Corporate Hollywood, the distribution problem.

[David Rasberry]

76 major chain movie screens within 25 minutes of my house in upstate SC. Only 13 films playing. One foreign film on one screen, the rest are all the same Hollywood films at every theater.
Boring.

This is why not many older adults like me go to movies anymore. Not much playing and not much new different or original among what is playing.

 

[Jonathan Stevenson]

That's why I love Landmark Theaters so much. Small, quiet, and always a great variety of films playing. They'll have any movie from Iron Man all the way to Blue Valentine. And the facilities are super nice too.

Mainstream filmmaking is lost on me these days. I just don't care about big budget FX movies or superhero adaptations or endless sequels. The film industry today feels like a Walmart of familiar, universally "appealing" products that are unwilling to take artistic risks. Really bums me out sometimes...

 

[Mark Collins]

I love big budget FX movies. $37/hour (total recall, electric) is my primary reason for loving them so much.....

From an audience standpoint, as well as a directing standpoint, I still love these movies. It's entertainment. Sometimes after a hard days work I want to do nothing more than sit there and watch 2 hours of increasingly insane explosions and witty dialogue. As a director it allows so much creative freedom with shot choice and production design. It's fantastic.

 

[Steve Das]

...This is why not many older adults like me go to movies anymore. Not much playing and not much new different or original among what is playing.

Understand your dilemna perfectly but the fact is older people just don't go to as many movies as the comic con crowd..therefore more
movies are directed at that young audience. It's a numbers game. They can't make movies for people who don't go to movies.

All of these superhero...horror...and action movies have a built in audience that is
just waiting for them to come out. With "adult drama films" there just isn't a following...each of those films has to go out in
a crowded marketplace and hope their audience finds that film..which rarely happens...and even when it does the box office result
is suprisingly small. Look up box office of The Hurt Locker...academy best picture winner and still just under $50 million.
Probably close to a 2 year theatrical release..most of these event movies make that in 2 days.

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hurtlocker.htm

 

[Jonathan Stevenson]

$37/hour (total recall, electric) is my primary reason for loving them so much.....

haha! touché...

 

[D Fuller]

It's kind of sad when we don't think $50million is worth making a movie for, don't you think?

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

The Hurt Locker was just an awful movie with tons of holes in the script.
I did not last through it. But than again I did not last through Slumdog Millionaire either....

 

[Bryce O]

It's kind of sad when we don't think $50million is worth making a movie for, don't you think?

Yea, the whole Hollywood process is so convoluted and messed up that they need to douse projects in money to make up for the inefficiencies. 50 Million is EASILY enough to make a movie like Pirates of the Caribbean... but not when there are, on average, 15 people doing a 1 man job... and each one of those people has 9 assistants... and each one of those assistants has 3 PA's... and so on. I guess then there are also the ridiculous actor salaries... which should be done away with. These salaries are ruining films just like ridiculous salaries for athletes are ruing sports and making them more business than competition. The solution is simple, just pay them something reasonable up-front like 1-2 million and the rest in percentages based on the films gross. In the 90's big names use to make or brake a film, so the large salaries made sense then... but people are wising up, and they want to watch quality films now, not just stupid name-brand actors.

I remember seeing a great interview somewhere where big actors like Depp and Banderas said that they don't mind working for less on a set when Rodriguez is directing because he simplifies the whole process and it's much quicker... making it feel like they're not even working. If all movies were done with the efficient like Robert Rodriguez movie... studios could make TWICE the amount of films per year, take more chances, and lower the price of ticket sales to the point where people aren't afraid of "wasting" their $15 dollars anymore.

It's just like the economy crisis in the US right now. Everyone thinks more jobs is the answer... when it's actually the opposite. When you create more jobs, you de-value ALL jobs' worth, making it's impact on the overall economy much less, taking up more resources, and reducing a civilizations efficiency. Simply employing "everyone" is not going to fix an economy. Wealth is created... it's never has been, or never will be, a fixed or tangible amount that can be evenly distributed. That's the source of error in most people's logic.

The Hurt Locker was just an awful movie with tons of holes in the script.

