Absolutely! Couldn’t agree more! I mean, really; isn’t it true that humans are only one card out of the deck away from lemmings?
Personally, I think we need a full review of ALL materials that even hint of anything…well, anything ‘bad’.
So let’s round up the graphic novels, the paperbacks, the video games, the television programmes, let’s take a look at song lyrics-
Oh, jeez; maybe we should just shut the entire ‘free expression’ thing down. Where on earth did they get the idea that any degree of self-directed thinking was any good for the collective? Hmm…?
Well, mainstream media is hardly the place to go for informed, insightful journalism. Especially when they really don’t investigate the story. Witness some of the truly laughable coverage of this week’s purchase of YouTube by Google. They’re not selling information…they’re looking for consumers for their advertisers.
It’s rare to find any sort of journalism about the ‘state of the film industry’ where the writer actually understands the issues. Most of the blame can be placed on the film industry itself, for the efforts to retain some of the last remaining vestiges of ‘inner workings’ of the biz…seeing as most things you can ‘learn about’ online or from books and magazines. It’s not the ‘magic factory’ it used to be…and I’m not talking about the product!
CTLC, I can’t completely agree. I think that if movies were 25% less expensive than they currently, you’d get ‘some’ people back, but most of the ones I speak to have made the jump in perspective, they’d prefer to put their money into watching at home. Just as many people simply don’t care about ‘cinema treasures’, couldn’t give a toss about a palace being demolished, there are many people out there who don’t grant the cinema-going experience any value at all. Or very much of a value. So the price, to these people, is immaterial.
Besides; where do ticket prices sit vis a vis inflation over the past ten, twenty years?
I know that longislandmovies believes ticket prices are reasonable for two hours' worth of entertainment. I’m assuming you don’t? What do you think a movie is worth paying to see?
Honestly, this part of the conversation: “People still do want to get out of the house but the film diversity is just not there!” is the part that makes me wish I could gather you and longislandmovies and others for an extended breakfast in some really cool diner…and just talk and talk and talk. You’ve probably gathered that this whole aspect of ‘film’ is one of my passions: what’s changing, why, where’s it all going…? I love cinema-going nostalgia. I love film palaces. I love going to see films (anywhere!). And obviously, as a screenwriter, I love films themselves. But this topic… This is what I currently find most fascinating, because it draws in to the discussion so many aspects. The quality of the films offered. The ‘down side’ of going to a multiplex. How people are cocooning even more than in the 80s. How ‘getting out’ is still important, but how people’s habits are changing. The impact of the Internet/technology on how we regard our movie entertainment.
I love the discourse here. I wish we could have more, I wish we could arm-wrassle everything over bottomless cups of coffee and artery-clogging plates of grub.
Al, thanks for your continued responses to my diatribes. Your patience and indulgence is much appreciated. Danke.
Good points, Al.
However, I think your last question needs to be rephrased to “So what has happened to The Studios/Hollywood/The Moviemaking Machine?"
I think it’s a common mistake to assume that because there ‘seems’ to me more dreck on the screens, that it means that screenwriters have simply run out of ideas.
Hardly.
A few points to keep in mind when discussing all this:
-The average cost of bringing a film to viewing has now reached somewhere in the neighbourhood of $100 million.
-Hollywood execs are, at the very heart of it all, paid to say ‘No.’. It’s not an industry based on innovation or risk. Think about it; you could take that $100 million and build a skyscraper, invest in stocks, real estate, a drug cartel…and potentially obtain a better return. So execs seek out the ‘sure-fire hit’…or properties that have elements that have elements that seem to indicate a better chance of success. To wit:
-Remakes. Sequels. Adaptations. Now, there may be arguments against each and every one of these sources (easily proven by going to any IMDb message board and watching people lacerate films for being a retread of something from the 70s, or a followup on a tired franchise or an adaptation from a tv show or a graphic novel or a comic book, or, your English teacher be praised, a piece of literature!), but in the eyes of The Studios, if they can even incrementally improve the chances of a film’s success by mining previous territory…regardless of the original medium…they will. Does this make for a crap cross-section of films? Yes. But to paraphrase longislandmovies, this may just work itself out by way of its own business cycle. That is, Hollwyood does what it does for -primarily- business reasons. If the reference points change, so will their decisions.
-What I’m going to say here is going to contradict my following point, but it still holds: there are only so many actual ‘stories’ to be told. Depending on who you look to, this number is 7, 11, 22, 35… All of the rest are simply variations on these, derivations, transmogrifications, as Calvin would say. And as we live in a consumer culture, just as with fossil fuels, eventually, with more and more being produced and consumed, you reach a point of…of… Now, the usual rebuttal here is a reference to music, where there are only a certain number of notes to play with (no pun intended) and yet new and fresh music is being created all the time… And this is true, to a certain extent. The main problems with the analogy is that a) most songs are not 100 minutes long and b) don’t cost $100 million to bring to market. Music is more easily produced, digestible…and disposed of.
-Contrasting with what I’ve just said, and getting back to your original question, there’s nothing wrong with today’s screenwriters. I can assure you that there are some absolutely wonderful scripts out there, some ingenious creations, some ‘heartbreaking works of staggering genius’. So obviously, you’re going to ask the question ‘Then why aren’t we seeing them on the silver screen?!?’ I’m not going to even attempt to answer that. The only people who know the answer are those who greenlight projects. And I doubt you could pin them down on it. I will, however, throw the question out to fellow CTers: Why do you think Hollywood has what it has sitting in its ‘Reject’ pile?
