What's new

Where do you think cinema goes from here? (1 Viewer)

BobO'Link

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
8,956
Location
Mid-South
Real Name
Howie
Theaters have been "no longer the way to see a film" since the first theatrical movie was shown on TV. That one seismic change caused the public to rethink just how they "needed" to see a film. Even in the early days when it meant waiting 2+ years to see a theatrical release on TV, and with commercials and edited to boot, people would wait rather than fight crowds or pay the price of a ticket. Until ~1960 ticket prices were quite reasonable but in the early 60s prices began increasing, just a bit per year, but enough that over the long haul it got to the point where going to a movie theater as a family outing (non-matinee) became an event. The last time I took my grandson and a friend to see a movie in the theater it cost ~$45 (3 tickets and concessions for 2) and just wasn't worth the time or effort - and that was ~10 years ago *plus* a matinee showing (it'd have been ~$5 higher after 5pm for my ticket).

The last film I saw in a theater was 1933's King Kong during a Fathom Event. The theater had upgraded seating (recliners) and spacing which, IMHO, made for a superior viewing experience (you truly felt like you were practically alone as you couldn't see anyone outside those sitting beside you). That experience is one I'd repeat for an old favorite or a carefully selected new film. The one less than optimal thing in that experience was the theater now offers food/alcohol from an in-house "restaurant" and the staff bringing in orders and the associated noise of the people dining was a bit distracting. Fortunately that ended once the movie started but it was somewhat disconcerting nonetheless and practically guarantees I'll be attending even less. I know some people like this kind of thing but I'm not one of them.

With the current high quality home systems available for very little expense there's not much reason for a family to go to the theater. My son has 3 kids - that means ~$100 minimum (tickets + concessions) to see the latest kid-friendly feature in the theater. He can "purchase" a digital copy and watch it on his home screen for ~$25 or less, provide snacks, and have a great time without the need to leave the house. Just a couple of weeks ago I took my 10yo granddaughter and 89yo mother to his house for the weekend. He purchased Jungle Cruise for "movie night" - paid ~$20-$25 and 8 of us watched the movie in the comfort of his living room, could pause or rewind when needed, enjoyed popcorn/snacks/drinks, and had a great time.

That's *exactly* what has theater owners worried, and rightly so. For the first time it's possible to have a truly good movie experience at home on a decent size screen (one of the rooms at the multiplex here has a screen small enough to fit in many living rooms so why bother?). Sure, you can miss that "shared experience" thing but few people I know really care about that. They're more annoyed with the forced commercials, rude patrons, overpriced concessions, inconvenient start times, and travel to/from than anything else. You can also invite a few friends over and still get that shared experience without the bad aspects of the theater.

I expect to see the multiplex type theater die within the next 10-20 years and become more art house/event style showings as the general populace fully embraces the streaming experience and the idea that digital "ownership" is the way to go. As home screens get larger and "high speed" internet becomes the utility it needs to become people will find the theater experience just isn't worth the hassle or expense and will opt more and more for "movie nights" with a select gathering of friends.
 

Reggie W

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 31, 2004
Messages
7,320
Location
Agua Verde
Real Name
Pike Bishop
Theaters have been "no longer the way to see a film" since the first theatrical movie was shown on TV. That one seismic change caused the public to rethink just how they "needed" to see a film. Even in the early days when it meant waiting 2+ years to see a theatrical release on TV, and with commercials and edited to boot, people would wait rather than fight crowds or pay the price of a ticket. Until ~1960 ticket prices were quite reasonable but in the early 60s prices began increasing, just a bit per year, but enough that over the long haul it got to the point where going to a movie theater as a family outing (non-matinee) became an event. The last time I took my grandson and a friend to see a movie in the theater it cost ~$45 (3 tickets and concessions for 2) and just wasn't worth the time or effort - and that was ~10 years ago *plus* a matinee showing (it'd have been ~$5 higher after 5pm for my ticket).