Wait... the Hurt Locker had a script? That doesn't make sense because a script implies that their would have been some story to fallow in the movie? I thought they just went out to a desert somewhere and said "hey people disarming bombs seem pretty tense... let's just film that for 2 hours."

 

[Lucas Wilson]

76 major chain movie screens within 25 minutes of my house in upstate SC. Only 13 films playing. One foreign film on one screen, the rest are all the same Hollywood films at every theater.
Boring.

This is why not many older adults like me go to movies anymore. Not much playing and not much new different or original among what is playing.

A couple of thoughts:

Hulu - Criterion Collection.

Netflix - Original Content

YouTube - Getting ready for Original Content.

Home Theater sales - up drastically over the past 2 years.

The concept of "theatrical experience" is changing right now in a way it has not in many years. I completely hear you about the hegemony of major chains and how it stifles diverse distribution. But on the other hand... it's a business. If I owned the theaters, I'd show blockbusters too.

There are lots of different thoughts around this, though. It's the same thing as my previous lifetime with bands getting slots to play in clubs -- if you can get people in the door, you can get a good slot. Form a local filmmakers collective and go to one theatre to get one or days per month to screen other features. You will have to guarantee a door $$ or it won't happen. But I've seen that model work in a few places...

Lucas

 

[Lucas Wilson]

<beep beep> !!!film snob alert!!! <beep beep>

: )

The Hurt Locker wasn't perfect, but it was a damned good character study and atmospheric piece.

I wish I had made it!

Lucas

 

[David Rasberry]

I liked Slum Dog and Hurt Locker. Winter's Bone too. I love good action films, but witty one liners and threadbare plots that only serve to get you from one implausible action scene to the next just gets boring after watching them for 40 years or more.

Give me a really solid interesting complex story and dialogue that doesn't sound as if it was written by functionally illiterate coke heads.

I still love going to the theater. Just not finding much worth paying the ticket prices for at the moment. I'd go to a theater once a week at least if there were more interesting fare for educated mature sophisticated audiences. The King's Speech was great.

So many screens, so few films. I just lament the lack of more choices.

 

[Bryce O]

<beep beep> !!!film snob alert!!! <beep beep>

: )

The Hurt Locker wasn't perfect, but it was a damned good character study and atmospheric piece.

I wish I had made it!

Lucas

Hey! Character pieces need plots lines also!

I wish I had made it too... but for financial reasons only. I don't think it was a good showcase of writing, directing, or especially cinematography... which was a touch above Blair Witch Project. It had tension and atmosphere, as you said, but those aren't enough to make something interesting for me.

Honestly though, if anyone besides Biggelo made it, it wouldn't have been successful at all. It's success was heavily political. The Hurt Locker is a great example of a "it's not what you know... but who you know" film. I kind of feel bad for her though... If I were to win an Oscar, I would want to because I made an awesome film, not just because the academy is trying to prove something or spite another director. :thumbdown:

 

[Rob Ruffo]

I think the success of King's Speech and Black Swan show that there is a hungry audience out there, a rarely fed one.

These successes may not only fall on deaf ears - I think they will facilitate other high brow fare.

However these two films are also A) not only depressing - Swan was downright sexy B) have a real story. Rare is the so called "highbrow film" that is not dull, plot-less, almost pornographically gritty, etc.. I think audiences do want intelligence, they just don;t want to be severely depressed and only look at ugly dire scenes for 2 hours.

 

[Ivan Kovax]

To be honest with you, I can't stand the sound of people eating popcorn at the cinema theater. I'd rather hear the dialogue than their gustatory actions. This is what has been keeping me out of the theaters. That and people who SMS in the middle of the movie. Or people who decide to chat on their phones in the theater.

Sorry, this had nothing to do with the discussion... Back on track folks!

That's all.

 

[Erik Franzén]

To be honest with you, I can't stand the sound of people eating popcorn at the cinema theater. I'd rather hear the dialogue than their gustatory actions. This is what has been keeping me out of the theaters. That and people who SMS in the middle of the movie. Or people who decide to chat on their phones in the theater.

