SEWER VOICES: IS IT ALL DOWNHILL FOR HOLLYWOOD?

I do not feel the same excitement that I once did about films.  Going to the movies used to be the biggest event of my week.  Now, thankfully, I have a life.  It would be nice to have a movie give me the tinglies again.  It's been a while.

As for next year's blockbusters, calling it now: I see a lot of folks round these parts being underwhelmed by The Avengers. 

While there are more roads of advertisement for studios to use when it comes to their films, their practice of using websites that are dedicated to films, much like CHUD, is doing nothing to increase their ticket sales.  The majority of the people who visit these sites will have already made up their mind if they are going to see a film or not before the studios make the final advertising push before release day.

Attack the Block failed, not because those they advertised it to didn't go see it, but because not enough people even knew it existed.  The fans that visit these websites are rabid and vocal but are far too few to have an actual impact on the box-office.  Many of my friends, who are more casual film fans and now love Attack the Block, had never even heard of the film until I showed them the Blu-ray. 

I've noticed the same problem with the marketing of Tin-tin.  Using notable names on the trailer like Spielberg and Jackson means nothing to the general movie goer.  Sure, everyone knows who Spielberg is, but I'd wager eight out of ten people haven't a clue who Peter Jackson is unless you also mention LOTR in the same sentence.  As is mentioned, the star system is no longer viable, and that goes for directors as well.

Studios need to stop advertising to the people that already know about the film the day it goes into production and find a way of tapping into the awareness of the general population that actually dominates ticket sales.

Hollywood already shot themselves in the foot when it comes to 3D by releasing poorly post-converted films in a mad cash grab after Avatar.  I know too many people who were burned by things like Clash of the Titans who refuse to go see another 3D film.  If they had been thinking of the long-game, studios could be raking in those increased sales of their 3D projects instead of watching them wither on the vine. 

I read the article through a link to the box office thread. Excellent article and on the money.

This years crop of movies is the biggest problem. I enjoy going to movies, I enjoy taking my kids to movies. For Birthdays and Christmas I ask family to buy me movie passes so I can take the kids to the movies during the year without fretting about the cost.   For the first year ever I did not exhaust the 12-15 movie passes I recieved.

There was literally nothing I had to go out and see. I usually go see 3-5 movies a year on my own. I almost went to dragon tattoo, I did see tree of life (which I thoroughly enjoyed), nothing else could bring me out to the theatre even when I was looking for an excuse to go out.

Next year has some aniticipated films coming out that people will go to see, if they enjoy those films it will lead to going to see other films out of having had a good time at the movies. The media will pump up each new release with breathless enthusiasm, and we can all talk next year about the 'return' of the movies.

Indy releases going VOD sounds great to me. I would love to watch a new movie at home, but the quoted rate of 60 dollars is a bit ridiculous. Maybe for a block buster movie people will host a party in their home like for a fight. But watching some random indy flick is something you do home alone or with your spouse, gf whatever. No one is going to pay over 10 bucks for that and likely they would only be willing to pay 5. For a blockbuster people also want the big screen experience so Hollywood is going to have to get real for VoD to work.

As for the rise and fall of the internet bloggers. I think multiple things have contributed to that. The article (or Renn) mentioned that Facebook and Twitter have brought opinion to a new level of speed. It's like word of mouth only faster. People can get instant updates from their friends on whether or not to bother with a particular movie.

Internet writers also played what I consider to be a very interesting trick on the public. When movies like Spiderman and Lord of the Rings were setting records, the internet writers claimed credit.  Whether or not they actually played a significant role in the success of those properties is debateable, but in the culture it was accepted as fact. I still remember the 'harry knowles' episode of Entourage that put forward the idea that part of promoting a movie was paying off a few of the more popular web trolls.  The problem came when the internet writers decided to start flexing that perceived muscle and found out it was an illusion. The dumbass wankoff that accompanied 'Snakes on a Plane'  (hey look we're important pay attention to us), the shrill voices that declare 'if you dont see Scott Pilgrim your stupid and a bad person' or the most recent 'the world is a horrible place because we could not get anyone to go see attack the block'. 

The internet is at its best when people of widely divergent points of view argue their positions in a coherent manner. You gain access to voices that are seldom heard and can be exposed to new ideas that can widen your perspective. It is at it's absolute worst when it becomes an echo chamber akin to Fox News where heretics are shouted down and only the approved message is presented.

 Honestly, I think Knowles has had a lot to do with the current struggles of the internet media in regards to film. Think about AICN a moment. It is generally filled with capable reveiwers who do good work. But at the center of the site is a ridiculous shill with no credibility. The other primary feature of the site is the talkback sections, which is where most horrible internet stereotypes have taken up permanent residence.  How anyone can be passingly  familiar with that site (and lets face it, people know Rotten Tomatoes and AICN) and still care what the internet has to say is beyond me. Why wade through all that bullshit when I can just text my 50 friends in my movie group to give me a thumbs up or down on this weekends new release?

