refocusedmedia
Veteran
Or out of the system.
Article: http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/fe...tors-into-retirement-or-out-of-the-system.php
Article: http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/fe...tors-into-retirement-or-out-of-the-system.php
How Hollywood’s Limitations Are Forcing Established Directors Into Retirement
- Thread starter refocusedmedia
- Start date
IMO, the article didn't say much. Hollywood is risk averse. Always has been. Who wants to lose a ton o money on a bad film?
The deal has always been the successful directors, actors, make the mainstream films that make them and Hollywood millions, then they bankroll their own passion projects that are not mainstream.
The only director they mention that's worried about not having actual celluloid to shoot on is Tarantino. The documentary Keanu Reeves did shows that many older directors embrace the new digital realm of film making.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2013/feb/14/keanu-reeves-future-of-cinema
The "system" doesn't give money to the box office, the public does. The public at large likes their entertainment the way its being made. If they didn't, they wouldn't be spending money.
hscully
Veteran
This is true but the "system" also has larger distribution concerns than just the US to make the best return. A movie like Transformers is more valuable to the studios because its value translates well in international distribution. It wasn't that long ago that the "system" supported directors and pictures less fantastic because the US audience predominated their concerns. David Denby in "Do the Movies Have a Future" says. "The studios can't risk making good movies. Doing so isn't a business. The business model depends on the assured audience (romcoms, chick flicks, etc.) and the blockbuster." The problem regarding directors is that they have to drum up the projects themselves then the big guys will distribute gladly but all the real development work is done by independents in that case. That leads to the situation where good directors, like Almodovar or Andersen get to direct only every 5 years. I think it's a valid point.
I do not think the author of that article made a very compelling case or made relevant comparisons to support the notion that "the system" is causing directors to retire.
The general public has always been pretty ignorant throughut all of human history.
squig
Veteran
Unfortunately it doesn't quite work like that. The "system" also controls distribution. The public watches whatever is being pimped to them. If you wanna take your girlfriend to the movies are you gonna not go because there's nothing in particular you wanna see? No you're gonna pick something that's screening. An Australian film Animal Kingdom won Sundance and only screened in a handful of US cinemas, it's a gritty urban crime drama which would appeal to US audiences but it just wasn't marketed, why? because it's a foreign film? We're like the 51st state, you guys love us and our occa accent, and half the leading men in your films are Australians. Rampart is another great film that went nowhere, it's the best American film I've seen in ages and I almost didn't even hear about it.
Box office sales have been shrinking over the past few years, I think they now only account for about 20% of overall films sales so making mindless big budget action movies for teenage boys shows the film executives have about as long an attention span as the said teenage boys. All the good writing has moved to TV because TV is working on lower budgets and taking more risks, although I don't consider them risks, I think it's smart. The Walking Dead appeals to the same audience as a $100 million dollar action film but it's well written and not full of ridiculous plot holes, and not 90 minutes of stunts and lame one liners.
I think it will get to the point where Hollywood needs us a lot more than we need them as new distribution channels open up. Hopefully that will lead to the directors getting more control over their films like back in the day when directors were able to produce great "risky" work like Taxi Driver, Apocalypse Now, Serpico, and Full Metal Jacket.
Last edited:
Oller Visuals
Well-known member
What a silly article.
Nektonic
Veteran
My guess, the studios will move towards TV's executive producer model for big mainstream films. That is already happening (see: The Avengers) to some extent. This cuts out one of the potentially prima donna elements of filmmaking. Besides the movie stars, big name directors throw their weight around to get what they want. While sometimes a director like a Ridley Scott or Christopher Nolan are beneficial in getting butts in seats on name recognition, it can backfire when a big director steers a movie off course and can't be fired because it will kill the film when the press reports on "big name director fired from mega-budget summer tentpole".
Don't believe me, just look at the sh"t-storm that occurs amongst fans when they replace someone like Frank Darabont as producer of The Walking Dead. Multiply that by massive amounts when dealing with a huge name director on a big budget mainstream movie.
Also, to some extent I don't think Prometheus is a good example for the idea of the screenwriter trumping the director in terms of attention over a film. I'm pretty hardcore into the Alien series (I'd say franchise but I hate that word) as a fan. I am always going to sites like AvPGalaxy and various Alien blogs and fan sites. Those amongst us in the Alien "superfans" group equally talk about the other aspects concerning the behind the scenes of all the Alien films (script quality, effects, Giger, music, etc) in comparison to talking about the directors.
Also, in the case of Prometheus, people aren't singling out Ridley Scott because the film was well directed. In most people's eyes, the script is the major issue with that film. While Ridley Scott bears some responsibility for the story, he wasn't given a writing credit as he didn't actually sit and write out a draft. Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof were the two credited writers on the film, so they get the attention on that front. Also, these days Lindelof and anything or anyone related to JJ Abrams and his growing Bad Robot empire are lightning rods for both praise and harsh criticism among sci-fi fans. So add that and Lost together, and it is no surprise that people gang up on Lindelof over Prometheus having a less than stellar screenplay. If Ridley Scott had turned in a horrible movie in terms of all the other elements (cinematography, acting, pacing, vision and scope), then fans would be raging at him as well.
