# Has Television Become Bigger and More Important than Cinema ?



## BAYLOR (Nov 1, 2020)

There is no question that the pandemic has put the damper on the movie theaters but , in the  scheme of things , has television become bigger and more important than cinema? What we are seeing  is that even Hollywood A list actors have started  in a big  way ,to lend their talents to the small screen. Them doing  television projects has not  become not only respectable but  even desirable. In fact one  ague that  it gives  them an  even better means of showcasing their acting talents .Even A List Hollywood producers ,directors  and writer and  getting into the act.

How do you. think this bodes for the future of Television and Cinema?


----------



## Vince W (Nov 1, 2020)

Television has been a thorn in the side of cinema for a long time. The pandemic has exacerbated this greatly as we can't go to the cinema safely at the moment. I think the cinema will have to adapt to survive, but while there is a vast amount of television programming available, much of it is pure drek.

I find shows and films by streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon and Apple are bereft of any real value. They are lacking in well edited scripts and film editing. These services seem to think that they should put every inch of film shot onto the screen. They couldn't be more wrong.

I have yet to subscribe to Apple+ but what I've seen of their free episodes I'm not missing much. I know people are raving about the Mandalorian on Disney+ but I'm suspicious of that. I wonder if they are liking because they feel they must like it.

I can count on one hand the number of Netflix originals I've finished.

Television is certainly on top at the moment, but they could learn a lot from the film producers of cinema.


----------



## TomMazanec (Nov 3, 2020)

I cut the cable a few years ago.
But I love Amazon Prime Video!
Haven't gone to the cinema in almost a year.


----------



## Foxbat (Nov 3, 2020)

I think there will be a lot of consolidation both in cinema and TV in the next few years. It’s happening now but it will go much further. Some streamers will gobble up other streamers but keep the brand names associated. The same will happen to film studios. Punters will keep on paying their cash for their favourite streamer or studio,  blissfully unaware that their choices are much more limited than they think.


----------



## Droflet (Nov 3, 2020)

I foresee a day when cable networks will drive cinemas out of business. Since HBO burst on the scene cable networks have drawn big stars to their side. Superior scripts are what actors crave. Studios continue to pump out the same old same old then wonder why movie attendance is down. I am, of course, talking about pre covid conditions. If cable keeps going the way it is, and studios keep doing what they do, I don't see cinemas lasting for long. Just my two bobs worth.


----------



## Judderman (Nov 3, 2020)

I think cinemas will keep going strong for another couple of decades, presuming can get full capacity allowed. But you consider how many hours of television are watched a day, and it has always been more important in a way. Since mass market tv ownership. Obviously cinema needs to keep ahead of tvs on tech standards.

I was sad to see a local cinema close down in Calgary. One of those old ones that mainly show either arty/international or old movies. Only so long places can run at low capacity without a big bank account behind them.


----------



## paeng (Nov 5, 2020)

The movie industry has been facing internal problems because too many movies are made every year, with major studios relying on tent-poles that are becoming more risky. That's also why more movies are being released straight to video, including for TV and streaming.

Meanwhile, there are also too many TV movies made, with some of them operating like tent-poles, e.g., millions of dollars per episode, with one season costing almost as much as a Hollywood movie.

Even streaming services are competing with each other, such that in order to watch one favorite show or movie shown exclusively in that platform, viewers tend to subscribe to watch them, then unsubscribe. Or else they wait for the shows to show up on regular TV or even in bargain bins.


----------



## Robert Zwilling (Nov 5, 2020)

Movie actors had to migrate to TV several times over the past 60 years ago, so its not a new deal.

In the last 10 years I have gone to maybe 5 movies at a theater, with more years between each time.

The cable channels started making their own in house programs quite a while ago. Most were not noteworthy for me. One of the first ones I remember was Showtimes Sherman Oaks, a comedy. Big digital companies like Amazon have recreated the Hollywood movie studio atmosphere. The productions range like the Hollywood studios did in their hey day, from A list, to B, C, D, And F, for time fillers, paying actors to practice acting.

I have Acorn and Amazon and an outdoor antenna. On Amazon I watch The Expanse and Bosch, that's it for their home grown continuing series, watch old stuff as I think of it. Have watched some of their shows that only were made for one season. For the antenna, the public broadcasting channels have new stuff, the bulk of the rest of the outdoor antenna is 10 years or older.  Its hard for me to think of the small screen as small every time I see someone lugging a 5 foot tall TV out of Walmart. 2 feet tall is the biggest I got, 1 from a yard sale, the other, an old picture tube model.

Dvds, no Blu Rays.

I noticed that the same way book trilogies are marketed, Amazon has started running the first season free for some programs with multiple seasons, then you have to pay one way or another to see the rest of the seasons. I don't pay, I just find another one to watch for free.

I use a Roku box. I sold the Apple TV on eBay.

Digital entertainment is advancing on multiple fronts, but the next big thing, like maybe virtual reality home theater movies is still a ways off, so it seems like the only draw for now are the ever increasing screen sizes.


----------



## CupofJoe (Nov 5, 2020)

Something has been the "death of cinema" since about 1927. It still seems to find a way to carry on.


----------



## REBerg (Nov 5, 2020)

Those with the means can nearly duplicate the cinema experience in a dedicated home theater. The missing element that has kept theaters in business despite the technological challenges it has faced is the communal experience of reacting to a film in a large audience.
(That, and the enormous cost of popcorn. )


----------



## Judderman (Nov 6, 2020)

Sometimes watching movies at home I find the music is loud and clear but the speech is too quiet like a whisper.
Cinemas have an advantage that you can hear the whispering bit and then get deafened during the loud bits.


