


----------



## BAYLOR

Dave said:


> There was another thread about that here somewhere: Doesn't it limit the opportunities for new young actors to get acting parts? How can a budding unrecognised actor ever compete with a computer generated James Dean?
> 
> This thread has gone off in all kinds of directions, taking in all kinds of questions. It wasn't originally about Martin Scorsese's comments (I haven't even read them.)




Hm, It's gone a bit off the rails hasn't it? 

Perhaps Hollywood should consider scaling  back on tentpole films  ?


----------



## KGeo777

It's an interesting technology as an experiment but in a story, i think it is too gimmicky and imperfect. The work and knowledge required to do an absolutely convincing fake performance of an actor who is recognizable is enormous unless it is automated Deep Fake style, it requires a ton of familiarity with the actor's habits and quirks. A couple of the Cushing shots were impressive and would have fooled me, but the voice (and badly matched height of the stand in) ruins it. In such a film it doesn't really matter but if you want a good dramatic performance, why would you want to risk it with inadequate cgi?
At least with Star Wars it makes some sense for him to be there, but with this Vietnam movie, it is so out of whack. As an attention getting stunt it works for publicity, but it makes the project seem dependent on the stunt casting fx, not the story merits or even the work of the living cast. It's weird.

I could see this tech being perfect for a film where someone enters a film world or illusion or dream with famous people shown (briefly). If they used it for that, and really perfected the FX, it could be amazing. 
The young Terminator in the last one (Genisys) looked pretty damn good in a few shots--much more lifelike in the theater--but the voice was off, and then they incorporated video game physiques which killed the suspense.  If they had used footage of Bill Paxton and really made one think it was the footage from the 1984 film-and then had the older Arnie appear behind him-it could have been an incredible surprise if you didnt know in advance.


----------



## Nozzle Velocity

Dave said:


> It wasn't originally about Martin Scorsese's comments (I haven't even read them.)



Scorsese was concerned that Hollywood was becoming too dependent on blockbuster films.


----------



## BAYLOR

Nozzle Velocity said:


> Scorsese was concerned that Hollywood was becoming too dependent on blockbuster films.



And he would be right about that.


----------



## Foxbat

This is kind of crossing into the resurrecting actors discussion on another thread but, since it's been brought up here, something to ponder.

As graphics become ever more realistic, couldn't we find ourselves in a situation where people just accept the ersatz as real? Or that somebody comes up with a big con trick about finding a long lost early movie from  a long dead legend. I still remember how readily the world wanted to accept the Hitler's diaries trick many years ago and I do wonder if this step into the carbon copying of dead actors could be a gateway for fake news to begin generating fake movies.


----------



## CupofJoe

BAYLOR said:


> To see the dead actors of yesteryear come alive again in todays  movies and be alongside their contemporaries , I know it's not really them but  only their image. given my complains about todays films , This something I actually ant see more of.   When I saw* Rogue Oneand *how they brought back Peter Cushing as Moff Tarkin , That was truly extraordinary  and It was a good thing to see.


While the fanboy in me loved it, I have to say it looked awful. At least to me. It didn't look like Peter Cushing all that much and didn't look alive at all. The re-generated Princess Leia was no better. One of the things I do like about the recent Star Wars films is the number of practical effects that they have used for creatures. There is a lot of CGI, but there are a lot of guys in suits too.


----------



## Dave

Nozzle Velocity said:


> Scorsese was concerned that Hollywood was becoming too dependent on blockbuster films.


I gathered that it's quite relevant to this discussion, but we were discussing it first, years earlier than him. It is rude for him to take all the credit and hijack this thread.


----------



## Nozzle Velocity

Let's just say he was providing a quick sidebar! 

I hope he's wrong about the future.


----------



## KGeo777

I think the resurrecting of actors is part of the same mentality-a lack of sincere desire to renew  the cultural stream for a new generation. It's like a school deciding that this is the last graduating class-that is kind of how Hollywood seems to be operating. It keep reducing the number of students and seems to not know why they are enrolled in the first place. Kind of feels like a cannibalizing phase--the same franchises over and over, the bringing back of older actors who were out of the limelight for a couple of decades or more...


----------



## Toby Frost

I think one of the problems is nostalgia. I think people – consciously or not – sometimes want the experience of seeing a good “big” film for the first time again. For the studios, this means sequels and reboots that are almost inevitably weaker, more lavish versions of the original. What it really means, to me, is new good stuff that captures the spirit of older films. For instance, Serenity seems to me to be a good film to watch if you enjoyed Star Wars or Raiders of the Lost Ark and are now a bit older – much better than The Phantom Menace or The Crystal Skull. But new IP is more of a risk and requires more skill, so it doesn’t happen.

Personally, I don’t want to see old actors brought back digitally, partly because it will squash new, living actors out, but also because there are almost no roles where only one actor will do. Someone else – Charles Dance, say – could portray Tarkin and make a very good job of it (it’s hardly a delicate character study, after all). It seems to me that using computers in this way isn’t acting but a sort of impersonation of acting, like a routine where a comedian imitates another actor in a different film.

I suspect that small, art-house films like early Scorsese movies will continue to be made, probably as a reaction to massive blockbusters. (It’s also worth pointing out that we’re only talking about “geeky” films here, and seem to be leaving out films aimed at women, children and older people, which I assume would still be made, as well as non-SF thrillers such as Taken, presumably aimed at older men.) What I think would disappear would be new mid-budget films with an SFF element (Robocop, say) or large-budget films without obvious franchise potential (Starship Troopers).


----------



## KGeo777

That's an interesting point about Charles Dance and Tarkin--you are losing potential dramatic advantages by using  CGI --but then the entire point of these Star Wars films are to exploit nostalgia in a way. If they intended to use Tarkin in a dramatically interesting manner recasting would be the way to go (even though I find the digital fakes very interesting as a trick process and how far one can go in perfecting it).

Another crazy thing is the overexposure.
There's a new SCREAM movie coming--and yet there is also a Scream tv series currently running. For such a limited concept, isn't that draining all originality or potential for story variation?  If Star Wars or Star Trek can't avoid repetition why would a story involving teenagers and a masked killer avoid the pitfalls of becoming bland? Or rather no one cares? 

No one cares I think.


----------



## Dave

I feel like a broken record. I agree with most of what people say about the lack of originality and most everything else, but this thread OP asked why has it has "become dependent" like it was something new, and I keep saying that it was always so. I've used the Tarzan, Dracula and Werewolf films as an example before, but now that you introduce TV then the examples of flogging a dead horse are too numerous to cite: Six Million Dollar Man and Bionic Woman. Are You Being Served and Grace and Favour. Knight Rider and Team Knight Rider. Baywatch and Baywatch Hawaii. MASH and AfterMASH. The Brady Bunch and The Bradies. Happy Days and Laverne and Shirley and Mork and Mindy....

I'm telling you, it was always like this. Always! Eight seasons of 24 and four varieties of CSI have nothing on the repetition in Westerns or I Love Lucy


----------



## Robert Zwilling

Dave said:


> There was another thread about that here somewhere: Doesn't it limit the opportunities for new young actors to get acting parts? How can a budding unrecognised actor ever compete with a computer generated James Dean?


