The Day the Movies Died

[Mr W Phallus]

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/movies-and-tv/201102/the-day-the-movies-died-mark-harris

 

I enjoyed reading this article, thought I'd share it.

 

What's your take on the modern movie industry?

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

The movie industry, like the music industry, has pumped out bullshit for decades and will continue to do so. It has absolutely nothing to do with movies in general being good or not because there's plenty of great foreign and independent work.

[Mr W Phallus]

Whilst I agree that shit movies are by no means a novelty, I do think the situation with Hollywood in particular is getting worse and worse. And sure there are still good films being made but they get drowned out by all the Hollywood crap. I'm fortunate here in Manchester because I have a great arthouse cinema 20 minutes down the road (which I have still yet to take advantage of) but back home I sometimes have to travel up to an hour to see a good film because the local cinemas are all filled up with crap like Twilight or Yogi Bear or whatever high-budget crap you could care to mention.

 

Oh and the cost. It has become far to expensive to go see a film these days.

[Strangelove]

The 2000s have really been dissapointing. Thank god im a 90s kid. Id hate to be the y generation.

it seems we still depend on past directors, writers and sources to make films. Nolan, scorsese, tarantino, even still spielberg. All these super heroes are also from old comics.

its just sad that this past decade has been all about recycling, retro, noir, irony, and sarcasm. Shit you dont have to create yourself. Worst decade ever as far as creativity. They try so hard to try to claim the ppast for themselves, its sad. Instead of bringing something back, create something instead.

same goes for the game industry. Sequels and hd remakes out the ass, and even the shitty ones sell.

we really didnt need turtles in time reshelled or sf2hd remix. We really didnt.

[CorgiShinobi]

The 2000s have really been dissapointing. Thank god im a 90s kid. Id hate to be the y generation.

If you're a child of the 90's, like I am, you're Generation Y. Generation X ended in the late 70's, possibly early 80's (1982). It's Generation Z (born early (I'd say mid) 90's) that are the poor bastards.

 

Anyway, I'll say that there is possibly a decline, primarily because of technology and how easier it is for most films to gain a form of publicity. We're noticing more of the crap films, that the industry is far more self-aware.

 

Also, I would say as consumers, we're allowed to be more judgmental of our cinematic media. Film use to be a huge social event, and so while a film may have been mediocre at best, it was the gathering that created the experience. Now we buy expensive tickets, overpriced snacks and refreshments to sit in a large room with strangers.

Edited February 20, 2011 by Atomsk88

[Mr W Phallus]

Hey screw you guys that's my generation you're talking about. We had Pokemon at least!

[Strangelove]

Ahem.....pokemon is also from the 90s.......

[Mr W Phallus]

Well it depends how you classify yourself as a 90s kid, I was born 92 and although I count myself as a 90s kid, really I was only sentient for the latter half. Anyways pokemon came out in Europe when I was 7 so I'd say that makes it a generation z thing.

 

But if you're generation Y I'd have thought you were a bit too old for the whole pokemon boom when pokemon cards were the bane of schools everywhere, even if you were still a kid for most or all of the 90s.

[deanb]

Gen X - late 60s-80 : 30 to 45 years old

Gen Y - 80-mid 90's : 15 to 30 years old

Gen Z - late 90-now. : 00 to 15 years old

 

 

There's some kind of interlap of about a decade either way. So some Gen X-ers may identify more with Gen Y-ers, some Gen Y with Gen X n vice versa.

 

I'm Gen Y along with oldest brother n sister. The remaining 4 siblings are Gen Z("Generation Net"). It'll be interesting to see the difference. Most Gen Z are the children of Gen X. Gen Y the children of Baby Boomers, making Gen Y the "Echo Boomers". Because of that we inherit Baby Boomers political and commercial sway as the current 2nd largest group out there. (The next 2 decades belong to us)

[Battra92]

I finally got around to reading this article and he makes a lot of good points. I think what is missing most of all in the Hollywood of today is innovation and competition.

 

I'm reading a book on the silent era and even then many were afraid to innovate. Virtually all of the techniques of motion pictures existed in 1905 or so but until D.W. Griffith set Hollywood on its head with "The Birth of a Nation" did we move from the static 9 foot line, one shot per scene film to what can essentially be called the film world of today.

