Hollywood MAY be getting it

[ulthar]

Saw posted on another site this morning a link to the NYTimes article

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/24/movies/24slum.html?ex=1282536000&en=d4926eee92216196&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

regarding the decline in movie theatre attendance.  A key point from this article is that at least SOMEONE in Hollywood is beginning to understand their movies are bad (and not in a good way).

[Just Plain Horse]

Good luck... they'll never "get" it... but maybe if it hurts them enough financially, they'll hire people who do "get" it. That's a BIG maybe. That won't stop a single crappy movie in the works, just help even it out with maybe one decent movie per year... two or more a year in five years...

I think the nature of the system is such that in order to be in it, you have to completely ignore anything other than money and your own personal schemes... which explains a lot, really...

[trekgeezer]

The problem is not necessarily that the movies are all bad. There are far too many mediocre ones. People get a little peeved at shelling out what it takes to go to a movie now and it turns out to be like watching an episode of a TV show.

[Menard]

Just my opinion, but I tend to agree with Trek_Geezer (now it is just one time, so don't get depressed about it).

When things are down is various forms of industry, they have a tendency to use the same spin that the public/audience/customer is getting smarter. Their customer is the same stupid person today that they were yesterday. Hollywood has produced crap, and crap has drawn the audiences into the theatre. The problem is that Holllywood has prodused big, steaming piles of crap (TITANIC for instance) and this year's crap was just crap, minus the steam. Mediocre crap that was not necessarily terribly bad or terribly good. Don't they call that 'safe'?. It seems that safe does not work very well.

Perhaps tightening economic conditions may have affected attendance somewhat, but it seems in the past that people would look to the movies to provide a release from reality. However, there are more options for those releases from reality available for home use. Hollywood probably needs to get off the safe track and plop down a few good piles of steaming crap.

[ulthar]

trek_geezer wrote:

> The problem is not necessarily that the movies are all bad.
> There are far too many mediocre ones. People get a little
> peeved at shelling out what it takes to go to a movie now and
> it turns out to be like watching an episode of a TV show.
>

That and all of the EXTRA garbage you have to endure: traffic, rowdy kids, cell phones, 15 minutes (or more!) of ads before the movie start, etc.

Except for Master and Commander, which was a special night out for us (about the only time in over three years we've gotten a babysitter just to go out), my wife and I have not been to the 'regular' movie theatre in about 4 years.  At some points in the past, we went stretches of 1-2 times per week.

Now, we go to the drive-in.  It's an hour drive away, but MUCH more fun, and they get some decent flicks.  We've seen Finding Nemo, Pirates of the Caribbean, Robots, Shrek 2 and some others.  Mostly, if it's a movie we think my daughter will enjoy (PoC was when she was really little and just slept in the car seat), we go.  Other than that, there has not been a whole lot out that I care to spend the money on, fight the traffic for, or endure the crowd.

I would've like to see HHGttG on big screen, though, just cuz.

[Ed, Ego and Superego]

I lose my desire to go because so many films are remakes of better movies, movies of TV shows I never liked, video game tie-ins, or effects-driven blockbusters.   Or some combination of the them all.  Its hard to winnow out the good from the noise.  Plus, the admission prices are steeper and steeper, its almost cheaper to go to a nice restaurant than the movies.  Add  in the extra annoyances, and it becomes not worth it,.
-Ed

[Shadow]

One would hope that this might mean an end to the proliferation of crappy remakes, but somehow I get the impresion that this is probably the excuse some in Hollywood will use to pass on original ideas in favor of even more remakes and adaptions of TV shows, on the theory that established film concepts would be less risky than new ones.

[AndyC]

I think the reason I've been most peeved at Hollywood is that the genres I enjoy the most are those they are most likely to turn into effects-laden extravaganzas at the expense of telling a good story. You can't get sci-fi any more. It's just a futuristic action flick. There are fewer real horror movies out there (other than knock-offs of foreign films), just gory action. It should not really be surprising that Blockbuster has lumped them all into the same category. And then there is action itself, which is all paper-thin plots, one-dimensional characters and loads of special effects.