The last film I saw in a theater was 1933's King Kong during a Fathom Event. The theater had upgraded seating (recliners) and spacing which, IMHO, made for a superior viewing experience (you truly felt like you were practically alone as you couldn't see anyone outside those sitting beside you). That experience is one I'd repeat for an old favorite or a carefully selected new film. The one less than optimal thing in that experience was the theater now offers food/alcohol from an in-house "restaurant" and the staff bringing in orders and the associated noise of the people dining was a bit distracting. Fortunately that ended once the movie started but it was somewhat disconcerting nonetheless and practically guarantees I'll be attending even less. I know some people like this kind of thing but I'm not one of them.

With the current high quality home systems available for very little expense there's not much reason for a family to go to the theater. My son has 3 kids - that means ~$100 minimum (tickets + concessions) to see the latest kid-friendly feature in the theater. He can "purchase" a digital copy and watch it on his home screen for ~$25 or less, provide snacks, and have a great time without the need to leave the house. Just a couple of weeks ago I took my 10yo granddaughter and 89yo mother to his house for the weekend. He purchased Jungle Cruise for "movie night" - paid ~$20-$25 and 8 of us watched the movie in the comfort of his living room, could pause or rewind when needed, enjoyed popcorn/snacks/drinks, and had a great time.

That's *exactly* what has theater owners worried, and rightly so. For the first time it's possible to have a truly good movie experience at home on a decent size screen (one of the rooms at the multiplex here has a screen small enough to fit in many living rooms so why bother?). Sure, you can miss that "shared experience" thing but few people I know really care about that. They're more annoyed with the forced commercials, rude patrons, overpriced concessions, inconvenient start times, and travel to/from than anything else. You can also invite a few friends over and still get that shared experience without the bad aspects of the theater.

I expect to see the multiplex type theater die within the next 10-20 years and become more art house/event style showings as the general populace fully embraces the streaming experience and the idea that digital "ownership" is the way to go. As home screens get larger and "high speed" internet becomes the utility it needs to become people will find the theater experience just isn't worth the hassle or expense and will opt more and more for "movie nights" with a select gathering of friends.

Yes, I agree that the cost to take a family to a theater and all that entails is more of an expense than many would want to pay. I have a friend that has 5 kids. When he would go to the cinema with them it could generally turn into a $200 plus night out. Tickets, snacks, getting everyone packed in a car...he definitely found it not worth it. He basically removed himself from the process and let his wife take them sometimes with another mom. It did not save him much on the cost.

I can certainly understand if you have a bunch of kids the easiest and by far cheapest route is to watch at home. Before I moved I had neighbors that bought the projector and screen and showed movies outside at night in the summer. I was always invited and would come over and watch and found it interesting how the kids reacted to it. The youngest ones watched, the older ones would watch for a bit and wander off then come back and then wander off again. Basically, the older kids 8 and up seemed quite distracted by phones and tablets. Plus with kids they seem into videos they play on their phones or tablets that are short.

There are actually all these youtube personalities they are into. Basically, other kids that make videos where they talk about stuff. These videos seem far more popular with kids than movies. Movies seem more than they want to consume in one sitting. I would have expected the opposite with the older children having longer attention spans and the younger ones not being able to sit still for a movie. The thing is though the older ones once they have tablets and phones have a world of other distractions open to them. TiK Tok videos and online games and interaction with friends through messaging are far more interesting to them than movies. Even the kids that are really into the super hero stuff seem not to want to watch it in one sitting. It is generally broken up into 5 or ten minute blocks. over the course of a day or days.

I've had different kids want to show me the "personalities" they watch on youtube or TikTok and frankly I could not comprehend the attraction. However, these kids are constantly waiting for the next video to drop. I know parents take their kids to meet these online celebrities at the shopping mall and the kids are over the moon about it. One girl I know had her entire year made because she met one of these youtube celeb kids at a mall and he mentioned her in a video later. It was far bigger than any movie you could show her. Her name was spoken by a kid with a youtube channel.

Basically, I do wonder a bit if movies, how we viewed them, will go away over time. I just don't think the younger generations are that into them. They seem much more enthralled with 3 minute videos that in some way speak to them and their world.

I do come across kids that still like movies but there seem to be less of them. My goddaughter loves to come to my house and introduce me to movies I have not seen. She walks through my movie library in awe looking at titles, most of which she is too young to watch or her mom would not approve of. On her last visit here she wanted to show me Howl's Moving Castle. I had never seen it. I thought it was excellent. She asks for Blu-rays of movies she likes as gifts. I gave her a copy of The Outsiders on blu. She was over the moon about that. We have a future date to watch Rumble Fish, due to the rating her mom still deems it off limits but she presses to see it every time they are here.
 