Computer generated characters are a product of the digital industry. There is nothing that can be done to stop it from happening. It is just one more group of people who find their opportunities snuffed out by the digital world. The same way retail operations are suffering from the use of the internet as a shopping tool. The medical industry is coming up in the digital cross hairs as diagnosis becomes automated and experiences greater accuracy than most humans could achieve. How many people don't look for the lowest price. 

As long as computer generated actors are owned by the studios, they won't object to any work conditions. Companies that have nothing to do with movies will create their own computer generated actors. Computer generated actors might have a recognition problem at first, but using recognizable names from the past might get them over that hurdle until computer generated actors become famous the same way cartoon characters became famous. Sometimes Hollywood sticks a known name or two in with a bunch of first time unknowns. Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck are in their 90's and still famous. It might come to the situation where the digital maker of the world in the background is the owner of the movie and the characters and the plot are just rental expenses. The virtual reality folks are probably hoping to corner that market.

Bestsellers could be compared to blockbusters. The reading industry isn't counting on bestsellers to keep the action going, but how much money do they get from the bestsellers compared to ordinary book sales. How many bestsellers are manufactured nowadays? The reading industry might be a more level playing field for determining the ratio of manufactured bestsellers versus unknown books that become bestsellers. It seems like the reading industry is much more dependent on series and sequels for making a bestseller a bestseller.


----------



## KGeo777

In the olden days there were lots of non-franchises shows too. Star-driven shows.
The tv movie was also a phenomenon in the late 60s-late 70s. They made tons of them.
The Night Stalker, Duel, Trilogy of Terror, Gargoyles, the Dead Don't Die,  . Mystery movies like Columbo, Banacek, the Rockford Files etc. Mini-series.
I recall Dan Curtis the creator of Dark Shadows remarking in an interview how tv executives had changed-he used to go to them and they would be enthusiastic about doing something-and then by the early 2000s they didn't care at all.  No enthusiasm.

The intros for old tv shows were so much better than today.
Buck Rogers, the Incredible Hulk, Quincy, they were so well done. Good musical scores, catchy, to the point.

And with westerns the star was a big part of the appeal. The Rifleman was different from Have Gun, Will Travel, that show was entirely different from Maverick.
I think the western actually demonstrates how the essential ingredients are the talent of the people involved, not the genre.
The Italians did tons of westerns, but they had unique direction, musical scores, etc..
That is what creativity is about.
There should be enthusiasm--but I don't see any evidence that it exists in the corporate culture.

Not that it was rosey decades ago. Hollywood wasted a lot of money on some duds. I watched a couple recently--CASTLE KEEP and THE GAMES. These were expensive, star-driven films. They did poorly but you can understand why since the movies are dreary and end on total negatives. I don't know who they thought the audience was for these. For the budgets of those two films they could have probably made 20 Hammer or Amicus films which would have made more ROI and be better remembered today.


----------



## KGeo777

It was reported this week that THE JOKER is the most financially successful comic book-based film of all time. If this is correct, wouldn't it be of some consolation for Scorsese? The film has very little connections to the comics, and is considered far closer to a couple of Scorsese's own films! It doesn't even meet the criteria of spectacle does it? Are audience tastes moving towards arthouse or is this all BS? lol
I was thinking of the connections between it and BEN-HUR 1959. One might assume there is no similarities but both films are remakes (the Joker origin has been done before), both films center on a down-on-his-luck character, both films were financially successful and critically-acclaimed, and both films put the more important characters in the background (Jesus, Batman). They both can be accused of heavy-handed social message inserts as well.


----------



## BAYLOR

KGeo777 said:


> It was reported this week that THE JOKER is the most financially successful comic book-based film of all time. If this is correct, wouldn't it be of some consolation for Scorsese? The film has very little connections to the comics, and is considered far closer to a couple of Scorsese's own films! It doesn't even meet the criteria of spectacle does it? Are audience tastes moving towards arthouse or is this all BS? lol
> I was thinking of the connections between it and BEN-HUR 1959. One might assume there is no similarities but both films are remakes (the Joker origin has been done before), both films center on a down-on-his-luck character, both films were financially successful and critically-acclaimed, and both films put the more important characters in the background (Jesus, Batman). They both can be accused of heavy-handed social message inserts as well.



Possibly a sequel to Joker?


----------



## BAYLOR

The Pandemic might force Hollywood to rethink its whole blockbuster approach to movie making.


----------



## Overread

Eh on the other hand once this is all over, what better way than to heavily promote going to the cinemas. 

The real question isn't if cinemas will want to remain open and valid, it will be if the film producers actually want to go back to cinema and don't want to push forward with their own streaming services. We might even go through a huge swathe of direct to stream films even after the pandemic is over. Likely ending when someone makes a blockbuster that goes into the cinemas only and makes a fortune and then they all rush after.


----------



## BAYLOR

The tv show Max Headroom predicted the demise of cinema.


----------



## Robert Zwilling

Home theaters can probably replace movie theaters. The big release can all be done on line, same way pay per views movies and sporting events are pumped up and sold. For the immediate future, if movie theaters want to open by thorough cleaning between shows, they will maybe have 2 showings per day, or maybe only one. And no one food. Its been years since I have been in a movie theater, what I remember most is my feet being stuck to the sticky floor. 

Going directly on line for movie producers and directors who can afford it seems like a natural step forward. It is already happening for the big studios and broadcast operations. The go to next step for movies that didn't make it big was straight to DVD. DVDs are being replaced by streaming services, so part of the process is already being put into place. 

The fact that studios can't make big bucks on a movie released to a streaming service is probably only temporary. That was preventing studios from using streaming services until corona came along. Now it is being tried out a head of schedule, which means the studios are able to see exactly what happens. In the beginning there were only a few TV channels. Streaming services are popping up all over the place, so it is only a matter of time before it happened, as it is, everything technical got speeded up by corona. 

The rising prices to see a movie in a movie theater aren't helping to boost movie theater attendance in the long run. But none of this will change how the movies are made. Total reliance on video will probably only make the movies worse, not better.


----------



## Narkalui

If the film industry is moving away from cinemas to streaming platforms then I can only see the line between tv and film blurring. Take marvel as an example, you put them all online next to each other and it's essentially a twenty something episode tv series where each episode is feature length. 

Film directors, writers and actors will therefore have more scope to actually start thinking about character and narrative as the length of the film becomes less of an issue


----------



## KGeo777

The response to the virus shows they do not care about maintaining cinemas--however, revival theaters did get business, so there was public interest in them (people like to get out of their homes and no home cinema set up can compete with screens the size of a building wall).
At some point the big companies will consolidate into oblivion.
Smaller companies may start up again and fulfill the normal cultural mandate which Wall Street suits are clueless or disdainful about.


----------



## Overread

I figure we'll see small town cinemas paired up with theatres have a bit of growth whilst your mid town cinema will close down. Your big town might retain one working cinema. The problem is the fewer people who go the higher the prices on the food gets which discourages people from going. What I've never worked out is why cinemas haven't seemingly bought into mass marketing merchandise for films. You'd think they'd be stocked up like crazy like toyshops to maximise that post-event pressure to buy toys - just like how zoos and the like have a gift shop. Then add on some higher priced options for more adult collectors and you've got a way to make more income per customer that isn't linked to overpriced food. 
It also has potential to generate income from walk-in customers who imght not be seeing a film but are buying merchandise.


