Hollywood and the script market

[Jim Hoffman]

Oh... I just had a flashback to the Mario Brothers Movie....

Shiver..... walk it off .... walk it off...

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

The free market disappeared years ago in this country. It seems fairly obvious to me, as a industry outsider who would love to be an insider, that the films that get the most marketing are the ones that generate the most dollars. There are exceptions of course, but in a overall sense its seems true. The public is told what to like and what to spend their money on.
The best thing any of us can do, is learn the system, become a part of the system and then change the system from the inside.
Now if I could only figure out how to do that.

If that were true then movies would never flop.

Studios are just generally pretty good at actually figuring out what the market wants.

And we still get a ton of movies like Michael Clayton, The Last King of Scotland, Doubt etc... There is certainly no shortage of relatively high profile dramas.

But a movie like Doubt isn't going to appeal to nearly as large of an audience as something like Spiderman. The amount of time I'm in the "mood" for a serious drama is far less than the time I'm in the "mood" to see Starship Troopers. I have often said "Wow that's one of the best movies I've ever seen and I'll probably never want to watch it again." Meanwhile I can put Starship Troopers or Arrested Development on as my TV's screensaver.

No reason to market a movie to the mass audience which will have no interest in seeing it. No amount of marketing can make The Last King of Scotland into a tentpole picture.

 

[Alex MacLean]

story? apparently studios don't know what that is...

 

[Liam Hall]

Studios are just generally pretty good at actually figuring out what the market wants.

Er, no. They are very good at telling the market what it wants. They are dealing with a loaded pack.

And we still get a ton of movies like Michael Clayton, The Last King of Scotland, Doubt etc...

Not exactly made in Hollywood.

There is certainly no shortage of relatively high profile dramas.

Quite the opposite is true. Go check the box-office figures of this year and compare with 1972, 1954 19 whatever...

But a movie like Doubt isn't going to appeal to nearly as large of an audience as something like Spiderman. The amount of time I'm in the "mood" for a serious drama is far less than the time I'm in the "mood" to see Starship Troopers. I have often said "Wow that's one of the best movies I've ever seen and I'll probably never want to watch it again." Meanwhile I can put Starship Troopers or Arrested Development on as my TV's screensaver.

Does size matter? Why judge a movie by box-office take alone? Anyhow, it's not about serious drama or low brow drama, it's about quality drama and quality entertainment, it's about thinking for yourself and not being told what to think and how to think.

You can have quality popcorn flicks as much as deep emotional drama - they all have a place. Batman, Spiderman, Iron Man, Star Trek and X-Men are all examples of franchise movies that work as movies; I can give you a longer list of franchise movies that don't work quite so well.

What should be banished from the cinema are these two and half half hour infomercials that sell games, burgers and all the other useless shit that no-one needs.

No reason to market a movie to the mass audience which will have no interest in seeing it. No amount of marketing can make The Last King of Scotland into a tentpole picture.

You are not understanding how marketing works or why filmmakers make movies like The Last King of Scotland.

 

[DRappazzo]

If that were true then movies would never flop.

Studios are just generally pretty good at actually figuring out what the market wants.

And we still get a ton of movies like Michael Clayton, The Last King of Scotland, Doubt etc... There is certainly no shortage of relatively high profile dramas.

But a movie like Doubt isn't going to appeal to nearly as large of an audience as something like Spiderman. The amount of time I'm in the "mood" for a serious drama is far less than the time I'm in the "mood" to see Starship Troopers. I have often said "Wow that's one of the best movies I've ever seen and I'll probably never want to watch it again." Meanwhile I can put Starship Troopers or Arrested Development on as my TV's screensaver.

No reason to market a movie to the mass audience which will have no interest in seeing it. No amount of marketing can make The Last King of Scotland into a tentpole picture.