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
8,157
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
Yes, I agree that the cost to take a family to a theater and all that entails is more of an expense than many would want to pay. I have a friend that has 5 kids. When he would go to the cinema with them it could generally turn into a $200 plus night out. Tickets, snacks, getting everyone packed in a car...he definitely found it not worth it. He basically removed himself from the process and let his wife take them sometimes with another mom. It did not save him much on the cost.

I can certainly understand if you have a bunch of kids the easiest and by far cheapest route is to watch at home. Before I moved I had neighbors that bought the projector and screen and showed movies outside at night in the summer. I was always invited and would come over and watch and found it interesting how the kids reacted to it. The youngest ones watched, the older ones would watch for a bit and wander off then come back and then wander off again. Basically, the older kids 8 and up seemed quite distracted by phones and tablets. Plus with kids they seem into videos they play on their phones or tablets that are short.

There are actually all these youtube personalities they are into. Basically, other kids that make videos where they talk about stuff. These videos seem far more popular with kids than movies. Movies seem more than they want to consume in one sitting. I would have expected the opposite with the older children having longer attention spans and the younger ones not being able to sit still for a movie. The thing is though the older ones once they have tablets and phones have a world of other distractions open to them. TiK Tok videos and online games and interaction with friends through messaging are far more interesting to them than movies. Even the kids that are really into the super hero stuff seem not to want to watch it in one sitting. It is generally broken up into 5 or ten minute blocks. over the course of a day or days.

I've had different kids want to show me the "personalities" they watch on youtube or TikTok and frankly I could not comprehend the attraction. However, these kids are constantly waiting for the next video to drop. I know parents take their kids to meet these online celebrities at the shopping mall and the kids are over the moon about it. One girl I know had her entire year made because she met one of these youtube celeb kids at a mall and he mentioned her in a video later. It was far bigger than any movie you could show her. Her name was spoken by a kid with a youtube channel.

Basically, I do wonder a bit if movies, how we viewed them, will go away over time. I just don't think the younger generations are that into them. They seem much more enthralled with 3 minute videos that in some way speak to them and their world.

I do come across kids that still like movies but there seem to be less of them. My goddaughter loves to come to my house and introduce me to movies I have not seen. She walks through my movie library in awe looking at titles, most of which she is too young to watch or her mom would not approve of. On her last visit here she wanted to show me Howl's Moving Castle. I had never seen it. I thought it was excellent. She asks for Blu-rays of movies she likes as gifts. I gave her a copy of The Outsiders on blu. She was over the moon about that. We have a future date to watch Rumble Fish, due to the rating her mom still deems it off limits but she presses to see it every time they are here.

RE: the kids thing, seems like a lot of that is just nurtured by their parents and immediate cultural environments (and peers)... some of which may be very hard to counter other than to simply opt for the kind of lifestyles and environments that are nearly completely opposed to those...

Even still, you're not likely to be successful keeping your kids from mobile "smart" devices (or maintain strong restrictions on them) beyond their early teen years. Can't even easily buy a basic/non-smart mobile phone anymore for kids to use... not that any of that would guarantee your kids learn better self-control, etc when it comes to smart device usage...

But yeah, certainly doesn't seem a good idea to let young kids have immersive access to them... even beyond this issue of the cinema...

_Man_
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
38,346
Location
The basement of the FBI building
Creator of The Sopranos/genius/all-around curmudgeon David Chase gives his thoughts semi-related to the topic.

DEADLINE: This prequel was an easier sell, but because WarnerMedia put its entire 2021 slate as day-and-date on HBO Max, you are back on HBO. How did that feel?

CHASE: I don’t think, frankly that I would’ve taken the job if I knew it was going to be a day-and-date release. I think it’s awful.

DEADLINE: It is kind of ironic that here you make a theatrical film based on the iconic HBO series, and it’s coming out day-and-date on something with HBO in the title. What did you feel when that edict came down?

