Hollywood Needs To Fail Again

[chamber-music]

I think people overreact to the whole blockbuster/franchise craze. Yes, there is about to be a 4th Transformers in theaters, but that didn't keep Dallas Buyers Club, 12 Years a Slave, or anything else from coming out. People enjoy blockbusters, and they are as much a social event as they are an entertainment event (like girlfriends/wives will go with their boyfriends/husbands to a football game and have fun even if they care nothing about the sport).

There are great films out there. Go see them. Or go see Transformers. You're not hurting anyone by doing either of those things.

It took something like 20 years for Dallas Buyers Club and even then they had to scrape together the budget to finance it. Plus the film is essentially an indie as it isn't financed by one of the big six studios and cost only $5 million dollars to make.

12 Years a Slave is another film that was financed by the minor studios or production companies.

The reality is that mid-level budget movies have been dying out less and less in Hollywood especially amongst the major studios and this isn't just my opinion this is a fact that is brought up across the film industry.

Blockbusters is where the studios make most of their money as they draw the largest audiences. Dallas Buyers Club's total gross is $30 million dollars which for some studios wouldn't be worth their time investing in from a business point of view.

Martin Scorsese and Steven Spielberg have both mentioned how hard it is to get movies financed these days.

 

[Octoberist]

Yeah the journey to make Dallas Buyers Club was crazy. CRAZY.

 

[redhawk23]

Like what I've said earlier, adapting a new property is the closest thing to creating a new franchise/IP in the modern age.

Its the way things were for the majority of film history. The 80s were kind of a fluke.

 

[Doctor Jones]

There's a reason why the big studios are only financing the tent pole films now. It's really in the hands of the independent production companies to finance more original content while the studios simply distribute. That's a direction I see it going a lot more in. And it already has. Say what you want about Blum House Films and their content but it's an incredibly well done business plan. Low budget with less to lose and more to gain if it's a success. And that's worked incredibly well for them.

Here's the thing. These smaller places like Scott Free and Bad Robot are always looking for new content. Always. They want new ideas. Go to Deadline and look at specs being bought. We're reaching a new generation where the new kids are now adults who want to see good films. Their way to do it is through the smaller outlets. That will be the rise of new content.

So more original content is coming; it's more optimistic if you think about it, it's just that you won't be seeing anymore of the big studio funded original films unless you're a Nolan or Cameron.

 

[Octoberist]

Everything's circular.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I think it's entirely possible for the new wave of successful films to be smaller budgeted films. These won't be billion dollar monsters, but you bring out multiple quality smaller films per year and they do a lot for what they are, say a film makes $150 million on a $10 or $15 million budget. I know the amount of earned money goes down, but making that amount of money on that budget is still a smash hit in its own right and is a success for these companies. We might have to rethink what qualifies as a smash hit.

I'm no business expert obviously, but this is just where I can see it going. You can't be be on top forever. If history has taught us anything, there's always going to be a decline eventually.

I disagree with Spielberg and Lucas' assessments. I don't think Hollywood will implode. I think we're just going to be getting what I just talked about.

Now I'm loving that I'm getting the superheroes that I always fantasized about getting in film form in my childhood. Marvel has a pretty sound business plan though. If all else fails, I see Marvel as the only company churning out comic book movies. Maybe not making five films per year like they want, maybe it will be just one or two. But in the landscape of right now, Marvel is really nailing it. They're a studio that focuses on one thing and they know how to execute it. Yes they're still big budget tent pole films about comic books, but they've taken many risks that have paid off exponentially. If you think about it, that's a quality that still remains from the late 70's and 80's.

 

[Warhammer]

I feel as though the main reason why smaller pictures don't make as much as blockbusters is simple (and sad when you think about it). Appeal. A movie with big explosions, action, and a good looking main character or a movie about an innocent man sold into slavery for twelve years. Only with critical acclaim do those films happen to make some kind of money. The exceptions are freak accidents like My Big Fat Greek Wedding, etc.

Oh, and greed. Money rules the world. Pumping 300 million into the budget and marketing of a tentpole in order to make a 900 million worldwide is a better investment than pumping 10 million into a film that will only make 30 million worldwide.

 

[Octoberist]

Especially when you got the foreign markets too. It has to appeal to them now since international BO means so much now vs 10 years ago.

 

[dark_b]

district 9 was made with a small budget and made less then other summer blockbusters. it made a profit. and people got jobs.

but i guess they didnt like that they couldnt buy new ferraris,yachts,houses with 6 bedrooms.

 

[DA_Champion]

district 9 was made with a small budget and made less then other summer blockbusters. it made a profit. and people got jobs.

but i guess they didnt like that they couldnt buy new ferraris,yachts,houses with 6 bedrooms.

