Could Hollywood use some fresh ideas?

[DarthSkywalker]

If you want new ideas and concepts to catch on you have to push them. You're not going to get anywhere by waving the white flag to streaming.

Isn't this a cost thing though? I see plenty of tv spots for indy flicks. But what do we expect them to spend on advertising for a movie that cost 10m at most? People still went to go see Get Out and the Big Sick.

 

[jmc]

Sure, I agree completely, but again let's remember what these studios are, basically glorified banks who invest in content to make money and sell agendas. They're already losing a ton of consumers every year and if not for the expansion of foreign markets the situation would be even more extreme. They need to keep making as much money as possible to keep the investors happy, which is why chasing IP's has become more valuable then creating original content. I'm not saying I agree with it, but at the end of the day Hollywood is just another business trying to stay afloat in the technological landscape..

It will be interesting to see how this evolves, we are just at the tipping point of the digital revolution, which has made creative content much more affordable and democratic then ever. The Hollywood model is becoming obsolete in a lot of ways and the good news is many of these artistic voices being lost in the wilderness will have more options at their disposal going forward. They can bypass the Hollywood suits (and model) all together. So many of these newer platforms are just screaming for content and will even moreso going forward, so there's a start. As long as people can see it and you have the chance to build an audience then OK, it doesn't have to be in a conventional theater. And let's be honest, the theater experience is not what it used to be, including the fact that people seem to be less socialized then ever in a public forum. At least in my experience.

I'm not disagreeing with you for the most part in regards to the future. But if we're talking exclusively cinema I just think the solution to the lack of new ideas complain is to reevaluate the yearly marketing budget across all releases. Do some IP's really need a massive marketing campaign anymore? I struggle to believe money can't be shaved off some of these big events films and redistributed to these mid-level films to give them a better chance of finding a wider audience. Shave a few million here and there off the marketing of the tentpoles, put it towards the marketing of the films they think are worth pushing harder. I keep pointing to Dunkirk because it's the best example of turning a film that would normally be released in November for awards consideration into an event film smack bang in the middle of blockbuster season.

 

[LaughterLives]

For Sure but with the today's audience praising and shelling out their money for recycled formulas, the reality is the really don't.

 

[jmc]

Isn't this a cost thing though? I see plenty of tv spots for indy flicks. But what do we expect them to spend on advertising for a movie that cost 10m at most? People still went to go see Get Out and the Big Sick.

People claim to want to watch new ideas, but studios will always point to the IP's as evidence that people aren't interested in new ideas. The issue is the IP's get most of the heavy advertising which is going to influence peoples decision making. Then the cycle starts all over again. There has to be a break in the cycle somewhere along the lines.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

People claim to want to watch new ideas, but studios will always point to the IP's as evidence that people aren't interested in new ideas. The issue is the IP's get most of the heavy advertising which is going to influence peoples decision making. Then the cycle starts all over again. There has to be a break in the cycle somewhere along the lines.

By doing what though, spending 100m to 150m advertising a movie that will never recoup that? That is a sure fire way of going out of business. People complaining, whether honest or not about content, do not represent the vast majority, who go to see simply what they want to see.

How many grown people want to spend their money to be challenged at the movie theater?

 

[jmc]

By doing what though, spending 100m to 150m advertising a movie that will never recoup that? That is a sure fire way of going out of business. People complaining, whether honest or not about content, do not represent the vast majority, who go to see simply what they want to see.

How many grown people want to spend their money to be challenged at the movie theater?

Oh come on don't be silly, I don't mean spending that much money on a film. I'm talking about promoting a bit more than what they normally would with new ideas and concepts, or new ideas they believe in. Start building hype up more earlier than usual, do a bit more promotion at the cons, stuff like that.

 

[kguillou]

I think the problem is that since the early/mid 2000's when we had movies like Harry Potter/Star Wars/ Batman/Spiderman/LoTR come out and prove that you could literally make billions off of these IPs, that became a priority for the studios. Making a billion dollars has officially become the benchmark for most of these big IP blockbuster films and when they dont make that, they're seen as disappointments.

So the Hollywood machine would much rather roll the dice on a potential billion dollar film based on an IP than a director or screenwriter's original idea which may or may not bring in even 100 million.

 

[metaphysician]

Original ideas has never been a huge part of Hollywood. You can go back all the way to the 20's or 30's and you will find that many of the biggest movies were based on books or inspired by true events. Although there was a period in the 80's when Hollywood managed to create a lot of popular franchises on their own. But I doubt that will happen anytime soon again as long as they still make money out of superheros, Star Wars, live action remakes of animated movies and so on.

*points up* This.