I appreciate your point of view, even though I do happen to disagree. I do think there is an equal place in the market place of films for both large budget "popcorn" films as well as lower budget more serious tone films. But when a film has a budget that is dwarfed by the amount spent marketing a larger film, it has no chance of being widely seen by the movie going public. Simply because they don't know to look for it, or because it does not play at any of the chain theaters in their area.
There are of course exceptions to everything I am writing here, just as I pointed out in my above post. But in the larger sense I do believe this too be the state of the film industry as or right now.
But, the bright side of this is that smaller films that receive great word of mouth have the possibility of being seen and making a larger return on their investment in the home dvd market. That is if they are lucky enough to get the proper release and distribution. Long story short, I think that if every film that gets made where given an equal chance to succeed we would have a much better idea of what the public really wants.
But for now, we will have to settle for large budget, cgi heavy, franchise films that sell our children more toys, happy meals and video games.
I would like to also say that given how hard it is to get any film financed and made, I have nothing but respect for all of them, whether I think they are good or not.

Gavin, btw: Thats the first time any of my posts have been quoted, so thank you, it made my day.

 

[Joe G.]

Tic is an unstoppable, high speed international assassin.

Tac is a hot supermodel undercover spy with bionic breasts.

The Evil Dr. Toe lures both of them into his diabolical scheme. They will each face their ultimate diagonal nightmare.

TIC-TAC-TOE

2-D Will Never Be The Same (TM)

 

[Casey Green]

Can't wait for Asteroids 2: Electric Boogaloo

 

[Clint Johnson]

In re the studio idea bankruptcy; a project that already has mindspace makes for an easier sale because it comes with the heavy lifting part of the marketing already taken care of.

Most folk's complaint about big Hollywood blockbusters (and blockbuster wannabes) is because they are bombarded with the summer tentpole promotion and feel resentment that it is diverting resources and attention from their favourite little indie gem. Just relax people. There is no way that any of that money would have gone to said indie gem. A $100 million Transformer 2 promotional would be a stupid waste of time and money for a film that could never ever make more than $20 million at the box office. The small indie films do as well as they can possible do just by word of mouth- everyone who would really want to see these types of films already keeps their ear to the ground. No amount of money spent on honest promotion could convince the average 17 year old male that they should go see 'The Beaches of Agnes' rather than 'District 9'... or even (ugh) 'Asteroids'

Unless it is an epic or a big action film, I have no interest in seeing it in the theatre. There is absolutely no reason I can see for watching a low budget serious film on the big screen. The only reason to go through the bother of going to the cinema is for that big screen that towers above you and stretches out to the edge of your vision- and that is filled with spectacular images and/or bigger than life action.

The more intimate venue of a 50 inch HDTV suits the low budget and intimate drama far better than the 50 foot screen.

That said, the only place that Asteroids belongs is on a Quadrascan X-Y cathode ray tube.

 

[Liam Hall]

In re the studio idea bankruptcy; a project that already has mindspace makes for an easier sale because it comes with the heavy lifting part of the marketing already taken care of.

Most folk's complaint about big Hollywood blockbusters (and blockbuster wannabes) is because they are bombarded with the summer tentpole promotion and feel resentment that it is diverting resources and attention from their favourite little indie gem. Just relax people. There is no way that any of that money would have gone to said indie gem. A $100 million Transformer 2 promotional would be a stupid waste of time and money for a film that could never ever make more than $20 million at the box office. The small indie films do as well as they can possible do just by word of mouth- everyone who would really want to see these types of films already keeps their ear to the ground. No amount of money spent on honest promotion could convince the average 17 year old male that they should go see 'The Beaches of Agnes' rather than 'District 9'... or even (ugh) 'Asteroids'

Unless it is an epic or a big action film, I have no interest in seeing it in the theatre. There is absolutely no reason I can see for watching a low budget serious film on the big screen. The only reason to go through the bother of going to the cinema is for that big screen that towers above you and stretches out to the edge of your vision- and that is filled with spectacular images and/or bigger than life action.