For those who claim to want quality, we then have crappy, sappy, predictable dramas.

Rounding out the only three genres available today is comedy, which, if you took out the toilet humour and sex jokes, has very little left.

In another thread, somebody mentioned the homogenization of entertainment. Every movie has got to appeal to everybody, or at least to as many people as possible. Can't have small but loyal followings anymore. With such a diversity of tastes, the only way to please them all, ironically, is to offer less variety. Find the lowest common denominator. To that end, they only make three kinds of movies, and those have become so standardized that once you've seen one, you've seen them all. Thankfully, people seem to get tired of all that sameness after a while.

[Amanda]

I'm at a loss as to why Hollywood sees the need to remake a perfectly GOOD movie to begin with.  There have been movies in the past that have been remade, and I was fine with that.  The original wasn't that good, or the remake was just as good...however, I just got back from seeing "The Cave" and they had a preview of a remake of "The Fog".  I'm oh, just slightly p**sed.  I love love love the original Fog.  It was creepy and scary and just right.  This new version.....I can tell just from the PREVIEW that it's going to suck.  Why did they have to do this?

I don't know if anyone has ever visited upcominghorrormovies.com, (I'm sure ya'll have) but there are some movies that have been relegated to the "never going to see the light of day" bin, that I think would be FANTASTIC with the right hand guiding them.  But instead, they remake good movies into crappy movies.  (sighs)

Ah well.  I have some hope.  Not much, but some.  We have a new theater in town that seems to get the not completely mainstream.  They had "Dead and Breakfast" for two days at a "special showing".

[DaveMunger]

They should radically change how theaters work, and concentrate on screwing us really good in a few ways instead of middlin' screwing us in every concievable way. I think they could get away with charging even more for the popcorn if ticket prices were lower, but probably what they should do is charge even more for the ticket, but make everything else seem like a good deal. Sell you some cheap pizza and tacos, maybe even have theaters with tables, like dinner theater.

[Mofo Rising]

I don't feel any real ill will towards Hollywood.  By this point, it's a business.  Look at the cost of movies.  The smallest of movies is going to cost a few million dollars.  If you did not catch that let me rephrase it not at all: The smallest of movies costs several million dollars.

Would you invest a million dollars OF YOUR OWN MONEY in something that is not guaranteed to make its money back?

So anyway, there is something good that may happen in the recent wholesale failure of movies.  Movie studios, knowing that nobody wants to watch their s**tty movies may actually take a gamble and try to make movies that people will respond to.  We are possibly looking at the greatest movie renessaince (I am too lazy to look up correct spelling) since the 70's.

Hollywood execs are now realizing that there formulaic films are simply not bringing in the crowds that they used to, and there is nothing they can do.  They will have to take chances, or crash and burn.  Hopefully there will be an upswing in the quality of movies as studios try anything and everything to keep people in their seats.

And once that revolution does happen, it will be watered down and we will see the same s**t we always have.  But we'll always have those couple of years.

Eh?  Eh?

[ulthar]

Mofo Rising wrote:

> The
> smallest of movies is going to cost a few million dollars.  If
> you did not catch that let me rephrase it not at all: The
> smallest of movies costs several million dollars.
>

Love it or hate it, but The Blair Witch Project cost less than $50,000.  That's what I recall hearing, anyway.  And it caused quite a stir at the time.

The Thing was Carpenter's first "big budget" film (he'd already made Halloween and Escape from New York I think), and it was peanuts compared to the budgets of today (even adjusted dollars). And, it remains better than almost anything made since.

Money != Good.  As soon as Hollywood learns that, they will start making GOOD (not just expensive) movies again.

As for the business aspect, why risk $100,000,000 of your own money (as you put it) on something iffy to give a ROI; save money on the production cost and put what money you DO spend into story, solid direction, a good photographer/lighting person and sensical editing.  It's not about how much a movie costs, but how much it profits; the profits can get pretty low if there are not so many butts in the seats.

My two cents.

