|
Post by nickcave on Dec 28, 2014 21:23:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Zaq "That Guy" Buzzkill on Dec 28, 2014 22:29:42 GMT -5
People have been saying Hollywood has been dying for the past tenwntirtourtyifty years now.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 28, 2014 22:31:36 GMT -5
I always maintain that there are a lot of good non-franchise/non-sequel movies every year, people just focus on thefranchises because they're the blockbusters. But those blockbusters is what allows studios to make the other movies.
|
|
|
Post by BorneAgain on Dec 28, 2014 22:31:50 GMT -5
Hollywood now has some similarities to the post Golden Age/pre-New Renaissance period of the 60s where the movie industry was losing relevance to television and various dependable genres were crumbling as big budget films flopped at the box office. While much of the problem then was largely one of age (old, out of touch studio executives who had little interest in the youth market), at present its really one of business outlook.
Its an odd comparison, but the model of big budget releases are like the schlieffen plan of the entertainment industry. The plan is so dependent on first week box office, merchandising money, international appeal, sequel possibilities, and room for crossovers that you can't get as much story and character variation lest one screw up the necessary profits via alienating just one lucrative market. The pre-WWI parallel is strangely fitting in that with movie budgets going up and demanding so many set pieces and special effects, film studio franchises become veritable arms races, with all this money having to come in from one franchise to cover the cost of another franchise and not get outshined by another studio franchise.
And its not sustainable. Once enough of the audience gets sick of all the sequels/remakes/reboots to the point where its not profitable, you're gonna see entire film divisions collapse and reorganize once there's no viable future for whatever big budget series of movies that countless resources have been set up to make. The movie industry has been in an age of large scale genre movies since the one two punch of Jaws and Star Wars back in the mid 70s; within the next ten years it would not surprise me to see it come to an end.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2014 22:36:46 GMT -5
Good. Hollywood is a pretty outdated notion as it is. Most films don't need to happen in Los Angeles anymore. The whole reason it even kicked off out there is because Edison was a huge patent troll and people ran to the other side of the country to make movies. Now, with the advent of modern film making technology, it doesn't really need be so centralized.
|
|
Perd
Patti Mayonnaise
Leslie needs to butt out for fear of receiving The Bunghole Buster
Posts: 31,940
|
Post by Perd on Dec 28, 2014 22:46:54 GMT -5
*imagines an army of Shane Douglases marching on Hollywood*
Help us, The Kliq. You're are only hope.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 28, 2014 23:11:11 GMT -5
Good. Hollywood is a pretty outdated notion as it is. Most films don't need to happen in Los Angeles anymore. The whole reason it even kicked off out there is because Edison was a huge patent troll and people ran to the other side of the country to make movies. Now, with the advent of modern film making technology, it doesn't really need be so centralized. They're not referring to Hollywood as a physical location, but the American movie industry as a whole.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2014 23:19:37 GMT -5
Good. Hollywood is a pretty outdated notion as it is. Most films don't need to happen in Los Angeles anymore. The whole reason it even kicked off out there is because Edison was a huge patent troll and people ran to the other side of the country to make movies. Now, with the advent of modern film making technology, it doesn't really need be so centralized. They're not referring to Hollywood as a physical location, but the American movie industry as a whole. Yeah, but the whole industry (both in location and in its very nature) sprung up as it did due to the aforementioned patent related issues. They set up shop in LA and created their own little guild of flimmaking that basically made it an insanely closed system, nearly impossible to break into or affect any change in if you're not already a powerful person in the industry.