-I have to throw this into the mix something that, in my opinion, informs this situation a lot, but it doesn’t have to do strictly with the film industry, it’s something that affects all manner of US life, entertainment, sports, consumerism, politics, the whole enchilada. And that is, that the society is predicated on bombast. On fireworks and parades and celebration and the larger-than-life possibility for all of the riches of celebrity… This preponderance of ‘mega-ness’ influences -to varying degrees- all the components of American life I’ve mentioned. So really, should it be any wonder that the films we’re seeing at the cinema (or in your home!) reflect this ingrained tendency? If you live anywhere else in the world, this tendency is absent. And this is one of the reasons that ‘Hollywood’ films are different than those films from Denmark, from Sweden, from France, from Japan. (Please, I am not taking potshots at the US. I am not a ‘US-basher’. I am simply trying to provide some perspective to the constantly-asked question ‘Why do we continue to get the same old sh&t at the movies?!?’) A society reflects itself. From the headline news, to the marketing for a new hamburger, to Friday night high school football games to the presidential primaries, America feeds off bombast. Generally, this is not a situation that bodes well for creative nuance. For innovation. (Thank God there are always exceptions, those who exist outside the box!) So the blame can’t just be placed on those in Hollywood who keep saying ‘Yes!’ to the same-old, same-old. Nor can it just be placed on those people who reinforce/support these execs' decisions by purchasing tickets to ‘Saw III’. To me, if you take a few steps back, you can see that there’s more at play on a societal level than the average person is either aware of…or wants to admit to. In a very real way, we’re all part of the equation.
Further to your other points:
-Yes, many people who rent and puchase DVDs also go to the cinema. But… But this number is shrinking. I know, because I talk to more and more of them every day. People who are home-theatre fans are becoming more and more entrenched. Yes, they will always be prepared to go to the cinema to catch something worth seeing there…‘The Return of the King’..but mostly, they’re happier and happier at home.
-TV is currently more creative. As to why? Well, I think you’d have to look at the current business models of both to get more insight. Especially when it comes to the non-traditional network shows.
-The funny thing about the idea that ‘you have to watch Korean, Chinese and Japanese films to get anything original’ is a) they’re mining home-grown source material in the same way Hollywood is, but of course, the average American isn’t aware of it, and b) American audiences, by-and-large, and by dint of having created a self-sustaining and generally isolationist society, is not that interested in things-foreign. Yes, this is a gross-generalization, but I’d be willing to bet a kajillion bucks that it’s true to an overwhelming degree. So though you’re correct…innovation in storytelling in fllms appears to be more prevalent in non-US sources…it’s also correct to state that Hollywood needs to remake these films in order to find a mass audience -and revenues- to support its $1 BILLION worth of projects it has in development at any given time.
So. I’m curious; how do you breathe with your head buried so deeply in the sand?
: )
LOL x many
You know, we’re on the same team. I see movies constantly…at the cinema. So you don’t have to win me over in that regard. I’m simply trying to shine a light on how other people regard film-viewing. That’s all.
And I’m a screenwriter/novelist; I’m constantly working, constantly on my computer.
The problem here is that you’re using yourself as a reference point. You’re seeing your own behaviour as proof of what you believe.
The people I am talking to are increasingly telling me given the choice of seeing ‘new releases’ at a cinema or in their home, they’d time-and-again chose home-viewing. You obviously don’t see that their frame of reference is entirely different from yours. Maybe you can’t appreciate just how diametrically-opposed your preferences are. These are people who laugh at the idea of going to the cinema. Because of the cost, because they have kids, because they don’t have the time… The reasons are actually unimportant. The only thing that matters is that home-viewing is their preference. And their numbers are ever-increasing.
Sorry to clog…but Al, in raising your question about the current quality of movies, the issue of ‘Where film-going is headed?’ is side-stepped. The quaility of the movies is not the prime factor for people placing more and more emphasis on home-theatres. If films were absolutely the best, better than ever…they’d still want to watch them at home. This seems to be the elephant standing in the corner that many cinema-lovers simply do not want to acknowledge.
“Can you imagine what these theatres would do if someone started to make good movies again?”
Well, as a screenwriter, I’m always curious as to what people think are ‘good movies’…and moreover, whether things actually have gotten worse over the years, or is it simply more a matter of more product than ‘before’…and therefore more overall dreck? (I’m always reminded of my mom saying ‘You know, when people talk about how great films used to be in the 30s, 40s, 50s, I laugh. (She grew up in a cinema.) Because there was an awful lot of pretty bad films back then that nobody remembers.’)
Digital projection is…well, it’s like having someone telling you they don’t want to eat their pizza in a restaurant, they want to eat it at home. And, for the sake of argument, there hasn’t been a way for pizza to be eaten in the home. But this option is approaching… Yet the pizza restaurant owners are saying (as you are with digital projection) ‘But we have a new way to cook the pizzas here, in the restaurant! It’ll be better pizza! Just wait and see!’ (Please excuse the limitations of my analogy.)
But those people who don’t want to have to go to a restaurant to eat pizza don’t care about any improvements in the pizza in a restaurant. They only care about eating pizza in their home. You could make the restaurant experiences downright heavenly…and they wouldn’t care.
Don’t get me wrong; I’ve been waiting for the projection aspect in cinemas to improve, and I will applaud when these changes occur…but the whole reference point of this entire discussion is not technology. (Which makes your counterpoint about video moot.) It’s the fact that there are a growing number of people who simply do not want to spend money on seeing films in cinemas. Period. How great you make the cinematic experience for them is simply flushable to them. They want to stay home and watch movies…and given the chance to watch ‘new releases’ there, they will. The rest of us will -hopefully- have better cinematic viewing thanks to digital innovations.
