Has Hollywood become too Dependent On Blockbuster films?
- Thread starter BAYLOR
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2011
- Messages
- 5,376
LET THE BITCHING AND COMPLAINING BEGIN!!!
Begin?
Cathbad
Level 30 Geek Master
Cathbad
Level 30 Geek Master
The China film market has become important??
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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 !
Overread
Searching for a flower
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).
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).
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.
Last edited:
Overread
Searching for a flower
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.
Overread
Searching for a flower
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.
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
Nerf Herder
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?
