The decline of Hollywood - You opinion please! (1 Viewer)

[clayton b]

I don't think we're going to see any kind of change in technology, nor do I think that the days of going to the theatre are dwindling. Going to the theatre is a deeply ingrained cultural custom, I can't see that changing. Going to the movies has got to be the number 1 date activity, and I don't see that changing. It's a great first date; it's neutral territory, affordable, at around 2 hours it's an activity that is neither too long or too short, for those two hours there's no pressure on either party to make conversation, and afterwords the film itself provides for a good conversation piece. With the advent of better and better home theatre equipment I think we will start seeing better quality control at the theatres.

I think that this current box office slump will change how the film makers approach their craft however.

For the last five years or so hollywood has enjoyed a boom. With the advent of cgi big sci fi epics like Star Wars, LOTR, The Matrix and Harry Potter have been easier for them to make than ever. And it's something that the public has wanted to see. But the proverbial well is starting to run dry, and people are starting to tire of it. It will not take long for the execs, storytellers and film makers of hollywood long to realize that their golden goose is no longer so golden, and they'll reinvent themselves. Eventually something will hit big again, something will recapture the public's imagination, and hollywood will draw from that well until the public tires of it.

 

[Shaughan]

Clayton, I think that what you are talking about is basically gimicks here. Correct me if I am wrong, but if that is what you refer to, then I disagree.

A gimick takes you only so far. For my money, you can throw away all of the CG, make a film that is interesting, visually stunning, tells a story that has mass appeal and have a successful product.

I think it was Sydney Pollack that said there are basically 8 stories that get told. Every story is some variation on the 8. It's that variation that interests us. I have NO issue with watching a film and knowing that the protagonist is going to survive, no matter what. What keeps me watching is the protagonist's journey.

 

[Ray Chuang]

Shaughan,

The fact that with the arrival of 1920x1080 non-CRT rear-projection TV's, home owners now have the capability to watch digital movies at the same resolution used the digital cameras filming the movie. This means for example Star Wars Episodes II and III as you see it on your 1080p RPTV connected to a HD-DVD/Blu-Ray player will look exactly like what George Lucas saw during production of the movies. At 1920x1080 resolution, it may not be as totally sharp as film but you gain vastly more consistent color, more consistent sharpness, and no scratches or film dust!

 

[clayton b]

Shaughan, my point was two fold. Firstly I believe going to the cinema is so deeply ingrained into our culture that it will never leave entirely. Yes, I'm sure that advancing home theatre technology will impact box office numbers but the local cineplex imho will always be there.

Also, I agree with your point entirely. Why else were the LOTR films so successful? Most of us were very familiar with the source material and knew exactly what was going to happen. It was the journey that interested us. But what I was saying is that different genres of films have been made predominantly through different eras. Whenever the box office starts to slump, generally Hollywood moves on to something different. Eventually someone will have a mega hit again that will turn cinematic world on it's ear and that will be the next thing that is emulated until nobody is interested. Right now for the most part the studios are relying on big budget, special effects action adventure, sci/fi, epic pics as their tent pole productions. With lack luster returns on films like Catwoman, Alexander, Kingdom of Heaven I'm sure execs are looking to the horizon and wondering 'what next?'. When the next big thing (which has inevitably been done before) emerges, they'll ride her till she bucks 'em. But as you said, for the most part whatever emerges you can be that the most successful films will feature good storytelling.

I understand your point that it doesn't matter what genre of film is being released, if the story being told isn't solid. If something is good, generally the public will come out and see it. But if the public is tired of the genre that can certainly be a factor in the returns as well. Would Gladiator be as successful as it was were it released to day? When it was released it was like a breath of fresh air, reminding many of the days when films like Ben Hur and Spartacus were in theatres. I would argue that if it were released today it could get lost as just another three hour sword and costume historical drama. I'm of the opinion that any superhero or historical epic is going to have to fight an uphill battle as I believe that the public is starting to tire of them.

 

[Shaughan]

http://www.hdbeat.com/2005/09/12/pol...ovie-theaters/

Check the poll results on that - And the link to the bay area article. I am generally pretty skeptical and am not pre-disposed to chicken little type antics. I think there is significant negative impact from technology on the Hollywood machine.