And I never said that just because I think it might happen, that it will. Go back and take a look at my post from yesterday; I explain that I’m taking all the facts available into consideration. Just because you think things aren’t going to change, doesn’t make the likelihood that they aren’t, any better. The difference between you and me is, quite frankly, you’re too close to the forest to see the trees. I respect your experience in the industry, and I respect your informed opinion. But you’re understandably biased and hardly objective. What I’m proposing means frustration and disappointment and economic hardship for many who are now engaged in the theatrical arm of the film biz. And for that, I’m sorry. But time marches on. Whether we like it or not.
Al: I understand what you’re saying. As I’ve said to anyone here who’s responding to my thoughts by bringing the current specifics of the industry into play, ‘That’s now. I’m not speculating about now, I’m talking about the future.’ I’m talking about what’s around the corner.
As I’ve thrown around these concepts, these suggestions, these possibilitites, here and elsewhere online, as well as chats over coffee, etc, a consistency seems to be that those who either disagree vehmently or simply cannot ‘see’ it, are those with connections to the cinema trade. And of course, this makes sense. Imagine trying to tell a nabe operator in the late 40s that soon, very soon, many of his brethren would be out of business, because people were going to do an about-face and stay home to get their entainment, effectively fatally eroding the tradition of going out to the cinema…which of course had done the exact same thing to vaudeville… Imagine the response you’d have gotten from this owner/operator, or anyone of his contemporaries in the ‘biz’. They’d either have laughed, or cited reasons (based on the facts at the time) why it simply wasn’t going to happen. ‘Television?!? People are going to give up a huuuuuge colour screen for some tiny black-and-white box? You’ve gotta be kiddin’ me!!!‘ Or imagine trying to tell The Studios that eventually, they wouldn’t own their own cinema chains. That they’d be divested of that control over their own products. 'Pah!’
What you’re telling me are facts reflecting the current state of affairs in film distribution. And at the core of all this is that almost without exception (and I’m not talking about ‘straight to video’ here, so please, let’s not muddy the waters with that issue) ‘new releases’ have never been available to the view anywhere or anyhow but in a movie house. With the entertainment default ready to shift to home viewing, Hollywood (AKA ‘The Studios’) are approaching this paradigm shift. They may not be talking about it much, but it’s there, slowly approaching on the horizon. And when it happens… Well, to paraphrase, ‘You change this, you change everything.’
Bringing the examples you’ve cited into the discussion is moot. You’re talking about entirely different circumstances than I am. Again, this ‘brave new world’ isn’t something many people are comfortable considering. For many, it enrages. It challenges tradition, it means change, it suggests even more ‘cinema treasures’ fatalities. But if you look at how technology is bringing wave after wave of change to our lives… I mean really; did anyone expect that the theatrical aspect of film was somehow going to continue on forever and ever, amen, without being affected by these endless waves of technological innovations? In a free-market, consumer-based system, things only tend to remain the same when there are restraints keeping things this way. (Best example I can think of is how we haven’t migrated from the combustion engined, fossil fuel-eating automobile to something more efficient, something more sustainable, especially in light of the geopolitical situ over the past five decades. But that’s an entirely different conversation and I’m regretting bringing it up even as I’ve typed it.) The consumer is a voracious beast. It wants what it wants. And there is an ever-increasing number of consumers out there who don’t want to view their ‘new releases’ in a cinema. There is an ever-growing number of new viewers for whom going to the cinema to see any film is not the norm. These people want to be able see their currrent releases at home. They don’t want to go to the cinema. And as I’ve said ad nauseam, Hollywood doesn’t care how it gets its money. $$$ from ‘new release’ online downloads and bricks-and-mortar sales and rentals is the same to them as $$$ from theatrical distribution. (Actually, I’m being generous; it’s actually more profitable for them to not have to produce as many prints, or pay for distribution, yadda, yadda, yadda, that is, not base their entire ‘new release’ takings on theatrical distribution.)
I understand completely that what I’m suggesting has no reference points in film tradition. I’m asking those polite enough to listen to what I’m saying to try to see things in a completely different way. Not because I want them to be that way. Once again, I’m an impassioned cinema-goer. I don’t watch films at home. I’m simply taking a look at the trends over the past fifty years, taking into consideration what’s been changing in home and mobile entertainment and personal computing and organizing, listening to people tell me they’re creating their own cinematic experiences at home…and deducting from all this, what I see as being inevitable: that eventually, the ‘norm’ for ‘new releases’ will no longer exclusively be cinema viewing. In fact, at some point, when the playing field has settled, though there will definitely still be cinemas, and there’ll definitely still be us cinema-goers, it’ll be regarded as a little ‘quaint’ by those who get their ‘new release’ kicks at home.
Bottom-line is that if you’re using historical, even current reference points to say ‘Hell no!’ to my speculation…then you’re already turning to watch things pass on by.
There may be a more up-to-date document, but this one only shows figures from last year. I haven’t been able to come up with anything newer. Not yet, anyway.
I’m not going to flog a dead horse here, but longislandmovies…you’re trapped in thinking of theatrical releases as the paradigm. The driving force behind everything else. This will change when those people who so desire have the option to watch ‘new releases’ as they prefer: in their homes. When this happens, the theatrical release figures will dive all the more, until eventually, our perspective regarding what movie-watching is will be changed entirely. The link’s figures point to this…and it doesn’t take into account simultaneous release. Yes, that bugaboo…
Can’t argue as to the self-respect issue. You have first-hand experience, in the trenches.
However, “The big blockbuster money comes from theaters” simply isn’t true. As witnessed here. And that was a year and a half ago. The theatrical distribution portion of the studios' revenue pie is more than likely below 13% as we speak. And it’s still heading south…
“Theatre owners can only make a stance by refusing to play a film in big numbers as in the case of BUBBLE. Otherwise, only the public can send the message effectively.”