As for the original question, is it all downhill for hollywood? I would say that it is up to them. They keep making shit movies and gouging for 3d then they will shift people's habits away from the theater (an argument I have been making for some time). Good movies will cure the ill, people will always pay for quality entertainment. Hopefully the suites that say 'fuck story' will have enough flops that they get their assess fired and people who want to make good movies can call the shots.

To Harley, I had been lukewarm on The Avengers until I watched the Russian trailer just now. Now my Nerd Sense is tingling!

One thing that will be interesting to see: with the success of Mission Impossible IV, will IMAX become the new 3D? But then again, Cameron will not stop flogging the 3D horse, and it is possible Titanic will cause a mini-revival of the format. Oh yeah and do not be shocked if the release of Phantom Menace 3D in Feb also breaths new life into the 3D format.

I don't think it's going down the drain. There are still plenty of great films by great filmmakers being released, even on the blockbuster level. Not all sequels are created equal either.

Yeah, I'm an optimist, but I think 2012 looks to be an excellent year myself.

I think distraction is a huge problem. I remember when there were like 4 major videogame titles in a year. People were anticipating and then playing the shit out of them, but there was still enough space in between. Nowadays you get 5 major videogame titles quarterly. Most of them having endless online playability or being extremely long roleplaying games. I know a lot of guys who prefer to sit at home and play games instead of going out and catch a movie. You can put 200 hours into Skyrim and not be finished. A 90 minutes movie can't compete with that.

There's nearly no chance for a movie to rise by word of mouth, over weeks. If it doesn't hit big on opening weekend, it's dead and they stop all support. That's insane. You will only get the big weekend if it's a brand or franchise, or if you really won over everyone's anticipation machine, to be the one hype movie of the year. But you can't count on that.

Kids grow up to be impatient. How many friends does an average fifteen year old follow on facebook? Make it 40 and it becomes a full-time activity to keep on track with everyone and in return, keep everyone else up with what you're doing. I doubt many teens pull their cells in a darkened theatres because they actually think the movie they're watching is boring. I saw a lot of movies with friends and their families this year and when they got their 8, 12, 16 year olds to actually concentrate on a movie like Rise of the Apes or Tintin or Real Steel, they're in. They're enjoying it, loving it. It's just that most of the time they feel kinda obliged to check their online activities. And videogames get there too. There are adults who play online browser games during movies, because they think they have to.

Don't forget that tv grew quite awesome in the last years. I've dozens of friends who prefer watching series over movies and as there is so much to watch right now movies often tend to get the short end.

Studios also really need to be able to feel when something's ready to be a franchise or not. How often is something marketed as being just part one of a bigger series? I'm sure it throws people off, because they already reduced their movie time for games and social interactivity, so that time needs to be well spent, and advertising something as a franchise has a "requires more time than other stuff" vibe to it. Same as for new non-brand movies. For them it means rather watching Transformers 3 than trying Attack the Block. They rather sit through 2 and a half hours of shit for 15 minutes of well-done cgi action scenes and one glorious butt shot than risk 90 minutes for something that might not even have five worthwhile minutes.

Also, budgets. Does Finchers Dragon Tattoo really  need to cost 90m? Wasn't it possible to do it for let's say, 50? I bet Hollywood could be safer and way more satisfied if they wouldn't always have huge financial expectations in the first as a result of constantly having overblown budgets. Dragon Tattoo needs to gross 220 to be good, at least 250 to suggest a sequel. That is insane. Green Lantern. Who looked at those dailies and nodded yeah, we really do have a winner here, let's spent the rest of the planned 150+, maybe go even beyond 200. Getting a Matrix or Pirates or Transformers is a one in a thousand chance. You need to be really, really, really, really sure of a project to expect that kind of audience reaction. I would never count on having that.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony E Crumpton 
I've noticed the same problem with the marketing of Tin-tin.  Using notable names on the trailer like Spielberg and Jackson means nothing to the general movie goer.  Sure, everyone knows who Spielberg is, but I'd wager eight out of ten people haven't a clue who Peter Jackson is unless you also mention LOTR in the same sentence.  As is mentioned, the star system is no longer viable, and that goes for directors as well.
 

This is mostly true, but I would say part of the fault lies with the fact that Spielberg puts his name on a LOT of stuff. Eventually, it stops becoming "a great artist is working!" and more like, "This brand put out another."

Which is part of a bigger problem, and I don't know where it comes from exactly, but it's this: movies have been commoditized.

