Corporate Hollywood, the distribution problem.

[Bryce O]

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.

It's a good point you make. I don't have much experience in big-budget films. But that's kind of what makes my point-of-view more valid... it usually takes an outside looking in to see the problems. It's just like being in a relationship... you can never see it for what it is because you're emotionally attached... and then when your friends try to give you advice (because they have an outside perspective) most people ignore it or shut them down completely with a response like "what do you know? You're not even in a relationship yourself!" ... Completely missing the point.

Gas prices are not a good analogy. Gas is refined from oil, deep in the ground, and it's a limited resource. The movie industry is based on intangible ideas and creativity. It can be as simple or complex as you make it. Obviously, there are movies like the new Spider-man and Pirates that require more than others, but I still believe they're not operating anywhere close to the efficiency they should be.

Again, you're right, my opinions could be way off the mark... but so are the opinions of the people who work on the films. Nobody working on a huge set wants to invalidate their job or admit that it's pointless. I, personally, think that having 15 assistants for every position is a waste of money and time... but you know who doesn't? The assistants. Because they get paid for it. So you can bet that you won't ever here them say "hey Mr. Producer, my job is completely un-needed and wasteful, you could really cut down on production costs be firing me." It's just not going to happen. Do you ever think you're going to hear a Hollywood director or producer admit that the Hollywood system is still based on a business/industry model from the 50's? Nope. Because it will make them look like they don't know what they're doing. You are just never going to get an honest opinion from someone that actually works in the industry. They all just use the "well, you're not a part of it, so you you just don't understand how it works." Which, when you break down the though process one must take to arrive at said statement, is just a psychological defense mechanism of saying "I don't want to invalidate my own personal self worth, so I'm not going to even consider the possibility that a production model that doesn't involve my skill set could be correct." It's just human nature. And it also doesn't help that there are so many people in the industry that have the same thought process that all constantly validate each other. It's going to take well informed "outsiders-looking-in" with talent to create a new production model on their own terms... or the complete bankruptcy and total failure of the industry forcing it to start over from compete scratch.

Here's some good reading on the psychology behind it... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism

 

[George Butterfield]

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.

The first long film (90 minutes) I acted in had a two man crew, two brothers, Director and DP, they did everything, lights, camera, sound, wardrobe, sets, craft services, they did it all ... then they did the edit. It was a 90 minute horror film and it wasn't bad. Better than some "Hollywood" features. Boggles the mind.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

It's a good point you make. I don't have much experience in big-budget films. But that's kind of what makes my point-of-view more valid... it usually takes an outside looking in to see the problems. It's just like being in a relationship... you can never see it for what it is because you're emotionally attached... and then when your friends try to give you advice (because they have an outside perspective) most people ignore it or shut them down completely with a response like "what do you know? You're not even in a relationship yourself!" ... Completely missing the point.

Gas prices are not a good analogy. Gas is refined from oil, deep in the ground, and it's a limited resource. The movie industry is based on intangible ideas and creativity. It can be as simple or complex as you make it. Obviously, there are movies like the new Spider-man and Pirates that require more than others, but I still believe they're not operating anywhere close to the efficiency they should be.

Again, you're right, my opinions could be way off the mark... but so are the opinions of the people who work on the films. Nobody working on a huge set wants to invalidate their job or admit that it's pointless. I, personally, think that having 15 assistants for every position is a waste of money and time... but you know who doesn't? The assistants. Because they get paid for it. So you can bet that you won't ever here them say "hey Mr. Producer, my job is completely un-needed and wasteful, you could really cut down on production costs be firing me." It's just not going to happen. Do you ever think you're going to hear a Hollywood director or producer admit that the Hollywood system is still based on a business/industry model from the 50's? Nope. Because it will make them look like they don't know what they're doing. You are just never going to get an honest opinion from someone that actually works in the industry. They all just use the "well, you're not a part of it, so you you just don't understand how it works." Which, when you break down the though process one must take to arrive at said statement, is just a psychological defense mechanism of saying "I don't want to invalidate my own personal self worth, so I'm not going to even consider the possibility that a production model that doesn't involve my skill set could be correct." It's just human nature. And it also doesn't help that there are so many people in the industry that have the same thought process that all constantly validate each other. It's going to take well informed "outsiders-looking-in" with talent to create a new production model on their own terms... or the complete bankruptcy and total failure of the industry forcing it to start over from compete scratch.