Sadly I figure that food was shown to have had a greater profit potential and is what many have gone nuts for whilst toy/merchandise appears to be pushed more and more to the side. Though I guess an issue is if they've dwindling income then that means less money to buy in the merchandise in the first place. Plus the quick turn around of films might make it hard for them to keep up. Though you'd think merchandising companies would be wanting their stock in cinemas and pushing it on them to help drive sales.


----------



## BAYLOR

Overread said:


> I figure we'll see small town cinemas paired up with theatres have a bit of growth whilst your mid town cinema will close down. Your big town might retain one working cinema. The problem is the fewer people who go the higher the prices on the food gets which discourages people from going. What I've never worked out is why cinemas haven't seemingly bought into mass marketing merchandise for films. You'd think they'd be stocked up like crazy like toyshops to maximise that post-event pressure to buy toys - just like how zoos and the like have a gift shop. Then add on some higher priced options for more adult collectors and you've got a way to make more income per customer that isn't linked to overpriced food.
> It also has potential to generate income from walk-in customers who imght not be seeing a film but are buying merchandise.
> 
> 
> Sadly I figure that food was shown to have had a greater profit potential and is what many have gone nuts for whilst toy/merchandise appears to be pushed more and more to the side. Though I guess an issue is if they've dwindling income then that means less money to buy in the merchandise in the first place. Plus the quick turn around of films might make it hard for them to keep up. Though you'd think merchandising companies would be wanting their stock in cinemas and pushing it on them to help drive sales.



Bookstores and comic bookstores are  both selling toys and games and in some case apparel.  They're diversifying so that they'll survive. Cinema has to do the same thing, they have no choice.


----------



## BAYLOR

The Pandemic has cost Hollywood a ton of money because it forced the closing of theaters.


----------



## Anthoney

Makes me glad I not responsible for a bunch of movie theaters anymore.  The bonuses are going to be terrible.


----------



## Vince W

I read somewhere that Robert DeNiro went to court to try to have his ex-wife's alimony reduced from $100,000 per month to $50,000 since he was _only_ going make 6 _million_ dollars this year. We really should have a whip-round for these poor unfortunates so afflicted in Hollywood.


----------



## BAYLOR

Vince W said:


> I read somewhere that Robert DeNiro went to court to try to have his ex-wife's alimony reduced from $100,000 per month to $50,000 since he was _only_ going make 6 _million_ dollars this year. We really should have a whip-round for these poor unfortunates so afflicted in Hollywood.



They could do a telethon .


----------



## Vladd67

Vince W said:


> I read somewhere that Robert DeNiro went to court to try to have his ex-wife's alimony reduced from $100,000 per month to $50,000 since he was _only_ going make 6 _million_ dollars this year. We really should have a whip-round for these poor unfortunates so afflicted in Hollywood.


Actually he is going to be lucky to make $7.5 million this year.








						De Niro Says COVID-19 Has Drained Finances, Wants to Cut Down Spousal Support
					

Actor Robert De Niro says the coronavirus pandemic has drained his finances, according to Manhattan court documents in his ongoing divorce case with estranged wife Grace Hightower, reports Page Six....




					www.newsmax.com


----------



## Narkalui

Well if he married into the Hightowers then he has only himself to blame. That Lord Leyton, by all accounts he is beyond crazy!


----------



## BAYLOR

Narkalui said:


> Well if he married into the Hightowers then he has only himself to blame. That Lord Leyton, by all accounts he is beyond crazy!



He's a great actor,  one  the best but,  he's in the twilight of his career and if you're an actor,  that's  the worst possible time to be running into financial difficulties.


----------



## Vince W

BAYLOR said:


> He's a great actor,  one  the best but,  he's in the twilight of his career and if you're an actor,  that's  the worst possible time to be running into financial difficulties.


Well, maybe he can get some sort of social assistance.


----------



## Vince W

Vladd67 said:


> Actually he is going to be lucky to make $7.5 million this year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> De Niro Says COVID-19 Has Drained Finances, Wants to Cut Down Spousal Support
> 
> 
> Actor Robert De Niro says the coronavirus pandemic has drained his finances, according to Manhattan court documents in his ongoing divorce case with estranged wife Grace Hightower, reports Page Six....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsmax.com


I'm choking up here.


----------



## Narkalui

"You see that? It's a little mouse playing the world's smallest violin"


----------



## KGeo777

The ridiculous increase in production costs is another culprit--when Bruce Willis paid something like $5 million for DIE HARD and then Jim Carrey got $15 million for something, it meant all the established actors would immediately see their fees jump up to match. Then after you get to a certain point, the companies say: "gee, we can't afford to make movies here-we have to send it to India."
No other business could work like this and stay afloat. Recipe for destruction.
Even the term "show business" is a dumbed down phrase for an artistic enterprise.
I read American theater went through a similar centralized phenomenon in the 1900 period, resulting in less theatrical choices and making theater tickets too expensive for the general public. And it led to far less creative diversity in productions.

Here we are again.


----------



## Overread

The problem is those big names are often what draws in huge crowds. For a director/producer they aren't just paying Bruce Willis, they are paying for his fan base. There's a large number of people who will watch the film, buy merchandise, buy the DVD and all just because Bruce Willis is in it. High end actors have cottoned onto this and its likely part of why they can command such insane money to act in a single film. Once the ball got rolling they all joined in. 

Entertainment has some insane numbers, acting isn't even alone, the sports like football have equally insane amounts of money spent on wages. Sports has had a hard year though in terms of being shut down which who knows it might have a knock on effect of lowering pay for a while, though I'm sure once corona ends some pay will creep up once again. With sports it even creates an issue of fair competition because the big clubs can pay insane money to secure the best of players. Lower down clubs just can't even consider competing on such a scale and you can't blame the players totally; if someone offers you a vast amount of money to the same job most of us would jump at the chance.


----------



## Vladd67

maybe Hollywood needs a shakeup like the 87 NFL season when the big names went on strike over pay and they were replaced with lesser names to keep the league going. This may well happen again if the BLM protests cut into the profit line of the sporting world.


----------



## KGeo777

Now Bruce Willis is doing direct to video obscurities!


----------



## BAYLOR

Vladd67 said:


> maybe Hollywood needs a shakeup like the 87 NFL season when the big names went on strike over pay and they were replaced with lesser names to keep the league going. This may well happen again if the BLM protests cut into the profit line of the sporting world.



May this is end of the big time overpays Hollywood stars.


----------



## BAYLOR

BAYLOR said:


> Maybe  this is the end of road the big time overpaid Hollywood stars.



Im quoting myself to correct my typos .


----------



## BAYLOR

KGeo777 said:


> Now Bruce Willis is doing direct to video obscurities!



He's no longer the bankable box office action star that he used to be. He's moved pas all that.   However, he is still a pretty good actor.


----------



## KGeo777

Supposedly the highest paid movie people are Dwayne Johnson and Ryan Reynolds, but they don't seem to have much clout in picking and choosing.
In 1920, movie stars were more powerful than studios--Fairbanks, Pickford, which is why they formed United Artists--so they could be independent of studio control.
But it didn't last long before the studios created their own stars-under strict personal guidance.


----------



## JohnM

I am seeing some strange and even slightly bizarre assumptions here. First, whether a movie goes to a small screen first doesn't matter. Hollywood would never do it before deciding how much to charge. Take Mulan. It's going to be $29.99 on top of your Disney + subscription. Some theaters have reopened. They are doing what they can to reduce the odds of catching the virus. 

