How Hollywood’s Limitations Are Forcing Established Directors Into Retirement

[Razz16mm]

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?

Certainly makes you think twice before laying out the big bucks for a theatrical experience. From a pure dramatic standpoint, a lot of stuff made for TV is better than most theatrical releases these days.
I'd love to see more independent coffee shop/art house venues popping up now that distribution is going digital. There is something about experiencing a movie with an audience that I still find pleasurable, except for the kids not paying attention and texting through the whole thing.

 

[Gary Huff]

I don't want to see crap movies but I see them all the time.

So there's obviously some quality in "crap" movies that you find initially appealing. You usually can't know it's crap until you experience as a whole, which has nothing to do with advertising. You can have a movie that presents elements you find appealing, but the execution is poor. That's what "crap" means.

 

[squig]

So there's obviously some quality in "crap" movies that you find initially appealing.

No not really, I usually switch off as soon as I've determined it's going to be crap, I don't have time for that shi. Thanks for the crap definition :grin:

 

[Gillvane]

I disagree; I think the public will see and like whatever advertising tells them to.

If that were true then movies like John Carter would make a ton of money instead of being utter flops at the box office.

Advertising can let you know a good movie exists. It cannot convince you a bad movie is good. The first crop of audience goes to see it, they tell everyone on blogs, websites, Rotten Tomatoes that the movie sucks, and then it dies no matter how much you spend on advertising.

The opposite is also true. Movies with small advertising budgets can get an extra breath of life if word of mouth gets around that they are really good.

I'm sure Hollywood execs wish you were right which would give them a license to print money, but they lose their shirts on bad movies all the time.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/gallery/movie-box-office-biggest-flops-205951#1

Sucker Punch had everything. Huge budget, huge advertising, pretty girls, great sound track, pretty cinematography, robot nazis and Giant Ninjas, guns, explosions, more pretty girls, you name it. And it flopped at the box office because the story was a piece of crap.

Battle Ship is another movie that had big budget, big advertisement budget, and lost millions because it was crap.

 

[Gillvane]

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.

I don't think there is any such thing in the movie industry as low risk profits. There are many flops at the box office where Hollywood loses money. If Hollywood could predict hits and flops with certainty, there would be only hits and no flops.

I also think a point you are missing is that existing Intellectual Property that is popular lessens risk. It's not very expensive to make a book and popular books can be made into movies. Witness Harry Potter, Hunger Games, etc.

Are corporate Hollywood and corporate theaters stopping books from being published?

 

[Robert Ruffo]

Bad films are the ones that make tonnes of money. The system has been broken for a long time. Digital cameras and crowdfunding have given us an opportunity to connect with audiences outside the Hollywood system. Money doesn't make good films, creative energy does.

What is the point of making a film that nobody wants to see? Its' not about money, it's about reaching many millions of hearts and minds.

 

[Robert Ruffo]

Buying something you don't need is buying something you didn't want until you were brainwashed (manipulated, encouraged, influenced, persuaded etc).

No. People didn't even know they wanted computers until they were shown what they could do.

 

[Gillvane]

What is the point of making a film that nobody wants to see? Its' not about money, it's about reaching many millions of hearts and minds.

The less people like it, obviously the better it is because the unwashed masses just can't appreciate it! You have to be a special unique snowflake to like the stuff that only 4 people at Cannes found interesting. That sort of film is the "true" art!

 

[visugeek]

What is the point of making a film that nobody wants to see? Its' not about money, it's about reaching many millions of hearts and minds.

That's adorable. :thumbsup:

 

[LyleGorch]

I may have mentioned in another thread related to this, I think the basic premise of the article is wrong in that I don't think "Established Directors" ever retired willingly in the past. Sometimes there was a purge at the studio and they lost all their support, sometimes they got so damn old that all their patrons and connections in the system died off, or sometimes they made something that no one liked. . .instant "retirement". Hollywood history is full of stories of Directors sent out to pasture prematurely, and everyone (especially the Director) has a different definition of premature.

 

[Razz16mm]

What is the point of making a film that nobody wants to see? Its' not about money, it's about reaching many millions of hearts and minds.

The independent auteur/artist/filmmaker makes the movie he/she wants to see to the best of their abilities and resources. If that appeals to a wider audience, so much the better, but beyond the creator the audience is a secondary consideration. It is the opposite of the Hollywood model where commercial theatrical films are green lighted based on perceived market appeal first and artistic considerations second.

 

[Gillvane]

The independent auteur/artist/filmmaker makes the movie he/she wants to see to the best of their abilities and resources. If that appeals to a wider audience, so much the better, but beyond the creator the audience is a secondary consideration. It is the opposite of the Hollywood model where commercial theatrical films are green lighted based on perceived market appeal first and artistic considerations second.

I disagree. If you make a movie and you are just trying to make money it will probably be bad. But on the other hand if you make a movie just to make your art and you don't give a crap about your audience, it will also probably be bad.

The best story tellers, IMO, do take the audience into consideration. Will the audience relate to this character? Is there enough information that the audience can understand what is going on? Etc.

Read the letter from Mamet:
http://www.slashfilm.com/a-letter-from-david-mamet-to-the-writers-of-the-unit/

Why is he giving this advice? It's so your writing will appeal to the audience, the people you want to watch and like your art.

 

[Will Turner]

Producers should think about money and directors should think about art. The problem is that we have directors that are thinking about money and in a lot of cases aren't even artists to begin with, but that's the studio system for you.

The best hollywood writers may take into consideration what the audience will like, but I believe an auter should be focussed on their art. John Lennon wouldn't have gotten anywhere writing songs that were popular with the audience he was presented with, they had never even contemplated music such as his before it's arrival. Pioneering artists must produce exactly what they like with no regard for others at all. Then you have editors and producers and whatnot to make sure the audience will get it.

As long as the powers that be have stars to market, celebrities that we love, true artists are almost certainly doomed to commercial failure. 99% of the time if a viewer, with no prior knowledge of the films in question, was given the option of watching Casablanca, City of God or the latest blockbuster romcom starring whoever the latest Brangelina are the choice would be an unfortunate no brainer.

 

[Gary Huff]

Producers should think about money and directors should think about art.

No. The director should be focused on delivering footage that can be crafted into a coherent film that stays true to the original intentions despite the myriad of things that can go wrong on set, guiding the actors into giving decent to stellar performances, and managing the heads of the different departments so that they are on the top of their game for each of the elements they deliver.

How do you think about "art" anyway? How does that work in a realistic sense?

 

[hscully]

I think any art is a matter of expression and that considering the viewer is necessary, otherwise what's the point? I agree that the art of directing includes a ton of logistics and management. It ain't sculpture!

 

[Sage]

This quote:

“I still feel like I’m sill learning. My greatest struggle as a failure in any way was losing my own way. In this business you can be given enough rope to hang yourself…you start over-thinking things or trying to make things too interesting or become too particular and no project feels right…I over-thought what I was going to do next and had my head up my ass on [I Heart Huckabees]…I would have been above [The Fighter during that period].”

- was insightful and inspiring*