CHASE:
Extremely angry, and I still am. I mean, I don’t know how much you go into this, you know, like…okay. If I was…one of those guys, if one of those executives was sitting here and I was to start pissing and moaning about it, they’d say, you know, there’s 17 other movies that have the same problem. What could we do? Covid! Well, I know, but those 16 other movies didn’t start out as a television show. They don’t have to shed that television image before you get people to the theater. But we do. And that’s where we’re at. People should go see it in a theater. It was designed to be a movie. It was…it’s beautiful as a movie. I never thought that it would be back on HBO. Never.

DEADLINE: You really could have walked away from this?

CHASE
: Yeah…I mean, well, I say that…okay. I could’ve walked away, yes, but there was a part of that story where my partner Lawrence was saying come on, let’s get to work. Let’s do something, do something, do something. It’ll be good for you. Now, do you walk away from that? I don’t know.

DEADLINE: It was good for you to be pushed back into the ring, wasn’t it?

CHASE:
…Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It was good. And fortunately, I can stand by the movie. If we had not made a good movie, I don’t know what I’d say.

DEADLINE: Your frustration is understandable even with the knowledge that back in the day, The Sopranos was a long-running zeitgeist series on HBO, the template for the auteur TV series. And given the uncertainty about movie theaters and Covid, that crowd of HBO subscribers will be eager to see the series prequel, even if it is on an iPhone. A straight theatrical release for anything other than superheroes and spectacle could have left The Many Saints of Newark up against it.

CHASE:
It’s bad. It’s bad, you know, and I’m told all the time, the business is changing, and you’re too sentimental about the movie theater, and all this stuff.

DEADLINE: What do you think about the way the business is changing?

CHASE
: The business is changing, there’s no doubt about it. Me, I personally wish we were back in movie theaters, and I wish that movie theaters had really great architecture and interior design. I wish we were back there, but we’re not. So, in terms of the art of film, I suppose there will always be people who are extremely creative and brilliant. But the actual technical delivery system, even if you have a really great system at home, it’s not being in a movie theater with other people, in the dark, where their reaction kind of stirs your reaction, and yours stirs theirs, and it’s just not that. And it’s just too bad, and I guess the only thing we’ll have room for now is movies about, not about people, but about, you know, superheroes and fucksticks. I don’t know.

I agree with most of his points but I think everyone can understand his frustration when he wants to make a theatrical feature out of his TV show and he's hired to do that and then it ends up back on TV again.

EDIT: Oops, forgot to put the link up for the full interview: https://deadline.com/2021/09/david-...nterested-in-another-prequel-film-1234828184/
 
Last edited:

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
21,748
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
Creator of The Sopranos/genius/all-around curmudgeon David Chase gives his thoughts semi-related to the topic.



I agree with most of his points but I think everyone can understand his frustration when he wants to make a theatrical feature out of his TV show and he's hired to do that and then it ends up back on TV again.

I get that and it’s not that I’m unsympathetic, but I also think it leaves out the thing that was true prior to the pandemic: it would have played in theaters for a few weeks and then lived in perpetuity on television, and more people would have seen it at home than in theaters in the long run anyway. If there had been no pandemic, this movie would still have appeared under The Sopranos heading on HBO anyway, the only difference is now it’s happening simultaneously instead of a few months later.
 

Jesse Skeen

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 24, 1999
Messages
4,914
David Chase should also be "extremely angry" about the poor presentation quality in many theaters. It seems most filmmakers are afraid to speak out about that, or live in areas that only have good theaters and don't see how the rest of the world lives.

Theaters have reduced capacity precisely because it’s not needed the overwhelming majority of the time. I forget the exact number but AMC in a pre-pandemic earnings call said that they sell something on average like 9 tickets a day per auditorium.
9 tickets a DAY? That's simply unsustainable. I ran plenty of shows to zero customers or only a handful, of course the general response was to shrug and say "oh well" or blame the movie being shown. If I were in charge I would have tried to find out exactly WHY the numbers were so low. Were there any technical issues? Occasionally there were some minor things that I wasn't able to fix on my own. Were the pre-show slides (now full-blown video commercials) driving people away? Were the prices simply too high, and could we try lowering them a bit? It costs the same amount of money to run a show to one person or 100. Reducing the number of seats is basically admitting defeat, and any auditorium with a two-digit seating capacity isn't even worth bothering with. The smallest auditoriums where I worked had 209 seats, and those were pretty claustrophobic.