Adults don't care about movies anymore, by and large. This happened in a lot of different ways, but essentially, sequels, comic book movies, kidflicks, and political correctness. I think Devin's article/unfinished thesis about how international box office was somewhat on-point - studios lost the profits from the DVD boom* and now have to reach for alternate revenue streams. A big part of that comes from overseas business, where new theaters have increased by a tremendous percentage the last couple of years, along with the percentage of them equipped with 3D.

The rise of 3D is another element, since adults have never taken 3D seriously. It's a carnival attraction, no matter how much lip service comes from Spielberg or Scorsese. It doesn't bring adults into the theater because it's been around for a long time. People know what it is, and they associate it with cheap thrills for young people. I think some titles capitalized on the novelty of 3D for adult films, but we're seeing that wane with a string of 3D flops.

But as to Devin's essay, a lot of this comes from international audiences. Out of the ten highest grossing films of the year, how many prominently featured America as a location: two, if you're going by domestic receipts, Transformers and Rise of the Planet Of The Apes. Neither have a real sense of time or place - the apes rampage around San Fran like it's a tourist attraction, while the Decepticons declare "Fuck you!" to Chicago and humanity at large. Hell, even Twilight went overseas. But do you remember any of these movies having a distinct overseas flavor? "Fast Five" played like a more intense version of the earlier films, but no less American, despite being in Brazil. "Captain America" felt like endless soundstages. They use these international locations to superficially appeal to global audiences, but they ditch any of the actual local attitude and vibe so it appeals to Americans. It's generic.

*The DVD boom created a marketplace where movies were collectibles. For better or worse, that specific generation that grew up during that boom are now older, and surrounded by movies they won't really watch a second or third time. Diminished quality of blockbusters, and the constant boutique-quality of interesting independent films ("Good" is now a niche), combined with the belt-tightening of the American economy, means that a lot less of these movies are finding their way into homes. A lot of it comes from being an adult - a massive DVD collection is a likely embarrassment these days. Load it with genre-heavy studio films, and you look like a nerd or a child. Fill it with frou-frou indie fare, and you have to answer questions from judgmental idiots who have never heard of them.

Critics have done their share to weaken this as well. The lowering standards of who a critic can be, meeting the diminished expectations of older scribes worn down by the onslaught of blockbusters and pushy editors who get hate mail, has meant that all sorts of shitty, undemanding pictures now get to sit at the big boy's table. Rotten Tomatoes hasn't helped, turning all reviews into positive or negative ratings - 90% approval for "Ghost Protocol" is strong, never mind the fact that huge swaths of those critics accurately found the film short on story, character, and often coherence. At least the explosions were good. We don't get enough of those these days, do we?

So what I'm seeing now, with the massive box office drop this year even with inflated 3D, is that movies don't matter any more. There's plenty to discuss about an "Inception" - there's nothing to bring up with a franchise film. "Oh, did you see the new X-Men? Yeah, it was good, right? They made another one. Yep. I bet they make another one after this." Even well-reviewed stuff like "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" stinks of familiarity and inevitability, along with the "provocative" anti-corporation stance. It's all for kids, which is why the safest financial gamble in the industry is no longer modest-to-low budget fare, but expensive CG-animated 3D kids films. When adults go to the multiplex and see Thor, Cars 2, and something innately disposable like Final Destination 8 made for older teens, it's borderline emasculating - is this a movie theater, or Chuck E. Cheese?

Sadly, I don't think quality movies matter anymore. People will go to movies because a strategic release date ensures one type of film is the least-offensive options, or because they know what they're getting, or because the marketing was blunt and clear enough. The fact that a film is good has no bearing - word of mouth has been diluted by sheer numbers. Fifteen years ago, you could ask around, and friends would tell you "Congo" was a waste of time. Had that turkey been released in 2011, Twitter would be lighting up with effusive praise. I think the numbers will be strong for The Hobbit, The Avengers, Dark Knight Rises, etc. because there will always be kids. And there will be swaths of adults who catch something made for them and make it into a hit, a little bit here, and a little bit there. But otherwise, I think numbers are going to continue to drop as other entertainment options rise, and as long as Hollywood keeps catering to the youngest at heart.

Armond White, that noted nutball, once said he snuck into the movies because he wanted to learn how adults spoke and how they were supposed to act. Now, he accurately argues, people just want to feel young, they want to feel like a kid again. The studios have always been taking notes from us. Maybe we should give them better notes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby 

Oh yeah and do not be shocked if the release of Phantom Menace 3D in Feb also breaths new life into the 3D format.

Really? Everybody i know is completely dismissive when i mention Phantom Menace 3D to them.

Haven't we had this conversation every few years since the late 80s?