Clint, it's not about low-budget versus large-budget or indie film versus summer blockbuster - there is a place for all types of movie at the cinema. People get annoyed because films get their green light solely due to a marketing plan that ticks all the right boxes and not because the script looks good or talented actors and technicians will be making it.

I also disagree that only blockbusters work on the big screen and think it would be a very sad day indeed if that is all you could watch at your local cinema.

I do agree with you that projects that have already found success in another form, be it a book, a game or a TV show have a better chance of being made into a movie. That just shoes how lazy and gutless cinema executives are these days.

 

[RikiButland]

Hear Hear Liam I totally agree

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Gutless? Sure. But considering how many indie films turn out to be unwatchable awful messes... pretty understandable. If they turn out good they can spend a few million and market/distribute them ala Fox Searchlight.

And I really don't know that Hollywood needs to get involved. When you're talking about movies like Slumdog with a budget of $15m you're pretty safely into private investor territory (and an extremely risky investment).

And again. Hollywood can't force a movie to be popular. If Hollywood could force a movie to be popular then they would never lose money on movies.

I really don't see the problem. I see a lot of really great movies released and marketed every year. And I don't think the numbers have really changed except to increase in the last 100 years.

 

[Clint Johnson]

Clint, it's not about low-budget versus large-budget or indie film versus summer blockbuster - there is a place for all types of movie at the cinema. People get annoyed because films get their green light solely due to a marketing plan that ticks all the right boxes and not because the script looks good or talented actors and technicians will be making it.

I also disagree that only blockbusters work on the big screen and think it would be a very sad day indeed if that is all you could watch at your local cinema.

I do agree with you that projects that have already found success in another form, be it a book, a game or a TV show have a better chance of being made into a movie. That just shoes how lazy and gutless cinema executives are these days.

I actually do think that it is far more a knee jerk reaction by some people against the egalitarian nature of the summer blockbuster. The most vociferous seem to have a visceral aversion to the grossly popular more so than a dislike of the banal and insipid.

As for the studio executives being lazy and gutless, put yourself in their shoes. You have the responsibility of investing hundreds of millions of dollars. The last 20 indie films that you know of lost money or barely broke even- beside which it takes almost as much effort to produce a $10 million serious drama as it does a $100 million tent pole. With an established intellectual property and another $100 million in marketing you actually have a shot at making enough money on one in every four or five to bank money and cover the losses of the others. With a stable of serious little dramas you are guaranteed to lose the money that was entrusted to you.

That explains Iron Man (which I enjoyed by the way) but I don't think there is a rational explanation for Asteroids... maybe I should see if the movie rights for "Etch A Sketch" are available? Pitch it as a lovable collection of anthropomorphic spider 3d CGI characters are lured into a 2D animated world of Etch A Sketch where they learn a valuable lesson about co-operation and that friends and family are what really matter? I'm gonna call my agent and see about getting a bidding war between Warners, Fox and Dreamworks!

Seriously, I see the big screen as a larger than life experience that is just better suited for a larger than life movie. The more intimate "life sized" 50 to 100 inch screen puts the drama on a more even footing with the action.

From a business perspective, the only reason to put these small films into traditional theatres is contractual obligation or for Academy consideration. By their very nature they are niche films with a smaller audience that rarely warrants the cost and effort to put them up on the big screens.

If we want a middle ground, the content creators need to lower their expectations and embrace small scale digital distribution using variations on mobmov or micro-cinema with consumer grade equipment and more intimate venues.

I think that the system should break down into a more layered delivery with traditional cinema carrying the "larger" films that have a reasonable expectation of at least breaking even when they open on 500 plus screens- and the "smaller" films going out to an ad hoc network of 20-30 seat micro-cinemas in art galleries, community centres and the back rooms of coffee shops, book stores and projected onto the exterior of your local Wal-Mart.