Oh, gosh… At the risk of ‘Can open, worms all over!’, does this mean that if you were a record store owner, you wouldn’t carry anything by the Dixie Chicks? Or that you wouldn’t exhibit this film?
Chalet: I appreciate your ‘insider’ experiences, sounds like you’ve had more than your share… But it seems to me that there are several issues combined into one when ‘Hollywood’ is brought up, and most in a negative sense. 1) the quality of the product and 2) the business practices. (‘the fees’)
Am I right?
I’m curious; for those here who are interested, how would you address each aspect? I know that this is probably a huge discussion, but hey, it’s Thanksgiving Weekend up here in Canada and I could use some thought-provoking discussion to go along with my turkey…
Mmm… Interesting example, longislandmovies… But to stay true to the situation, you’d have to have a more narrow arena in order for the ‘they have the option of going elsewhere’ line of thinking to work. Cinemas ‘sell’ one product, and one product only: movies. And this product is shifting weekly. Your gourmet shops sell all kinds of other goods…and the customers can get their Iranian and French products elsewhere while still picking up other items in your establishment…
This guy didn’t just not ‘sell’ something he didn’t ‘believe’ in, he closed up out of ‘protest’.
Trying to come up with analogies… Maybe a bar that only carries one type of beer and maybe that beer company does something that pisses him off, and he refuses to sell their suds…but instead of going with another brand, he decides to just not sell beer for two weeks…? (Again, because of the specific nature of films and cinema, it’s hard to come up with something more or less ‘equal’ in example…)
A kid on the corner who takes offense at the newspaper for taking a particular editorial stance, and therefore, decides not to sell any papers for two weeks…
Again, the analogies are strained.
I like that the guy ‘stood up’, but in closing the place instead of say, having a two-week ad-hoc festival of classics, or bringing in some ‘indie’ titles, whatever… He made this gesture into something akin to a spoiled child taking his ball and going home. I think he crossed the line from ‘freedom of choice’ to a decision that was more spiteful and selfish, all things considered. And really, there was never going to be any effect on the industry, so this fact makes the whole incident all the more self-indulgent, to me anyway.
‘Censorship’? Hmm… I can’t say that what he did sits well with me, I’d have preferred to have seen him dig a little deeper into his options, but ‘censorship’ feels a bit much. I’m still trying to decide how I feel about his actions. On the one hand, I admire his pluck. On the other, how far can you reasonably take personal taste? And what’s the difference between a perceived quality issue and someone wanting to effect ‘family values’? In the end, he does have the right to show what he wants to show. (Especially if he can afford to suffer the economic consequences!)
But I disagree with the idea of ‘Flyboys’ being a ‘stinkbomb’. Don’t you think there’s a case to be made for a distinction between two films' merits? There’s a difference between ‘Jackass 2’ and say, ‘All The King’s Men’, even before you watch them, specifically their respective intents. Shouldn’t this difference count for something? I mean, objectively? (I"m not referring to a genre’s validity, I’m talking about its inherent substance according to its intent; ‘Jackass 2’ was intended to make people howl in a frat-house sort of way, a ‘this-makes-me-cringe-but-I-can’t-look-away’ sort of way in a more-or-less docu-feature style, while ‘All The King’s Men’ was intended to show one man’s rise and fall in politics within a dramatic narrative. The first was meant to get people to roll their eyes, the latter to get people to think.) ‘Flyboys’, though flawed as a piece of drama, had an entirely different intent than ‘Jackass 2’ or ‘Beerfest’. As did ‘The Black Dahlia’, ‘The Guardian’, ‘The Departed’, ‘Little Miss Sunshine’, ‘The Illusionist’, ‘Hollywoodland’, ‘Invincible’ or ‘World Trade Center’.
I think maybe it comes down to this guy not believing there’s any merit in ‘gross-out’ films like ‘Jackass 2’, regardless of how well they’re made, and that a film like ‘Flyboys’ intrinsically has more merit, regardless of how flawed it actually is.
I’m sure there’s an appropriate analogy using food, but I need my caffeine and it’s time to fire up the breakfast grille.
I lived in the UK for almost eight years. I missed out on some films because they were just never released there…and as I’ve stated, I don’t watch movies on DVDs. Gone forever, then. <heavy sigh> I used to get movie-fixes during trips to North America, O.D.-ing on the latest faire. The inequities surrounding the film distribution biz in the UK were always maddening.
longislandmovies, you’re absolutely right. I can’t imagine what I was thinking! Not only are things not going to turn out the way I proposed, but I now predict that all cinema treasures listed on this site will be restored! Thanks for clearing things up, King Canute. (Go on. Look it up.)
“You may love the state you’re from, but there ain’t no state like the state of denial…”
I appreciate that you can’t see it. Sometimes visualizing quantum shifts is tough. Like imagining being able to record your tv shows to watch when more convenient…or be able to remove commercials when viewing…or not having to go to a record store to purchase your music…and not on vinyl…or be able to video-chat with someone halfway around the world by way of your computer…
But in the end, it doesn’t matter what either of us think is going to happen. It’s going to happen anyway.
Oh, poo.
Just when I thought we were actually going to have an engaging discussion.
Of course, if you want to see how little children deal with this topic, head over to the IMDb boards. Man, they must get their vitriol wholesale…
Absolutely! Couldn’t agree more! I mean, really; isn’t it true that humans are only one card out of the deck away from lemmings?
Personally, I think we need a full review of ALL materials that even hint of anything…well, anything ‘bad’.