----------



## Parson (Nov 6, 2020)

Judderman said:


> Sometimes watching movies at home I find the music is loud and clear but the speech is too quiet like a whisper.
> Cinemas have an advantage that you can hear the whispering bit and then get deafened during the loud bits.



Perfectly true. I find myself wincing at the volume in theaters and have the remote in my hand for parts of Amazon Prime. I'm currently watching "The Amazing Mrs. Maisel." and occaisionally can't hear the quiet parts at all. --- Pretty good series though, But way too many F bombs for me.


----------



## Judderman (Nov 7, 2020)

I find Mrs Maisel is great and funny, except for the comedy routines. Bizarrely the least funny part.


----------



## Parson (Nov 7, 2020)

Isn't that the truth! A lot of the comedy bits are barely smile worthy, while her life is hilarious. --- I wonder if that's what the message of the show really is?


----------



## TomMazanec (Nov 8, 2020)

Why did 3D cinema fizzle? I liked it, even with the glasses.
Same with TV (though I never had that...too expensive).


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 9, 2020)

TomMazanec said:


> Why did 3D cinema fizzle? I liked it, even with the glasses.
> Same with TV (though I never had that...too expensive).



It just didn't catch on, too gimmicky for most consumers.


----------



## Vince W (Nov 9, 2020)

BAYLOR said:


> It just didn't catch on, too gimmicky for most consumers.


It wasn't good enough to warrant the extra price of admission to me.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 9, 2020)

Vince W said:


> It wasn't good enough to warrant the extra price of admission to me.



I found 3D to be aggravating. t\The movies looked dark and subdued and that drove me nuts.


----------



## farntfar (Nov 9, 2020)

The thing with 3D is that there are generally 1 or 2 short scenes where the effect is magnificent (Usually something zooms out of the screen straight at you) and that's it. 
Mind you, I wasn't really that bowled over by the arrival of colour tv, apart from the odd "for those of you watching in black and white the green's behind the pink" moments or a bit of Animal Magic or something. So maybe I'm just an old grump.
And I was fairly young the time.


----------



## TomMazanec (Nov 9, 2020)

Does 4K or 8K UHD make any difference vis-a-vis HDTV? I mean, if you don't press your nose to the screen?


----------



## CupofJoe (Nov 9, 2020)

BAYLOR said:


> I found 3D to be aggravating. t\The movies looked dark and subdued and that drove me nuts.


And for some [10%?] the 3D just didn't work. Went to see Avatar and lasted 10 minutes.


----------



## .matthew. (Nov 9, 2020)

I think a lot of movie actors go over to TV for the money.

They might get paid millions for a film, but big shows can pay big names upwards of a million dollars an episode. They do like 20 of those a year and that's more than they'd see from doing movies. Plus if the series is successful, that's basically a guaranteed job for 5+ years.

TV Hollywood is also a lot better at paying residuals than cinema, and from what I've heard, the actors from a show like Friends still rake in nearly 20 million a year nearly 20 years later, just from syndication.


----------



## Narkalui (Nov 10, 2020)

With regard to big name actors going to TV, I think it's more to do with an artistic decision. The chance to really get their teeth into a part over the course of 8 to 12 hours of narrative rather than an hour and a half just be quite the draw.


----------



## .matthew. (Nov 10, 2020)

Narkalui said:


> With regard to big name actors going to TV, I think it's more to do with an artistic decision. The chance to really get their teeth into a part over the course of 8 to 12 hours of narrative rather than an hour and a half just be quite the draw.


I've known a lot of wannabe actors and actresses (yes, I still use the apparently un-PC term) and without exception all they've really cared about is attention. I have sincere doubt that many at all care about the roles they play (the exception being more common with theatre players).

Consider how many utterly terrible movies and TV shows get made for proof that they do it only for money and ego (more so when many of these people are millionaires many times over when they take the roles). Plus, TV characters get them more prolonged attention with the weekly episodes over many seasons.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 23, 2020)

.matthew. said:


> I've known a lot of wannabe actors and actresses (yes, I still use the apparently un-PC term) and without exception all they've really cared about is attention. I have sincere doubt that many at all care about the roles they play (the exception being more common with theatre players).
> 
> Consider how many utterly terrible movies and TV shows get made for proof that they do it only for money and ego (more so when many of these people are millionaires many times over when they take the roles). Plus, TV characters get them more prolonged attention with the weekly episodes over many seasons.



And over time,  make more more money by doing tv .


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 15, 2021)

Narkalui said:


> With regard to big name actors going to TV, I think it's more to do with an artistic decision. The chance to really get their teeth into a part over the course of 8 to 12 hours of narrative rather than an hour and a half just be quite the draw.



It's televisions gain.


----------



## stephen g parks (Feb 15, 2021)

BAYLOR said:


> There is no question that the pandemic has put the damper on the movie theaters but , in the  scheme of things , has television become bigger and more important than cinema?


Interesting question

*From a technological perspective*, TV has caught up to and even overtaken cinema - TV screens are huge, dolby and other cinema-quality audio streams are available, and straming bandwidth and/or bluray allows for the delivery of better picture quality.
*
From the social perspective* - TV offers greater flexibility in timeshifting, pausing, rewinding to catch a missed piece of dialogue. Theatre's main advantage is the "experience", which other than seeing a picture in a crowd, is also being improved upon by consumers watching TV at home.