Quote:

Originally Posted by felix 

Really? Everybody i know is completely dismissive when i mention Phantom Menace 3D to them.

 

Yeah but as the article and several commenters note, there is a big disconnect between people who congregate on CHUD and the general movie going population. That is why Attack the Block made no money, and Transformers 3 did

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

Haven't we had this conversation every few years since the late 80s?

Thank you! I was just about to say something like this.

Yes, things have changed in terms of distribution and even the nostalgia craze, but Hollywood is always going to make shitty movies. The trick for at least the blockbusters is to find the good ones.

I mean, they made seven movies about Francis the Talking Mule in the 1950s.  SEVEN.

Jesus Christ, really? I've never even seen ONE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

I mean, they made seven movies about Francis the Talking Mule in the 1950s.  SEVEN.

That's really not the problem. The equivalent to this today would be a direct to DVD Baby Geniuses sequel. And it's not about quality of films either. I loved a ton of the films that came out this year.

Look at it from a business perspective. The way Hollywood goes about business does not make sense. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by stelios 

That's really not the problem. The equivalent to this today would be a direct to DVD Baby Geniuses sequel. And it's not about quality of films either. I loved a ton of the films that came out this year.

 

Look at it from a business perspective. The way Hollywood goes about business does not make sense. 

 

 

Except that yearly box office has risen by $2 billion over the last ten years.  It's down from the all-time high in 2009, but by about 3%, which is smaller than the drop in 2005.

It may not make sense to us as film fans, but it sure makes sense to the bottom line.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

Haven't we had this conversation every few years since the late 80s?

Quoted for truth.

This seems to happen every few years. The studios' big franchises start looking long in the tooth, they have problems generating new ones and it all stagnates until they find a some fresh franchises that stick or - god forbid - actually release some original films that resonate with the public.

Granted, I think the whole 3D thing has caused a degree of burnout amongst the mainstream audience. At a time when the cost of a night out at the movies is already prohibitively expensive, dumping on a bunch of extra dollars for something that's often looked like crap (In the cases of the worst post-converts) only makes the movie-going experience feel like more work than it's worth.

But ultimately, it's always been a cyclical thing. We've just been through the 00s, and the trends that defined film in that decade are in the process of playing out. When cinema starts to morph into whatever it'll become in the 10s, things will pick up again.

But even the long running franchises have some intriguing looking prospects this year.

Complaining about Hollywood every year strikes me as complaining about the The Cheesecake Factory.  Sometimes that slice of Peanut Butter Cup hits the spot, but if you go there every weekend you're going to get fucking sick of it.  Obviously this isn't telling you guys anything you don't know, but there are tons of good movies every year if you look in the right places.  It seems to me that the problem isn't the state of the modern blockbuster, but that we're judging the state of cinema by blockbusters.  That's the dessert, not the meal.  Go to that little Korean place that opened up around the corner.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

Except that yearly box office has risen by $2 billion over the last ten years.  It's down from the all-time high in 2009, but by about 3%, which is smaller than the drop in 2005.

 

It may not make sense to us as film fans, but it sure makes sense to the bottom line.

Actually, it's down by 4%, at least domestically. Not only should this number be reversed, given inflation, but we're talking enhanced 3D prices spread out over 35 separate releases, including seven of the ten "most popular" releases of the year. That's actually pretty shitty bottom line business.

If you want to include heavily increasing overseas markets, then the picture isn't that bad, though while studios recoup 55% or so of a movie's gross, internationally that number can be as low as 40%. That is, if they want to retain overseas distribution, as several movies have their rights presold for different numbers in different regions.

It's not doomsday, but it ain't healthy.

But wait, I thought the prevailing wisdom was that 3D wasn't accounting for that much of the box office take?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey 

But even the long running franchises have some intriguing looking prospects this year.

 

Complaining about Hollywood every year strikes me as complaining about the The Cheesecake Factory.  Sometimes that slice of Peanut Butter Cup hits the spot, but if you go there every weekend you're going to get fucking sick of it.  Obviously this isn't telling you guys anything you don't know, but there are tons of good movies every year if you look in the right places.  It seems to me that the problem isn't the state of the modern blockbuster, but that we're judging the state of cinema by blockbusters.  That's the dessert, not the meal.  Go to that little Korean place that opened up around the corner.

I think the counterargument to this is that there are less and less little Korean places around the corner. And a lot of them open up and eventually close down quickly, sometimes because of rent issues, sometimes for commercial reasons. The weaknesses of the dessert industry will severely affect the bottom line of the meal industry.

Holy shit, I'm so fucking hungry, I'm sorry I followed that metaphor so far.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

But wait, I thought the prevailing wisdom was that 3D wasn't accounting for that much of the box office take?