So let’s round up the graphic novels, the paperbacks, the video games, the television programmes, let’s take a look at song lyrics-
Oh, jeez; maybe we should just shut the entire ‘free expression’ thing down. Where on earth did they get the idea that any degree of self-directed thinking was any good for the collective? Hmm…?
I’m curious as to where the line was crossed with this film.
Or is it the current political climate? Anticipation of boycotting or protests?
Do you think that if ‘V for Vendetta’ had been set in the US, there would have been a problem with its distribution?
And is it relevant that historically-based assassination films like ‘Bobby’ can get distribution and this speculative one has an uphill battle?
Finally, is the fact this film was made outside the US fueling the negative-response fire to any extent?
Well, mainstream media is hardly the place to go for informed, insightful journalism. Especially when they really don’t investigate the story. Witness some of the truly laughable coverage of this week’s purchase of YouTube by Google. They’re not selling information…they’re looking for consumers for their advertisers.
It’s rare to find any sort of journalism about the ‘state of the film industry’ where the writer actually understands the issues. Most of the blame can be placed on the film industry itself, for the efforts to retain some of the last remaining vestiges of ‘inner workings’ of the biz…seeing as most things you can ‘learn about’ online or from books and magazines. It’s not the ‘magic factory’ it used to be…and I’m not talking about the product!
CTLC, I can’t completely agree. I think that if movies were 25% less expensive than they currently, you’d get ‘some’ people back, but most of the ones I speak to have made the jump in perspective, they’d prefer to put their money into watching at home. Just as many people simply don’t care about ‘cinema treasures’, couldn’t give a toss about a palace being demolished, there are many people out there who don’t grant the cinema-going experience any value at all. Or very much of a value. So the price, to these people, is immaterial.
Besides; where do ticket prices sit vis a vis inflation over the past ten, twenty years?
I know that longislandmovies believes ticket prices are reasonable for two hours' worth of entertainment. I’m assuming you don’t? What do you think a movie is worth paying to see?
Honestly, this part of the conversation: “People still do want to get out of the house but the film diversity is just not there!” is the part that makes me wish I could gather you and longislandmovies and others for an extended breakfast in some really cool diner…and just talk and talk and talk. You’ve probably gathered that this whole aspect of ‘film’ is one of my passions: what’s changing, why, where’s it all going…? I love cinema-going nostalgia. I love film palaces. I love going to see films (anywhere!). And obviously, as a screenwriter, I love films themselves. But this topic… This is what I currently find most fascinating, because it draws in to the discussion so many aspects. The quality of the films offered. The ‘down side’ of going to a multiplex. How people are cocooning even more than in the 80s. How ‘getting out’ is still important, but how people’s habits are changing. The impact of the Internet/technology on how we regard our movie entertainment.
I love the discourse here. I wish we could have more, I wish we could arm-wrassle everything over bottomless cups of coffee and artery-clogging plates of grub.
Al, thanks for your continued responses to my diatribes. Your patience and indulgence is much appreciated. Danke.
Good points, Al.
However, I think your last question needs to be rephrased to “So what has happened to The Studios/Hollywood/The Moviemaking Machine?"
I think it’s a common mistake to assume that because there ‘seems’ to me more dreck on the screens, that it means that screenwriters have simply run out of ideas.
Hardly.
A few points to keep in mind when discussing all this:
-The average cost of bringing a film to viewing has now reached somewhere in the neighbourhood of $100 million.
-Hollywood execs are, at the very heart of it all, paid to say ‘No.’. It’s not an industry based on innovation or risk. Think about it; you could take that $100 million and build a skyscraper, invest in stocks, real estate, a drug cartel…and potentially obtain a better return. So execs seek out the ‘sure-fire hit’…or properties that have elements that have elements that seem to indicate a better chance of success. To wit:
-Remakes. Sequels. Adaptations. Now, there may be arguments against each and every one of these sources (easily proven by going to any IMDb message board and watching people lacerate films for being a retread of something from the 70s, or a followup on a tired franchise or an adaptation from a tv show or a graphic novel or a comic book, or, your English teacher be praised, a piece of literature!), but in the eyes of The Studios, if they can even incrementally improve the chances of a film’s success by mining previous territory…regardless of the original medium…they will. Does this make for a crap cross-section of films? Yes. But to paraphrase longislandmovies, this may just work itself out by way of its own business cycle. That is, Hollwyood does what it does for -primarily- business reasons. If the reference points change, so will their decisions.
-What I’m going to say here is going to contradict my following point, but it still holds: there are only so many actual ‘stories’ to be told. Depending on who you look to, this number is 7, 11, 22, 35… All of the rest are simply variations on these, derivations, transmogrifications, as Calvin would say. And as we live in a consumer culture, just as with fossil fuels, eventually, with more and more being produced and consumed, you reach a point of…of… Now, the usual rebuttal here is a reference to music, where there are only a certain number of notes to play with (no pun intended) and yet new and fresh music is being created all the time… And this is true, to a certain extent. The main problems with the analogy is that a) most songs are not 100 minutes long and b) don’t cost $100 million to bring to market. Music is more easily produced, digestible…and disposed of.
-Contrasting with what I’ve just said, and getting back to your original question, there’s nothing wrong with today’s screenwriters. I can assure you that there are some absolutely wonderful scripts out there, some ingenious creations, some ‘heartbreaking works of staggering genius’. So obviously, you’re going to ask the question ‘Then why aren’t we seeing them on the silver screen?!?’ I’m not going to even attempt to answer that. The only people who know the answer are those who greenlight projects. And I doubt you could pin them down on it. I will, however, throw the question out to fellow CTers: Why do you think Hollywood has what it has sitting in its ‘Reject’ pile?