*From a content perspective* - Theatre's exclusivity window keeps shrinking. So movies can be enjoyed at home sooner. As per the quality difference between movies and TV shows, that's been dwindling for some time. For me, HBO's Rome was the first indication that TV could supplant movies as the home of epic storytelling. I think many studios are coming around to the idea that serialized TV is a better format than movies. Look at how characters like Jack Ryan are migrating from movie releases to TV seasons. Marvel's various forays into TV series have shown them that the format was viable for something cinematic like WandaVision.

*From a cost perspective:* Taking a family to the movie theatre twice a month could easily set you back $100. How many streaming services (with massive libraries) could you sign up to for the cost of taking your family to see those two movies?

So for consumers, I think the shift from movie theatres to home theatre experience is inevitable. And I thnk studios realize it and are planning accordingly. If any of you are old enough to remember theatres before the megaplex concept, then you know that theatres have been losing audience for a long time and have been trying to reinvent the traditional experience.

Will theatres disappear completely? Probably not, but I would expect they'll end up more like the DVD-bongs that thrived in Korea in the early 2000's - a small room that you rented to view a movie with a hand-chosen audience. Mass capacity mix-and-mingle theatres may be preserved for special premiers, or they may just be victims of technology.


----------



## Droflet (Feb 15, 2021)

That is a very well thought out bit of writing, Stephen. I agree with everything you've written, which is unusual for me. I was born before TVs came on the scene and have seen the changes you've mentioned. Yep, the last movie theater I attended was to see, wait for it, The Phantom Menace. A dozen friends with kids saw that load of drek with me and I had to control my tendency to swear in front of the kids. At home, I would just go out to the back yard, drop kick the cat over the fence and scream at the moon. So, I see your points.


----------



## stephen g parks (Feb 15, 2021)

The one aspect I forgot to mention is that movie theatres aren't owned by studios, so they are a middleman between the studios and their profits. If the studios can build streaming services, then they own the middleman's share of profits as well.


----------



## Finch (Feb 15, 2021)

Watching the TV going to the cinema and visiting a theatre are all different experiences.  I like to watch music on Youtube, but it will never replace watching a live band.


----------



## .matthew. (Feb 15, 2021)

BAYLOR said:


> It's televisions gain.


I wouldn't say that. Most big names aren't actually very good at acting, they just have the face for it. Big names also demand much higher salaries, meaning studios are more likely to cancel shows because of the cost. Cost increase is actually one of the reasons many Netflix shows end after 2 seasons - the point at which they are contractually obligated to pay far more money per episode.



stephen g parks said:


> The one aspect I forgot to mention is that movie theatres aren't owned by studios, so they are a middleman between the studios and their profits. If the studios can build streaming services, then they own the middleman's share of profits as well.


The theatres seem to make their money on concessions more than the actual movie, but I still wouldn't be surprised if the same people who own stock in studios don't also own stock in theatres. If I was a big-time studio executive/shareholder I would likely have (pre dark times) diversified into related industries.


----------



## Judderman (Feb 15, 2021)

Cinemas still score over home for a teen date night, or folks just wanting to watch a film amongst an excited rabble. Or meeting a group of friends at a central place.


----------



## Dave Vicks (Feb 16, 2021)

There are annoyances in movie theaters. Iike Smart phones.


----------



## Vladd67 (Feb 16, 2021)

Dave Vicks said:


> There are annoyances in movie theaters. Iike Smart phones.


and people.


----------



## Droflet (Feb 17, 2021)

and kids. (with stupid parents)


----------



## KGeo777 (Feb 17, 2021)

Home theaters are ok, but they cannot match the sensory experience of a giant screen. The reason older movies had more wide shots is because they would have these massive scenic displays. THE BIG COUNTRY for example. That would be amazing on a big screen.
Acting also is affected by the screen--often they say an actor has to be mindful of the size of the projected image because any emotion they show will be magnified much larger-and so they think about their reactions depending whether they are in close up or full screen.

And people report who have watched older movies shown in a  theater-that it makes the movie seem all new to them-seeing it in a theater for the first time.
The main problem with tv is that they want the serial.
They are not interested in the single volume story--which is a massive loss. A story told over 2 hours is different in impact from one told over a season. 

I think the studios do want to drive the theaters out of business. China, according to the BBC, is seeing a big leap in movie-going. The virus has helped homegrown filmmakers. Hollywood is not interested in promoting the homegrown. There is no homegrown to them.

And as others said--in a healthy society-you don't want to be trapped in your home.
You want to get out, in the community, the corporations don't understand or care about that.


----------



## Finch (Feb 17, 2021)

Dave Vicks said:


> There are annoyances in movie theaters. Iike Smart phones.


For me, it is the downside of visiting the cinema. The ratling and crunching and the smell of popcorn.


----------



## tinkerdan (Feb 17, 2021)

TV used to be substandard media for big screen stars.
Today--where image is mostly about getting exposure-TV is a better alternative to what some of the tabloids can offer.
TV is their social media that they can regulate and even get paid for.

Think how much fun it would be for you if facebook paid you to throw your life out there for everyone to see.


----------



## .matthew. (Feb 17, 2021)

tinkerdan said:


> Think how much fun it would be for you if facebook paid you to throw your life out there for everyone to see.


That sounds horrifying :/


----------



## svalbard (Feb 17, 2021)

Judderman said:


> Cinemas still score over home for a teen date night, or folks just wanting to watch a film amongst an excited rabble. Or meeting a group of friends at a central place.



Yes, yes and yes. I fear there is a whole generation that might we'll lose that rite of passage of taking your date to the cinema. Sitting at the back, cuddled up and sometimes forgetting where you were.