I would suggest keeping it simple with something in the range of $100 for a one time PPR rather than the hassle of tracking individual ticket sales. Let the venue decide if they are going to; sell tickets, cover the cost as a public service or use it as a loss leader to get people into the venue to buy coffee and doughnuts.

There is a void out there for a Web 2.0 setup to service this need for a place where film makers and film presenters can find each other. The legalities are messed up just enough that it isn't worth the film makers investment in time to learn but clear enough for a near automated online service that charges a reasonable 2 to 5%. If I were setting this up I'd also look to creating additional cost services like getting a rating from jurisdictions where it is mandatory, pre-roll endorsements (I'd try and institute a rather short 15 second or less rule to keep it from becoming obnoxiously intrusive) and setting up a indie "coming attractions" pre-roll with three or four previews.

It'd be great if someone with the time and money would register something like "CinemaEverywhere.com" and build out this system. It has the potential for a healthy ROI and could give indie films a home.

If the film maker can get a couple thousand showings it would get them $200,000 ($190,000 after the CinemaEverywhere.com fee) from public performances- and it would allow people to see it on a middle ground 15 to 20 foot screen. Word of mouth leading to repeated showing over the years could mean a workable business model for the <$2 million feature once second and third window revenue is factored in.

Hell, get enough of these micro-cinemas with multiple presentations and that $5 to $10 million film might fall into viability. With that kind of money you are getting production values and a cast that doesn't scream indie limitations but which right now is box office death 99.999% of the time.

 

[Ace]

I'm not supposed to share this.. But what the hell, I'm no longer tied the ND..

 

[Joe G.]

"CinemaEverywhere.com"

Perhaps a franchise that recruits coffee houses, bars, restaurants across the country to start "movie nights?"

 

[Anson Fogel]

Solutions

Solutions

I love that this thread moved from the intractable chicken/hollyood versus egg/consumer debate, to SOLUTIONS. Rare that we actually talk about what we can DO rather than what.

The prior posters are dead on - the combination of advances in digital projection and production, as well as distribution, mean a significant opportunity to get small movies shown on small-mid screens in a way that can move money around nicely and get us the ability to go SEE small movies in a social setting at high quality.

BluRay>HDMI>Sony VPL200 SXRD 1080 projected onto a 10' wide screen looks stunning, in a dark space, better than all but the best commerical 35mm theaters/prints. Good 7.1 sound is not expensive. Small filmmakers can shoot RED, handle post and author bluray well.

So where is the "middle" part? I live in a small community - Aspen and the RF Valley on CO, with a vibrant film loving community and some great local venues that show small films, but more small venues, or a different dist model for the small venus already showing small films, would open up significant opportunity. The venues that show films now to the film loving audience - not the 17 year old boys - would show MORE films, if they could easily get them to show and vet them, and if their up front cost was low.

The long tail, I believe they called the trend...specilization in markets enabled by better cheaper tools across the supply chain.

Love the thread - you're onto something!

 

[D'Arcy Foley-Dawson]

I think that the system should break down into a more layered delivery with traditional cinema carrying the "larger" films that have a reasonable expectation of at least breaking even when they open on 500 plus screens- and the "smaller" films going out to an ad hoc network of 20-30 seat micro-cinemas in art galleries, community centres and the back rooms of coffee shops, book stores and projected onto the exterior of your local Wal-Mart.

Clint I must say I've really enjoyed reading your ideas on this.

But although you make a lot of sense, I can't see this working out.

My understanding of the history of the cinema industry is that it has become increasingly homogenised over the past three or four decades. Previously there was, as you've proposed, a multi-tiered or layered system of distribution that reflected different 'grades' of content, your big studio films, the cheaper b-movie stuff, the drive-in, grindhouse, 'blue' movie markets etc. But over time these weaker subspecies have become extinct and now most 'indie' films that you see in a theatre are being distributed by a handful of major independent distributors.