-I have to throw this into the mix something that, in my opinion, informs this situation a lot, but it doesn’t have to do strictly with the film industry, it’s something that affects all manner of US life, entertainment, sports, consumerism, politics, the whole enchilada. And that is, that the society is predicated on bombast. On fireworks and parades and celebration and the larger-than-life possibility for all of the riches of celebrity… This preponderance of ‘mega-ness’ influences -to varying degrees- all the components of American life I’ve mentioned. So really, should it be any wonder that the films we’re seeing at the cinema (or in your home!) reflect this ingrained tendency? If you live anywhere else in the world, this tendency is absent. And this is one of the reasons that ‘Hollywood’ films are different than those films from Denmark, from Sweden, from France, from Japan. (Please, I am not taking potshots at the US. I am not a ‘US-basher’. I am simply trying to provide some perspective to the constantly-asked question ‘Why do we continue to get the same old sh&t at the movies?!?’) A society reflects itself. From the headline news, to the marketing for a new hamburger, to Friday night high school football games to the presidential primaries, America feeds off bombast. Generally, this is not a situation that bodes well for creative nuance. For innovation. (Thank God there are always exceptions, those who exist outside the box!) So the blame can’t just be placed on those in Hollywood who keep saying ‘Yes!’ to the same-old, same-old. Nor can it just be placed on those people who reinforce/support these execs' decisions by purchasing tickets to ‘Saw III’. To me, if you take a few steps back, you can see that there’s more at play on a societal level than the average person is either aware of…or wants to admit to. In a very real way, we’re all part of the equation.
Further to your other points:
-Yes, many people who rent and puchase DVDs also go to the cinema. But… But this number is shrinking. I know, because I talk to more and more of them every day. People who are home-theatre fans are becoming more and more entrenched. Yes, they will always be prepared to go to the cinema to catch something worth seeing there…‘The Return of the King’..but mostly, they’re happier and happier at home.
-TV is currently more creative. As to why? Well, I think you’d have to look at the current business models of both to get more insight. Especially when it comes to the non-traditional network shows.
-The funny thing about the idea that ‘you have to watch Korean, Chinese and Japanese films to get anything original’ is a) they’re mining home-grown source material in the same way Hollywood is, but of course, the average American isn’t aware of it, and b) American audiences, by-and-large, and by dint of having created a self-sustaining and generally isolationist society, is not that interested in things-foreign. Yes, this is a gross-generalization, but I’d be willing to bet a kajillion bucks that it’s true to an overwhelming degree. So though you’re correct…innovation in storytelling in fllms appears to be more prevalent in non-US sources…it’s also correct to state that Hollywood needs to remake these films in order to find a mass audience -and revenues- to support its $1 BILLION worth of projects it has in development at any given time.
“NEVER WILL REPLACE GOING OUT!”
So. I’m curious; how do you breathe with your head buried so deeply in the sand?
: )
LOL x many
You know, we’re on the same team. I see movies constantly…at the cinema. So you don’t have to win me over in that regard. I’m simply trying to shine a light on how other people regard film-viewing. That’s all.
And I’m a screenwriter/novelist; I’m constantly working, constantly on my computer.
And that’s great. More power to you.
The problem here is that you’re using yourself as a reference point. You’re seeing your own behaviour as proof of what you believe.
The people I am talking to are increasingly telling me given the choice of seeing ‘new releases’ at a cinema or in their home, they’d time-and-again chose home-viewing. You obviously don’t see that their frame of reference is entirely different from yours. Maybe you can’t appreciate just how diametrically-opposed your preferences are. These are people who laugh at the idea of going to the cinema. Because of the cost, because they have kids, because they don’t have the time… The reasons are actually unimportant. The only thing that matters is that home-viewing is their preference. And their numbers are ever-increasing.
Sorry to clog…but Al, in raising your question about the current quality of movies, the issue of ‘Where film-going is headed?’ is side-stepped. The quaility of the movies is not the prime factor for people placing more and more emphasis on home-theatres. If films were absolutely the best, better than ever…they’d still want to watch them at home. This seems to be the elephant standing in the corner that many cinema-lovers simply do not want to acknowledge.
“Can you imagine what these theatres would do if someone started to make good movies again?”
Well, as a screenwriter, I’m always curious as to what people think are ‘good movies’…and moreover, whether things actually have gotten worse over the years, or is it simply more a matter of more product than ‘before’…and therefore more overall dreck? (I’m always reminded of my mom saying ‘You know, when people talk about how great films used to be in the 30s, 40s, 50s, I laugh. (She grew up in a cinema.) Because there was an awful lot of pretty bad films back then that nobody remembers.’)
Digital projection is…well, it’s like having someone telling you they don’t want to eat their pizza in a restaurant, they want to eat it at home. And, for the sake of argument, there hasn’t been a way for pizza to be eaten in the home. But this option is approaching… Yet the pizza restaurant owners are saying (as you are with digital projection) ‘But we have a new way to cook the pizzas here, in the restaurant! It’ll be better pizza! Just wait and see!’ (Please excuse the limitations of my analogy.)
But those people who don’t want to have to go to a restaurant to eat pizza don’t care about any improvements in the pizza in a restaurant. They only care about eating pizza in their home. You could make the restaurant experiences downright heavenly…and they wouldn’t care.
Don’t get me wrong; I’ve been waiting for the projection aspect in cinemas to improve, and I will applaud when these changes occur…but the whole reference point of this entire discussion is not technology. (Which makes your counterpoint about video moot.) It’s the fact that there are a growing number of people who simply do not want to spend money on seeing films in cinemas. Period. How great you make the cinematic experience for them is simply flushable to them. They want to stay home and watch movies…and given the chance to watch ‘new releases’ there, they will. The rest of us will -hopefully- have better cinematic viewing thanks to digital innovations.