Any theater owner could call me up right now and I could tell them exactly why I'm not in their theater, and what they could do to get me in there tomorrow night.

For the half dozen times a year a giant tentpole opens up, they can increase capacity by putting it on most or all screens in the complex.
They've been doing that for a while anyways, and that pretty much defeats the purpose of multi-screen theaters. The last theater I worked at had 16 screens but I don't think there was ever a time when there were 16 different movies. Having a big movie play in multiple small 50-seat auditoriums isn't the same experience as a big auditorium with 500 or so seats. If it's not much bigger than my living room, why should I bother going out especially if I already have the option of seeing that same movie at home?


I went to a ScreenX screening of Black Widow... and what's up w/ all the neon exit signs and lights staying on brightly w/ the way that presentation is supposed to work???
Perfect example right there- it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to see when something is obviously wrong with a theater's design and fix it. The 16-screener I worked at had bright Exit signs that shined onto most of the screens and were painfully distracting. I cut up some dark garbage bags and put the pieces over the LEDs in the signs to make them darker- no more lights on the screens or being distracted by them being brighter than the picture on the screen. Of course I never let anyone know I did that, as they would probably give me some crap about "policy" dictating they be a certain way. I went back into that theater more than 18 years after I left and nobody had messed with my repairs on them though ;)
 

cinemiracle

Screenwriter
Joined
May 1, 2015
Messages
1,435
Real Name
Peter
I haven't been inside a cinema for several years.. I used to love going to the cinemas and saw almost every movie that was released, but not any more. Blame it on the brain-dead people using their mobiles and distracting other patrons from enjoying a film.There are also the noisy talkers, and food eaters. Why do people need to wine and dine whilst watching a movie? Very distracting. I also hate watching digital film in cinemas.There are many more reasons but I have mentioned them all before on other similar forums.I worked in many cinemas when celluloid film was used .I worked in cinemas showing cinerama,70mm,cinemascope,superscope, and 3-D.Presentation was paramount. It rarely is to-day. When I was a child there were 12 cinemas in our city centre. Only one still exists today. All the cinemas auditoriums were on two levels as were all the many suburban cinemas..It was not unusual for a film to run for a year or more. It wasn't only the big movies that ran a year. Even smaller films such as "A Man and A Woman",To Sir With Love' and Onibaba were a few which ran for over a year in some cinemas.
 

Reggie W

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 31, 2004
Messages
7,320
Location
Agua Verde
Real Name
Pike Bishop
Creator of The Sopranos/genius/all-around curmudgeon David Chase gives his thoughts semi-related to the topic.



I agree with most of his points but I think everyone can understand his frustration when he wants to make a theatrical feature out of his TV show and he's hired to do that and then it ends up back on TV again.

EDIT: Oops, forgot to put the link up for the full interview: https://deadline.com/2021/09/david-...nterested-in-another-prequel-film-1234828184/

In a lot of ways though with his picture people probably prefer to watch it on TV because that's how they became familiar with the property.
 

BarryR

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jul 30, 2000
Messages
751
Location
Earth
Real Name
BARRY RIVADUE
I don't think people will remember the films that were released streaming, mostly because it just was not an event to sit at home and watch a movie. People remember going out to the cinema. Little children remember that when you take them for years afterwards. If you watch it at home, it is just one more thing you did at home during a day. Not an event. Not an experience most people are going to recall days later never mind years later...or decades later. Just something you watched on TV, a computer, tablet, or phone.

Yes, I agree a lot of movie magic has evaporated for me because it's just another thing to be found, many times unheralded, on whatever device is handy. I'd have to go back even pre-Star Wars to recall a movie like The Godfather (or Jaws) that dominated the media for weeks as an exciting movie-movie experience to see in a theater. (confession: I'm not a Marvel disciple, so I can't share the current equivalent of mass enthrallment in theaters ). Now, I just order something that sounds interesting (like News of the World) and settle into my comfy chair with a dog.