Well, there's a difference between "weaker" and "non-existent." Something like 35-40% of Harry Potter's ticket sales were 3D, which is a seriously weak number. But for Transformers, it was in the realm of 60-70%. For the novelty 3D films, 3D screenings were pretty much all they had - I'll bet Dolphin Tale logged 75% or higher, and that did something like $60 million in the US.

The point is that any way you cut that, it's not good. If you're charging a higher price and more people are saying no (attendance hasn't been this low since 1995!), that's one tremendous cock-up.

Maybe it's a function of how I get the majority of my cinema, but with home theater systems and the aforementioned shrinking theatrical window, the idea that a small film isn't around for long is something I don't really notice.  I don't even have an art house anywhere near my home.  I guess I just assume if people live in bigger cities, they'll have access to this stuff.  Still, even though I have to wait for a lot of it, by the time I've caught up with the previous year's releases, I invariably find myself thinking it was a pretty good year for the movies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey 

Maybe it's a function of how I get the majority of my cinema, but with home theater systems and the aforementioned shrinking theatrical window, the idea that a small film isn't around for long is something I don't really notice.  I don't even have an art house anywhere near my home.  I guess I just assume if people live in bigger cities, they'll have access to this stuff.  Still, even though I have to wait for a lot of it, by the time I've caught up with the previous year's releases, I invariably find myself thinking it was a pretty good year for the movies.

If you look at the numbers, the blockbusters are top heavy, but depending on the release, the arthouse films are moreso. Some of them need a seriously massive per-screen average to break out of the five-screen ghetto, and many just don't get it. After that first week, if the critics aren't rabid, they'll abandon it. For all the people rushing out on opening night to see some megaplex blockbuster, the smaller studios are DEPENDING on aisle floodage for their prestige release that weekend, otherwise it will be gone in less than two weeks. Which sucks, because we're not all first weekend hawks.

The only studio that has any sort of patience with this stuff is Sony Pictures Classics. Their expansions are soooo slow, but often they really work out. Midnight In Paris was blowing the doors off in specialty release, but they still relented and expanded slowly before a nationwide release. And here we are, $145 million later.

Has the power of the film blogosphere (forgive the term) to act as a driver of buzz completely vanished?

More or less, yeah.

Has this been a year of gasping at cinematic straws? While the reactions have certainly been divided to some extent, do films like Dragon Tattoo, Midnight in Paris, Hugo, and even films like Melancholia and War Horse truly represent the best work of many of the master filmmakers that put out releases this year?

Nope. They're not bad, by any stretch, but their reputations are severely bloated. But rarely have masterpieces been recognized as such during the year of their release, so I don't think this is a sign of the times. (As far as I'm concerned, the one true masterpiece of the year was MYSTERIES OF LISBON, and next to it everything else looks mighty shoddy.)

Do you expect to see the country’s economic downturn grow as a common theme/backdrop in film?

Yep. But I don't expect it to be treated with great thoughtfulness or insight, at least not as far as Hollywood is concerned. Hollywood has practically no great cultural commentators left. But the entire Western world is suffering from intellectual atrophy, the legacy of postmodernity.

Will a slew of hugely anticipated films like The Hobbit, The Dark Knight Rises, and The Avengers on the way, might we see audiences reinvigorated a bit? Or are we just cruising for a series of disappointment, and a crushing disillusionment to follow?

Prediction: THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is largely seen as a success, but THE HOBBIT and THE AVENGERS are seen as mild disappointments.

I would say that personally, I'd really like to see at least two of those three huge releases really hit it out the park and connect with me and with audiences in general, the way Dark Knight and LOTR did. That would be, at the least, a palliative for sequelitis. At least one of them better. On the other hand, I expect there'd be people who felt Harry Potter did that this year, and maybe they're even right, in their way.

It's also damn near impossible to recognize classic films in the year of their release, almost ever. Did anyone who saw Silence of the Lambs in 1990 think it would become the most revered horror film of the last twenty years and inspire its own genre? And in just five years or so, Million Dollar Baby went from the great career capping Eastwood masterpiece to a movie that no one really wants to watch again, or even really think about. So I'd say the jury remains out on Hugo, War Horse, and Midnight in Paris. Dragon Tattoo though, already feels like a minor work, even though I liked it a lot. Conversely, there weren't any obvious masterworks this year like in 2007 or anything, and sometimes you really can spot them.

Could we blame the decreasing revenue on the declining live tv viewing? I don't watch live tv anymore, so I never see a commercial. I see movies, but am just as likely to wait for an Amazon rental or Netflix for something middling, like Morning Glory, which I just watched tonight, or Limitless, which I watched with the family last week.  Chud and a select other movie sites is how I know something is coming out. My newspaper is digital, and my radio is NPR or Pandora or the local bluegrass/blues radio station. There isn't much of a market to sell me a movie anymore.