And I never said that just because I think it might happen, that it will. Go back and take a look at my post from yesterday; I explain that I’m taking all the facts available into consideration. Just because you think things aren’t going to change, doesn’t make the likelihood that they aren’t, any better. The difference between you and me is, quite frankly, you’re too close to the forest to see the trees. I respect your experience in the industry, and I respect your informed opinion. But you’re understandably biased and hardly objective. What I’m proposing means frustration and disappointment and economic hardship for many who are now engaged in the theatrical arm of the film biz. And for that, I’m sorry. But time marches on. Whether we like it or not.
Al: I understand what you’re saying. As I’ve said to anyone here who’s responding to my thoughts by bringing the current specifics of the industry into play, ‘That’s now. I’m not speculating about now, I’m talking about the future.’ I’m talking about what’s around the corner.
As I’ve thrown around these concepts, these suggestions, these possibilitites, here and elsewhere online, as well as chats over coffee, etc, a consistency seems to be that those who either disagree vehmently or simply cannot ‘see’ it, are those with connections to the cinema trade. And of course, this makes sense. Imagine trying to tell a nabe operator in the late 40s that soon, very soon, many of his brethren would be out of business, because people were going to do an about-face and stay home to get their entainment, effectively fatally eroding the tradition of going out to the cinema…which of course had done the exact same thing to vaudeville… Imagine the response you’d have gotten from this owner/operator, or anyone of his contemporaries in the ‘biz’. They’d either have laughed, or cited reasons (based on the facts at the time) why it simply wasn’t going to happen. ‘Television?!? People are going to give up a huuuuuge colour screen for some tiny black-and-white box? You’ve gotta be kiddin’ me!!!‘ Or imagine trying to tell The Studios that eventually, they wouldn’t own their own cinema chains. That they’d be divested of that control over their own products. 'Pah!’
What you’re telling me are facts reflecting the current state of affairs in film distribution. And at the core of all this is that almost without exception (and I’m not talking about ‘straight to video’ here, so please, let’s not muddy the waters with that issue) ‘new releases’ have never been available to the view anywhere or anyhow but in a movie house. With the entertainment default ready to shift to home viewing, Hollywood (AKA ‘The Studios’) are approaching this paradigm shift. They may not be talking about it much, but it’s there, slowly approaching on the horizon. And when it happens… Well, to paraphrase, ‘You change this, you change everything.’
Bringing the examples you’ve cited into the discussion is moot. You’re talking about entirely different circumstances than I am. Again, this ‘brave new world’ isn’t something many people are comfortable considering. For many, it enrages. It challenges tradition, it means change, it suggests even more ‘cinema treasures’ fatalities. But if you look at how technology is bringing wave after wave of change to our lives… I mean really; did anyone expect that the theatrical aspect of film was somehow going to continue on forever and ever, amen, without being affected by these endless waves of technological innovations? In a free-market, consumer-based system, things only tend to remain the same when there are restraints keeping things this way. (Best example I can think of is how we haven’t migrated from the combustion engined, fossil fuel-eating automobile to something more efficient, something more sustainable, especially in light of the geopolitical situ over the past five decades. But that’s an entirely different conversation and I’m regretting bringing it up even as I’ve typed it.) The consumer is a voracious beast. It wants what it wants. And there is an ever-increasing number of consumers out there who don’t want to view their ‘new releases’ in a cinema. There is an ever-growing number of new viewers for whom going to the cinema to see any film is not the norm. These people want to be able see their currrent releases at home. They don’t want to go to the cinema. And as I’ve said ad nauseam, Hollywood doesn’t care how it gets its money. $$$ from ‘new release’ online downloads and bricks-and-mortar sales and rentals is the same to them as $$$ from theatrical distribution. (Actually, I’m being generous; it’s actually more profitable for them to not have to produce as many prints, or pay for distribution, yadda, yadda, yadda, that is, not base their entire ‘new release’ takings on theatrical distribution.)
I understand completely that what I’m suggesting has no reference points in film tradition. I’m asking those polite enough to listen to what I’m saying to try to see things in a completely different way. Not because I want them to be that way. Once again, I’m an impassioned cinema-goer. I don’t watch films at home. I’m simply taking a look at the trends over the past fifty years, taking into consideration what’s been changing in home and mobile entertainment and personal computing and organizing, listening to people tell me they’re creating their own cinematic experiences at home…and deducting from all this, what I see as being inevitable: that eventually, the ‘norm’ for ‘new releases’ will no longer exclusively be cinema viewing. In fact, at some point, when the playing field has settled, though there will definitely still be cinemas, and there’ll definitely still be us cinema-goers, it’ll be regarded as a little ‘quaint’ by those who get their ‘new release’ kicks at home.
Bottom-line is that if you’re using historical, even current reference points to say ‘Hell no!’ to my speculation…then you’re already turning to watch things pass on by.
I’ll bring the grub; place your orders now, I’ll be more than happy to oblige!
There may be a more up-to-date document, but this one only shows figures from last year. I haven’t been able to come up with anything newer. Not yet, anyway.
I’m not going to flog a dead horse here, but longislandmovies…you’re trapped in thinking of theatrical releases as the paradigm. The driving force behind everything else. This will change when those people who so desire have the option to watch ‘new releases’ as they prefer: in their homes. When this happens, the theatrical release figures will dive all the more, until eventually, our perspective regarding what movie-watching is will be changed entirely. The link’s figures point to this…and it doesn’t take into account simultaneous release. Yes, that bugaboo…
Can’t argue as to the self-respect issue. You have first-hand experience, in the trenches.