----------



## Don (Feb 17, 2021)

This thread presents lots of food for thought. Here's my own two cents.

By the end of the 1960s the television industry usurped the movie industry. The movie industry saw the handwriting on the wall during the 1950s. To fight back the movie industry experimented with: wider aspect ratios beyond the television industry's one and only (at the time) 4:3 aspect ratio, 2+ hour long epics, and 3D movies.

Eventually the movie industry made movies for television. However, the advent of Star Wars and its ilk put the movie industry back into the driver's seat. Movies became franchises unto themselves with related product pushed through television.

Nowadays streaming rules, no? Is scheduled entertainment mostly applicable to sports?


----------



## JohnM (Feb 20, 2021)

"Streaming" is a fake word. As in, it creates the illusion of "modern" as in "not like the old stuff." In other words, if you're watching TV, you're watching TV.

Industry competition based on aspect ratios? Definitely not. New TV shows in the 1950s generally died a quick death. The in-home experience of TV was the novelty and the movie screen was the standard. When I saw Star Wars on the big screen, it definitely added to its epic feel. But aside from an epic feel, it also had to have a story worth telling. In the 1950s and 1960s, there were a limited number of toys and figures based on movies. George Lucas, on the other hand, made a great deal of money with action figures and spaceships that could be played with.

The Walt Disney Company owns Star Wars and Marvel and has the luxury of doing movies and TV. As long as the stories are good.

What the "entertainment industry" did was to start with VHS tape, and then have us spend money on the same thing as DVDs, then Blu-Ray, and now it's "let's skip the physical and just transmit to subscribers" or one-time buyers.

With DVRs, the viewer can record and watch as desired. The basic formula has not changed. Whatever delivery method that makes the most money wins, and that cuts costs for the producer.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Feb 21, 2021)

There's nothing in the home to compare with watching a movie at the cinema. How many times have you sat at home watching a programme/film, and - no matter how riveting it was - had a quick look at your mobile? Or paused to flick over to another channel, or be disturbed by a relative/neighbour/the cat? Or got up to put the kettle on or visit the loo or 101 other things? When you're in a movie theatre , your full attention is on the screen in front of you.

And no matter how good your tv/audio system at home, it pales into insignificance against the experience in the cinema. Star Wars at the movies takes on a completely new perspective in the theatre. The Rebel blockade runner and pursuing Star Destroyer thunder onto the screen, the deep bass rumble of the audio perceptibly vibrating the seats; nothing compares in the home to that. Unless you've experienced Star Wars in the movie theatre, you've never _truly _experienced it.

Yes it costs a great deal of money, but it's worth it as long as you choose the right movies to go and see.


----------



## mosaix (Feb 21, 2021)

I'm old enough to remember that television did take over from cinema in the 60's.

In the 50s, Friday and Saturday nights were reserved for a visit to the 'pictures' for the latest western or war film starring John Wayne. Then it became more comfortable to sit at home and watch the television - especially when colour came along. But cinema fought back with wide screens, stereo sound, hot food, multiplexes and block-buster films. Now Netflix is seeing a swing back to staying at home - helped, no doubt, by lock down.

It's swings and roundabouts and, I think, will remain so.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 21, 2021)

mosaix said:


> I'm old enough to remember that television did take over from cinema in the 60's.
> 
> In the 50s, Friday and Saturday nights were reserved for a visit to the 'pictures' for the latest western or war film starring John Wayne. Then it became more comfortable to sit at home and watch the television - especially when colour came along. But cinema fought back with wide screens, stereo sound, hot food and multiplexes. Now Netflix is seeing a swing back to staying at home - helped, no doubt, by lock down.
> 
> It's swings and roundabouts and, I think, will remain so.



Televisions emergence  in the 50's helped ignite the epic movie craze in Hollywood .


----------



## KGeo777 (Feb 21, 2021)

There were also a number of small production companies too--they sprang up partly because of a court case--the blockbooking scandal. Also because film stock got cheaper. The big studios were kind of behind the times--they were churning out social message dramas and paint by numbers films. They weren't making a Ben-Hur every month.  Drive-ins were making a lot of money for non-Hollywood film.

Internet is kind of the drive-in of today, but it's much less financially stable. Or if there is interesting stuff, it's buried. Is there anything that gets attention in the independent realm?
I never come across it. Maybe the fact that you can download something at any time reduces the excitement....in the old days you had to catch the tv program or you would miss it for weeks or months before it was run again.

But I think the biggest culprit is that there is calculated effort to dismiss merit and vitality in artistic efforts.
Look at the trends--most of the tv productions announced, focus on political ideology. Look at all the shows being made about female characters, in some cases that are extremely obscure like the nurse from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. It is laughable to consider that character worthy of a tv series. So they base their production focus on ideology (and corporate franchises), and then throw money at whoever promises to deliver the content--and obediently in the process.
It's a total joke.
A Wednesday Addams tv series is coming too.
Just what everybody wanted!


----------



## JohnM (Feb 21, 2021)

I'm seeing some totally unsupported statements here. The Wizard of OZ was shot in color because color film had become available. Prior to that, no color film

"artistic efforts"? Hollywood has a very limited interest in artistic efforts. Once something big hits, like Star Wars, the hunt is on for similar material. The people who finance movies have little to no creative experience. They know what they like. The other problem that is sometimes not recognized is that Hollywood has a long history and people have not changed for the most part.