I am also seeing this strange idea about 'control.' Control does not always mean quality. I have seen a number of illustrators over the years try to do it their way. They failed. Hollywood is run by smart people who know how to get other smart people to work for them.

In the world of high-paying writing, you could start out with a six figure advance. Would you complain? Would you complain if your book was a million copy best seller? Or that you had made a few million?


----------



## BAYLOR

KGeo777 said:


> Supposedly the highest paid movie people are Dwayne Johnson and Ryan Reynolds, but they don't seem to have much clout in picking and choosing.
> In 1920, movie stars were more powerful than studios--Fairbanks, Pickford, which is why they formed United Artists--so they could be independent of studio control.
> But it didn't last long before the studios created their own stars-under strict personal guidance.



The studio system which held on till about the mid 1950's.


----------



## Narkalui

"Yeah it's good, not bad! Great even! But it needs something..."
"Like what?"
"I think there needs to be a part where the hero has to fight helicopters carrying giant buzz saws."
"But it's a film about Julius Caesar!"
"Change it!"


----------



## KGeo777

JohnM said:


> I am also seeing this strange idea about 'control.' Control does not always mean quality. I have seen a number of illustrators over the years try to do it their way. They failed. Hollywood is run by smart people who know how to get other smart people to work for them.


I am not talking about artists having full control-collaboration can be a good thing--it's inevitable with a film---I am talking about executives having full control over all the people working on a film production and all the decisions on a film, and they don't care about audience response, but messages and politics. 

Traditionally, the producer in a film would be the middle between the studio brass and the artists--and sometimes they would do a lot to contribute to the overall film--including casting and story. But in recent times, the bureaucracy of the corporate studio has sidelined the independent producer--they no longer have any say--it's the studio executives who decide everything (from their computer screens).
They hire directors and writers who do their bidding to a T. 
Rian Johnson may not be able to do an interview without giggling through it but he follows orders. In older times, directors, writers etc would often be combative--for better or worse--but at least it showed they were passionate.

Why did Sean Connery retire? He said idiots had cornered the market in the film industry and there were a lot of veterans who said the same thing. In one late Dan Curtis interview he remarked how tv executives had changed and were no longer enthusiastic about making productions.

Walt Disney did ok going with United Artists and joining SIMPP--so here you have an artist-producer who was very successful and entirely outside of big Hollywood which would have said NO to most of his projects.

It's scary how fast the corporations shut down everything for a virus with such a low kill rate--the fact that they did it, shows that for them, movies are not a survival thing or even an enjoyment. So much for "the show must go on."
But then, when the most hyped film on the horizon is the fifth Batman origin film, you cannot be surprised if enthusiasm is declining.

Oh gee, another Batman movie....about how he came to be...just what we all wanted.


----------



## Narkalui

Not too long ago a random collection of studio executives were interviewed (cannot remember where - I'm afraid you'll have to take my word for it) and when asked "what would you be doing if you weren't making movies?" only one said "I can't imagine myself doing anything but this." The rest all just said things along the lines of "Er making shoes or something I guess."

My point is that out of the people who call the shots in Hollywood, only a small minority actually care about what they're doing, the rest are just bean counters in it for the money


----------



## BT Jones

Hopefully something like Joker convinces studios that there is money to be made in independent style films.  I mean, a movie that is essentially about mental illness and in which nothing much actually happens event-wise was still an absolute smash at the box-office purely on the fact it was (allegedly) an origin story and was going to be full of the kind of alternative anarchy that so many of the today's young crowd get off on (note, it really wasn't).  The fact that people presumably came back and saw it again on the basis that it was a top-notch drama thoroughly well made and brilliantly acted was the part that should really register with producers.

I fear, however, that Netflix is more representative of the future of film; a smattering of new 'content' (hate that word) of which maybe only 1 in 10 are going to appeal to people that like a little substance in their movies (Bird Box, Beasts of No Nation, The Irishman) and the rest are disposable films to keep 14-24 year old's engaged enough to lift one eye off their phones for 88 minutes (Bright, How it Ends, Extinction, Six Underground, etc.)

My biggest issue currently is how flat all these movies look in digital.  There's just no life in them, no depth.  I watched the Tom Hanks Greyhound movie and it just looked like one long computer game cut scene.  There was none of the visceral richness and dimension of classics like Saving Private Ryan or any number of 80's / 90's blockbusters.


----------



## Overread

KGeo777 said:


> In one late Dan Curtis interview he remarked how tv executives had changed and were no longer enthusiastic about making productions.



I saw a short clip of Clarkson talking about the BBC and them losing Top Gear and he said that it was the same sort of thing that they had with TG. Only it went further that the executives were happy for the money but were unwilling to pass out compliments to the team or show excitement/enthusiasm for ideas and concepts etc... He put it down to a plague on management that doesn't want a quotation or email to say that they liked something in case "something comes out" in the future about the show or presenters. Ergo that management was being supremely cautious at an individual level to avoid any positive connections to productions so if the boat sinks later, they have no association. 

Of course the result is, even with the high pay cheques, your staff are just drawing a wage and not being made to feel valued. He said the Amazon team were far more engaging and positive with working with the TG team.


----------



## KGeo777

Narkalui said:


> Not too long ago a random collection of studio executives were interviewed (cannot remember where - I'm afraid you'll have to take my word for it) and when asked "what would you be doing if you weren't making movies?" only one said "I can't imagine myself doing anything but this." The rest all just said things along the lines of "Er making shoes or something I guess."


It was a Hollywood Reporter Roundtable show. From 2010 I think.


----------



## JohnM

KGeo777 said:


> I am not talking about artists having full control-collaboration can be a good thing--it's inevitable with a film---I am talking about executives having full control over all the people working on a film production and all the decisions on a film, and they don't care about audience response, but messages and politics.
> 
> Traditionally, the producer in a film would be the middle between the studio brass and the artists--and sometimes they would do a lot to contribute to the overall film--including casting and story. But in recent times, the bureaucracy of the corporate studio has sidelined the independent producer--they no longer have any say--it's the studio executives who decide everything (from their computer screens).
> They hire directors and writers who do their bidding to a T.
> Rian Johnson may not be able to do an interview without giggling through it but he follows orders. In older times, directors, writers etc would often be combative--for better or worse--but at least it showed they were passionate.
> 
> Why did Sean Connery retire? He said idiots had cornered the market in the film industry and there were a lot of veterans who said the same thing. In one late Dan Curtis interview he remarked how tv executives had changed and were no longer enthusiastic about making productions.
> 
> Walt Disney did ok going with United Artists and joining SIMPP--so here you have an artist-producer who was very successful and entirely outside of big Hollywood which would have said NO to most of his projects.
> 
> It's scary how fast the corporations shut down everything for a virus with such a low kill rate--the fact that they did it, shows that for them, movies are not a survival thing or even an enjoyment. So much for "the show must go on."
> But then, when the most hyped film on the horizon is the fifth Batman origin film, you cannot be surprised if enthusiasm is declining.
> 
> Oh gee, another Batman movie....about how he came to be...just what we all wanted.




This is not accurate. My information comes from people working in Hollywood. Yes, corporate executives are in charge. That's not the whole story. Before release, a film is pre-screened. That's why you'll see "Latest Star Wars film delayed for re-shoots." in the Hollywood trade press. Are political ideas injected into movies? Definitely. But not all movies and there is a limit to what general audiences will find acceptable without ruining the rest of the movie.