However, “The big blockbuster money comes from theaters” simply isn’t true. As witnessed here. And that was a year and a half ago. The theatrical distribution portion of the studios' revenue pie is more than likely below 13% as we speak. And it’s still heading south…
“Theatre owners can only make a stance by refusing to play a film in big numbers as in the case of BUBBLE. Otherwise, only the public can send the message effectively.”
Don’t understand. Please explain.
“oh yes anything from Michael Moore”
Oh, gosh… At the risk of ‘Can open, worms all over!’, does this mean that if you were a record store owner, you wouldn’t carry anything by the Dixie Chicks? Or that you wouldn’t exhibit this film?
Chalet: I appreciate your ‘insider’ experiences, sounds like you’ve had more than your share… But it seems to me that there are several issues combined into one when ‘Hollywood’ is brought up, and most in a negative sense. 1) the quality of the product and 2) the business practices. (‘the fees’)
Am I right?
I’m curious; for those here who are interested, how would you address each aspect? I know that this is probably a huge discussion, but hey, it’s Thanksgiving Weekend up here in Canada and I could use some thought-provoking discussion to go along with my turkey…
Mmm… Interesting example, longislandmovies… But to stay true to the situation, you’d have to have a more narrow arena in order for the ‘they have the option of going elsewhere’ line of thinking to work. Cinemas ‘sell’ one product, and one product only: movies. And this product is shifting weekly. Your gourmet shops sell all kinds of other goods…and the customers can get their Iranian and French products elsewhere while still picking up other items in your establishment…
This guy didn’t just not ‘sell’ something he didn’t ‘believe’ in, he closed up out of ‘protest’.
Trying to come up with analogies… Maybe a bar that only carries one type of beer and maybe that beer company does something that pisses him off, and he refuses to sell their suds…but instead of going with another brand, he decides to just not sell beer for two weeks…? (Again, because of the specific nature of films and cinema, it’s hard to come up with something more or less ‘equal’ in example…)
A kid on the corner who takes offense at the newspaper for taking a particular editorial stance, and therefore, decides not to sell any papers for two weeks…
Again, the analogies are strained.
I like that the guy ‘stood up’, but in closing the place instead of say, having a two-week ad-hoc festival of classics, or bringing in some ‘indie’ titles, whatever… He made this gesture into something akin to a spoiled child taking his ball and going home. I think he crossed the line from ‘freedom of choice’ to a decision that was more spiteful and selfish, all things considered. And really, there was never going to be any effect on the industry, so this fact makes the whole incident all the more self-indulgent, to me anyway.
But I’d be curious to know what ‘the big boys’ or anyone ‘in power’ thought of the gesture. If anything.
And is this a rarity?
As for ‘Death of a President’…well, we’re seeing that situation unfold as we speak, aren’t we?
‘Censorship’? Hmm… I can’t say that what he did sits well with me, I’d have preferred to have seen him dig a little deeper into his options, but ‘censorship’ feels a bit much. I’m still trying to decide how I feel about his actions. On the one hand, I admire his pluck. On the other, how far can you reasonably take personal taste? And what’s the difference between a perceived quality issue and someone wanting to effect ‘family values’? In the end, he does have the right to show what he wants to show. (Especially if he can afford to suffer the economic consequences!)
But I disagree with the idea of ‘Flyboys’ being a ‘stinkbomb’. Don’t you think there’s a case to be made for a distinction between two films' merits? There’s a difference between ‘Jackass 2’ and say, ‘All The King’s Men’, even before you watch them, specifically their respective intents. Shouldn’t this difference count for something? I mean, objectively? (I"m not referring to a genre’s validity, I’m talking about its inherent substance according to its intent; ‘Jackass 2’ was intended to make people howl in a frat-house sort of way, a ‘this-makes-me-cringe-but-I-can’t-look-away’ sort of way in a more-or-less docu-feature style, while ‘All The King’s Men’ was intended to show one man’s rise and fall in politics within a dramatic narrative. The first was meant to get people to roll their eyes, the latter to get people to think.) ‘Flyboys’, though flawed as a piece of drama, had an entirely different intent than ‘Jackass 2’ or ‘Beerfest’. As did ‘The Black Dahlia’, ‘The Guardian’, ‘The Departed’, ‘Little Miss Sunshine’, ‘The Illusionist’, ‘Hollywoodland’, ‘Invincible’ or ‘World Trade Center’.
I think maybe it comes down to this guy not believing there’s any merit in ‘gross-out’ films like ‘Jackass 2’, regardless of how well they’re made, and that a film like ‘Flyboys’ intrinsically has more merit, regardless of how flawed it actually is.
I’m sure there’s an appropriate analogy using food, but I need my caffeine and it’s time to fire up the breakfast grille.
I lived in the UK for almost eight years. I missed out on some films because they were just never released there…and as I’ve stated, I don’t watch movies on DVDs. Gone forever, then. <heavy sigh> I used to get movie-fixes during trips to North America, O.D.-ing on the latest faire. The inequities surrounding the film distribution biz in the UK were always maddening.
longislandmovies, you’re absolutely right. I can’t imagine what I was thinking! Not only are things not going to turn out the way I proposed, but I now predict that all cinema treasures listed on this site will be restored! Thanks for clearing things up, King Canute. (Go on. Look it up.)
“You may love the state you’re from, but there ain’t no state like the state of denial…”
I appreciate that you can’t see it. Sometimes visualizing quantum shifts is tough. Like imagining being able to record your tv shows to watch when more convenient…or be able to remove commercials when viewing…or not having to go to a record store to purchase your music…and not on vinyl…or be able to video-chat with someone halfway around the world by way of your computer…
But in the end, it doesn’t matter what either of us think is going to happen. It’s going to happen anyway.
: )