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on Dec 28, 2014 23:20:06 GMT -5
The only thing that's really going to kill Hollywood is when people realize how outdated the concept of movie theaters are and ticket sales drop across the board.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 28, 2014 23:36:04 GMT -5
They're not referring to Hollywood as a physical location, but the American movie industry as a whole. Yeah, but the whole industry (both in location and in its very nature) sprung up as it did due to the aforementioned patent related issues. They set up shop in LA and created their own little guild of flimmaking that basically made it an insanely closed system, nearly impossible to break into or affect any change in if you're not already a powerful person in the industry. Large movies have a huge start-up cost, that's not really unique to the location or the patents, it's just the nature of the industry. It takes a lot of money to get equipment, hire actors, shoot, score, and edit movies. Some industries are too costly for the little guy to really affect real change. Yes, cheap movies like Paranormal Activity and Blair Witch exist, but they're not really affecting change, they just form a genre that can be cheaper. Decentralization wouldn't change that, it'd just mean that the huge cost was in another part of the world. You're still not going ot see an easy system to break into just because it's not in LA, because the cost of makin a movie like that that can compete with the big guys will never truly be accessible to the little guy. But that's not really at play with what the article is discussin. The article is pointing out how movie franchising, especially long-term planning, is goin ot have negative effects on the future of the industry, especially in trying to release the big long epics split into multiple parts. It's pointing out that they can't outdo TV in that regard, and how it's a byproduct of the industry being run as a money-making endeavour first. It's pointing how the experience suffers when movie goers know that the stakes aren't as high since another sequel is coming. None of that really has to do with the physical location of LA, the same trend would exist if major studios were in New York, Montreal, or Sydney.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2014 23:47:18 GMT -5
Yeah, but the whole industry (both in location and in its very nature) sprung up as it did due to the aforementioned patent related issues. They set up shop in LA and created their own little guild of flimmaking that basically made it an insanely closed system, nearly impossible to break into or affect any change in if you're not already a powerful person in the industry. Large movies have a huge start-up cost, that's not really unique to the location or the patents, it's just the nature of the industry. It takes a lot of money to get equipment, hire actors, shoot, score, and edit movies. Some industries are too costly for the little guy to really affect real change. Yes, cheap movies like Paranormal Activity and Blair Witch exist, but they're not really affecting change, they just form a genre that can be cheaper. Decentralization wouldn't change that, it'd just mean that the huge cost was in another part of the world. You're still not going ot see an easy system to break into just because it's not in LA, because the cost of makin a movie like that that can compete with the big guys will never truly be accessible to the little guy. But that's not really at play with what the article is discussin. The article is pointing out how movie franchising, especially long-term planning, is goin ot have negative effects on the future of the industry, especially in trying to release the big long epics split into multiple parts. It's pointing out that they can't outdo TV in that regard, and how it's a byproduct of the industry being run as a money-making endeavour first. It's pointing how the experience suffers when movie goers know that the stakes aren't as high since another sequel is coming. None of that really has to do with the physical location of LA, the same trend would exist if major studios were in New York, Montreal, or Sydney. Again, its not so much about the location, but about the increasingly lazy studio mentality that's grown out of the industry that needless still exists in its current, closed system form. If the "movie business" didn't all exist in basically the same neighborhood with the same people funneling in and out of various positions so afraid to take any real chances (chances that most often come from outside the studio system), we might have more originality and interesting content that would help keep the industry afloat.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 29, 2014 0:25:42 GMT -5
Again, its not so much about the location, but about the increasingly lazy studio mentality that's grown out of the industry that needless still exists in its current, closed system form. If the "movie business" didn't all exist in basically the same neighborhood with the same people funneling in and out of various positions so afraid to take any real chances (chances that most often come from outside the studio system), we might have more originality and interesting content that would help keep the industry afloat. The problem there is two-fold. First, again, the cost of making a movie is still the biggest limiting factor. The closed-system centralization isn't going to change the base costs of making a movie. This is by far the biggest issue at play from preventing anyone from rising up and making a big change. Even making a bad movie is expensive, makin and distributing something that's halfway decent is well beyond what people trying to break into the industry are able to do. And the second