You ask if I think that Gladiator would fare as well today as it did when it was released. I think that if I had a crystal ball that could divine that type of prediction I would be rich But I will speculate based on what I do know.

I think if you compare Alexander with Gladiator that the mass apeal and overall quality of story telling tips the scales in Gladiator's favor. If I never saw Alexander again, I would be fine with that. I know for a fact that I will watch Gladiator again.

Are my perceptions and tastes representative of the theater going public as a whole? I don't think so. For example, I almost never watch comic-book type films (such as X-men / Catwoman / Batman / The Hulk etc) and it is clear that there is a fairly significant ready-made audience for this type of feature. These types of films, in general, just don't interest me.

Do great films get ignored by the public regardless of genre? Clearly they do. Many films today that are considered masterworks or classics tanked in the box office on release. So Gladiator may well have fallen into that category had it been released today.

At the end of the day, I think it is going to take a lot of work to overcome the impact of technology on the traditional film-going experience. I am not sure what the answer is. I suspect the answer will be different for me then it is for others (i.e. I have no need to drink beer in a theater).

I often wonder about the marketing that happens today. I remember about 3 months before Jurassic Park was released. I was seeing ALL kinds of vague marketing material for the film and I beleive that it truly created a significant buzz.

I rarely see that kind of marketing happening anymore. Maybe it's because of the internet. Maybe it's a new marketing model that one studio had success with and the lemmings followed...

Will the traditional cinema as we know it vanish? I suspect that it wont. Legitamate theater still exists today regardless of technology. However, it is much easier for me to simulate the movie theater experience in my home then it is to get the cast of Cats to come give me a show in my living room.

I suspect that traditional movie theaters are going to have to evolve in order to remain viable. I think that either the prices will have to come down or the value will have to increase such that it more closely represents a reasonable value (which, IMHO, it does not do today).

Today, there are no drive-in theaters. I think there were a number of factors that contributed to this. One of them was the technology of sound.

 

[TheLongshot]

Yes there are. There may not be very many, but they still exist in this country. I think sound is part of it, but also the amount of land one takes up is also a factor. In a lot of places, land isn't cheap, and it might have been a better deal to sell out.

Jason

 

[TedT]

I stopped going to the theater for one reason: bad audiences. I don't need to have the back of my seat kicked nonstop. I do not need screaming babies in my theater. I do not need cel phones going off (AND people answering them!). I do not need people talking nonstop throughout the movie.

If the audience could behave, I'd be in the theater once a week (at least). As it is, I go about once a year. And now that Revenge Of The Sith has come out, I probably won't go to the theater again. Ever.

 

[Shaughan]

Hmmm - I thought I saw a news program/article a few years ago that documented the closing of the last drive in in America.

Again, I agree that the antics of morons in theaters is a HUGE discouragement to going to the theater. How do they overcome that? Well, a couple of things they can do is:

1. Use ushers

2. Ban the use of cell phones

I think those two things alone would make a huge difference. People get used to ushers being around and willing to kick some wayward theater patron ass, I am betting that people will be more inclined to behave in the first place.

I can just here the cell phone aficianados crying out "I need my phone - What it the baby sitter calls with an emergency???" or whatever... Here is a clue for those people: Not that long ago there were no cell phones. People survived.

I should point out that I do not own a cell phone - Or a pager. Nor will I ever. Just not a fan of that technology

Ushers though would increase operating expenses. Personally, I would pay a premium to get that service and no commercials.

 

[Garrett Lundy]

If you can't be away from your cellphone, don't go to the cinema! I also don't expect doctors "on call" to go skydiving or cave spelunking. Must everything in society be readily accessible to 100% of the populace all the time? This is why stripclubs have wheelchair ramps upto the poles now.

 

[Paul_Scott]

depending on how old you are, Hollywood has been going downhill ever since
- they started making those 'talking' pictures
- they started making pictures in color
- people could watch tvs in their homes
- people started taking their clothes off and cursing
- people could watch tape recorded hollywood films
- Aston Kutcher got his SAG card

 

[Mark Kalzer]

I've felt this too, and I think it has something to do with the post-production phase.