Here's some good reading on the psychology behind it... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism

Well there are lots of very smart people looking at how to make appealing films for as little as possible. I doubt you can outsmart them all.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

The first long film (90 minutes) I acted in had a two man crew, two brothers, Director and DP, they did everything, lights, camera, sound, wardrobe, sets, craft services, they did it all ... then they did the edit. It was a 90 minute horror film and it wasn't bad. Better than some "Hollywood" features. Boggles the mind.

Define "better". Plus, it is impossible for you to be objective as you were part of the project.

 

[M Most]

Gas prices are not a good analogy. Gas is refined from oil, deep in the ground, and it's a limited resource. The movie industry is based on intangible ideas and creativity. It can be as simple or complex as you make it.

You've missed my point completely. I wasn't commenting on the oil industry and its needs vs. the film business and its needs. I was commenting on the fact that uninformed opinions are just that, and that if one doesn't have any real knowledge of costs, needs, or methodologies and their requirements, one shouldn't be speaking as if they do. And no, an outsider's opinion is not more valid when it comes to understanding the financial requirements of an industry, regardless of how much the outsider wants to believe that it is.

Again, you're right, my opinions could be way off the mark... but so are the opinions of the people who work on the films. Nobody working on a huge set wants to invalidate their job or admit that it's pointless. I, personally, think that having 15 assistants for every position is a waste of money and time... but you know who doesn't? The assistants. Because they get paid for it. So you can bet that you won't ever here them say "hey Mr. Producer, my job is completely un-needed and wasteful, you could really cut down on production costs be firing me." It's just not going to happen.

A statement like that, to me, is just proving my point. You have no idea how many assistants anyone on a picture has (I do, and it's not "15 assistants for every position"). You don't even seem to know who has assistants, who doesn't, and why. There is certainly a bit of bloat in any large budgeted production, but your unfounded accusations are so far off the mark I don't even know why I'm answering them. Perpetuating old wives tales and conspiracy theories about the film business on a forum frequented by a number of us who actually work in the industry you're talking about is wasteful at best and insulting at worst.

Do you ever think you're going to hear a Hollywood director or producer admit that the Hollywood system is still based on a business/industry model from the 50's? Nope. Because it will make them look like they don't know what they're doing. You are just never going to get an honest opinion from someone that actually works in the industry. They all just use the "well, you're not a part of it, so you you just don't understand how it works." Which, when you break down the though process one must take to arrive at said statement, is just a psychological defense mechanism of saying "I don't want to invalidate my own personal self worth, so I'm not going to even consider the possibility that a production model that doesn't involve my skill set could be correct." It's just human nature. And it also doesn't help that there are so many people in the industry that have the same thought process that all constantly validate each other. It's going to take well informed "outsiders-looking-in" with talent to create a new production model on their own terms... or the complete bankruptcy and total failure of the industry forcing it to start over from compete scratch.[/url]

Uhhhh.... if you really want to believe in "psychological defense mechanisms" defining business decisions, go right ahead, I can't stop you. But large studio pictures are not going to go away, and in the end they're no different than any other business, whether you believe that or not. I'm not going to go any further in trying to give you truths because you're clearly convinced that the industry consists of a bunch of self serving morons who only want to waste money and don't know nearly as much about what they're doing as those who aren't actually doing it. So if that's really what you believe, nothing I say is going to open your mind.

 

[Joseph Hutson]

Kings speech however, wasn't that a great movie?! I was completely surprised...

I loved how it got back to the type of old B/W movie style. All story...no explosions just for the sake of blowing something up. Interesting how it hit the market so well amidst a time when all the majority of people seem to care about is the eye candy...

 

[Brad Webb]

I loved how it got back to the type of old B/W movie style. All story...no explosions just for the sake of blowing something up. Interesting how it hit the market so well amidst a time when all the majority of people seem to care about is the eye candy...

If movies like the King's Speech made $300 million at the box office we would all be bitching about how Hollywood only makes period pieces. For the majority of the people in the world, people go to the movies to escape their own lives for a few hours, see something spectacular, and in a way, live out a fantasy. This is why action movies always make shit loads of money, both in the US and over seas. You want to escape, and you want to be a hero. We all know 5 Fast 5 Furious is garbage, but the public has spoken. That's what they want.

