Has Hollywood become too Dependent On Blockbuster films?

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 said:
Could just have a production company with a tiny office.
Amicus Films operated like that.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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....
 
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....
Click to expand...

The Max Headroom show predicted the demise of Cinema.It looks like it may have gotten that prediction right.
 
The movie theaters are in serious trouble . I wonder how many of them are going to go under in the face of the pandemic .
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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...
 
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.
Click to expand...

It's a nice thought. :cool:
 
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.
 
KGeo777 said:
The cost of film has made such things impossible--a film should not cost $500 million or even $10 million.
Click to expand...

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.
 
.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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Robert Zwilling Hollywood Writers Go On Strike Technology 0
S Lovecraft and Hollywood H P Lovecraft 9
M Interesting article on what happened to Princess Monokone in the US and the differences in outlook between Hollywood and Studio Ghibli Anime and Animation 7
P Can hollywood hacking be done well? Writing Discussion 11
WaylanderToo Get you some Hollywood! General Film Discussion 2

Similar threads


Back
Top