Has Television Become Bigger and More Important than Cinema ?

[Don]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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.