 

There was so much innovation then. Abel Gance experimented with camera placements when he made Napoleon. Carl Theodore Dreyer made a film about Joan of Arc that was told almost exclusively through the human face. Buster Keaton helped turn comedies into more than mere pratfalls but with a coherent story and characters you cared about.

 

Then sound came in and it was all "Oh Dee Oh Doe Dee Oh!" on one side or static drawn out dialogue on the other. Suddenly everyone in the movies spoke like and as much as a New York City playwright. Early talkies are interesting but in the rush to reinvent the wheel a lot was left behind with sound. Still, the art moved forward and many great films have been made in the 84 years since The Jazz Singer. A lot of horse shit has been made since.

 

The number one reason that films of today suck is the need to make a fast and secure profit. Hollywood accounting is basically where the studios can figure just about every film to be a loss or to break-even on paper. Now clearly this is meticulous but it's the way Hollywood operates. Many films also lose money at the box office and yet continuously make long term profits in the home video market (Gods and Generals for example) but because they aren't going to make 10 bajillion dollars on opening weekend, the studios just don't care.

 

Independent films aren't all that much better despite what people seem to claim. The Japanese, Hong Kong and European studios occasionally release a gem but honestly, they probably have the same good to crap ratio as Hollywood if not worse.

 

It's rare that I see a good movie and I will even confess that I enjoy some bad movies from time to time. The modern film output might be worth 90 minutes on a snowed in day but when I have so many better films to watch I just skip the multiplex and instead go with Blu-Ray and DVDs. The popcorn is better at my place anyway.

[deanb]

Well on the film failure rate I can't remember if it was 9/10 or 19/20 but there's a huge amount of films made that never hit profitability. Even if to a common layman you see "film budget = $100million" "Film Gross = $150million", the way it all works that film could potentially of still lost millions. Hollywood Accounting is a fascinating process. I don't believe for one bit what they do with numbers is legal. Fascinating none the less.

 

As for creativity, it's happening across the board. There's only 8 base stories and only so many ways they can be spun before you're repeating things. I do however find that they're pushing remakes and such far too much these days. I don't care for them making comic or novels into films. But Spiderman reboot years after the first one. Hulk 2 years after. King Kong came out in '33 with a remake in '05. That's a more than acceptable gap between original and remake. But within a decade of each other? Stupid.

Probably why revenues are down. Boring films we saw just a few years back.

 

I know you don't like it but I think we need more things like Scott Pilgrim. A film that can only be done in film (I know it's based on a comic, but many of the things in the film can't really be conveyed to comic). It's audiovisual, bang bang, doesn't really hide that it's a film. Revels in it. Need more of that.

 

Oh a brand new business model would help too. Tweak the distribution model.

[Strangelove]

Its weird, but if movie tickets were five bucks instead of fifteen, id go all the time.

[Battra92]

As for creativity, it's happening across the board. There's only 8 base stories and only so many ways they can be spun before you're repeating things.

 

Perhaps, although I feel there are more than 8 tales that can be told. There are certainly more than 8 great movies out there.

 

King Kong came out in '33 with a remake in '05. That's a more than acceptable gap between original and remake.

 

King Kong also had a sequel the same year that was at least enjoyable. It was then ripped off dozens of times and remade in 1976 and then again in '05. The original still stands are the definitive version of the story.

 

Oh a brand new business model would help too. Tweak the distribution model.

 

What's ironic is that Hollywood put out some of its best pictures when they owned the theaters. They had to compete with the other studios to get you into their theater. 1939 is universally regarded as the best single year for motion pictures. We're lucky if we can get in a decade a small percentage of the greatness that Hollywood once achieved. Times have changed and things are different now. The parade's gone by ...