Movie theaters are reopening. I won't say where. Hollywood has practical reasons for doing the things it does.

Another point worth mentioning is occasions where producers have come in and made demands that would ruin the film. I won't post examples due to Hollywood's desire to keep blunders quiet. I will point you to the book The Greatest Sci-Fi Movies Never Made. Caution: Not for the easily angered. One last word about producers: they are backing the movie and can try to do whatever they want with what they are bankrolling. They rarely succeed because they have little to no creative skill.

If Hollywood no longer wanted to make movies, they could find something else to do. They could quickly locate the most profitable lines of work and put their time and energies there.

Bottom line: Hollywood does what sells and will keep making new Star Wars and Batman movies until profits drop below a certain point. Then the well runs dry.


----------



## hitmouse

KGeo777 said:


> I am not talking about artists having full control-collaboration can be a good thing--it's inevitable with a film---I am talking about executives having full control over all the people working on a film production and all the decisions on a film, and they don't care about audience response, but messages and politics.


I think you will find that the principle concern of “the executives” is a safe return on their investment. Which is fair enough, and also quite difficult. It is nonsense to say that they do not care about audience response since that is important to a film’s successs.

Critical appreciation of the artistic side is nice but  that alone does not keep you in business.


----------



## Narkalui

And that's why I haven't paid Disney a single penny Rogue 1


----------



## BT Jones

JohnM said:


> This is not accurate. My information comes from people working in Hollywood. Yes, corporate executives are in charge. That's not the whole story. Before release, a film is pre-screened. That's why you'll see "Latest Star Wars film delayed for re-shoots." in the Hollywood trade press. Are political ideas injected into movies? Definitely. But not all movies and there is a limit to what general audiences will find acceptable without ruining the rest of the movie.
> 
> Movie theaters are reopening. I won't say where. Hollywood has practical reasons for doing the things it does.
> 
> Another point worth mentioning is occasions where producers have come in and made demands that would ruin the film. I won't post examples due to Hollywood's desire to keep blunders quiet. I will point you to the book The Greatest Sci-Fi Movies Never Made. Caution: Not for the easily angered. One last word about producers: they are backing the movie and can try to do whatever they want with what they are bankrolling. They rarely succeed because they have little to no creative skill.
> 
> If Hollywood no longer wanted to make movies, they could find something else to do. They could quickly locate the most profitable lines of work and put their time and energies there.
> 
> Bottom line: Hollywood does what sells and will keep making new Star Wars and Batman movies until profits drop below a certain point. Then the well runs dry.


I read that book cover to cover @JohnM.  And excellent read.  Yes, so many ideas spoiled by studio interference.  At the same time, perhaps too many 'artists' unwilling to at least find some middle ground on a vision that clearly isn't going to get bums on seats, irrespective of who might be in it or how much the movie is promoted.  From my perspective (solely as a consumer) I have found the movies that tank are generally that ones were terrible ideas to begin with.  For every movie that shows studio savvy and smart decision marking, there seem to be far too many that show little or no understanding for the market and for what people actually want to watch.


----------



## JohnM

Producers can bankroll whatever they want. However, like book publishers, no one stays in business by not being able to tell a good book from a bad one. Hollywood can and does make what I'll call "specialty" films from time to time. But making money has always been job one. "Studio interference"? Really? It's more like, "We don't think this can make a buck." The same is true in book publishing. I've seen a lot of manuscripts, and most are bad. That's because most people do not learn the mechanics of good writing. While talented people are certainly out there, it takes guidance and hard work to get better. Based on my own experience, Creative Writing classes do not help when instructors allow students to write anything they want without guidance. So, before taking a Creative Writing class, find out if it covers character development, plot development, mood, pacing and other things.

Hollywood would be out of business in a short time if "...far too many that show little or no understanding for the market and for what people actually want to watch." In other words, if that were true, little to no money would be coming in. I still trust friends over critics to tell me if a movie is worth watching.


----------



## MikeAnderson

KGeo777 said:


> Now Bruce Willis is doing direct to video obscurities!


Until he does a *Hudson Hawk *reboot, that bald son of a biscuit is dead to me.


----------



## Vladd67

MikeAnderson said:


> Until he does a *Hudson Hawk *reboot, that bald son of a biscuit is dead to me.


I liked that film, it was nothing special just fun.


----------



## Vince W

MikeAnderson said:


> Until he does a *Hudson Hawk *reboot, that bald son of a biscuit is dead to me.


Hudson Hawk is a favourite of mine. It's so tongue-in-cheek. I watch it at least twice a year. In fact, I think I'll watch it right now.


----------



## KGeo777

I repeat myself but the downsizing in Hollywood has gone on for decades. As I said, SIMPP came into existence and United Artists thrived because there had to be alternatives to the big studios which were so narrow in creative range. James Bond was made by UA, not any of the big studios which could have bought JB easily. In fact, Hollywood ignored the agent trend except for comedy versions (Matt Helm etc). It was the indies and Euro studios that did the JB clones like the Bulldog Drummond films.

King Kong wasn't made by any of the big ones, it was made by the "mini-major" RKO which was American founded (likewise, Snow White, the biggest hit of 1938 was also RKO).

The 1970s Blockbusters were just a new form of blockbooking--which triggered government anti-trust action.
The claim with the blockbuster was that audiences no longer wanted variety-they just wanted a few big budget movies in popular genres.
This is a lie.
How do we know?
Because those blockbuster films like Jaws or Star Wars did not spawn a new copy every weekend--what were audiences going to watch each weekend after Star Wars came out--the same movie over and over? We did not get a  new Star Wars or Jaws movie every month--and people still wanted to see movies--those that liked genre films wanted to watch more of them. Why on earth would they want to have less choice?

In a talk show, a Pixar executive was asked why modern movies were so bland and he said Hollywood now sees movies like a cookie--while they could make a cookie for different people with different tastes (which used to be the case, especially when there were more production companies), instead, they combine ingredients and water down things so you end up with a cookie that is rather bland but has a little something for everyone.

And they also started adding Chinese spices to it, so it is more palatable for China (or so they hope).
Can you imagine a cookie business operating like this?
They abandon their base consumer for ones halfway around the globe? Wouldn't that harm their local customer sales? Oh no, it wouldn't would it-not if the customer had no other choice--what if all the other cookie companies operated the same?
That's how it is with media.
And that's why it is increasingly enfeebled. 
You cannot have a healthy art-making system when it is shackled by corporations who do not have kind feelings for their audiences.

And as I said before, the term Hollywood Accounting literally means "we lie about business." If you check studio reports in the news--they either say they had the best year since  1982 or the worst year since 1993 or they had a bad domestic box office (gee, maybe because of their watering down approach?) and had to be saved by the foreign box office.
There's no business like show business.


BTW, studio interference was not always a negative. Hitchcock wanted to eliminate the letter scene in VERTIGO and it was vetoed by the studio--maybe because they realized without the letter scene, there would be no way to build sympathy for Kim Novak's character before the ending--one had to know her inner thoughts in order to feel more shock at the conclusion---there are other examples where studios intervened--I think the theatrical ending for ARMY OF DARKNESS is superior to the original one with him  waking up in the future.
I think there were competent people working in the studio executives until the late 90s--then it became centralized like never before.