----------



## KGeo777 (Feb 21, 2021)

I know-they call it show business--it's kind of a derogatory term. But the fact is, Walt Disney was an artist, he was one of --perhaps the most successful person in Hollywood and with television. And he cared about artistic issues.
We know Hollywood is run by people who have no artistic or widespread cultural impulses-but they are not interested in making money from mainstream or niche audience taste either. 
They don't care about merit. There was a time when middle management had more health-but not since so much downsizing and merging has happened.

In the past, they would hire people that had talent and did have some interest in audience preference but not now.
It's all about agendas and political messages and recycling franchises. They just keep claiming it is what the public wants--but they always say that. 
Hollywood Accounting literally means "we lie about business." There's no business like show business. No other business could operate as it does, and keep going. They do because there's no competition. If there was, they would be trouble.


----------



## JohnM (Feb 21, 2021)

More unsupported statements. Walt Disney was an artist. Snow White was going over budget and worried the accounting department. No matter, he was in charge, and it was a hit.

Hollywood has a long history that cannot be summed up in a few words. Recently, more and more political messages have appeared in movies and in TV shows. Those are things that cause me to avoid certain movies and TV shows.

Competition doesn't matter. If amateurs had access to that very long list of names that appears at the end of movies, they would still be amateurs. Sure, there are inexpensive handheld cameras of reasonable quality now, but who do you hire to play the roles? How much do you pay them? And for the script and special effects?


----------



## KGeo777 (Feb 21, 2021)

Disney was an artist--so there's an example of a company in Hollywood that did think about artistic effort and benefited from it. That's supported.  Disney did have financial problems with Fantasia, but that was experimental so it was to be expected. It was a risk. And, the other bigger studios did not need to worry about money like Disney did.   Disney was able to bounce back with Dumbo. He did make some live-action films that were not successful-but one consideration is-they were competing against the bigger companies which had more money and market access.

Competition does matter--because professionals are not able to get access to the marketplace and practice their art. They are denied because these few companies control all the gates-including funding and marketing. So if you are a producer-a business person, and you would like to fund and produce a movie-you immediately hit roadblocks--as in, the distribution network will not give you access--unless your film is in line with their ideology (or make changes to accommodate that ideology).  An example of this is  Zero Dark Thirty-a political film--made by a small company-but was given access to the grid. Or The Meg. How is it possible, that of all the films that could have been made, the one that gets massive exaggerated media attention is one that is a co-production with China, and a story which is as well-worn as humanly possible--a giant shark?

It's because the gatekeepers are filtering access according to *their* tastes. They do not care what the public is interested in. How do we know this? They said they are not interested in making regional film anymore. China is what matters. What other business would commit suicide like that?

You don't abandon your base consumer in order to chase others. You would make one product for your base consumer and a new one for the audience you want to gain. Hollywood does not think like that. They make one product that is increasingly watered down and market it to everyone. 
If you don't like it, tough luck. They aren't panicking when a movie doesn't do well.  Hollywood accounting...

And they are the ones tilting towards amateur quality, because they want obedience to their ideology--and only those who are in line with their thinking are going to be hired. That is not encouraging quality and talent.  What artist in their right mind is going to excited to do Batman remake no. 7?

It is becoming more amateur in Hollywood because of this squeezing of control levers.
In fact, there are a few cases where people with their home computer, are correcting mistakes done at the corporate level--i.e. someone fixed the Superman mustache in one of the movies. For free.

It is certainly true that the democratic nature of film technology today means anyone --without talent, can make a film. Just as anyone without painting skill, can paint a picture. But the same rules apply--to be a professional painter-you need access to the marketplace. If you can get it, then you are encouraged to paint more. If you cannot, you are discouraged from doing it. The same with film.

So that's why it's so bland now. It is so controlled in content and there's no real sincere desire to nurture a new generation of passionate artists. 
So you have the corporate and the ghetto (of the internet).


----------



## BT Jones (Feb 21, 2021)

Cinema isn't so much the tip of the iceberg as it is just another brightly coloured lure on the end of the commercial fishing rod.  The broader problem is captured very well by the Netflix documentary 'The Social Dilemma', which details the lengths to which computer algorithms dictate, not just what we're enticed to watch, but what studios / production company's make as a result.  How those computer systems work is genuinely scary, but that's a much larger conversation for another thread.

At the end of the day, entertainment is there to stop us having to entertain ourselves, so we take what we can get.  What we can get is obviously dependent on what is being made, and that has always been, with the exception of arthouse and indie cinema, whatever studios think the people want.  What's probably worse with TV is that, now that companies like Netflix and Amazon can produce the entertainment themselves, it becomes not so much about the quality of the product, but the amount of 'content' you can produce, and whether people are happy to continue to quaff it down.

Younger audiences appear (to me at least) to not be quite so discerning anymore.  It's more about the act of digestion rather than enjoying the meal.  On the flipside, wasn't it always that way with kids?  I was the same, watching anything in the sci-fi horror genre, almost regardless of quality (Deep Star Six / Leviathan, anyone?).

Saying all that, there is still decent creative work being made.  Criminal is, if you haven't seen it, an excellently written, well produced, well edited product; modern, stylistically speaking, but with integrity.  The Stranger was similar (though not as good) and was aware of how pulpy it was, but still thoroughly entertaining.  The Netflix original movies have been getting better too.

I think, like all things, it will level out, and the platforms that make the best 'content' will ultimate get more subscriptions than the ones that don't.

On a separate note (and this may have been the original purpose of the thread), I do think television is probably the preferred medium for many at the moment.  The idea that you can go to the cinema and watch something plausible, well written and with fully developed characters crammed into something just 2 hours long seems increasingly folly.  I used to have a pipe dream of my stories being made into movies and watching them on the big screen.  Now, the idea seems laughable (separate to its unlikelihood) for how much of the story would have to be butchered to get it anywhere close to 2 hours long.  A 10 episode, single arc season (as opposed to episodes of the week, ala Star Trek and Law & Order) seems, to me, to be the best way to present an adapted story with anything like the requisite depth.