 

[Ivan Kovax]

If movies like the King's Speech made $300 million at the box office we would all be bitching about how Hollywood only makes period pieces. For the majority of the people in the world, people go to the movies to escape their own lives for a few hours, see something spectacular, and in a way, live out a fantasy. This is why action movies always make shit loads of money, both in the US and over seas. You want to escape, and you want to be a hero. We all know 5 Fast 5 Furious is garbage, but the public has spoken. That's what they want.

This, I guess, explains Michael Bay, and roland emmerich quite accurately

 

[Ivan Kovax]

I loved how it got back to the type of old B/W movie style. All story...no explosions just for the sake of blowing something up. Interesting how it hit the market so well amidst a time when all the majority of people seem to care about is the eye candy...

Now if the king pulled out an Uzi and got all medieval on the nazis asses... How good would that have been

 

[Brad Webb]

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.

The special effects in Pirates will cost at least $50 million alone, especially now that it's in 3D. If you ever watch the credits for a movie with a bunch of special effects you'll notice that there are literally hundreds of people that work on the special effects alone. You'll also notice about a dozen different post houses used for the effects. Do they need these all these people? Oh hell yes. Every effect has to be done, frame by frame. It takes 1,000's of hours.

Also, do you think anyone would go see Pirates 4 without Johnny Depp? Maybe he's tired of dressing up like a pirate. I'm sure he said no to this a few times until they got to a $$$ amount he would do it for (I think it's like $15-$20million). Disney will make BILLIONS off this movie, so paying the one guy $20million is nothing for the amount of money this movie with bring the company. Sure they could get Skeet Ulrich who kind of looks like Johnny Depp to play Jack Sparrow, and pay him a reasonable amount, but then this movie will tank, and could lose money. Big name actors still sell movie tickets. Not only that, but they legitimize a movie. People don't go see movies starring a bunch of people they've never heard of, unless it's horror or comedy.

Oh let's not forget this a Jerry Bruckheimer movie. He's only being making blockbuster movies for 30 years. No idea what he makes, but I'm willing to bet it's more than Johnny Depp.

People aren't the only thing that costs money on movies. Lawyers, insurance, food, rent, etc. That all adds up fast. Every single thing in every frame has to be "cleared" for legal reasons, either by getting a release signed or by paying for it. If your face, or your crap logo for your business that no one has ever heard of (that hell maybe you even forgot about) shows up in a movie, and you didn't say it could be there, you can sue. And not just for money, but you can also just be a major dick and forbid the movie from EVER playing in a theater. Something like this just happened recently, where the guy that did Mike Tyson's face tattoo is now suing Hangover 2. http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/42828...nt/t/tyson-tattoo-artist-sues-block-hangover/ There is an insurance for this, called E/O (errors and omissions), and it ain't cheap, and every movie HAS to have it.

Now, not every movie is Pirates 4. You're right that there is a lot of waste in Hollywood. Where you're wrong is where the money is being wasted (it's not assistants or PA's, most of whom make less than $10 an hour). It's not on the crew or anything below the line.

I give you, How Do You Know:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=jimbrooks10.htm

A simple romantic comedy that cost $120 million dollars to make. This movie should have cost $35 million tops. In fact, I bet less that $35m went into actually shooting the damn thing. All that money was wasted above the line. On actors, producers, and ???. On most smaller films executive producer usually means this person paid for the movie. On big studio films, executive producer means got paid a lot, didn't do shit. Sometimes this is unavoidable, like when you adapt a book or something like that, and sometimes -- well shit if I knew I would be an executive producer.

I know Paul Rudd was the only one of the 4 leads to makes less than $10m for this (somewhere between 2m-6m i think). This is where Hollywood needs to change. They should have had this broken down to where the 4 leads total cost would be $20m or so. So if they want Reese Witherspoon for $10m, that means the other 3 need to cost $10m total. On big time action flicks with lots of special effects, it's fine to spend a ton on name actors because the money will come back, especially in the foreign markets. But romantic comedies, come on. They should never cost anything close to $75m, let alone $120m (and as big a flop as this was, this is all Sony is willing to admit it cost, it could have cost even more).