[AndyC]

That's the problem, it's gotten to be all about getting a huge return on a huge investment. Every movie has to be a blockbuster or they don't give a damn. Ulthar is right. Taking greater risks with smaller sums offers not only better movies, but more chances to make a huge return on the investment. More chances to produce a runaway hit that will endure. It's not going to happen every time -- which is what the studios seem to think is achievable right now -- but they should come out ahead when it all balances out.

In the movie business (as in many others), there are successes and failures. They've tried to eliminate the failures (for that matter, they've also tried to eliminate moderate successes), but it just doesn't work. All they've done is make everything mediocre.

Part of the problem, as in other areas, is excess. They just have to learn that when a dozen blockbusters come out, all aiming at the same market and all claiming to be the summer's big movie, it diminishes all of them. When all are special, none are special. I think back to the first movie channel in Canada launching itself with Star Wars in 1982. Five years after it came out, it was still a biggie. Granted, home video did not yet allow us to watch it over and over until we were bored with it. That's part of it. But there were also not so many movies of that stature released from 1977 to 1982. Today, since such movies always raked in money, that's just about all that gets made. What was once a treat that came around every couple of years has become the same old crap. It's not surprising that everybody isn't rushing out to see every "movie event of the summer" that comes out.

Hollywood's got to get used to the idea of producing smaller films and having moderate successes. And they have to have more diversity. Not every move is going to appeal to everybody, nor should it. When all movies are the same, I have no qualms about missing most of them. Show me one that is different, one that offers something I like, and I'll be sure to go.



Post Edited (08-27-05 10:51)

[Just Plain Horse]

Amanda wrote:

> I'm at a loss as to why Hollywood sees the need to remake a
> perfectly GOOD movie to begin with.

Menard mentioned this: he refers to it as "playing it safe". Why take the trouble to come up with something new when you can just buy the plot to an existing franchise- I mean, story :P


>There have been movies in
> the past that have been remade, and I was fine with that.  The
> original wasn't that good, or the remake was just as
> good...

The only remakes I've ever seen that were better than the original were John Carpenter's "The Thing" and Martin Scorsese's "Cape Fear". Don't tell me "Four Brothers" is on par with "The Sons of Katie Elder"; I don't even like most of John Wayne's work and I think his acting kicks Mark Wahlberg's collective ass.

>however, I just got back from seeing "The Cave"

This film is obviously a ripoff of Toho's "Matango"; Who wants to make a bet that the plot's almost the same, complete with the "twist ending"? (No, I haven't seen it... but I'm taking a bigger chance than any mainstream movie director/producer/executive has in ages, aside from copyright infringement)

>and they
> had a preview of a remake of "The Fog".  I'm oh, just slightly
> p**sed.  I love love love the original Fog.  It was creepy and
> scary and just right.  This new version.....I can tell just
> from the PREVIEW that it's going to suck.

Oh dear god, MAKE IT STOP!!!

> I don't know if anyone has ever visited
> upcominghorrormovies.com, (I'm sure ya'll have) but there are
> some movies that have been relegated to the "never going to see
> the light of day" bin, that I think would be FANTASTIC with the
> right hand guiding them.  But instead, they remake good movies
> into crappy movies.  (sighs)
>
> Ah well.  I have some hope.  Not much, but some.  We have a new
> theater in town that seems to get the not completely
> mainstream.  They had "Dead and Breakfast" for two days at a
> "special showing".

Anybody notice the titles for movies are getting especially bad?

And for those who are wondering, I don't like Hollywood precisely for the reason it IS a business. No heart, no loyalty, no soul... just cash out the anus- made too easily and squandered too often.

[trekgeezer]

It says people really want something different when the big surprise hit of the summer is something that would normally be on National Geographic or Animal Planet.

Warner Brothers paid a million for the French made documentary March of the Penguins and as of Aug. 25 it has made over $66 million worldwide ($51 million of that domestically). If that ain't a thump on the head, I don't know what will get the studios attention.

I've brought this up before, but you can blame this all on Michael Cimino and Heaven's Gate.  He killed MGM and it made the other studios decide they had to take control away from the directors.