The feeling I get is that more and more, the staging is less theatrical, lines more rush, and those little moments of silence inherent to reality are missing. The rhythm just seems off for big screen film, and I think it's because of NLE editing. (I.e. editing on a computer where you can access any part of the movie at any time, rather than putting together piece by piece.) Most editing today is now done on a computer screen, and not on a platter which has tremendous advantages in editing and film cost. However instead of watching the product come together on something that resembles the scale of a film screen, they are seeing it on a small size moniter. I certainly feel this can effect how an editor put together scenes.

A small moniter doesn't show quite the detail and scale of a theatre, nor is the viewer forced to drift his eyes across the screen to see everything like when looking at a massive image. Thus, we have fast editing. I don't think this is common to every editor working today, (every editor works slightly different) but to a significant enough group I do, likely many the ones coming out of digital film school raised entirely on digital editing.

I point out that I did not get this feeling of TV editing in War of the Worlds and note that Speilberg continues to edit on the older traditional platter style of editing. Cuts are not as easy to make. He's been said to enjoy that process of just watching all the shot film rolling before him before putting scenes together and that's another factor too. Digital editing has been streamlined to the point where editors never experience that feeling of just watching everything that was shot. I've tried it in the few shorts I've made myself on DV, and I find that oftentimes things just pop up on screen that you never thought of, a certain expression, a comedic beat that wasn't as good from the angle you were planning to use, etc. When you have every shot already in the computer before you start, I think you're missing out by not exploring every take.

That's why I agree that so much new film feels very, 'manufactured' I would say. It's not that we need to go back to the old days of editing really. Just hook up a big screen TV to your editing suite, (We've all seen special feature footage on LOTR of Peter Jackson on the couch with his coffee watching them edit bit by bit on the big screen 16x9!) and hey, take your time! (Which will never be possible since every good film is behind schedule at every moment.)

Regarding theatre going, I've grown cold on theatres. When I go to see Batman Begins and see ten or more commercials before the movie, many of them for feminim hygiene products which feel so innapropriate for a dark superhero movie, I start to feel the spectacle of the theatre has been lost. If you talk to the people working inside these theatres, the business model in the plexes are quite clearly concessions first, movie's second thought. They'd rather have you come and just buy food and not even bother with the annoyance of running movies. They don't get much money from the films themselves anyhow since the studios suck so much of the profits the first few weeks of a new release.

 

[RickER]

We have a drive in here in Tulsa, at least it was here a year ago. At one time it was quite nice. Mostly people pack the kids and the popcorn for a cheap night of fun. As i said, I went to this drive in about a year ago...for the first time in 25 years. It was fun, but it wouldn't be my first choice of how id watch a movie. As a matter of fact i am positive a few people were not watching the movie.

 

[Ruz-El]

Drive-ins are dead.

Yeah I know, some still exist, and they are a great nostalgic way to see a film, but in the sense of this discussion, they are dead and gone. There are no pictures being made for the market, either by the studios or independants. Hence my point previously of there being no market for B-Level genre pictures: Direct to video is being hit hard by the ease and price of buying A level films on DVD, and the rental market is effected the same way. It is my opinion, that with the death of this type of picure (cheapo genre flicks), actually, the morphing of this type of picture into the main stream, has caused the studios to take less chances on movies, instead trying to market to the widest possible audience in order to generate the maximum return on their retardedly expensive films.

We can as much blame the production houses: The reason CGI and that is so expensive is because the people doing them know they can charge it and that the studios well pay for it, same with actors and everyone else. The variety of films in the multiplexis has shrunk with the cost of said films rising. And yeah their are exceptions, of course, I'm generalizing. Each week you can pretty much expect this rotation:
Week 1 : big horror suspense movie
Week 2 : big romantic/comedy movie, teen drama
Week 3: big action movie (usually on long weekend)
Week 4 : big Drama ( probaly skip back to horror in summer)

Repeat.

 

[Ravi K]

Lately I've noticed that people can't wait to get out of the theater. If the picture fades to black and it looks like the film is over, they leap out of their seats and head to the exit. Often before the credits even start rolling. Like it was an ordeal to see a movie and they're glad that its finally over.

 

[Shaughan]

Mark, I presume you are talking about the Steenbeck Plate Flatbed Editor. You can do the same kind of editing on that flatbed that you can do in Avid / Premiere / Vegas / FCP / Pinnacle Liquid etc.