[deanb]

Oh the 8 basic stories are:

http://writing.wikin...plots/i_6c7bnp/

 

Though there's an alternative seven:

Man vs. Man

Man vs. Nature

Man vs. Himself

Man vs. God

Man vs. Society

Man caught in the Middle

Man & Woman

As for distribution I'm talking Netflix, day one release. It would rape cinemas, but I reckon they'd see a huge upswing revenue. If folks want the big screen, large sound, expensive popcorn experience, they go the cinema. They want it at home, they get it at home. I wouldn't say like a Netflix pass wouldn't include that cost. More liek a one off fee, like renting films as they are now. Just like £10, day one.

Just they'd have to get over their hump on folks recording it. But folks do that in cinemas now, so not like it's an issue.

[WTF]

Being a member of the film industry and formerly advertising I think there's some truth to it but in general all this doom and gloom about innovation and films not really working out is a bit malarky. Some do and some don't. The post post-modern era does not work with blockbusters for film retail instead it works more on the long tail distribution system.

 

Cinemas are not the primary source of profit. In fact only the major studio backed productions would seek to earn a profit at the cinema. What the cinema is today is 'Glorified Advertising'. Now I've seen lots of films released, unreleased, shorts, features, About 60% of them wouldn't be heard outside of film circles. Just like outside of gaming circles you wouldn't know of some machinima, webcomics and the like. Just like every subculture there's a set of nerds, geeks, fanatics and obsessive folks who would know about releases that somehow make their way to the public. But to the vast majority you've heard of a film since it ran at the cinema. That means someone's heard of it. This makes it easier to be bought, even if you paid to get it played at a 5-10 cinemas. If the source material is engaging then people will want to watch it either on their TV, at festivals for the public (where film-makers get paid - they are fewer than the pointless funfair filmfestivals but they do exist) and they will have some run for digital and regular distribution that you can get some money back.

 

Now we've got crowd-sourcing which works for some people. Not for everyone but some. There's film incentives in some countries where public money is used to make films which are then distributed through public channels. Most of the expenses for the film would've been paid for in advance. So a marketing machine is in place. Just like with games, music and other media films also rely on conventions, on blogs on people promoting their stuff for free. When you hear about a film before its release it's free promotion. Unlike a game, there's few occasions when anyone says a film that has a mid-sized studio backing is terrible. if it has atleast one actor of note, they'll either be positive or neutral.

 

You won't have day one releases in digital for cinemas for major films. You can have it for certain low budget or independent films. This is because in a lot of countries, particularly in continental Europe, distributors who usually are part of a cinema group pay for films in advance. Unless these people have a stake in some digital distro they won't do day one. Sometimes Artificial Eye and BSkyB do some ventures. Similarly sometimes IFC does some ventures but you're not going to get a day one digital distro yet. There are plans for it. Sony-Columbia TriStar, Paramount and WB are working on a scheme for 'families' but as you can guess family is the focus there and it's probably going to be more of the family focussed features first before it's the teen audience movies.

 

The largest demographic for the cinemas is always the 15-34 audience particularly the 16-24 age group. The rest usually fall in the long-tail or licensing category. Everyone marks up costs for films because of licensing. These are big budget examples but for instance each time a Bond Movie gets played on a channel they get 1Million. If memory serves me right that 1million pays for 2-4 showings of the film.

 

Movies are never dead despite poor showings in the box office, right now if you look at the buyers market they've realised that there's more avenues for distribution than there used to be and the long tail lasts for a much longer time than before. Hollywood isn't the definitive market. In fact over 70% of the movies made by Hollywood these days are coproductions. This is why there was a big hue and cry when they said they'd stop funding films in the UK. Mostly because of the tax breaks and film finance options the US did invest in the UK, which brought more jobs and right now the UK or rather London is still the number 1 post-production hub in the world (though a lot of them are currently owned by Indian investors or companies which is a totally different story).

 

The reason why there's fewer original films is because of infrastructure and to keep businesses alive. Once the economy becomes better it'll change a bit. There's been lots of cutbacks, cancellations and the like in the past 2 years. The industry had to rethink its strategy in digital distribution as well. However the independent film-makers have just found that their budgets are increasing when it comes to features. Mind you anything below 45 minutes is still a short which is why certain ideas don't do well and funding for shorts is a bit more difficult as there's no clearcut return from a short as opposed to a feature where you can get some returns so long as the production isn't financially disastrous. I've seen some amusing, sad and even wonderful things in this industry.