And I wonder--what do current actors think of this whole shift? How does a director like Spielberg feel about the movie making world he knew steadily evaporate? Will his delayed West Side Story now be just a blip for just a few days, literally, before getting streamed? And let's not get started about the latest Oscar, which stripped 99% of whatever appeal it once had, as far as traditional glam and sense of shared movie going events. To a younger demographic it maybe doesn't matter, but I do feel bittersweet about all this.
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
38,346
Location
The basement of the FBI building
Tarantino gets into it a bit here...

I think QT's idea of waves is very correct but I think his view of now as the 80's Part Two isn't entirely accurate because things aren't that bad thanks to better access to all types of films via home video & streaming and different kinds of filmmakers having more of a chance today. That being said, I'm getting tired of waiting for this wave to finally break because it seems like I've been saying that the new Easy Rider or Pulp Fiction are coming for like a decade now.
 

BobO'Link

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
8,956
Location
Mid-South
Real Name
Howie
When it comes to *mainstream* movies/entertainment I think Tarantino's right on the mark. If anything it's worse now than in the 80s. Things are overly PC because everyone's afraid of stepping on someone's toes or afraid of being sued or afraid of being "cancelled" because some group doesn't like what they did. I see very few of those type of movies taking chances and "Hollywood" is practically nothing *but* those type of movies. If your product is not "inclusive" then it's just not worth taking a chance on and *will* be slammed by any group who feels slighted in any manner. While they were not "inclusive," things weren't as homogenized as most of today's product even in the "safe" 50s/early 60s.
 

jcroy

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
7,199
Real Name
jr
When it comes to *mainstream* movies/entertainment I think Tarantino's right on the mark. If anything it's worse now than in the 80s. Things are overly PC because everyone's afraid of stepping on someone's toes or afraid of being sued or afraid of being "cancelled" because some group doesn't like what they did. I see very few of those type of movies taking chances and "Hollywood" is practically nothing *but* those type of movies. If your product is not "inclusive" then it's just not worth taking a chance on and *will* be slammed by any group who feels slighted in any manner. While they were not "inclusive," things weren't as homogenized as most of today's product even in the "safe" 50s/early 60s.

(Without getting heavily into politics).

Non-PC video will still exist, albeit likely in the form of short films or documentaries on youtube.

If youtube squelches such non-PC short films, they will live on and exist on uncensored video sharing websites (such as various unnamed websites where the hardcore altright type folks currently hang out on).
 

Reggie W

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 31, 2004
Messages
7,320
Location
Agua Verde
Real Name
Pike Bishop
I think QT's idea of waves is very correct but I think his view of now as the 80's Part Two isn't entirely accurate because things aren't that bad thanks to better access to all types of films via home video & streaming and different kinds of filmmakers having more of a chance today. That being said, I'm getting tired of waiting for this wave to finally break because it seems like I've been saying that the new Easy Rider or Pulp Fiction are coming for like a decade now.

Yes, I don't look at this as the 1980s part two because of how huge the shift has been. The 1980s was the reaction decade to the 1970s and particularly the reaction to the end of the 1970s when big name directors were making giant flops that were expensive. Pictures like Heaven's Gate, 1941, New York New York, One from the Heart, these pictures were taken as a sign it was time to cut off the directors.

The studios did go sequel crazy in the 1980s as they saw that just making the same picture over and over with a number after the title was an easy road to profit. So they could make a whole bunch of Police Academy, Halloween, Friday the 13th films but did so at relatively low budgets and they came in as money makers that way.

The 1970s directors were still around and still made pictures and some damn good ones but they also struggled with trying to do stuff the studios wanted. The other development in the 1980s that lead to a lot of good filmmaking was the independent film movement.

The real difference now and the huge shift is that when there were studios, there is not much left of them now, they made sequels but the sequels were low budget for profit pictures for the most part. They were still B pictures that did go toward helping the bottom line but they still were trying to develop and make A pictures.

See when there were studios in the 1980s the executives still wanted to make "prestige" pictures with "prestige" filmmakers. This still was a measure of how good an executive you were. Now there is only one measure of how good an executive you are and that is how much money your huge budget franchise pictures make. So, they went from wanting to be able to claim they made some sort of art to just wanting to claim they made a comic book picture that made a billion dollars. There is nothing else now.