I will see blockbusters in the theater, but does a quiet drama, say the King's Speech, need a 40 foot screen and thumping bass? I saw it in theaters and there were a total of 12 of us there, but I would have been moved as much in my home with a 46" screen and home stereo speakers.  Same goes for films like the Fighter or Moneyball. Action, Fantasy, Scifi often use that real estate, but why mess with the crowd for a quiet film?

Personally, I'd love a new movie version of Netflix with a little bit of Pandora spliced in, even if it's on a pay per film vs. subscription model. I try and keep up with indie/foreign releases, but while I'm a little ashamed to admit it, I didn't have a clue what Attack the Block was until the hubbub kicked off recently. I know there's the worry that history-based content delivery will put blinders on viewers in terms of new content, but having a service that says "hey, you watched this and liked it, how about these X films that are similar" is something I already use to peruse older content, not as a replacement for discussion and research but as a supplemental way to focus in on media I'm interested in without needing to rely on safe bets. Hell, watching Reel Injun on a whim (mediocre by the way) on Netflix has led me down a rabbit hole of movie documentaries that has dovetailed nicely with some CHUD nods I'd never gotten around to like Not Quite Hollywood. I do have a certain nostalgia for the idealized theater experience (nothing beats a packed crowd at a comedy), but it's become almost a novelty (or perhaps event would be a better term) in regards to the small role it plays in how I consume media.

The article speculated that Summit and Lionsgate might merge in the future. I am a little curious about that.

Lionsgate has The Hunger Games and The Expendables 2 to cover them in 2012. They should do decent numbers at least even though CONAN 3D flopped. 

Summit's TWILIGHT SAGA will be winding up next saga. Do they have another franchise ready to take up the slack?

I'm pretty sure that merger is a sure thing, since Lionsgate had a shitty year and the head of the company stepped down.

Summit's also banking on "Warm Bodies" being sort of a Twilight replacement, with zombies instead of vamps.

Don't you hate that this is a world where this is true? 

It's like Hollywood is counterbalancing the reckless disregard for safety it shows on budgets with a mortal fear of actual creativity. 

We live in a world where there will be remakes of Point Break and Starship Troopers in the next few years, can we not agree that this is a world getting progressively worse?

When I look back on my favorite films of the past 10 years, the vast majority were not blockbusters. As I sit down to type this post, I can barely even work up the energy to write about the encroaching idiocracy that threatens our cinemas, as I feel like I've spent the past few years making the same points over and over and it's now worse than ever

To sum up: the movies are soulless, joyless and flat. They do not excite even as special FX reels. There is no artistry, no sense craft. Pixels get flung on the screen like chimps tossing feces, and we're left with the sense that Hollywood hardly cares what sticks. They make enough shit, and odds are a few will make enough to keep the whole noxious machine in motion for next summer

With the biggest budgets going to directors without a single worthwhile movie to their name, it's as if they no longer bother to pretend to care about making "good" movies. These "five quadrant" films are a problem, but the biggest problem is that no one seems to care that it's not that much harder to simply hire people with command of the medium

People like to slag off these films as looking like "videogame cut scenes", but even that is harsh, as when a videogame company spends the money to animate a CGI cut scene (like in ASSASSIN'S CREED), they storyboard and block out the action so that their money is well spent

For the first time in my life I watch blockbusters and get bored out of my skull. I fight to stay interested even as things explode on screen. The action is lifeless and bland, even though it costs more than ever to produce. I look at our graceless, modern blockbusters, made without story telling cohesion or a sense of momentum, and they all play like fan made shorts. Cinema is eating it's own tail with these reboots and adaptations of existing properties, and it bores the shit out of me

One of the most exciting scenes I've seen in a movie in years involved three people eating lunch, while the audience wondered if one person would spot the tattoo on the back of another character's neck. THE TOWN is a movie anybody can make. I'm not saying it doesn't take talent, but it doesn't take gobs of cash. The movies I find thrilling will still be made, because they're cheap and the people who make them are hungry to succeed. Hollywood can continue to try to build excitement through it's increasingly uninteresting pixel-palozas, but because they play it so safe, because they're unwilling to spend money or time on story, they'll never top the shivers I got watching some characters eat lunch

I have no appetite for continued super heroics, at least as long as the ADAM SHANKMEN of the world are behind the lens. I don't care if Hollywood fails and we get fewer big budget films for a few years. Movies make money, they always will, and there will always be an audience for smaller, profitable films. If Hollywood isn't interested in making those films, someone else will. They might not make those movies in english, but at this point that couldn't matter less

EDIT: I expect some seriously grim times ahead for America, and I think that perhaps audiences will be forced to grow up a bit. I'm not saying we should expect a return to the 70s, but I'd expect movies to start looking more grounded once the shit really hits the fan

Quote:

Originally Posted by stelios 

Don't you hate that this is a world where this is true? 