The biggest problem with Hollywood is they try to cut costs in all the wrong places. Try to get a pen or extra copies of a script on show by a certain animal themed studio..good luck. You get x # of pens for the entire 4-5 months. After that, you have to beg the UPM (which of course wastes even more money by delaying everything because you're looking for a pen for 15 minutes). Wow, saved 60cents, lost 1/2 hour. It ridiculous. Sometimes, yes, you do have to pay the top actors, producers, writers, and directors whatever they ask for. Do you have to pay John Hamm whatever he wants on Mad Men, yes. Do you have to pay the actors that play Peggy, Pete, Ken, etc - no. Did you have to pay all 6 members of Friends, yes. Did you have to pay top dollar for the 4 actors in How Do You Know.. nope. Does Pirates 4 need Johnny Depp - yes, anyone else form the previous movies - nope.

 

[Liam Hall]

If movies like the King's Speech made $300 million at the box office we would all be bitching about how Hollywood only makes period pieces. For the majority of the people in the world, people go to the movies to escape their own lives for a few hours, see something spectacular, and in a way, live out a fantasy. This is why action movies always make shit loads of money, both in the US and over seas. You want to escape, and you want to be a hero. We all know 5 Fast 5 Furious is garbage, but the public has spoken. That's what they want.

Couldn't agree less.

The reason crappy CGI action movies make money is because they are one element of a huge multi-million dollar marketing campaign designed to sell you burgers and toys along with your cinema ticket. It's shock and awe marketing and it works. In some respects, the movie itself isn't as important as the marketing strategy.

I actually think there have been a lot of really good movies made lately that don't rely on CGI explosions or a flash of Megan Fox's thigh to draw their audience in; Black Swan, The Fighter, Kings Speech, Social Network, Monsters, Winter's Bone, Please Give and a whole bunch of others. Whilst their success may mean more films getting made that are aimed at the more discerning viewer, I don't think their success will lead to more indies at the multiplex for the simple fact that it doesn't fit the Hollywood business model. I mean, how will Hollywood sell burgers if people are going to watch the latest Guillermo del Toro offering rather than Transformers 9? Unless, of course he directs it...

 

[Bryce O]

Well there are lots of very smart people looking at how to make appealing films for as little as possible. I doubt you can outsmart them all.

Probably not... But I haven't attempted it yet. So it's still up in the air. :coolgleamA:

Uhhhh.... if you really want to believe in "psychological defense mechanisms" defining business decisions, go right ahead, I can't stop you.

Wow... umm, if you DON'T believe this is how most business decisions are made then... crap, I dunno... quickly run to the nearest college and take physiology and sociology 101.

A statement like that, to me, is just proving my point. You have no idea how many assistants anyone on a picture has (I do, and it's not "15 assistants for every position"). You don't even seem to know who has assistants, who doesn't, and why. There is certainly a bit of bloat in any large budgeted production, but your unfounded accusations are so far off the mark I don't even know why I'm answering them. Perpetuating old wives tales and conspiracy theories about the film business on a forum frequented by a number of us who actually work in the industry you're talking about is wasteful at best and insulting at worst.

Ok, I was kind of using hyperbole here... but if you want to take it literally so that it's easier to come up with arguing points then whatever. I was just trying to make the point that if casting directors, producers, coordinators, ect, had a just a little bit more capable people in their group of friends... oops... I mean "people they hire", then allot of the waste could done away with right there.

 

[Kholi Hicks]

These threads make me sigh.

Thanks M Most and Brad Webb for sane perspectives, however.

 

[Kholi Hicks]

Couldn't agree less.

The reason crappy CGI action movies make money is because they are one element of a huge multi-million dollar marketing campaign designed to sell you burgers and toys along with your cinema ticket. It's shock and awe marketing and it works. In some respects, the movie itself isn't as important as the marketing strategy.

I actually think there have been a lot of really good movies made lately that don't rely on CGI explosions or a flash of Megan Fox's thigh to draw their audience in; Black Swan, The Fighter, Kings Speech, Social Network, Monsters, Winter's Bone, Please Give and a whole bunch of others. Whilst their success may mean more films getting made that are aimed at the more discerning viewer, I don't think their success will lead to more indies at the multiplex for the simple fact that it doesn't fit the Hollywood business model. I mean, how will Hollywood sell burgers if people are going to watch the latest Guillermo del Toro offering rather than Transformers 9? Unless, of course he directs it...