 

p.s. I'd recommend reading The Undeclared War by David Puttnam (Lord Puttnam now) which will give some interesting insights into the schism between European and US film-making industries.

[deanb]

Maybe not the best thread for it, but expand on the Indian thing a bit.

I'm well aware there's a lot of the VFX houses down south are Indian owned, but not much cared for wanting to know why.

Now I'm curious.

[Battra92]

A lot of informative but depressing stuff

 

Somehow I think this just all means I'm going to spend the rest of my life watching movies made 60 years before I was born. Though judging from the size of my DVD/BD collection I can live in the past for many years to come. :-P

 

One side note: I'd almost say the real innovation in the art of the motion picture will come from some kid living in his parents' basement posting videos on YouTube.

[WTF]

Well it's a little more complicated than it seems at first. It all started when UTV one of India's more successful production companies from the 90s started to do international ventures. With that more money started to come in from Indian investors. In fact these days some of the production houses have Mittal and Reliance capital funding them. When Cameron visited India and was looking into Indian investors they were really looking at adding into the Film Finance industry as that brings in a lot of jobs, increases the co-production factors with the US and it's a complicated web there. It was them then killing off the UKFC (which now exists via the BFI) that sort of sent mixed signals.

 

A lot of post-pro work for Indian films is now done at production houses here and there's a lot of priority given in certain studios to these works as opposed to even say films like The Dark Knight due to money invested. This hasn't really changed things here but it has disrupted certain post-pro houses. Some of them no longer make the best work like they used to because they find it harder to compete with the capital investments that come from India. For instance Framestore used to be a major player but the most prominent work it has done of late is the Andrex CG dog advert which is pretty bad. D-Neg is probably numero uno now because of the projects they've got and that they've done good work for Nolan (He's one of those guys who likes to stick with people he's worked with, hence the whole recycling of actors in his films).

 

There's a lot of money coming in from these Steel Tycoons who're pretty much either invested or are set to invest more into post-production houses. Each time a new one comes up they keep buying it till well pretty much they'll be the only ones. An somewhat unnamed post-pro house rose up after one of these buyouts and they pretty much do a lot of broadcast stuff these days (commercials too) and it seems they're the next to get bought out. Despite there being a lot of talent, there just isn't anyone willing to invest in these except for the current investors. It's a strange thing really and it mostly has to do with how conservative the film market was and risk-averse they were. These buyouts have slowly started to change that and it's an interesting environment really. There's more but I'll probably leave that for later.

[deanb]

I swear there was a newer thread than this. One with Yante in it. Anywho:

http://www.shortoftheweek.com/2012/01/05/has-hollywood-lost-its-way

 

Dude had a look at the top grossing films of last year and the past few decades before that. Last year the top 10 had no original stories, all sequels and adaptations.

[Yantelope V2]

To be fair, even 1991 only had had one "original" too so if hollywood lost its way it was quite some time ago. A statistical analysis would be nice.

[TheMightyEthan]

Yeah, I'd like to see if that's actually a trend or if it just looks that way because of the specific years chosen. Would we get the same results if we looked at 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2010?

[Yantelope V2]

2010 had 4 originals if you include Tangled which I would.

 

2009 had 3 originals.

 

2008 had 3

 

2007 had 0

 

2006 had 4

 

2005 had 3

 

2004 had 2

 

Seems kind of flat. Not really a trend.

 

2000 had 7 if I'm counting right.

 

1999 had 5

 

1998 had 8 originals. Clearly he's cherry picking the years.

Edited March 29, 2012 by Yantelope V2

[Mister Jack]

Wasn't really sure which thread this should go in but check this out:

 

http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/24/4458644/disney-sony-on-demand-streaming-korea

[Waldorf and Statler]

It'd be cool as long as theaters don't die out. That's one of the favorite hobbies of my buddies and I we're such movie nuts.

[Mister Jack]

If it caught on, I could see movie theaters revamping their entire business model to give you more incentive to go out.  Some fancier theaters also act as a restaurant.  I don't expect them all to do that, but it's just an example.