Changing the Hollywood System

O

oneinfiniteloop

Veteran
A lot of threads about movies usually go something like this:

"...most Hollywood movies are crap..."
"...I can't believe he ruined that book..."
"...what were they thinking..."
"...who would pay to see that lifeless, contrived no talent clown in a big Hollywood production anyway!"

This got me to thinking, we can all speculate the reasons as to why this happened, and questioning is all well and good, but...what can we do to help fix it?

I've always believed in power in numbers and if the masses are educated enough, true cinematic art can be appreciated on a larger scale, but sometimes I step back and look at the state of the general public and wonder if they'll ever get it.

So, what is everyone else's opinions on this matter? I would like to hear possible solutions/people who are making a difference/technologies that will help/etc, rather than pointing out the problems only.
 
Boycott any film that cost more than $20M to make and/or ones in which more than...say...40% of the budget went to salaries.

The problem is it has become big business and big business requires MBA-wielding execs. Who end up making creative/artistic decisions without an extensive enough background in it.

They'd do well in just about any business, and I wish they'd put that to the test. Maybe if Wall Street had better access to drugs and starletail, they'd all go there and leave the movie making to movie makers.
 
Yeah, I don't know. Movies have kind of always been crap. If you look back to even the glory-days of say the studio system of the 30s and 40s when you had true giants, like Hitch and Wilder, Ford and Hawks making pictures, each studio would still turn out at least one picture a week. A WEEK!!!!! So for every Casablanca, there were like 100 pieces of junk we've forgotten. Same thing today, I think. There are still good movies made. But for every good movie, there are 100 pieces of junk.

Though you are right about many execs. The thing that was different then, was that the Selznicks, Mayers, et al. LOVED making money to be sure. But they also seemed to truely love movies. Selnicks letters are amazing to read, as he discusses cuts, shots, hair, make-up, camera, every aspect of the process. He loved it.

However, to be fair, I feel that way about the Weinsteins now. I don't always like the movies they make, but I do believe that in addition to the money, they truely love movies.

So I don't know that anything is really different than it's ever been, ultimately...
 
"No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public." -HL Mencken

Hehe... yep, nothing is fundamentally different and frankly, the system is 'unchangable'. It has always been in a constant state of evolution due to
financial pressures. If people were willing to pay to see 'good' movies 2-3
times while in the cinema, we'd see more 'good' movies. In this star
dominated system and culture, films are simply vehicles to sell that stardom
to the masses.

What is different today, is that there are viable alternatives. I can't say that
I've looked forward to a film in years... but I *eagerly* await this week's LOST,
season 2 of Rome, Deadwood and Sopranos is off to a rousing finale in this
bloody cool season. Episodic and cinematic narrative has supplanted
theatrical film for my entertainment interests.
 
I don't hate Hollywood. They are really good at what they do, which is selling a product. I wish they would sell mine.

Like desperatecomfort said, most movies are bad, and it has always been that way. How much is beauracracy and bean counters, how much is incompetence, and how much is personal taste is a matter of debate. But here's some food for thought, strictly in the entertainment industry. The week Gordon Parks Sr. died, every magazine cover at the supermarket checkout had cover stories aobut Nick and Jessica and Brangelina. Was there any mention of the award winning photographer who documented the Civil Rights struggle and went on to practically invent an industry within an industry with a film called "Shaft"? Nope. How many people who even come to this site know who he was or that he died? We are spoon fed this crap because it is what we ask for, en masse, every day.

It's like drugs. If we stop buying it, they will stop making it. Good Luck with that.
 
Jim Brennan said:
I don't hate Hollywood. They are really good at what they do, whic is selling a product. I wish they would sell mine.

Like desperatecomfort said, most movies are bad, and have always been that way. How much is beauracracy and bean counters, how much is incompetence, and how much is personal taste is a matter of debate. But here's some food for thought, strictly in the entertainment industry. The week Gordon Parks Sr died, every magazine cover at the supermarket checkout had cover stories aobut Nick and Jessica and Brangelna. Was there any mention of the award winning photographer who documented the Civil Rights struggle and went on to practically invent an industry within an industry with a film called "Shaft"? Nope. How many people who even come to this site know who he was or that he died? We are spoon fed this crap because it is what we ask for, en masse, every day.
Click to expand...
Great post. I've come back to this thread, typed something in then not posted it because it wasn't exactly what I wanted to say. Thank you for saying if for me. :thumbsup:
 
Jim Brennan said:
It's like drugs. If we stop buying it, they will stop making it. Good Luck with that.
Click to expand...

Herein lies the problem. How do you make them stop buying?