This is the flat, open, 100% truth of the matter. Studios did once care about making really great films. Honestly, they did. The reason United Artists took the ride they did with Cimino is because they really wanted to make a great picture. They wanted to make art and they knew Cimino was a guy that could do that and would try to do that. Heaven's Gate, as "uncommercial" as the thing sounds on paper...was meant to be a prestige A picture. They were not worried about being "commercial" they could have anybody else churn out a sequel or a low brow comedy, or a cheapie horror picture. They wanted an A picture and so risked everything on art. That really happened.

Now, what were A pictures are considered crap, throw it to Netflix or another streamer because those pictures never make a billion dollars. The A pictures are now the sequels, franchises, comic book stuff that was once B films or summer box office stuff. There's the giant shift. Studios once wanted to be associated with directors like Kubrick, Allen, Coppola, because they wanted to make art. Now, Disney could give a flying crap about that they want product that sells because they will only be judged by the dollar amount.

This is not at all the same as the sequel and franchise stuff that was being churned out in the 1980s. In the 1980s typically the budget would go down as you hit the later films in a franchise. Also when the filmmakers made those 1980s sequels mostly the studio did not care what they did as long as it was called "Whatever Part 4" they knew the audience for the other 3 were coming to this one too. So, there was more creativity on display because the filmmakers would screw around with whatever idea that came into their heads. Send Jason into space to kill people? Sure, why not! I've not seen any of the Fast and Furious films but as I understand it they did actually go the Friday the 13th route and sent the characters ridiculously into space. To which I say, good for them but Jason beat you there and should have been in the picture with them.

Even the big budget sequels like Star Wars were still basically B pictures. They did keep making Superman pictures with Chris Reeves in them though those just went downhill and people did catch on in the 1980s that mostly the sequels always were not as good as the picture that spawned them.

The reason the first three Star Wars pictures are so good is because they really were like independent films with one guy being the driving force behind them. On the first he was just trying to make a big fun, B picture. On Empire he was allowed to just do what he wanted because the first film was so huge. And by Jedi he was his own empire so again he just finished those as he wanted to. You could clearly see they were made by a person following their ideas...not a set of instructions, requirements, and rules which is how they made the final three pictures in the Star Wars saga.

It is not at all true that just because they made sequels in previous decades the stuff they make now is the same.

In previous decades if you went in and asked for whatever the equivalent of $250 million was back then to make a sequel to a picture what you would have heard was "Get the fuck out of my office." followed by security showing you off the lot.

What has flipped now is if you want to go in and ask for say $15 million to make an original film you won't even make it into an office and will be thrown out most likely before you make your pitch.

Original = Risk, risk means not interested find independent funding or do not make that.

Now what you have is 8, 10, 12, companies listed in the credits because they have all invested in a picture to reduce the risk. So, pitch your comic book picture, make sure that it sounds exactly like another comic book picture that made money, then throw in that you will have a diverse cast, a strong female character or characters, a message of empowerment for women and all races, and that the ending will absolutely point to a sequel.

Then you can have $250 million to make it as long as you agree to follow every note you get to the T and make sure everything is explained to the audience, there is nothing to offend them, the pacing follows the stopwatch, and they change whatever they want after the test screenings.

Personally, to me, that's assembling a product not making a movie. At least not at all what I think of making a movie should be like.
 

Reggie W

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 31, 2004
Messages
7,320
Location
Agua Verde
Real Name
Pike Bishop
(Without getting heavily into politics).

Non-PC video will still exist, albeit likely in the form of short films or documentaries on youtube.

If youtube squelches such non-PC short films, they will live on and exist on uncensored video sharing websites (such as various unnamed websites where the hardcore altright type folks currently hang out on).

Well, the truth is you can still make something that does not follow the rulebook you just can't do that for a company like Disney or if it is a huge budget picture. As an example Andrew Dominik has made Blonde. Now, this is probably not something that most big companies would want to be associated with. First off, sexually explicit, while generally something that will interest some people, is typically not going to be part of a large budget production. As the budget creeps over a certain dollar amount you will need to guarantee that you will deliver a film rated no more than PG-13 or less.

