Has Hollywood become too Dependent On Blockbuster films?

[BAYLOR]

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

Im quoting myself to correct my typos .

 

[BAYLOR]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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."