is that studio decisions are being made increasingly from a business-first mindset. This isn't really a studio mentality, it's a side-effect of business, businesses copy what's successful so all you need is one business-minded person to have a successful idea and all those other studios will follow suit. These decisions are made by people who come more from business backgrounds who came from industries where they were the business mind behind those companies. They're not gettig studio jobs because the studios just happen to be down the street, they're getting these jobs because of their backgrounds. You seem to be arguing that the history and proximity of the studios is intrinsically linked to the mindset and if you change the former, the latter wuld change also. But that's not really the case, business created the business mindset, not patents or proximity. De-centralization isn't going to make a studio exec behave differently or care less about trying to maximize profits. As long as money is involved (see point 1) there's going to be the business side of it, no matter where the studio is located. Besides, it's to like people who take these jobs can't move to another city. The closed, centralized studio system really isn't the issue. And like I said before, people just tend to conflate "summer blockbuster" with all of what Hollywood produces, but there's a lot more out there. All of these studios have offshoots that make other movies, riskier, more original movies with smaller budgets. This article was illustrating it's point with Birdman, a Fox movie. The system already exists for more original movies, they just require more effort to hear than the movies people tend to complain about, because part of being a smaller, riskier project is that you don't get as much money for things like marketing. It creates a self-fulfilling prophesy, people think Hollywood only produces franchises and sequels, so they don't go and see any of the new movies that aren't franchises or sequels.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2014 0:53:35 GMT -5
Man that 5 year list of Marvel movies is absolutely frightening. I don't know if I completely agree with the dire nature of the article, I don't think original filmmaking will ever go away outright but it's definitely hard not to be disheartened by the dwindling numbers of non-franchise films and seeming lack of interest in movie goers to even see original movies.
I'm really surprised that interest in Marvel movies hasn't seemed to wane so far. It's really weird the divide between what is popular on TV and what is popular in film. You see all the interesting TV shows that gain traction but yet the conversation in movies is driven mostly Pixar and Marvel stuff. TV tells us that there are people out there interested in original stories and well developed characters so how does it not materialize more often in movies? Is it the kids that make the difference?
And I'm telling you right now if this Terminator movie is a box office smash...urgh, I just don't know. I saw the preview and just groaned. "Come with me if you want to live." "I'll be back." WE GET IT: These are things you said in movies before.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Dec 29, 2014 1:25:36 GMT -5
Hollywood now has some similarities to the post Golden Age/pre-New Renaissance period of the 60s where the movie industry was losing relevance to television and various dependable genres were crumbling as big budget films flopped at the box office. While much of the problem then was largely one of age (old, out of touch studio executives who had little interest in the youth market), at present its really one of business outlook. Its an odd comparison, but the model of big budget releases are like the schlieffen plan of the entertainment industry. The plan is so dependent on first week box office, merchandising money, international appeal, sequel possibilities, and room for crossovers that you can't get as much story and character variation lest one screw up the necessary profits via alienating just one lucrative market. The prew WWI parallel is strangely fitting in that with movie budgets going up and demanding so many set pieces and special effects, film studio franchises become veritable arms races, with all this money having to come in from one franchise to cover the cost of another franchise and not get outshined by another studio franchise. And its not sustainable. Once enough of the audience gets sick of all the sequels/remakes/reboots to the point where its not profitable, you're gonna see entire film divisions collapse and reorganize once there's no viable future for whatever big budget series of movies that countless resources have been set up to make. The movie industry has been in an age of large scale genre movies since the one two punch of Jaws and Star Wars back in the mid 70s; within the next ten years it would not surprise me to see it come to an end. Hopefully the right mixture of big budget comic book failures comparable to Doctor Dolittle, Cleopatra and STAR! coincide with game-changing shoestrings comparable to Bonnie and Clyde, The Graduate and Easy Rider sooner rather than later, because I'm certainly ready for a revolution. I'm really surprised that interest in Marvel movies hasn't seemed to wane so far. It's really weird the divide between what is popular on TV and what is popular in film. You see all the interesting TV shows that gain traction but yet the conversation in movies is driven mostly Pixar and Marvel stuff. I disagree on naming Pixar, Pixar hasn't had a relevant movie since Up and that was 5 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Some Guy on Dec 29, 2014 1:26:39 GMT -5
We got the following original films this year (at least ones I have seen so far)...