District 9 was exceptionally good, and most 30 million dollar scifi movies put together by untested directors and played by untested actors will not be that good.

With that said, you should all watch the 2013 movie Europa Report. It's a masterpiece, and it's original.

 

[terry78]

district 9 was made with a small budget and made less then other summer blockbusters. it made a profit. and people got jobs.

but i guess they didnt like that they couldnt buy new ferraris,yachts,houses with 6 bedrooms.

Basically. You gotta keep them kids in yachts or else they don't love you anymore.

 

[redhawk23]

I feel as though the main reason why smaller pictures don't make as much as blockbusters is simple (and sad when you think about it). Appeal. A movie with big explosions, action, and a good looking main character or a movie about an innocent man sold into slavery for twelve years. Only with critical acclaim do those films happen to make some kind of money. The exceptions are freak accidents like My Big Fat Greek Wedding, etc.

Oh, and greed. Money rules the world. Pumping 300 million into the budget and marketing of a tentpole in order to make a 900 million worldwide is a better investment than pumping 10 million into a film that will only make 30 million worldwide.

Appeal is certainly the name of the game, and simple plots and big effects are what travel across boarders. Opening up the international market hasn't led to more diverse films. Instead films have to appeal to an even wider lowest common denominator .

 

[Octoberist]

Opeing up to the inter nation markets can be a detriment to genre films. Then the films get even more broader, and possibly more generic.

 

[dark_b]

from europe. i dont think hollywood movies can get anymore broader.

it forced Bay to have new transformer designs. even if they are cliche hehe

 

[Octoberist]

Thank God we have good tv shows like Game of Thrones. Better than movies.

 

[dark_b]

TV is saving me. if not for TV i would started reading books.

 

[terry78]

TV is saving me. if not for TV i would started reading books.

Now you're just talking crazy.

 

[dark_b]

joking haha

in movies i dont get enough story . we need good tv shows for this. i mean scifi,fantasy,......

 

[jmc]

The biggest issue is budgets have gotten completely out of hand to the point where blockbuster films have to make absurd box office returns just to break even. 10 years ago the idea of a $200 million dollar movie was rare, I think at that stage it was limited to Titanic. Now it's the norm. The irony of it of course is that things in theory should be getting cheaper to make. How does Gravity, a film that is almost entirely CGI and had to build new technology in order to be created, only cost $100m dollars?

 

[dark_b]

The biggest issue is budgets have gotten completely out of hand to the point where blockbuster films have to make absurd box office returns just to break even. 10 years ago the idea of a $200 million dollar movie was rare, I think at that stage it was limited to Titanic. Now it's the norm. The irony of it of course is that things in theory should be getting cheaper to make. How does Gravity, a film that is almost entirely CGI and had to build new technology in order to be created, only cost $100m dollars?

because of the long takes they needed to plan a lot. so that they could edit the movie. by planning you save a lot of money. of course changing the camera in the opening shot cost them millions.they admited it. so the budget could be even smaller. but it worked better.

hollywood doesnt like to make decisions in preproduction . they like to change their minds at the last minute. thats expensive. t:

wellcome to a world where a summer movie costs 200 million.......and yet looks fakeeeeeeeeeeeeee

 

[Octoberist]

It has to do with the post-production. If post-production was longer (a year and a half, vs 6 months), I think movies will end up costing less money. Less people to hire.

 

[jmc]

because of the long takes they needed to plan a lot. so that they could edit the movie. by planning you save a lot of money.

hollywood doesnt like to make decisions in preproduction . they like to change their minds at the last minute. thats expensive. t:

wellcome to a world where a summer movie costs 200 million.......and yet looks fakeeeeeeeeeeeeee

It begs the question why studios don't want to save lots of money. There's no reason some of these blockbuster movies can be made cheaper, all it requires is more thought by the creative teams and execs.

 

[jmc]

It has to do with the post-production. If post-production was longer (a year and a half, vs 6 months), I think movies will end up costing less money. Less people to hire.

There's also the the constant changing of CGI heavy scenes which doesn't help. All that wasted time adds up and costs more. It's too easy for a director to change something with CGI, 20 years ago he had to make do with whatever was captured on the set.

 

[DA_Champion]

Oblivion was also made for 120 million, and it was prettier than any 200 million dollar movie I've ever seen.

 

[dark_b]

they filmed all the footage for the sky weeks before filming. they had to agree how it will look.

thats against what hollywood is trying to do.

imagine telling Peter Jackson to chose a design in preproduction. he would hug you and smile and go home looking at his new cgi character and set designs.