To me, and yes it is a gross over-simplification, homogenisation of content and distribution just seems to be the general trend in entertainment in the west. Personally I can't imagine many people would be brave enough to invest capital in creating a whole new infrastructure for distributing independent films.

Then again, Europe does have a history of treating cinema as much more than just mindless entertainment, and perhaps the first pioneers will be found there.

However I don't know if it would necessarily be a good thing to take smaller, more independent films out of the theatres and place them in technically inferior, ad hoc pretend-theatres in art galleries and community centres. Imagine how much MORE stigma would be attached to "art" or "indie" films were they to make such a shift?!

I actually think it's a good thing that you can walk into most cinemas and have a decent range of options regarding what you watch. It gives all of the content equal legitimacy.

Personally I'm not very comfortable with horse shit like Transformers, G.I. Joe or Asteroids attaining an implicit superiority that better theatres will confer.

 

[Shawn Nelson]

I'm not supposed to share this.. But what the hell, I'm no longer tied the ND..

Lol, that is AWESOME!

(assuming it's a joke...)

 

[David Rasberry]

There used to be a vibrant 16mm rental / distribution market for college, museum, art house, coffee shop type venues back in the 60's and 70's. With the ever dropping cost of high quality digital projectors and hopefully the release of Red Ray players not too far off, a similar market could play a much more prominent role for all kinds of films in the future.
I programmed film series for the local art museum for a few years, most of the local art house, musem, school venues seated at least 75 people, some over 200. The art museum auditorium seated 250 and had a 30' wide Cinemascope format screen. We had anamorphic lenses for the 16mm projector too, but also ran 3 screen 35mm educational slide show presntations.
My favorite show was a film tour by Les Blank. He was doing a cultural documentary series on food. We showed the one on New Orleans Creole and Cajun cooking in "SmellAround". Les and I prepared some of the dishes featured in the film ahead of time and had them simmering on a buffet table in the back of the theater. At the end of the film everybody got to sample the food.

 

[David Rasberry]

However I don't know if it would necessarily be a good thing to take smaller, more independent films out of the theatres and place them in technically inferior, ad hoc pretend-theatres in art galleries and community centres. Imagine how much MORE stigma would be attached to "art" or "indie" films were they to make such a shift?!

I actually think it's a good thing that you can walk into most cinemas and have a decent range of options regarding what you watch. It gives all of the content equal legitimacy.

Personally I'm not very comfortable with horse shit like Transformers, G.I. Joe or Asteroids attaining an implicit superiority that better theatres will confer

In my area we have 50 plus screens across a half dozen large chain multiplexes all running the same 8 top box office releases at the same time. Occasionally they might venture one screen for a particularly popular or well promoted indie film, but most of the time its just derivative corporate Hollywood crap. I wish they would give us more choices.

Mature adults don't go to the movies often because corporate Hollywood mostly makes movies for young people because mature adults don't go to the movies.

 

[Joe G.]

"...more small venues, or a different dist model for the small venus already showing small films, would open up significant opportunity."

The ability to show all sorts of content digitally, and not have to run the same film over and over all day for a week will help somewhat (maybe).

The lowering price of projection systems and audio to create a profitable smaller venue will definitely help.

The question is: why would they choose some little movie they never heard of instead of re-running Jurassic Park or Star Wars, or things that have been marketed everywhere?

I think more choices will help. But, the public already has the choice to just stay home and watch whatever, on their own set. To want to watch something in public, you need a reason.

Bigger screen?
Alcohol and food?
Meeting people?
Clubs?
Education?
Hot bikini babe ushers?

I like the idea of places with liquor licenses showing films, as you can make a date out of it. Not saying they'll want to see YOUR film on their date, but it's possible.

I've been considering what it would take to create a small "art house" theater here in my town. Probably not a good business venture -- unless there's a Monster Truck Channel I can subscribe to.


"I actually think it's a good thing that you can walk into most cinemas and have a decent range of options regarding what you watch..."

I have no idea what you're talking about.