This reminds me of a RATM song, "No Shelter"

"they got you thinkin' that, what you need is what they sellin', made you think that buyin' is rebellin' "
 
I don't think you can, and frankly, I wonder if you should. There are movies that I like, which most people think are bad. There are also movies which are supposed to be "genius", which bore me into a necrotic state. It's all very subjective, at least in terms of the final product. Whose opinion is more valid than the viewer?

I'm not saying that the big studios don't pander to the lowest common denominator. But there are good films out there. Spread the word about that stuff. That's a better use of your energy than complaining about Deuce Bigalo
 
Last edited:
yeah, oneinfiniteloop, change it to what exactly? Can you be a little more specific about the definition of "true cinematic art?" Would that include the Marx Bros, or would they be eradicated along with Adam Sandler?

What exactly would you like Hollywood to change into?
 
I was listening to Robert Altman's commentary on the DVD for "The Player” over the weekend and he had some interesting comments about the Hollywood system and trying to create art within the confines of a system run by accountants. He talked about test screenings and how often these screenings are improperly done. They do test screenings for the 13 to 25 demographic because studios know that these are the people who go to movies most often. But that doesn’t do a filmmaker any good if the film was made for adults; so based in erroneous test screenings, the film gets changed and studios continue to not want to make certain kinds of films. Of course it’s more complicated than this, but it’s interesting to hear Altman’s comments since he’s successfully made the kinds of movies he wants to make within the system.

Altman also envisioned a time—and it may be coming soon—when this situation might be more equitable because of technology. If we had a video on demand system where a viewer could choose any movie ever made from a catalog to watch, and paid a rental fee, then the filmmakers got a percentage of those rental fees, then smaller movies could make their money back. He used “Wild Strawberries” as an example. Certainly the audience that went to see “Shaggy Dog” wouldn’t have given “Wild Strawberries” high marks in a test screening. And though it may not be a blockbuster, a film like that would eventually make its money back over more time with a smaller audience. That doesn’t help is with theatrical screenings, but if we want to make smaller films for smaller audiences, a model like this might work for us.

Personally, I like a lot of Hollywood movies. I liked “Spider-Man 2” a lot, but I liked “Before Sunrise” a lot more. I won’t go see “Shaggy Dog” but of people liked it, hey, what do I care?

Cheers,

Josh
 
Last edited:
I do think technology, especially in terms of delivery will help. It will afford us more options and maybe we will see a growth in niche markets. But really, I'm not terribly optimistic. Most people won't make the effort to LOOK for something different. They are happy enough to take what's handed them. Even if stuff is more accessible, the people still have to be aware of its presence. That takes money and marketing. And that's what the studios do best. :nads:
 
I think you're right that most people won't seek out the smaller films, but those that do want to see them will have an easier time. I've seen more European cinema in the last few years with Netflix than I'd seen all my life. My local video store didn't stock a lot of independent and foreign films. So those of us who do want to see those films will have the option. But yeah, you're right that my buddy who went to see Deuce Bigalow isn't likely to look at "Wild Strawberries" and say "Hey, I think I'll check out this subtitled black and white movie about an old Swedisg guy reflecting on the meaning of his life."
 
'Netflix' is a problem though. Its more of a parasite on the filmmaker than
a viable outlet for distribution. Your film generates income on their very limited
initial purchase and you get zero on the backend for subsequent rentals.

An 'itunes' type model is much better in the long run.

So, if you *really* want to change hollywood and promote the creation
of films that cater to our particular niche, support the alternative
distribution methods... be they 'cable on demand' or itunes-ish 'pay
and play' services.
 
hey! first of all "if masses are educated enough" can you imagine what is the common sense of Americans in Hungary? here is a little dialoge happened in the us. :
-oh and where do you live?
-in Hungary
-and where it is?
-in Europe
-and can we go there by car?

""Hey, I think I'll check out this subtitled black and white movie about an old Swedisg guy reflecting on the meaning of his life.""
so this general public do not require true cinematic art because:
do you know how many books they read a year?
and how many of them are belles-letters?
check out the numbers, or try to find it out.
so are they going to watch a film like that? no. even the studios shoot "true cinematic art" they are not going to watch them. they will find something better entertainment
 
Last edited:
Gregg, you're right about Netflix. I think the iTunes type scenario you describe is what Altman had in mind. I just used Netflix as an example that for someone like me, when I had the option to rent a Bergman movie, I rented it. I didn't have the option a few years ago. In the future, if it's a VOD scenario and the filmmaker gets a percentage, then that's where there's hope for smaller films and filmmakers. At least I hope there's hope!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top