 

It's like Hollywood is counterbalancing the reckless disregard for safety it shows on budgets with a mortal fear of actual creativity. 

 

Yeah, but what the hell can WE do about it aside from giving good films our money?

And Kate, I'm seeing a hell of a lot of hyperbole and generalizing in that post. Maybe you could be more specific about blockbusters that bored you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Spider 

Yeah, but what the hell can WE do about it aside from giving good films our money?

 

And Kate, I'm seeing a hell of a lot of hyperbole and generalizing in that post. Maybe you could be more specific about blockbusters that bored you?

Virtually all of them. These days when I see a blockbuster that engages me on any level, even just for a five minute stretch, it's a newsworthy event

I'd like to see more young and independent filmmakers stop pining for a return to the 70s, and start throwing everything against the wall to see if it works. From what I've seen, many have wised up and done so. 

What's interesting to me is the obsession with "branding" and how that eradicates any sort of risk-taking. People talk about "damaging the brand" all the time, but the reason brands get "damaged" so easily (i.e. one bad movie killing a franchise) is because the brand was worthless in the first place, and/or previous examples of said brand were no different than the last.

I have no problem with the sequelization and remake trend in movies - it's been around forever. But so many people are afraid to shake things up. If they're making part three, and part two was weaker, their attitude is, stick with what worked in part one. If they're making part four, and part three was huge, they'll say, don't mess with the formula, you'll damage the brand.

It's why I think The Dark Knight Rises might be a big deal as far as studio filmmaking, sequential storytelling, and franchising as a whole. Now, the damn thing has RISES in the title, so I think you have to expect some sort of happy ending. But this is a world-class filmmaker taking a globally-huge property and doing peculiar things with it, closing this one particular story in a manner that seems... apocalyptic? Even if it engages casual fans, we're talking about a Batman movie which just released a trailer with about two whole seconds of actual Batman. If he can steer audience interest into a story, and not a superhero serial, and still make more than a billion, it may change the way studios perceive their brands, allowing them to get riskier and create, GASP, more drama, instead of, here's FAST SIX, and there will be a FAST SEVEN, and cars go vroom.

At this rate, studios aren't going to ditch franchises. Our best hope is that they used these pre-established titles as an excuse to go to pretty unusual places. You lure audiences in with a promise of something candy-coated and silly, and BOOM you hit them with story, characters, and conflict. I do think this is EXTREMELY optimistic.

I think the relative decline in movie quality is due to the massive, massive improvement we've seen in TV in the last 10-12 years--especially in dramas (but comedies also deserve a mention).

Why go to the movies to see an "adult" drama when I can catch Mad Men, Downton Abbey, Breaking Bad, or a whole other host of excellent television on cable?  I laugh more on a random episode of Parks & Rec or Community than I do in a whole 2 hour "comedy" of late.

TV is putting movies to shame.

If TDRK takes big risks and reaps rewards, studios won't take the right lesson out of it.  They see anything like that as an outlier.  "Pfft, well THAT'S Christopher Nolan!  Of course it succeeded!"  They'll take only the wrong lessons out of it with just a handful of smaller powers letting it inspire them to take slightly riskier endeavors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spams Alot 

Hollywood doesn't realize that there's a HUGE fucking market waiting to be tapped if they would just finance low budget movies within the 1-10 million dollar range and, you know what, FUCK THEATRICAL RELEASING as I feel like going to the cinema these days is equal to a Bataan Death March. Give me a great looking Blu-Ray with plenty of extras and I'm happy.

 

But getting back to corporatization, the real reason why Hollywood is swirling down the toilet is because these fucking jerkoffs that run the studio’s are no different that any other group of worthless cunts at any other fucking corporation. They’re goal is not to make innovative, challenging or even just good, solid and intelligent movies because that requires creativity, something that these people are totally bereft of as they continue to remake, reboot or prequel every fucking movie in existence because what they want is not to make movies but to manufacture a product that can be rebranded and sold to the mindless morons of middle America like McDonalds or Coca-cola.

 

They also don’t want anyone else to succeed as they’ve done nothing but consolidate the market and worked to kill of the competition at every opportunity, just like every other corporation. And until the playing field is leveled, and there is the means for people to raise money, there will be no opportunity for low budget indies to emerge as they did in the 60’s and 70’s, which of course lead to the greatest era in North American cinema history.