----------



## JohnM (Feb 22, 2021)

Does anyone here have any actual experience in dealing with Hollywood? Or is this just idle speculation based on bits and pieces?

A script editor I know explained the screening process to me. Most screenplays never get made. Most are poorly written. I see the same thing in the manuscripts that were sent to the company I work for. It is not 'democratic' to just print anything. Standards still apply.

Generally, people will not watch low quality material. For some, it may be that whatever they can get is better than nothing.

The internet allows for the instant publication of almost anything, yet in that case, a person has to wade through a lot of chaff. I mean if that's all the author wants, that's fine, but it takes time to really master any craft. I know freelance artists. They've told me how things go in the real world. No speculation there on my part.


----------



## KGeo777 (Feb 22, 2021)

I go by the content first and foremost.  You can watch content from 30-60 years ago and compare. That's the best way to make an opinion on quality and content differences over time. Talking to someone inside the system doesn't count to much since they could be putting a spin on it. On the other hand, I have mentioned this before, Dan Curtis, a well-known figure in television, did say in one of his last interviews, he noticed a change in the executives he was dealing with. In the old days, they would be enthusiastic about ideas and stories--but more recently, they didn't seem to care. That could have been sour grapes on his part, but many notable names have said the same. Richard Matheson in a Television Archives interview, said around 2010 he hadn't seen anything in recent years that he considered of quality writing. It's just his opinion, but I think many would say he did know something about writing. And if people are still watching and enjoying his work, then it counts all the more because it shows it has enduring appeal.

When Transformers 3 came out, an ad campaign they used was, "This isn't Shakespeare."
The reason they used that campaign was because so many people had said "gee, these movies are terribly written and directed etc."
There have been films about robots and aliens, low budget and higher, that have been considered decent in storytelling attributes. Not to mention that Shakespearean elements are found in numerous stories of mass appeal, so to use such a slogan to advertise the film is ridiculous. I would not call it professional either.

*The Creature From the Black Lagoon* used a Shakespeare line in its introduction segment.

I do not think it is professional behavior to be dismissive of past cultural works and creators. And we have seen this in recent years. The other day someone, a filmmaker who apparently is hired by corporate studios, said something like it's fine to be ignorant of past cultural works or to reject them. And that recipient of an award for writing who said the award's namesake is unworthy of celebration. How unprofessional can you get? These are the people getting corporate media support.
That does not sound healthy to me.


----------



## JohnM (Feb 22, 2021)

At a game developers' conference, I watched as the opening speaker said that a certain aspect of drawing could now be ignored. After all, he went on, computers can do that. As someone with an arts background, and with experience as an assistant art director, I can say that this person is deluded. He has no concept about what goes into concept art. It takes many years to gain the experience necessary to do anything good in this field.

I bring this up because some computer games can and do make more money than Hollywood movies. The tech level has also reached a point that should concern Hollywood. Human renders are quite lifelike.


----------



## KGeo777 (Feb 22, 2021)

Eventually, maybe there will be a resurgence in theater thanks to holograms but it sounds so counter-intuitive to resurrect famous performers as animated characters while discouraging the advancement of real ones. Technology and corporate power come together in this aim.
There's more enthusiasm for games than movies. Maybe it was inevitable considering how much focus was put on spfx-but I think if they had encouraged a new generation of stars and performance-based art, people would respond to it.
It's just that there's no encouragement of that now.
If a corporation buys a small company you would expect them to want to hire people who know what they are doing-but it seems more like they hire people who will do what they tell them to do, instead of letting the business run as it would if independent.

It seems to be peculiar to media and culture and while there's no question that art and artists will have idiosyncratic tendencies, even self-destructive ones, this seems to be due to mis-management on the executive level and a refusal to look into the past. Production costs keep going up despite digital shortcuts and offshoring production to all over the world...


----------



## JohnM (Feb 22, 2021)

There is this utopian fiction among some that if independents are left to their own devices that better work would follow. I've seen too many cases where that is just not true. And there is this anti-corporate tendency among some that views all outside control as universally bad. As if the work in question is pure and it must, at all costs, remain untouched by anyone. This ignores a few basic things. Those who have owned "content" producing companies for decades are still in business today because they know what sells. That's it - the whole thing. And since they know what sells, they have a built-in fan base as well. So marketing does not start at square one, as in, how do I find my audience?

Some person I strongly disagree with said we live in the 'golden age of television.' At this time, I am seeing mostly dreck that I want nothing to do with.


----------



## KGeo777 (Feb 22, 2021)

It's not a utopian fiction that merit and initiative require some kind of individual touch. Who better than Walt Disney proved that to be true?  He was more famous than any of the other studio owners who had far more money than he ever did. 
There are others like James Nicholson and Charles Band who had their own production companies and were overseeing them without a legion of executives (Disney did have a brother who handled financial things). And it is evident today that media corporate control has become so centralized and bureaucratic that it no longer has any relevance to the audiences it claims to serve. It preaches more than it serves.
The reason these companies are still in operation is because they have no money problems and in truth probably never did. How could they be in operation when they were violating Edison trademarks? A number of the studio owners came out of the garment or shoe industry-they knew nothing about art and theater.