Make up artists like Rick Baker retired because of this studio mis-management, and there's the quote by Phil Tippett:

"In the olden days, producers knew what visual effects were. Now they've gotten into this methodology where they'll hire a middleman, a visual effects supervisor, and this person works for the producing studio. They're middle managers. And when you go into a review with one of them, there's this weird sort of competition that happens. It's a game called 'Find What's Wrong With This Shot'. And there's always going to be something wrong, because everything's subjective. And you can micromanage it down to a pixel, and that happens all the time. We're doing it digitally, so there's no pressure to save on film costs or whatever, so it's not unusual to go through 500 revisions of the same shot, moving pixels around and scrutinizing this or that. That's not how you manage artists. You encourage artists, and then you'll get, you know, art. If your idea of managing artists is just pointing out what's wrong and making them fix it over and over again, you end up with artists who just stand around asking "OK lady, where do you want this sofa? You want if over there? No? Fine. You want it over there? I don't give a f*ck. I'll put it wherever you want it." It's creative mismanagement, it's part of the whole corporate modality. The fish stinks from the head on down. Back on Star Wars, RoboCop, we never thought about what was wrong with a shot. We just thought about how to make it better."


----------



## BAYLOR

KGeo777 said:


> I am not talking about artists having full control-collaboration can be a good thing--it's inevitable with a film---I am talking about executives having full control over all the people working on a film production and all the decisions on a film, and they don't care about audience response, but messages and politics.
> 
> Traditionally, the producer in a film would be the middle between the studio brass and the artists--and sometimes they would do a lot to contribute to the overall film--including casting and story. But in recent times, the bureaucracy of the corporate studio has sidelined the independent producer--they no longer have any say--it's the studio executives who decide everything (from their computer screens).
> They hire directors and writers who do their bidding to a T.
> Rian Johnson may not be able to do an interview without giggling through it but he follows orders. In older times, directors, writers etc would often be combative--for better or worse--but at least it showed they were passionate.
> 
> Why did Sean Connery retire? He said idiots had cornered the market in the film industry and there were a lot of veterans who said the same thing. In one late Dan Curtis interview he remarked how tv executives had changed and were no longer enthusiastic about making productions.
> 
> Walt Disney did ok going with United Artists and joining SIMPP--so here you have an artist-producer who was very successful and entirely outside of big Hollywood which would have said NO to most of his projects.
> 
> It's scary how fast the corporations shut down everything for a virus with such a low kill rate--the fact that they did it, shows that for them, movies are not a survival thing or even an enjoyment. So much for "the show must go on."
> But then, when the most hyped film on the horizon is the fifth Batman origin film, you cannot be surprised if enthusiasm is declining.
> 
> Oh gee, another Batman movie....about how he came to be...just what we all wanted.



If I owned a movie studio , I would place  limits the power of the movie executives over the film makers . I would say to the movie executives that you have no say on film content and  story . Your job is to run the day  to day business of the studio ,  market and  sell what the directors , producers and writers come up with . If you can't  do that, then that me  tells me that your not very  good at your job and you should be doing something else   for a living .  I would tell  the producers that before any film gets approval or actors cast, I want the script done polished and good.


----------



## JohnM

So movie executives are evil? Some strange things are being said here. I work as an editor, researcher and sometimes assistant art director since I also have an art background. There appear to be some sour grapes ideas here, but the reality is Hollywood has been around for a long time. It's not going away. All this talk about artists assumes that artists somehow know more than others. Writers need Hollywood. Where else will they go? Various screenwriters face the same thing book writers face. Look at how many movies and TV shows are made every year. You've got the Writers Guild of America, East and West. Does anyone think all of those people are employed at any given time? 

I know a Hollywood script editor. He tells me he sees as many bad movie scripts as I see bad manuscripts. > Someone < has got to know the difference between a good script and a bad one. Most people at the movie theater have no idea of what happens when a script gets greenlit for production. They pay their money to see a movie hoping it is worth seeing. It takes a lot of people to make that happen.


----------



## KGeo777

BAYLOR said:


> If I owned a movie studio ,


BAYLOR INTERNATIONAL PICTURES


----------



## BAYLOR

KGeo777 said:


> BAYLOR INTERNATIONAL PICTURES



A movie studio owned  and  run by me would very quickly fail.


----------



## KGeo777

BAYLOR said:


> A movie studio owned  and  run by me would very quickly fail.


Could just have a production company with a tiny office.
Amicus Films operated like that.


----------



## BAYLOR

KGeo777 said:


> Could just have a production company with a tiny office.
> Amicus Films operated like that.



They've had move the Next James Bond film to Easter of 2021 .   I think things like this spell trouble for the film industry and the movie theaters.


----------



## Vladd67

BAYLOR said:


> They've had move the Next James Bond film to Easter of 2021 .   I think things like this spell trouble for the film industry and the movie theaters.








						Cineworld Cinemas Temporary Closure Update FAQ | COVID-19
					

All Cineworld cinemas across the UK and Ireland are closing on Friday (October 9th) until further notice. Find your Frequently Asked Questions answered here.




					www.cineworld.co.uk


----------



## Overread

Cinemas will suffer potentially worse than restaurants and the like because not only are they dealing with lockdown and shutdown issues, but the film producers are also right at the point of releasing new streaming services online. At a point in time where there is strong demand for them. So there's a double hit for them which might make recovery all the harder once things properly ease up. When we return to that way of life they are at the mercy of bean counters and film producers on if they restore the old relationship or if the film producers decide to change it. Duel releases on streaming and cinemas at the same time; a week or two grace for the cinemas etc....


----------



## BAYLOR

Overread said:


> Cinemas will suffer potentially worse than restaurants and the like because not only are they dealing with lockdown and shutdown issues, but the film producers are also right at the point of releasing new streaming services online. At a point in time where there is strong demand for them. So there's a double hit for them which might make recovery all the harder once things properly ease up. When we return to that way of life they are at the mercy of bean counters and film producers on if they restore the old relationship or if the film producers decide to change it. Duel releases on streaming and cinemas at the same time; a week or two grace for the cinemas etc....



The Max Headroom show  predicted the demise of Cinema.It looks like it may have gotten that prediction right.


----------



## BAYLOR

The movie theaters are in serious trouble . I wonder how  many  of them are going to go under in the face of the pandemic .


----------



## Overread

I can see many crumbling, but if Hollywood and co want them back I can see new cinema firms rising from the ashes. Much like airlines I can see recovering through new start-up firms instead of through perhaps existing names which are loaded with debt they can't shift.


----------



## JJewel

The issue is now that the companies will need profit over art, so the situation will get worse.

- More A list actors, less room for everyone else again
- Less truly great movies, more what will sell to the masses
- Baylor sensibilities would be out the window completely alas, 
Quality = No money / Lowest common denominator = Money


----------



## Vince W

Perhaps the opposite might happen. Multi-plexes will close and large, well appointed cinemas with single screens will reappear. Hollywood stops churning out an endless grind of pointless reboots/hashes/makes and starts producing far fewer films of great stories and high quality so those cinemas are always to capacity. Instead of seeing seven films a week released there are seven a month. It _could_ happen.


----------



## JJewel

@Vince W damn I have fallen into another dimension again, what the hell am I gonna doing with those 12 sided 5 pence pieces now?