I would love to have heard somebody pitching this film to Disney and them hearing "performs cunnilingus on her while she is menstruating" and seen the reaction. A Disney exec screaming "Are you out of your fucking mind?" and the response being "But it is empowering to the woman to show this."

I mean that is a movie in itself.

So, I think you can make a movie that is outside of the rule book it just won't get shown in a theater and will probably struggle for funding.

Tarantino is not following a PC rulebook. Nor are many other filmmakers but they are not making big budget Disney pictures.
 
Last edited:

Reggie W

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 31, 2004
Messages
7,320
Location
Agua Verde
Real Name
Pike Bishop
When it comes to *mainstream* movies/entertainment I think Tarantino's right on the mark. If anything it's worse now than in the 80s. Things are overly PC because everyone's afraid of stepping on someone's toes or afraid of being sued or afraid of being "cancelled" because some group doesn't like what they did. I see very few of those type of movies taking chances and "Hollywood" is practically nothing *but* those type of movies. If your product is not "inclusive" then it's just not worth taking a chance on and *will* be slammed by any group who feels slighted in any manner. While they were not "inclusive," things weren't as homogenized as most of today's product even in the "safe" 50s/early 60s.

On big pictures you must follow the rulebook. There will be changes if you are not following it. A great example is Jungle Cruise from Disney, of course. Reading about the things they had to do on that really made me laugh. One major change was the Trader Sam character. Now, Disney did remove Trader Sam from the ride prior to the film getting made but hilariously include Trader Sam in the film. Here's the catch, Trader Sam was a male, a cannibal, and a head hunter. He sells shrunken heads to the tourists.

First thing that had to happen was Trader Sam had to be gender swapped. So, in the film the character is now female. Second, can't be a head hunter nor a cannibal. Remove that because you can't have a person of color portrayed as a cannibal nor a head hunter and certainly not one that is profiting off of cannibalism and chopping off heads. So, instead the female Trader Sam is just a brilliant woman pretending to be a head hunter and cannibal. So, Trader Sam went from nasty guy that eats people and sells their heads to empowered smart woman that is an outstanding business person.

OK, seems to me they probably just should have cut the character from the picture as they did from the ride. Now, I have never been on the ride and I have not seen the picture so had they done this I would never have known what happened.

I mean to me none of this matters but my guess would be that the people that do love the ride and recall what it was probably noticed this swap and found it an obvious nod to the rulebook.
 
Last edited:

jcroy

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
7,199
Real Name
jr
Well, the truth is you can still make something that does not follow the rulebook you just can't do that for a company like Disney or if it is a huge budget picture. As an example Andrew Dominik has made Blonde. Now, this is probably not something that most big companies would want to be associated with. First off, sexually explicit, while generally something that will interest some people, is typically not going to be part of a large budget production. As the budget creeps over a certain dollar amount you will need to guarantee that you will deliver a film rated no more than PG-13 or less.

I would love to have heard somebody pitching this film to Disney and them hearing "performs cunnilingus on her while she is menstruating" and seen the reaction. A Disney exec screaming "Are you out of your fucking mind?" and the response being "But it is empowering to the woman to show this."

Something like this is probably more likely to show up on a cable channel like cinemax, as a low budget midnight movie or a limited series of 6 episodes.
 

Reggie W

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 31, 2004
Messages
7,320
Location
Agua Verde
Real Name
Pike Bishop
Something like this is probably more likely to show up on a cable channel like cinemax, as a low budget midnight movie or a limited series of 6 episodes.
To me it is all just comical because I mean, it is one thing to change something to make it a better story, it is another thing entirely to change something to make it fit with a new rulebook.

I mean, I get it. Disney wants a new Pirates style franchise out of one of their rides. So, a quality film is not the concern what they want is something that ticks a certain set of boxes. This is fine and really, for the most part, the audience does not really care either. They know they are not going in to see a great film just something that will be a diversion for a couple hours on a summer day.

I think the part I like the least about it is the kinds of pictures that people want to fund have shrunk down to a very small amount. So, if you are not making one of these 3 or 4 types of pictures, your film is now a longshot to get made.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Sponsors

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
348,739
Messages
4,855,286
Members
142,371
Latest member
Software Testing Training
Recent bookmarks
0
Top