Was it because everyone loved their products? No. It is because they had access to money, marketing, and  a lot of government sway.  Hollywood dominated UK cinemas by 1930. Not from merit--but from unlimited money sources and government favoritism.
J Arthur Rank was a rare case of an English industrialist who started a film company in England and was in operation for decades. The Rank Organization.

But these days someone like him could not do it because the gates are so tightly controlled. 
Nowadays, Disney is more like Mosfilm in the Soviet era than any kind of free enterprise capitalist stereotype that keeps getting peddled. They are obsessed with censorship and message. 

To say this is what the public wants is like saying the public wants dysfunctional weak politicians. No they don't. They don't have a choice. 

 Even the slogan "golden age of television" is just more PR BS. It's like giving an announcement that the deck chairs on the Titanic have been re-positioned.
 Film started as small business so it's nothing weird or scandalous to say that art works better when it has a smaller managerial footprint.
It is just that there's very little of that now and new blood is not encouraged to get into the business because the gates are so tightly managed.


----------



## JohnM (Feb 22, 2021)

"If I only had the money." Heard by me at a comic book convention decades ago. Then, more recently, seen by myself on my company's public message board.

The thing today is, "If I only had access." And then what? The gates are open. Then what? With all that money and influence, I could... What?

And the ever present "management is always evil" embedded in the mind.

All I'm seeing here is the old, Give me the money and market access/distribution and I'll make ""real"" and better... What? Shoes? Movies? What?

This all boils down to power and control. Once someone has this, then uh... uh... something happens. Is it any good? Doubtful.

I was there from the beginning of the company I work for. Yes, there is management. Yes, there are talented people. And yes, after decades in business we are still in business. And we have a dedicated fan base. I know how it's done. I lived it in real time.

"art works better" ONLY when the artist is in control? I've seen very little evidence of this being widespread or done single-handedly. And by the way, I watched Mr. Disney on television in the 1960s. I know his story very well.


----------



## KGeo777 (Feb 22, 2021)

No art doesn't always work better when the artist is in control-but if business management is involved it is better that it operates according to supply/demand and Hollywood does not. It operates outside of supply/demand. It always did with the largest companies but it is  more obvious today.
Rank Organization operated on supply/demand. AIP did as well. British Lion, Allied Artists...
The majors never had to worry about that because they had guaranteed finances and market access.
You don't seem to care about the history of film business.
Rank was a business man--I am not saying it was bad.
Artists usually need patrons--so it's not a bad thing--but it can be once it reaches a stage where there's no competitive environment.
The reason movies are so limited in theme and intellect now is because they have whittled down acceptable content and restricted who can access it.
I.e. Walt Disney from Chicago, if he was a young man today he would be denied a managerial job in Disney co. because he has too much privilege. 
That decision has nothing to do with making money.


----------



## JohnM (Feb 23, 2021)

The history of the film business cannot be reduced to a few words. I know it. I know people in Hollywood. I read the Hollywood trade press.

Supply and demand. Well, one could say that Hollywood is on the verge of making no money when their primary focus is producing movies as forms of issue advocacy, as opposed to simple entertainment. A Western here, a science-fiction film there.

I should remind everyone about the fact that Hollywood selects an "average" audience to watch a film before release to get their reaction. That's why I've seen: "Latest Star Wars movie delayed to reshoot certain scenes." The "average" audience decided they didn't like this or that part, so they reshot those scenes.

I work for someone who is both a creator and a businessman. I know how it goes. I've dealt with the financial side as well. This is all I do for a living. When I sat down, in person, with my script editor friend, it soon became apparent that we were both trained to do the same thing: To evaluate manuscripts and to be able to tell the good from the poorly written. The good being a small fraction of submissions.

What is obvious today across a wide spectrum, is the growth of monopolies. The growth in the number of billionaires. I'm not talking about a paltry one or two billion, but individuals who are worth 10, 20 or 100 billion. Imagine waking up in the morning with an idea and having the money to make it happen. Competition? The current trend is to buy any new start-up once it's shown to have long-term growth potential.

Tell artists what to do and pay them for it? That's called "Work for hire." That's what the comic book business was. Once you did the work, the company owned all rights. So if a movie was based on something you created, you got nothing. This is nothing new.

You have to think about the Producers, the money men behind all movies. They are putting up the money so why shouldn't they dictate content? Why shouldn't their personal, political or favorite cause get presented somewhere in the movie? They are paying for it after all. 

But I don't have to watch it. In the recent past, I'd see one or two new movies a year. That's it.

China is an important market but so is Europe, along with the US. Obviously, someone is seeing those movies and paying for them. Batman movie number 12? Sure. Why not? As long as the money is rolling in. Once it drops below a certain number, no more Batman movies.


----------



## KGeo777 (Feb 23, 2021)

It sounds like you don't even read what I am saying. You are off on other subjects entirely. I won't waste my time.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 23, 2021)

JohnM said:


> The history of the film business cannot be reduced to a few words. I know it. I know people in Hollywood. I read the Hollywood trade press.
> 
> Supply and demand. Well, one could say that Hollywood is on the verge of making no money when their primary focus is producing movies as forms of issue advocacy, as opposed to simple entertainment. A Western here, a science-fiction film there.
> 
> ...



Even before the Pandemic , I largely stopped going to the movies , There's many that I didn't even both seeing after they left the cinema.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 23, 2021)

JohnM said:


> There is this utopian fiction among some that if independents are left to their own devices that better work would follow. I've seen too many cases where that is just not true. And there is this anti-corporate tendency among some that views all outside control as universally bad. As if the work in question is pure and it must, at all costs, remain untouched by anyone. This ignores a few basic things. Those who have owned "content" producing companies for decades are still in business today because they know what sells. That's it - the whole thing. And since they know what sells, they have a built-in fan base as well. So marketing does not start at square one, as in, how do I find my audience?
> 
> Some person I strongly disagree with said we live in the 'golden age of television.' At this time, I am seeing mostly dreck that I want nothing to do with.