Yup, it could happen, but I wont hold my breath


----------



## .matthew.

Personally I'm in favour of having limited use union cards for actors 

"You've starred in a dozen films, you're retired. Go home and stop being so desperate for attention."

Also, you'd need to stop Hollywood using their 'standard' accounting shenanigans - Return of the Jedi has grossed over a billion dollars, costing about 50 million to make, yet still hasn't turned a profit...


----------



## BAYLOR

Vince W said:


> Perhaps the opposite might happen. Multi-plexes will close and large, well appointed cinemas with single screens will reappear. Hollywood stops churning out an endless grind of pointless reboots/hashes/makes and starts producing far fewer films of great stories and high quality so those cinemas are always to capacity. Instead of seeing seven films a week released there are seven a month. It _could_ happen.



It's a nice thought.


----------



## KGeo777

It's better to have more production companies.
More companies means more people making decisions, more taste variety, wider hiring practices. More artists professionally exercising their craft. More films to put in theaters--more choice for consumer.
The cost of film has made such things impossible--a film should not cost $500 million or even $10 million.
For all we know movies may be used for money laundering and most of the budget and profit estimates are lies.

There is ZERO enthusiasm in making films now, no desire to recruit younger talent or celebrate anything. The politics has completely hijacked all facets of it.
Consider this--we get told that the reason there are no original movies anymore is because brand names are less risky right?
If that is so, then where did *Get Out* come from?
Wasn't a brand name-and yet supposedly was a big hit. And the filmmaker was  unknown (but ticked off the right boxes for media notice).
Something doesn't add up.


----------



## .matthew.

KGeo777 said:


> The cost of film has made such things impossible--a film should not cost $500 million or even $10 million.



They cost a lot primarily because they always want to use the very best technology available and they know they'll make it back tenfold in most cases.

The main 'problem' has always been that they move money into subsidiary companies. A good deal of the total cost will be spent on "marketing and distribution" for which they'll pay themselves (via a subsidiary) WAY over market value. This makes the film look like it costs a lot more and acts as a massive tax dodge. Luckily they also put a lot of money into political campaigns so nobody does anything 

Not to mention that they expense everything and pay token positions huge amounts of money for doing nothing.


----------



## KGeo777

.matthew. said:


> They cost a lot primarily because they always want to use the very best technology available and they know they'll make it back tenfold in most cases.


Digital was supposed to reduce costs. They even offshore production to India and China, something they never did in decades before.
According to Forbes most movies do not make their money back.
I don't think that was the case a few decades ago when production costs remained the same for 10-15 years.
But a film needs access to distribution and marketing-and these days, unless it has special status like a Chinese co-production (The Meg) it will not be let into the gate.
It is just too corrupt, too few hands in control of the levers, with bad motives.
If an airline was run like Hollywood, the planes would crash.


----------



## .matthew.

KGeo777 said:


> According to Forbes most movies do not make their money back.
> 
> But a film needs access to distribution and marketing-and these days


That's the point. They make many times what they cost to make, but standard accounting practices make it a loss on paper so they don't have to pay taxes or royalties to anyone owed them. 

The biggest way they do this is setting up subsidiaries in other countries and then having those companies charge the company (the one set up specifically for that movie/franchise) massive amounts of money to market and distribute the film. They are essentially paying themselves (as they own the marketing/distribution companies as well) so that on paper it looks like the film made a loss.

The actual cost of marketing and distribution is much lower than they charge themselves to do it, but the more they pay for those services, the more money they can move into other tax jurisdictions.


----------



## BAYLOR

.matthew. said:


> That's the point. They make many times what they cost to make, but standard accounting practices make it a loss on paper so they don't have to pay taxes or royalties to anyone owed them.
> 
> The biggest way they do this is setting up subsidiaries in other countries and then having those companies charge the company (the one set up specifically for that movie/franchise) massive amounts of money to market and distribute the film. They are essentially paying themselves (as they own the marketing/distribution companies as well) so that on paper it looks like the film made a loss.
> 
> The actual cost of marketing and distribution is much lower than they charge themselves to do it, but the more they pay for those services, the more money they can move into other tax jurisdictions.



That practice needs to  be ended.


----------



## BAYLOR

If the movie theater shut down continues into next year , I wonder what Hollywood will do in response ?


----------



## JohnM

Hollywood will put new material on so-called 'streaming services.'

And I'd like to see some documented proof about how Hollywood loses money on films that make money. Sure, there could be problems later but that's what attorneys are for. Or how money made somewhere else is moved elsewhere to avoid certain taxes.

If I was Hollywood, or any book publisher, I would want one blockbuster after another.


----------



## BAYLOR

JohnM said:


> Hollywood will put new material on so-called 'streaming services.'
> 
> And I'd like to see some documented proof about how Hollywood loses money on films that make money. Sure, there could be problems later but that's what attorneys are for. Or how money made somewhere else is moved elsewhere to avoid certain taxes.
> 
> If I was Hollywood, or any book publisher, I would want one blockbuster after another.



If so, It might best to insist on being paid upfront for your book rather then via net profit.


----------



## .matthew.




----------



## JohnM

BAYLOR said:


> If so, It might best to insist on being paid upfront for your book rather then via net profit.




I urge everyone to have their contracts reviewed by an attorney before signing.


----------



## Overread

I suspect cinemas might be like food outlets. We will see many close and major chains contract over the year. Some of those will be in areas where contraction/closure was going to happen in the next 5-10 years anyway (eg rural pubs); however some will happen in busy areas too. After Corona is removed as a major issue and we can go back to normal social life I would expect to see rebound. Food outlets I'd expect to rebound rather quickly, though if work-from-home takes off in a big way we might see some areas have less individual outlets. 
Cinemas might well recover as well. Heck the post-corona-celebration lifestyle that might arise might even result in a boom for those that are still open. 

Hollywood and the like might well not have to do anything ,though they might now split their movies between streaming and cinema display. Certainly the "direct to stream" period of time after a cinema buys the films to show will likely be even shorter. 
What's also interesting is that the whole direct to stream issue has put some bad blood between major cinema groups and Hollywood producers so there's some bad feelings there that might well persist. 

Thing is if the Hollywood machine feels it doesn't need cinemas to make a fortune they might well not really care what happens; or on the other hand they might decide its important to maintain (that way they don't have to compete with TV series and the like also on streaming services and groups like Amazon who are fast heading to their own film franchises and such). So they might decide to invest into the preservation of cinemas in high population areas. 



JohnM said:


> I urge everyone to have their contracts reviewed by an attorney before signing.



And to make sure its an attorney practising and experienced in that specific field of work. Many a person has "their lawyer" look at something, but if the lawyer is used to one type of work, then they aren't going to know the tricks, pitfalls or issues that might arise from a contract about an area so far outside of their field of work. Good lawyers will point that out and even refuse because they can't give reliable/valid/accurate advice.


----------



## KGeo777

I knew someone (a lawyer) who had a friend who came up with a reality show concept and told the idea to someone who then took the idea to a big movie person, and his company made the show. The one who came up with the idea wanted to take it to court but the law firms contacted said they couldn't touch it because if they did they would be ostracized due to the influence of this big movie person. So that was a case where the law didn't matter. Hollywood can be quite thuggish.
James Garner sued Universal over royalties due to him for the Rockford Files since he took a pay cut to make the show.
When the show ended--one week later he was at a traffic stop and had a car accident and an ex-Green Beret beat him up so badly he was in hospital for a week. He still sued and won.
The guy who successfully sued over the Poltergeist script did not get a career advantage from it.