Don't believe me, just look at the sh"t-storm that occurs amongst fans when they replace someone like Frank Darabont as producer of The Walking Dead. Multiply that by massive amounts when dealing with a huge name director on a big budget mainstream movie.
Also, to some extent I don't think Prometheus is a good example for the idea of the screenwriter trumping the director in terms of attention over a film. I'm pretty hardcore into the Alien series (I'd say franchise but I hate that word) as a fan. I am always going to sites like AvPGalaxy and various Alien blogs and fan sites. Those amongst us in the Alien "superfans" group equally talk about the other aspects concerning the behind the scenes of all the Alien films (script quality, effects, Giger, music, etc) in comparison to talking about the directors.
Also, in the case of Prometheus, people aren't singling out Ridley Scott because the film was well directed. In most people's eyes, the script is the major issue with that film. While Ridley Scott bears some responsibility for the story, he wasn't given a writing credit as he didn't actually sit and write out a draft. Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof were the two credited writers on the film, so they get the attention on that front. Also, these days Lindelof and anything or anyone related to JJ Abrams and his growing Bad Robot empire are lightning rods for both praise and harsh criticism among sci-fi fans. So add that and Lost together, and it is no surprise that people gang up on Lindelof over Prometheus having a less than stellar screenplay. If Ridley Scott had turned in a horrible movie in terms of all the other elements (cinematography, acting, pacing, vision and scope), then fans would be raging at him as well.
Actually, no. We'll stay at home and watch Netflix. We don't go to the cinema unless it's something we've specially heard about in a way that makes us want to go see it.
The problem is, I'm not going to go to the cinema to a drama, no matter how well received it is. I can get a better experience at home with a Blu-ray and my setup and an environment I can control. The cinema is for movies to experience in way that can't be easily duplicated in the home environment, say, Star Trek Into Darkness in IMAX.
I disagree; I think the public will see and like whatever advertising tells them to.
Except you, right? Because you're like "immune" or something. Advertising doesn't brainwash people. It can excite them for something they don't need, but it can't make them want something they don't actually want.
adkimery
Veteran
How can people know if they want something or not if they haven't experienced it yet and how often is that initial exposure some form of adversing or marketing? This makes me think of an old Steve Jobs quote, "It's really hard to design products by focus groups. A lot of times, people don't know what they want until you show it to them." -- BusinessWeek, May 25 1998
I wouldn't call it brainwashing either but it is largely effective manipulation (especially when it hits a critical mass causing peer pressure and conformity to come into play).
Specifically about the article, the headline is sensationalistic and the article itself feels like the author is really stretching to push his POV.
I wouldn't call it brainwashing either but it is largely effective manipulation (especially when it hits a critical mass causing peer pressure and conformity to come into play).
Specifically about the article, the headline is sensationalistic and the article itself feels like the author is really stretching to push his POV.
squig
Veteran
Buying something you don't need is buying something you didn't want until you were brainwashed (manipulated, encouraged, influenced, persuaded etc).
Drew Ott
Wish I were banned.
Give this book a good read. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste
Hollywood's advertising is not what creates the demand for its movies. It works the other way and gets passed on from generation to generation.
Hollywood's advertising is not what creates the demand for its movies. It works the other way and gets passed on from generation to generation.
Advertising can greatly influence what people think they need or want. That is its purpose.
Theatrical ticket sales have been declining for decades, I think precisely because Hollywood cynically targets what it thinks is the youth audience with lowest common denominator crap and loses broader more sophisticated audiences that want something better. The box office figures have come from rising ticket prices, not sales.
It becomes a shrinking self fulfilling cycle where the films only appeal to a narrow market, and they are made to only appeal to that market because that is who is going to see the crap. It is rare for anything else to get a chance. Corporate conglomerate ownership of both the means of distribution and production is the underlying problem. Brand and content suffer in the interest of low risk profits.
Not at all. People buy things they don't need all the time without ever even seeing advertising for it. I'm also not talking want vs. need, I'm talking about products that a potential consumer literally does not want.
I don't like carbonated sugary drinks. At all. I think they taste terrible and I can't stand the carbonation aspect. The cleverest marketing/advertising in the world is not going to convince me to buy a Pepsi.
And again, the subtle implication here is that you, unlike the unwashed masses, are somehow immune to this advertising, which is flat out untrue when it comes to advertising that reflects something you already have an iinclination towards.
And it couldn't possibly have anything to do with higher quality / lower priced home theater technology that allows to you have pseudo-theatrical experience right in your own living room with control of the pause button and rude patrons?
squig
Veteran
I drive a 15 year old car, wear my clothes until there's more holes than fabric, don't watch commercial TV, read magazines, or newspapers. I'm immune to everything except any billboards I see with scantily clad girls, I have a room full of them.
I don't want to see crap movies but I see them all the time.
I don't know how it works over there but here I tell the usher to kick the rude patrons (we call them arseholes) out or I will. Works.
I don't want to see crap movies but I see them all the time.
I don't know how it works over there but here I tell the usher to kick the rude patrons (we call them arseholes) out or I will. Works.