The fast cutting was actually pioneered by music videos and is called MTV cutting. It's a trend.

As to CG charging whatever they want for it, I will say this: Effective CG that is done properly is very difficult, time intensive and requires talent to do. I have done CG and it's a tedious pain in the ass.



Well, you might be right, but I think that right now things are changing very fast - Faster then they ever have before. We are on the cusp of replacing 100 year old technology. None of those previous events are of the same magnitude.

It's easy to compare TV's emergence to home theater. But I really don't think that it's apples to apples. Additonally, HT is just ONE of the issues facing the film industry at the moment.

 

[David James]

I think advent of TV had a far greater impact then improving home theater technology will ever have. Much like advent of the car had a greater impact then improving the horsepower or MPG. In that sense it is apples and oranges.

For the general public going to the movies is an "event" of which the actual movie plays just a part. As mentioned earlier, it's a great "date" option which I doubt will ever be replaced by a date in someone's home theater. Anecdotally, I have a pretty nice HT which is always available to my two teenage daughters, but they go out to the movies much more then they use my theater. Prices have gone up and the cost of food is huge, but still favorably compares to some of the alternatives like the "real" theater (plays) or going to a ball game.

No doubt available technology for hard core HT enthusiasts like us have impacted our going to the movies, but we represent a tiny minority of those that watch movies. I have no data but seriously doubt HTIB owners trips to the local cinema habits have changed much.

I believe DVD's and home theater technology will have an impact on movie industry and commercial theaters, but producing movies the public likes or dislikes will have a far greater impact.

 

[Shaughan]

I think that is true to a extent. However, if the environment in which the film is exhibited is not conducive to the comfort and pleasure of the patron, then no amount of good films will save the industry.

 

[TheLongshot]

I tend to agree with you that there really isn't a "B" film market anymore. They are either upsized to big features, which people don't really want to spend the money on (The Core comes to mind), or it becomes direct to video fodder, which most people would miss because there isn't any ad campaign for those type of films. At much as the Salkinds and the Cannon Films of the world are derided, they offered a certain amount of cheesy flavor to theatergoing that isn't around anymore. Now, everyone is a big studio, and there aren't many of those low budget wonders out there, because everyone is too busy trying to blow everyone away.

As for cell phones, I always keep mine on vibrate unless it isn't actually on me. If someone calls, depending on how important it is, I'll leave the theater before answering it in the middle of the film. I wouldn't be able to hear very well in a theater anyways.

Jason

 

[Shaughan]

Because This kind of producer has very little market for his wares. And it's too bad really. Every now and then one of these films would actually be decent. I remember in an interview with him he would dream up a film title and then tell one of the interns to go write a script for it.

Heh heh

 

[Alex-C]

Holy underwear ! Those are perfect !

This is kinda off topic but if you'll indulge me, there is an old 1 screen theater in my town that has been for sale for a long time. Its in need of work, but its got some charm. It's at least 5 decades old.
Anyway, every time I drive by it, and every time I buy a lottery ticket, I daydream about buying it, and fixing it up (a la The Majestic) and run the way I want without regard to maximizing the bottom line. (okay, I know that sounds stupid, but hey, its a dream, not reality).

I certainly would endeavor to put in as many of the above mentioned fixes as possible.

Then again, I'd probably go overboard on indulging myself and show Bladerunner every Friday night.

Wouldnt that be cool though ? To provide an alternative to the masses flocking the big budget movie house down the street.

I s*** you not. The following actually happened: My wife and I planned to meet up with some friends to see a PT Anderson movie at the one multiplex in town. They actually cancelled the showing in favor of some wide release crap and tried to write it off as "the projector broke" which I knew (and proved) was a flat out lie. The point is...instead of showing a movie with some artistic appeal, i.e. not wide appeal, they just expanded a 2 screen showing into 3 screens without telling anyone, while our group was lied to and dismissed. I was furious and I tried to complain, but the manager (who subsequently was fired) was an idiot and there was no way, short of meeting face-to-face with him, to express my anger. It's not enough that they have 12 or whatever other screens going with the flavor of the minute, they had to bump some other movie in favor of money.

epilogue: the irony is the guy did me a favor, PDL was not as good (IMHO) as Paul Anderson's other work. oh well.