Hollywood ... as in, the end of ....

It's clear that Hollywood has a problem. The cycle of continuous reboots, sequels, and spinoffs reflects a business model that is not viable. If they can't sell a straightforward good film to a general audience, and it appears that they have decided that they can't, then they have become simply another niche provider. It's a big niche, and the machine has a lot of reserve power left, but it will eventually run down and die.
 
Curtis Mack said:
It's clear that Hollywood has a problem. The cycle of continuous reboots, sequels, and spinoffs reflects a business model that is not viable. If they can't sell a straightforward good film to a general audience, and it appears that they have decided that they can't, then they have become simply another niche provider. It's a big niche, and the machine has a lot of reserve power left, but it will eventually run down and die.
Click to expand...

Hollywood doesn't have a problem. What you call a problem comes from the audience. Hollywood is like any other business. It tries to give its customers what they want. Have you noticed how transformers makes a ton of money but a Malick movie doesn't? People whine about too many sequels, reboots, spinoffs, superheroes etc, but when Hollywood makes an original challenging story nobody goes see it. If sequels and superheroes would bomb but original stories would make a billion bucks, you can be sure Hollywood would be making more original stories. The truth is people don't want to pay to go to the theater anymore. They don't want to pay for content anymore, period. The only thing that can make them pay is if their favorite character is on screen. As simple as that. Putting the blame on Hollywood alone is not knowing how a business works.
 
Having a problem doesn't require that you are to blame for that problem. "They don't want to pay for content anymore, period" --> Hollywood has a problem, even if it may not be their fault (though maybe people don't want to pay for content anymore because what they are forcefed is boring and derivative; people may be asking for it, then in the long run lose all interest and stop paying anymore).
 
Samuel H said:
Having a problem doesn't require that you are to blame for that problem. "They don't want to pay for content anymore, period" --> Hollywood has a problem, even if it may not be their fault (though maybe people don't want to pay for content anymore because what they are forcefed is boring and derivative; people may be asking for it, then in the long run lose all interest and stop paying anymore).
Click to expand...

You just repeated the same misguided point. " though maybe people don't want to pay for content anymore because what they are forcefed is boring and derivative." --> Hollywood will keep giving them that because that is what they are asking. Once people start giving their money in loads to original and challenging stories Hollywood will shift the focus to producing that. But so far movies that make a ton of money are Superheroes, Transformers, Fast and Furious etc. So you will get more of that.
 
The problem isn't that Hollywood can't make a good $20M film. The problem is that Hollywood can't make money on a good $20M film due to the high cost of production and marketing, horror and urban oriented flicks aside. Those come with built-in audiences.

As I look at BoxOfficeMojo numbers, these are production costs given - Annabelle $15M, Wind River $11M, Girls Trip $19M, Kidnap $21M, Big Sick (alleged) $5M.

But it can make a TV pilot for around $3.5M, despite having a lot of cooks in the kitchen.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/budget-breakdowns-what-a-typical-827862

Of course, a TV show's marketing is usually based on promos run on the same channel that it airs.
 
@Sttratos: yes, but an important part of my argument are the possible negative long-run effects. Giving people what they think they want sometimes can be a bad policy. If you have a five year old kid and you always feed him what he wants (say, gummy bears), he'll be happy in the short term but there will be problems in the long run. Of course, I don't expect Hollywood to do anything about it, among other things because maybe the hindsight about whether this will actually be a problem or not can only come after the fact.
 
Samuel H said:
@Sttratos: yes, but an important part of my argument are the possible negative long-run effects. Giving people what they think they want sometimes can be a bad policy. If you have a five year old kid and you always feed him what he wants (say, gummy bears), he'll be happy in the short term but there will be problems in the long run. Of course, I don't expect Hollywood to do anything about it, among other things because maybe the hindsight about whether this will actually be a problem or not can only come after the fact.
Click to expand...

Sorry but your comparison of the audience to a 5 year old child makes no sense. Audiences are not paying for Fast and Furious while subconsciously wanting a Malick film. They WANT Fast and Furious. They keep coming back for more and paying. They are not 5 years old. That you think you know what audiences actually want while they themselves don't is a strange thing.
 
Samuel H said:
@Sttratos: yes, but an important part of my argument are the possible negative long-run effects. Giving people what they think they want sometimes can be a bad policy. If you have a five year old kid and you always feed him what he wants (say, gummy bears), he'll be happy in the short term but there will be problems in the long run. Of course, I don't expect Hollywood to do anything about it, among other things because maybe the hindsight about whether this will actually be a problem or not can only come after the fact.
Click to expand...

Sorry but your comparison of the audience to a 5 year old child makes no sense. Audiences are not paying for Fast and Furious while subconsciously wanting a Malick film. They WANT Fast and Furious. They keep coming back for more and paying. They are not 5 years old. That you think you know what audiences actually want while they themselves don't is a strange thing.
 
I'm not saying I know what they want better than themselves. I know they want fast and furious. What I'm saying is that after ten years of watching only fast and furious and transformers, you may end up bored with movies and never caring to go to a movie theater again. And a key word there is may: as I said, nobody really knows whether this will happen or not, I'm just saying it's a possibility.
 