But what you end up with is a large percentage of not very good films.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 23, 2021)

JohnM said:


> I'm seeing some totally unsupported statements here. The Wizard of OZ was shot in color because color film had become available. Prior to that, no color film
> 
> "artistic efforts"? Hollywood has a very limited interest in artistic efforts. Once something big hits, like Star Wars, the hunt is on for similar material. The people who finance movies have little to no creative experience. They know what they like. The other problem that is sometimes not recognized is that Hollywood has a long history and people have not changed for the most part.



It sounds a bit like the film * Barton Fink.*


----------



## KGeo777 (Feb 23, 2021)

I do not believe for a moment that the public wanted nothing but superhero remakes and serials for the last 10 years.
It is not a case of these companies saying "what does the public want?"
They are in essence saying "what limits on content should the public be made to accept?" Yeah they talk 4 quadrants and all that but it's BS beyond the desire to influence everyone--especially young people. 
They have a monopoly-the government does nothing to stop even though they have rules on the books to prevent it.
Every now and then you get some blip like Italy prevented Hollywood from having total domination and that allowed for a period of local creators and variety. Fellini, Bava etc.. If Hollywood had been able to dominate Italy in that period with imports they would have been out of work.

I am not saying if Hollywood died today, there would be a sudden boom of better quality content but it would come eventually--because then merit would be unrestricted  by wacky ideology and hostile ownership.
It's not really healthy when the owner of a company has disdain for their consumer!  That does not make for an enthusiastic product or reception.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Feb 27, 2021)

I think the demise of the cinema will lead to the death of big budget movies which all have to make back their budget and so tend to be safe, dependable investments. If you don't go to see their movie , you go to see one from a rival company - so you end up losing all your money. Which is why we end up with lots of sequels and similar types of film.

With tv the budgets are still big, but the failure of one venture doesn't mean the end. In fact, because people are watching from home , there is a much more diverse viewing audience and no-one is paying for that particular viewing; so it's unlikely that anything can be truly classed as failing. And even if it does, people will likely watch another show on your stream meaning that no money is lost. So you end up with some really interesting films that would likely never make it to the movie theatres like The Dig, The Irishman and The Trial of the Chicago 7.


----------



## KGeo777 (Feb 27, 2021)

TV was getting a lot of attention 30 years ago too. HBO made for cable movies. In fact one of their earliest films was a dramatization of the Chicago 7 trial so  here's yet another franchise remake. At least it shows the political motivation, it's not about making money in an intuitive sense--supply the demand. If they wanted to make money they would not be focusing on something so niche.  How many people really wanted another Chicago 7 trial movie? So we have this chasm between the big budget superhero fantasy remake and the slice of life drama--and there's not much in between. Oh yeah, Halloween sequels and remake. How exciting.
It's very very narrow range of story and themes.
That's why it is so oppressively boring compared to 2-3 decades ago.
One of HBO's early movies was one where HP Lovecraft is a private detective. That was different!


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 28, 2021)

E]


KGeo777 said:


> TV was getting a lot of attention 30 years ago too. HBO made for cable movies. In fact one of their earliest films was a dramatization of the Chicago 7 trial so  here's yet another franchise remake. At least it shows the political motivation, it's not about making money in an intuitive sense--supply the demand. If they wanted to make money they would not be focusing on something so niche.  How many people really wanted another Chicago 7 trial movie? So we have this chasm between the big budget superhero fantasy remake and the slice of life drama--and there's not much in between. Oh yeah, Halloween sequels and remake. How exciting.
> It's very very narrow range of story and themes.
> That's why it is so oppressively boring compared to 2-3 decades ago.
> One of HBO's early movies was one where HP Lovecraft is a private detective. That was different!



Wasn't the Lovecraft  film titled *Cast a Deadly Spell* ?


----------



## Droflet (Feb 28, 2021)

Thank (insert deity here) for HBO. I remember the days before and after. We would not have the choice we have today if HBO hadn't tried the great experiment. Finally we are free of the commercial stations who have, since day dot, made shows for sponsors. Now the cable guys are making shows for people.  The increase in the overall quality of productions proves beyond measure that all those years ago HBO started the great revolution.


----------



## BAYLOR (Apr 1, 2021)

Droflet said:


> Thank (insert deity here) for HBO. I remember the days before and after. We would not have the choice we have today if HBO hadn't tried the great experiment. Finally we are free of the commercial stations who have, since day dot, made shows for sponsors. Now the cable guys are making shows for people.  The increase in the overall quality of productions proves beyond measure that all those years ago HBO started the great revolution.



With ever more increasing companies.


----------



## Judderman (Apr 1, 2021)

paranoid marvin said:


> .. In fact, because people are watching from home , there is a much more diverse viewing audience and no-one is paying for that particular viewing; so it's unlikely that anything can be truly classed as failing. And even if it does, people will likely watch another show on your stream meaning that no money is lost.


I'm sure individual shows can still be seen as failing. Low viewing figures and nobody is then paying to shoot the next season. Though you are right that the biggest streaming services can likely afford some one season failures. Especially if it helps keep up the variety.
On the flip side there have been some good one season thrillers. At least they seem to be written with one season in mind, and then with success they decide to write another season. Even though the mystery from the first has been revealed.


----------