I agree with everything you've said. Though I hope that one day we'll have the IT infrastructure in this country to make possible instant distribution of HD video, opening up the market to all sorts of indie filmmakers, until the evil corporations and their stranglehold on our lives is broken, I doubt they'll allow it to happen. They'd much rather keep us in third world conditions without any options, so they can charge what they like (no regulation as in Europe) without having to improve the grid

It's going to take a revolution against the monied interests before the serfs are allowed to again control their fate in this world

With that said though, I hate theaters, and the corporate addiction to money ruined that experience too, just like the movies they now throw up on screen. They ditched the ushers and allowed the experience to be degraded to a point where there is no way I'd watch a movie I care about for the first time in a theater, as I know the noisy, disrespectful audience would ruin it for me.  3D is the only reason to go to the movies these days, and I'm just biding my time till I can afford a 3D TV and then tell those bastards to kiss off for good

In 2012 I'm a full on cheerleader for Hollywood's destruction, and while that's kind of sad, I think it's about time something changed, because to quote RAIN DOG from a few months back, this shit isn't working - at all

I imagine some of you guys complaining about noisy, disrespectful audiences holding doilies and wearing top hats and monacles.

Audiences are never going to stop making noise. Most of the time, that adds to the experience! Movies are a communal activity - they really weren't meant to be consumed alone. Sometimes it's worse than other times, but it's never going to change.

Y'all can keep your home theaters to yourselves. Nothing beats a giant multiplex with sound so big my scrotum shakes, seats that recline, a concession stand right outside, the biggest screen imaginable, and the feeling that I'm sharing in an experience with everyone around me. Of course most of those people are going to be douchebags - might as well leave Planet Earth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

... a concession stand right outside...

... where a popcorn and soda costs as much if not more than my ticket.

Yeah, I've never really had awful audience experiences myself. Just this last week, I saw Tintin, and some of the kids were a little noisy, but nothing too awful. They seemed to like the movie well enough. There was one point where a baby started crying, but its mother thankfully calmed it down pretty quickly.

For once, I'm in total agreement with Gabe: the theater experience is the best. I've seen some pretty kickass home theaters, sure, but nothing quite beats the thrill of "going to the movies".

And maybe I just live in a not-as-expensive area, but the concessions at the theaters near me are expensive, but not unreasonably so (i.e. I don't pay $10 for a medium popcorn).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

I imagine some of you guys complaining about noisy, disrespectful audiences holding doilies and wearing top hats and monacles.

 

Audiences are never going to stop making noise. Most of the time, that adds to the experience! Movies are a communal activity - they really weren't meant to be consumed alone. Sometimes it's worse than other times, but it's never going to change.

 

Y'all can keep your home theaters to yourselves. Nothing beats a giant multiplex with sound so big my scrotum shakes, seats that recline, a concession stand right outside, the biggest screen imaginable, and the feeling that I'm sharing in an experience with everyone around me. Of course most of those people are going to be douchebags - might as well leave Planet Earth.

Gabe I've written about it on the boards before, but my experiences these past years in theaters are without fail nightmarish. Maybe at the Alamo Drafthouse it's a "communal" experience. Where I live it's like being thrown into an asylum with cranks who have no respect for the movie or other audience members

And that isn't the way things always were. My mom tells stories of ushers kicking people out back in the day, hunting down offenders without pity or remorse. Now it's a zoo fit only for texters and talkers
 

and that is not even getting into the fact that the closest theater to me never has the films in focus, and has discourteous, hateful staff

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess Kate 

And that isn't the way things always were. My mom tells stories of ushers kicking people out back in the day, hunting down offenders without pity or remorse. 

 

That requires having actual staff to monitor the theaters.  When you've got 24 screens, it's next to impossible to employ enough staff to watch every single theater.  Besides, those are bodies that can be up front hawking popcorn and membership cards.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

 

That requires having actual staff to monitor the theaters.  When you've got 24 screens, it's next to impossible to employ enough staff to watch every single theater.  Besides, those are bodies that can be up front hawking popcorn and membership cards.

Fair enough, but then if that is the situation with the economics of theater ownership, then I don't think other movie fans should blame those of us who prefer watching stuff at home. As I posted in another thread, this is what it's come to:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

... where a popcorn and soda costs as much if not more than my ticket.

Or you could just sneak it in. The point is the proximity.

The cost is going to be unmanageable as less people go to the theaters. It also gets worse when more disposable films hit the marketplace, becoming popular in their opening weekend, then fading away after week four. The longer a film plays, the more profits theaters get from the actual gross. So if a film doesn't play long, theaters will make less money, meaning the prices will rise.

My point? It's good to have the option, even if it is too costly.

Also, Kate, stop using words like "nightmarish" in relation to theater audiences.

EDIT: Also, the Holocaust is a good thing to avoid when discussing these things.