Look back in history to predict the future. Your proposal is equivalent to saying 30 or 40 years of westerns and musicals bored people and then they stopped going to the theaters or Darryl Zanuck's prediction that people would become bored with TV in six months. Regardless of how good online or home entertainment gets, people like to have a night out. The theater is still one of the cheapest bits of entertainment available. But indeed, people did get bored with musicals and westerns and Hollywood moved on.

Hollywood sticks with a formula for the reasons already discussed. Then someone funds something different. It is a hit and then that's the next formula for a while. It's been going on since Hollywood was born. Gangster movies, film noir, musicals, westerns, epics, killer tomatoes; they all come and go.

Remember that the audience gets refreshed every year. Older people have seen it all for years and may be bored with certain storylines and genres, but a new crop of viewers comes every year and it is all new to them.
 
The dine in theater in town is always packed, which goes towards the wanting a night out (as long as the food is decent).
 
Paul F said:
... Remember that the audience gets refreshed every year. Older people have seen it all for years and may be bored with certain storylines and genres, but a new crop of viewers comes every year and it is all new to them.
Click to expand...
But that's also a potential pitfall. What happens if people get bored with these CGI infused action flicks and Hollywood doesn't know how to create anything else or, in turn, what if it finds that "anything else" is no longer dominant in a global market full of digital filmmakers? In other words, the French/Germans/Russians/Italians/Chinese may not be able to make the "Fast and the Furious" en locale but are perfectly capable of making lower budget drama and comedy. The money, the brains and the know-how is not a Hollywood domain. The control over the production and the distribution is. And that can go any second.
 
Yes, that is a good point. Several aspects of movie making are global (CGI in particular). Many industries have rusted in the US, why not the movie industry.
 
And more good news for Hollywood.

http://bgr.com/2017/09/17/cable-tv-alternatives-dvr-youtube-tv-vs-fubo-2017/

According to the report, there will be 22.2 million cord-cutters age 18 or older this year. That’s up 33% from the previous estimate of 15.4 million, and represents billions in lost revenue for the cable industry. “Younger audiences continue to switch to either exclusively watching OTT video or watching them in combination with free TV options,” said Chris Bendtsen, senior forecasting analyst at eMarketer. “Last year, even the Olympics and presidential elections could not prevent younger audiences from abandoning pay TV.”

The news gets worse when it comes to the bottom line. The slowdown in TV viewing is reflected in TV ad spend, which is projected to drop to 34.9% of total ad spend by the end of 2017, and below 30% by 2021. “Traditional TV advertising is slowing even more than expected, as viewers switch their time and attention to the growing list of live streaming and over-the-top [OTT] platforms,” said Monica Peart, eMarketer’s senior forecasting director.
Click to expand...

And the source of the study, which was giving m a view-blocking popup earlier.

https://www.emarketer.com/Article/e...end-Estimate-Cord-Cutting-Accelerates/1016463
 
Sttratos said:
Hollywood doesn't have a problem. What you call a problem comes from the audience. Hollywood is like any other business. It tries to give its customers what they want. Have you noticed how transformers makes a ton of money but a Malick movie doesn't? People whine about too many sequels, reboots, spinoffs, superheroes etc, but when Hollywood makes an original challenging story nobody goes see it. If sequels and superheroes would bomb but original stories would make a billion bucks, you can be sure Hollywood would be making more original stories. The truth is people don't want to pay to go to the theater anymore. They don't want to pay for content anymore, period. The only thing that can make them pay is if their favorite character is on screen. As simple as that. Putting the blame on Hollywood alone is not knowing how a business works.
Click to expand...

Really. Well, duh, I kind of do know how it works. You make and distribute a movie. If enough people go see it, you make money. Garsh, Mickey that was hard.

I'm not talking about Terence Malik. I'm talking about a straightforward good picture such as Michael Clayton, which made tons of money. The reason the adolescent audience goes for transformers and the like is that Hollywood ran off everyone else. It will take time to build (or rebuild in Hollywood's case) an operation where the studio can make a profit on the domestic audience, which it cannot now do. And, yes, the audience does want to see a favorite - that's what we call a movie star, who can carry a picture no matter which character he plays. It could be done. There's just no one out there who has a clear vision and the balls to back it up.
 
Curtis Mack said:
Really. Well, duh, I kind of do know how it works. You make and distribute a movie. If enough people go see it, you make money. Garsh, Mickey that was hard.

I'm not talking about Terence Malik. I'm talking about a straightforward good picture such as Michael Clayton, which made tons of money. The reason the adolescent audience goes for transformers and the like is that Hollywood ran off everyone else. It will take time to build (or rebuild in Hollywood's case) an operation where the studio can make a profit on the domestic audience, which it cannot now do. And, yes, the audience does want to see a favorite - that's what we call a movie star, who can carry a picture no matter which character he plays. It could be done. There's just no one out there who has a clear vision and the balls to back it up.
Click to expand...

And by your tone I guess you are that guy with the vision and balls to back it up, if you were only given the chance?

Talk is cheap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top