----------



## Timebender

My thought is that maybe, as the technology used to make movies becomes more widely available and more accessible to the layman, if what we're seeing is an increase in competition for Hollywood like never before, and as such they're less willing to take risks and invest in anything except the big crowdpleasers.


----------



## JohnM

I suspect Hollywood will be seeing less competition from the layman.  A friend in Hollywood, and some research, shows it is very difficult and very time consuming. At least to put together something that is up to the standards most people are used to. The complaint for many years is that Hollywood doesn't take risks. Yet there is a category of films outside of the mainstream that do get made.

In book publishing meant for general audiences, it is possible to put out interesting material that was also enjoyable for the writer to produce. A conversation I had with a videogame producer boiled down to: "Yes, we can make unusual or niche games, but why should we?" These electronic games can make as much or more than a Hollywood film, but that market is glutted.


----------



## KGeo777

News media has been bypassed by many small operators.
In theory the same should be true of other culture media.

Things like Deep Fakes--I bet at some point someone will try 
making a new 1960s Star Trek episode using the technology.
Could be grotesque in results but I think such things will be done outside of 
the corporate influence.


----------



## CupofJoe

Has anyone else read this?








						Is the era of the Hollywood blockbuster over?
					

Has Covid put an end to big budget film-making, or will busy cinemas in Asia give Hollywood hope?



					www.bbc.co.uk
				



The gist seems to be that if a studio want a guarantee of a $500m - 1b run for it's big films, it is going to have to do something...


----------



## CupofJoe

KGeo777 said:


> News media has been bypassed by many small operators.
> In theory the same should be true of other culture media.
> 
> Things like Deep Fakes--I bet at some point someone will try
> making a new 1960s Star Trek episode using the technology.
> Could be grotesque in results but I think such things will be done outside of
> the corporate influence.


But imagine what a "new" Marilyn Monroe, James Dean or River Phoenix film might be like?
If it is done well....
We are already well on the way to it with the de-aging of actors or recreating them ala Carrie Fisher [in Rogue One?]


----------



## KGeo777

I think it's part of Hollywood's insanity that they are focusing on China. If you have an Italian pizza business, you don't expect to make pizzas which cater to Chinese patrons AND Italian ones at the same time. It would make no sense. The pizzas would satisfy neither Italians nor Chinese. But that is how Hollywood looks at culture.
In 1960, the idea that you could make a film that caters to all audiences in the world would have been seen as bizarre.

As for the resurrection of actors--there's two problems with it. One is the amount of work, even if computer-assisted, to make a fake that would trick everybody is the Mt Everest of problems-especially if you want a performance. You could probably compromise by doing a performance of someone taken from a different angle (i.e. Humphrey Bogart in a scene from one of his movies, but the camera located somewhere other than the original position. Since in that case, you aren't necessarily making a performance from scratch but extrapolating from the available data).
The other problem and this was mentioned in reference to the Peter Cushing scenes in the Rogue One movie--yes, they made a Peter Cushing that sort of resembles him despite the voice being off. But what if instead they just hired someone like Charles Dance to do his own performance of Tarkin?

Is the fake Cushing superior as a dramatic character to a real Dance portrayal?  I think that's the problem with this DeepFake thing. It's an interesting special effects technique but I suspect much of the time the use will come across as ill-fitting unless done as an experiment.

Beyond the moral questions of putting a famous actor in a new movie which they may well not have been wiling to do, like James Dean in some upcoming Vietnam movie.
I think it is depriving newer actors of resonating with audiences, but with Hollywood's other problems, probably way down in the list.
I have to wonder if the virus just gives Hollywood an excuse to shut down theaters.
It happened with live theater in 1900--the ownership of theaters became centralized and the first thing they did was shut down a huge number and increase prices.


----------



## KGeo777

Re: the article. It is very interesting that China and Asia has apparently recovered fully from the virus originating there, and yet the West is expected to radically change, losing economic and cultural infrastructure.

"*And without Hollywood movies, local films have had a bigger chance in cinemas,*" Wong adds, citing the success of Chinese drama My People, My Homeland and Japanese Anime movie Demon Slayer: Kimetsu No Yaiba. 

Imagine that--if Hollywood didn't have monopoly control and stifle competition, more artists could reach audiences.


----------



## BAYLOR

KGeo777 said:


> Re: the article. It is very interesting that China and Asia has apparently recovered fully from the virus originating there, and yet the West is expected to radically change, losing economic and cultural infrastructure.
> 
> "*And without Hollywood movies, local films have had a bigger chance in cinemas,*" Wong adds, citing the success of Chinese drama My People, My Homeland and Japanese Anime movie Demon Slayer: Kimetsu No Yaiba.
> 
> Imagine that--if Hollywood didn't have monopoly control and stifle competition, more artists could reach audiences.



The Chinese  Science Fiction  film *The Wandering Earth* did big Box office China .


----------



## Rodders

It may have done well, but i tried to watch it and turned it off after maybe half hour. It wasn’t a great film. Well made, though.

My problem with Hollywood is it’s over reliance on set pieces. Sometimes you can watch a movies and its just non-stop action.


----------



## CupofJoe

Rodders said:


> It may have done well, but i tried to watch it and turned it off after maybe half hour. It wasn’t a great film. Well made, though.
> My problem with Hollywood is it’s over reliance on set pieces. Sometimes you can watch a movies and its just non-stop action.


You maybe on to something. For the recent Marvel and DC films when I watch them on disc I have to stop and do something else every 30-45 minutes, even it is just make a cup of tea or make room for one. A film can't be at *11* all the time.
but I watched *Le Mans '66* no problem.


----------



## BAYLOR

I wonder how long the movie companies  can keep pushing back the premiers of their films ?


----------



## Vince W

Just as long as the streaming arms of their companies can support the loss.


----------



## Overread

Considering that blockbuster films roll one into the next and that right now a lot of film and TV is more expensive to make and harder to make with covid restrictions and risks they might well hold back those films for longer, knowing that now isn't the prime time to invest the money they would make into new ventures. So they can hold things in limbo and hopefully ride it out. I would imagine the studios can survive pretty well - the ones that will suffer are the cinema groups. Just like restaurants and discos and other venues that rely on public attendance, they will continue to bleed and suffer until such time as the public can flock through their doors once again.


----------



## BAYLOR

Overread said:


> Considering that blockbuster films roll one into the next and that right now a lot of film and TV is more expensive to make and harder to make with covid restrictions and risks they might well hold back those films for longer, knowing that now isn't the prime time to invest the money they would make into new ventures. So they can hold things in limbo and hopefully ride it out. I would imagine the studios can survive pretty well - the ones that will suffer are the cinema groups. Just like restaurants and discos and other venues that rely on public attendance, they will continue to bleed and suffer until such time as the public can flock through their doors once again.



Im wondering if al of this  will cause any of the major films studios to fold . I thinking that at the very least, some production companies might fold and go out of business.   The chime chains  are certainly in trouble.


----------



## BAYLOR

So, has anyone here seen the Godzilla vs Kong Trailer ?


----------



## KGeo777

Yes. the humans have dull dialogue, Kong is too big if we are going to be fair about it, and Godzilla is still fat.

 I prefer the 1962 trailer despite the ugly ape suit:


----------