With the exception of Kings Speech, every single one you listed follows the same marketing scheme as the rest. No, no big flashy vfx, but star vehicles and huge marketing budgets.

 

[Bryce O]

These threads make me sigh.

Thanks M Most and Brad Webb for sane perspectives, however.

Hey not all of us have the ability to think objectively... it's alright. But, don't assume that we're not sane... we're just speaking from outside your little perspective box.

I'm not going to go any further in trying to give you truths because you're clearly convinced that the industry consists of a bunch of self serving morons who only want to waste money and don't know nearly as much about what they're doing as those who aren't actually doing it. So if that's really what you believe, nothing I say is going to open your mind.

Yes... this is exactly what I'm saying. Do you really believe that all the most talented people are some how always destined to get the job? Nope. It usually just the most determined, or well connected. Don't get me wrong, there are many talented people in the industry... but odds are, the most talented are still out there.

I personally know a girl who was just promoted to a production manager at a pretty big boutique company right here in good 'ol Hollywood that still has no clue about the difference between digital and film. Honestly, she REALLY doesn't know that there is a difference... and she's now a CO-MANAGER. Go figure. Welcome to nepotism land a.k.a Hollywood...

 

[M Most]

Hey not all of us have the ability to think objectively... it's alright. But, don't assume that we're not sane... we're just speaking from outside your little perspective box.

Well, thanks for reminding me that experience is useless, and direct experience over many years is an even bigger waste of time and life. Good to know.

 

[Bryce O]

Well, thanks for reminding me that experience is useless, and direct experience over many years is an even bigger waste of time and life. Good to know.

It's not useless... the current way we make movies is going to be around for a long time, so you'll probably continue to have a successful career. I just thought the point of this thread was to OBJECTIVELY (aka... PERSONAL EXPERIENCES ASIDE) discus the shortcomings and waste of the current model and try to come up with better ideas and solutions for the future. My mistake.

If you haven't noticed ticket prices keep going up, people keep complaining about the quality of films, and studios are still blowing millions on advertising. The key word in this thread title was "problem" not "the current Hollywood system is working perfectly... please discus."

 

[Kholi Hicks]

Hey not all of us have the ability to think objectively... it's alright. But, don't assume that we're not sane... we're just speaking from outside your little perspective box.

Well, You already stated that you have little actual working knowledge, your perspective is from a consumer standpoint.

Is O your real last name?

 

[Bryce O]

Well, You already stated that you have little actual working knowledge, your perspective is from a consumer standpoint.

Is O your real last name?

No, it's from a prospective film makers point of view that does allot of research and wants to know how and in what areas to improve it when I hopefully join it one day... because it's NOT perfect, their are PROBLEMS, and anyone who claims that every-single person working in the industry has their purpose and nothing can ever be done to improve it, is just freaking delusional. I'm not just another expendable playdoh minded lemming that goes "welp... that's just how things are done... derp!"

And yea, it is my last name, not the whole thing... but it is a "real name" and what I chose to go by. Just like "M Most" and hundreds of others on the forum. Stop trying to score brownie points with the mods.

Think about Red! What are they? An outside company and visionaries that saw better way of acquiring motion picture and decided to do something about it. You can bet that this change would have never have come from WITHIN the industry... ARRI and PANNAVISON absolutely love their high priced unobtainable cameras and film processing. Why would they want to change that? Change come from the OUTSIDE, it's been proven time and time again in history in almost every area of human industry.

 

[Kholi Hicks]

No, it's from a prospective film makers point of view that does allot of research and wants to know how and in what areas to improve it when I hopefully join it one day. Not just a lemming that goes "welp... that's just how things are done... derp!"

Now I remember you: you had another thread going about Hollywood Nepotism. AT the time (one month ago) you said you have yet to actually create anything of your own. Is this still the case? Well, apparently not... seeing as how you're still posting this same jaded and unfounded nonsense.

Where did that thread go, anyway?

And yea, it is my last name, not the whole thing... but it is a "real name" and what I chose to go by. Just like "M Most" and hundreds of others on the forum. Stop trying to score brownie points with the mods.

You really need to change it to your real name, though, so you can be held accountable for your words.