Boyhood Whiplash Birdman Nightcrawler Gone Girl Grand Budapest Hotel Interstellar Snowpiercer Obvious Child Under the Skin Babadook Edge of Tomorrow
And a bunch more I'm not even listing. Sure most of these weren't huge hits, but this article is a gross oversimplification of the current happenings in the movie world. With Amazon Prime, Netflix and so many others expanding into either the movie business or getting movies early, I'm really not that worried. This was a really strong year movie wise, so I'll freak out when we have a shitty year ruled entirely by franchises at the top.
|
|
|
Post by Pooh Carlson on Dec 29, 2014 1:34:23 GMT -5
I don't agree with this article at all, but I didn't read a lot of, for it was tl. Nevertheless, they will always be the best movie category movies and there will be indie flicks that won't make a ton of money, but the franchises are there to counteract the money making. The problem with the movie industry is that the TV industry has become to a compelling medium to tell actual stories in. You can't tell Breaking Bad in two hours. You can't tell Lost in two hours. You can't tell Mad Men in two hours. There's just not much room for dramas in cinema anymore to me. The only movies I see in the theater are the blockbusters with amazing special effects and sound. Dramas or the best movie category movies, what's the point of seeing them in the theater when I can see them in HD at home.
|
|
|
Post by Some Guy on Dec 29, 2014 1:37:48 GMT -5
Pixar hasn't had a relevant movie since Up and that was 5 years ago. Uhh, Toy Story 3? Universal acclaim, their biggest box office hit ever, Oscar wins, nominations galore...that's not relevance?
|
|
|
Post by RadcapRadsley on Dec 29, 2014 1:41:38 GMT -5
We got the following original films this year (at least ones I have seen so far)... Boyhood Whiplash Birdman Nightcrawler Gone Girl Grand Budapest Hotel Interstellar Snowpiercer Obvious Child Under the Skin Babadook Edge of Tomorrow And a bunch more I'm not even listing. Sure most of these weren't huge hits, but this article is a gross oversimplification of the current happenings in the movie world. With Amazon Prime, Netflix and so many others expanding into either the movie business or getting movies early, I'm really not that worried. This was a really strong year movie wise, so I'll freak out when we have a shitty year ruled entirely by franchises at the top. I would agree with you. There are tons of charecter driven movies that appeal to an adult audience released every year. The main problem is the one's that make their way to multiplexes are all sandwiched in the same 2-3 month window for awards seasons. Unless you live in NY or LA or some other large city the only option most of the year is romcom,kiddie flick,scifi,superhero or horror movie .
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Dec 29, 2014 1:42:04 GMT -5
Pixar hasn't had a relevant movie since Up and that was 5 years ago. Uhh, Toy Story 3? Universal acclaim, their biggest box office hit ever, Oscar wins, nominations galore...that's not relevance? I got it mixed up. They haven't made a relevant movie since Toy Story 3, four years ago, and haven't made an ambitious or interesting movie since Up, over five years ago. It's still worth pointing out that Pixar's been out of the conversation for a good while.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Dec 29, 2014 1:47:53 GMT -5
Unless you live in NY or LA or some other large city the only option most of the year is romcom,kiddie flick,scifi,superhero or horror movie . lol, I think I saw one of each today at the Cinemark 16 second run theater: Kiddie: Alexander and the.... Day Sci-Fi: Fury Rom-Com: Dracula Untold Superhero: Walk Among the Tombstones Horror: Ouija With the 6th Multiplex mainstay: One Man Destroys The Entire Russian Mafia: John Wick, The Equalizer Unless you live in NY or LA or some other large city the only option most of the year is romcom,kiddie flick,scifi,superhero or horror movie . lol, I think I saw one of each today at the Cinemark 16 second run theater: Kiddie: Alexander and the.... Day Sci-Fi: Fury Rom-Com: Dracula Untold Superhero: Walk Among the Tombstones Horror: Ouija With the 6th Multiplex mainstay: One Man Destroys The Entire Russian Mafia: John Wick, The Equalizer Also for not living in NY/LA I do have the option to see good movies at small theaters across town, but I only go there to see the reaaaally shitty movies (Atlas Shrugged III).
|
|