Has Television Become Bigger and More Important than Cinema ?

[KGeo777]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

E]

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]

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]

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]

.. 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.

 

[BAYLOR]

The cinema never seems to quite recovered from Covid.

 

[paranoid marvin]

The cinema never seems to quite recovered from Covid.

I think people realised that streaming service tv series could be just as good- if not better - than most movies. And you could almost pay for a year's subscription with the costs of 2 family visits to the movies.

 

[BAYLOR]

I think people realised that streaming service tv series could be just as good- if not better - than most movies. And you could almost pay for a year's subscription with the costs of 2 family visits to the movies.

The movie theaters are struggling. The last Team I went to the theaters was t see Indian Jone and the Dial Destiny. There weren't alot of people in the theater. And the movie was a huge disappointment.

 

[svalbard]

I think people realised that streaming service tv series could be just as good- if not better - than most movies. And you could almost pay for a year's subscription with the costs of 2 family visits to the movies.

Absolutely true. I love the big screen but it is no longer value for money. I have 55 inch TV and it does the trick for the big movies when they hit the streaming services

 

[BAYLOR]

The best writing used to be movies , now it's television that has the best writing.

 

[svalbard]

That is true as well.