Sorry, this had nothing to do with the discussion... Back on track folks!

That's all.

You know, that's funny. A few years ago, I wouldn't do that out of respect to the audience and the flick. Now, I frankly don't care. Ninetynine percent of what I watch in the theater is utter garbage and the audience don't seem to mind anymore...

(King's Speech though... now that was something different and fresh after watching a few dozen action rolls!)

 

[Mark Pugh]

That and people who SMS in the middle of the movie. Or people who decide to chat on their phones in the theater.

You get that in Japan?
People don't even talk on their phones on the trains!
They are saving it for the cinema? Jeez.

 

[Ivan Kovax]

You get that in Japan?
People don't even talk on their phones on the trains!
They are saving it for the cinema? Jeez.

It's usually us foreigners in the theater mate ... heh heh...

 

[Ivan Kovax]

You know, that's funny. A few years ago, I wouldn't do that out of respect to the audience and the flick. Now, I frankly don't care. Ninetynine percent of what I watch in the theater is utter garbage and the audience don't seem to mind anymore...

(King's Speech though... now that was something different and fresh after watching a few dozen action rolls!)

I'm with you on that one. Hell the volume is so loud in most droll released that you could rip a loud one and everybody would think it was part of the sound design.

Kings speech however, wasn't that a great movie?! I was completely surprised. I love Geoffrey Rush's big floppy face too.

 

[M Most]

Yea, the whole Hollywood process is so convoluted and messed up that they need to douse projects in money to make up for the inefficiencies. 50 Million is EASILY enough to make a movie like Pirates of the Caribbean... but not when there are, on average, 15 people doing a 1 man job... and each one of those people has 9 assistants... and each one of those assistants has 3 PA's... and so on. I guess then there are also the ridiculous actor salaries... which should be done away with. These salaries are ruining films just like ridiculous salaries for athletes are ruing sports and making them more business than competition. The solution is simple, just pay them something reasonable up-front like 1-2 million and the rest in percentages based on the films gross. In the 90's big names use to make or brake a film, so the large salaries made sense then... but people are wising up, and they want to watch quality films now, not just stupid name-brand actors.

And just how many of these type of pictures have you worked on that you know so much about what they "should" cost? Or how they work? Or how many people are involved in each department and why? It's very easy to look at things from one's own personal perspective, but unless you've actually been involved in a large studio picture, the chances that you actually know what you're talking about, or really understand how the budgets get to where they do, or where that money comes from, or where it goes, are very, very slim. It's very easy to criticize what one doesn't understand, and let's face it, film studios are an easy target. But if you don't have any experience with that end of the industry, well, it's easy for anyone to say what something "should" be if they don't actually have direct knowledge of what it is. You use Robert Rodriguez' pictures as an example, but if one wants to compare the visual quality of, say, "Spy Kids 3D" with, say, "Pirates 4", I don't think you can make a meaningful comparison. The cost of attracting A-list talent is part of the business of making large pictures that distributors will respond to, and the money that you're referring to does end up on the screen in many, many pictures. Whether you like them or not is, of course, always up to you. But your criticism sounds like it's coming from a place of inexperience rather than reality. I can say something like "gas shouldn't cost more than $1.50 a gallon," but that doesn't mean that it's true because I know nothing about what it actually costs to refine, store, distribute, and dispense a gallon of gas, let alone purchase the crude, and operate the gas station.

 

[Richard Foster]

Kings Speech was great. I'm with Jacek on Slumdog Millionaire though - that was garbage. Hated it.

But action films can be made with grace and intelligence, too. And good stories. Look at Hero (Jet Li) a few years ago. Awesome and good characters and beautiful cinematography. It's not that a film can't be a certain type, even a blockbuster can be great (e.g. Chris Nolan) and have great character development and story. They just seldom are because for the young audience it just doesn't seem to be necessary, unfortunately. And to Hollywood, it's a business. So, if the amped up violence or action or horror formula works, why change it? It's sad, but as has been stated, older sophisticated folk are not the demographic they're aiming at. And even good films never come near to the opening weekend of say a Fast Five :–(