And even the 80s, its important to note that a lot of the "original" content there was:

1. Low budget, or part of low budget genres

2. Director-driven, after the success of Star Wars changed attitudes towards directors

3. Only original by accident, because the studios were *trying* to ape trends

There has always been truly original and innovative content in Hollywood. . . and its always been a minority next to the adaptations and remakes and such. And whenever something original and innovative actually succeeds, it has always been swiftly followed by a wave of imitators, with varying levels of quality. People lionizing a "golden age of original Hollywood work" are lionizing something that never really existed.

 

[metaphysician]

Also, bluntly, people generally *don't* want something new and unknown. If your going to be spending movie ticket money on an outing to the movies, you want to be reasonably sure your time and money will be well-spent. Franchises have a huge advantage in that regard, because you have a good idea about both the general content and the expected quality going in. All the marketing in the world is never going to change that.

 

[Darepool]

There have also been great artists who worked within the system and contributed greatly to the language of film, but it's true that Hollywood is built on imitation. At the end of the day that's what 'genre' boils down to.

Another factor of escalating costs and a devaluing dollar is that you couldn't make a lot of those low-budget/mid-tier 80's action films for similar costs today. You just can't stretch a dollar like you could then (which is where digital technology can be a blessing) And the auteurs who defined 70's Hollywood cinema would gravitate more towards cable/streaming services today.

 

[spiderman2]

I don't think reboots are a bad idea if the reboot is not to soon and is different enough then the ones before. Example amazing Spider-Man being made only 5 years after 1-3 was to soon and having him go threw is origin again made it to similar to Spider-Man 1. Then on the other hand you have something like Rise, dawn and war a reboot of 3 movies that where better then the movies before and very different. I would like to see more fresh new ideas because that is never a bad thing but with that said I like movies more over the last 10 years or so then the 10 years before it. I have more movies per year that I care about seeing then I used to. I also disagree with the whole sequels are worse. There are a lot of franchises where I find the 2nd movie to be the best. The problem is that a lot of times after the 2nd one is even better then the first the 3erd one ends up being crap or a big disappointment. Another problem is they like have to make a sequel for like ever movie right now even if it just makes a small profit and is not that popular. I can understand if a movie is really popular and good to make a sequel but to make a sequel to something that is not popular and made just a small profit is silly. Then you have a franchise like terminator where really out of the 5 movies 1,2,3,5 are all pretty similar. 4 is a lot different but the others not so much. 1 and 2 are great though. 3 is kind of good and 5 is basicly like a remake of 1,2 but done 100 times worse.

 

[spiderman2]

About a popular IP vs something new it is true that a popular IP has an advantage because with a popular IP you already have a idea of what to expect and how good it is going to be and don't have to prove your self but that dosnt mean a new thing cant do good/well. If something looks good/great and is new and people like it then you are going to create good WOM and you may end up with a new franchise going forward with it. like for example in video games there are a lot of sequels and franchise to maybe to many like with video games. But you look at Nintendo for example and popular franchise that have been around for a while like Zelda, Mario, pokemon etc yet that didn't stop a new IP in splatoon from saling well back when it came out in 2014. It sold like 5 million on a console that only sold like 15 million console told and the 2nd splatoon is saling great now. Nintendo found a great new IP there.

 

[spiderman2]

That's true, but again, ticket prices are the most expensive at a time when fewer people then ever are going to the cinema. A lot of that stuff could be done on TV/cable now and streaming /home release is only going to become the norm moving forward. People are much more selective now because of ticket prices, so just like the studios, they are playing it safe in what they go and see. At least with a big budget spectacle they'll be guaranteed 'spectacle' if nothing else...The middle class is being eliminated, so it's not surprising what's happening when the industry is pricing itself out of the market and there are other options (with much more bang for the buck) available.

Not only are ticket prices high but the economy is like the worst it has been sinces the great depression and with the high ticket prices and being able to like redbox stuff, Netflix or watch movies on cable/dish etc less people are going to the movies and just wanting to watch it on those things. Also because it only takes like 4 months or so for a movie to go to theater to DVD compared to like a year like 20 years or so ago it makes it easier to just want for DVD. Also with high ticket prices and being more selective if there are like 2 movies out some one wants to kind of see they may go and see one and want for dvd for the other one where if the ticket prices where lower they would maybe go and see both. Also you have video games to something else you once didn't have. Point being with things like redbox,netflix, video games etc there are a lot more options for entertainment then before. That is also why the whole movies and what they would have made with inflation is flawed because I can garitny that any old movie would have sold way less tickets if it had to deal with those things but at the same time the internation market has gotten a lot bigger. Because of all of those things to you can really only compare movies boxoffice of movies that have came out the same year. One last thing about the price of going to the movies not joke each time I have went to the movies this year the prices has like went up slightly. It was like 10.75 at the begging of the year last time I went I think it was 12.10 or somethi