How Govt. Ruined The Movies

[jpp]

Do you use a Mac? I use a Boxx PC and run Ubuntu Linux. I hear Google employees all use a custom flavor or Ubuntu Linux. And your point is?

My point is, companies which make terrible products get very rich, when the market operates the way you want it to.

And yes I do own a Mac, as well as a Windows machine. The choice is between a lousy operating system and lousy application software on the one hand, and a good operating system but expensive proprietary hardware on the other. So much for the free market.

If Microsoft has not fallen down yet, maybe, JUST MAYBE, they are doing something right

You're correct. What they're doing "right" is running a successful monopoly, thanks to the free-market dynamics you want more of.

Who's forcing you to buy crappy CD's or not pay your credit card on time?

Nobody. But if your free market theory was correct, no bank, much less a huge bank, could behave this way. But the banks do behave this way. Could it be that something's wrong with your theory?

 

[Tom Lowe]

I have read the rebuttals, and they are full of myths, etc. It's hard to address all the flaws I'm seeing and not write a book here on the forum, as the rabbit hole goes VERY deep. I'm sure you know what I mean Tom!

Yeah. I mean, when people are saying that the meltdown is due to "unbridled libertarianism" they have it almost entirely backwards. It's not possible to change their minds on a camera forum like this. All you can do is point them to a friendly speech or video or book or something that might interest them enough to look into these issues further.

Another place to look, if you are interested in learning about the real cause of the current mess we are in, is Tom Woods' book "Meltdown." When you have a central bank pumping out money at 1% or even 0% interest rates to Americans, who at the peak of the housing bubble actually had a NEGATIVE savings rate of -6%, it's clear that there is a problem. Low interest rates can only be the result of savings, like, say, 15% or 20%. So it's totally impossible to have 1% interest rates in a country with no savings at all!

On the other hand, I think there is a mainstream argument to made that within our current system, there does need to be smarter regulation. Credit default swaps, for example, should have fallen under the same regulatory umbrella as insurance, since that's what they are. The reason we are bailing out AIG to the tune of a hundred billion dollars is that they took incredibly wild bets on "insurance" speculation, without the assets to back up those bets.

Our whole system is a total mess. A house of cards. And as jpp and others are pointing out, it's also very corrupt. Wall Street just fleeced Americans of trillions of dollars, and the government is getting ready to fleece them of trillions more through inflation.

This is why I am keeping up my contacts in China. :thumbsup:

 

[Zack Birlew]

Beh, things could be worse. Oh wait, they are! Hollywood is too closed off for its own good really. All it would take would be to have film schools actually mean something. Yes, like almost every other profession, you should have to go to school for it. Of course, nobody can stop a self taught person's success if they win an Oscar, win at a film festival, network their way up, etc. All I'm saying is that if Hollywood took more involvement in setting up film schools to be their training ground then they would have a steady stream of talent coming in rather than going through the muck of wishful hopefuls to find someone with real experience. Their stream of resumes could be cut down significantly and, of course, they would have to have people patrolling film festivals and the like for new talent as well. What is hurting Hollywood is that they have too many people trying to rush in through the doors and the only thing they can do is close them off and stick with who they have already. The theatrical circuit itself is too closed off and, really, there should be some sort of law made to break that up or someone needs to open up their own movie theatre chain dedicated to alternative films, not junk, but the films that get passed up at Cannes or Sundance that everyone is surpised about when they don't get distribution. They could also be open to indie films as well but, like normal movie theatres, it all depends on what the owner wants to show in their theatre, but hey, at least that's a workable system for indies rather than hoping for a distributor to come along and pick them up or having to do one of those film tour distribution methods where they send out several people across the country to show the film in theatres one by one.

In any case, Hollywood needs to get better organized and establish some sort of system that works to help young talented filmmakers enter into the business smoothly rather than have them waste years of their lives desperately trying to work their way through the ranks just to get in. That's sounds more like counter productive business practices to me, especially for film. Look at J.J. Abrams, there was an article in Hollywood Reporter about how some people believe that he is the next Steven Spielberg, well, the article listed all of their career achievements and compared them to one another and stated that it's nice to believe that he is the next Spielberg but, based on his resume, he hasn't made the mark to match Steven's massive run, so he is instead "the first J.J. Abrams". I read the article and I didn't pay much attention to it because I was too busy looking at their ages. J.J. Abrams is 42 and Steven Spielberg is 62. Now, looking back at J.J. Abrams, he was in his twenties as a writer and almost in his thirties when he first directed. All I could think as I read the article was why, with all of the advances in technology and the knowledge base modern filmmakers have these days, why is there a striking lack of young directors? Why would Hollywood not take advantage of all of that raw creativity and passion a young director could have? Granted, I've seen my fair share of wannabe's and people with a creativite sense about as interesting and original as the callous under my big left toe. However, I've seen some filmmakers that have great ideas and talent that could stand up in Hollywood but they haven't gone anywhere career-wise. So, what's the big deal? Creativity, whether we like it or not, fades with age. Haven't we had enough depressing mid-life crisis films? Films based on comic books being done by people that have little to no experience with the source material? It's just ridiculous. However, I can understand the logic behind it as some young talented director won't have the experience to be able to do what, strictly based on the visual spectacle aspect, what Michael Bay has done for "Transformers". That's why I say, instead of letting people toil a good portion of their lives away in the mailroom or scraping by on the indie circuit, why not do the simple thing of supporting and helping film school matter? They can be given all of the chances and experience they need within a reasonable amount of time. Some will stand out and that's the whole point, just like any other eduactional program. I'm at Chapman University right now and I'm in the grad program. The weaknesses I see is that they're treating the grad program like the undergrad program. The grad program should be strictly for people who majored or minored in film in their undergrad. Everyone else should be relegated to the undergrad program. It doesn't make sense why a history major or architecture major should be able to enter a graduate film program. Do they not realize that after graduating this person will be able to say that they can teach film? Well, what about the person that has their BFA and MFA in film? Shouldn't they be the better qualified person to teach? No, that's not the case at all. Not only is that an issue but it slows down the whole program as well to train these people to get up to the same level, which should have been done in the undergrad program with everybody else. If they made that change, then that opens up all kinds of possibilities. We wouldn't need any additonal film history as that was handled in undergrad, we wouldn't need any more introductory film production classes as we would already know how to make our films from the ground up based on our undergrad course work. What that leaves is advanced production courses where we actually make real films and not strict exercise films and we can further our emphasis, wherever that is, and actually have something to show when all is said and done. Heck, there could even be classes where we make feature films, there's enough time in a semester to do so, if not stretching it to a year round course, and it would all work in our favor and towards the school as well. Imagine if the film won a film festival or made a student academy award nomination, how cool would that be? As it is now, only the directors get to make the films and they don't make that many at all, just two small "cycle films" and then their thesis which is basically a higher budget cycle film. No features, just shorts, and they can't check out equipment from the school without a directing teacher backing them up in case they wanted to do something independently on their own. It's really counter intuitive and, if they end up making a bad short or if it just doesn't turn out the way they wanted it, which happens quite a bit it seems, then they're stuck with that film along with a massive load of debt when it's all said and done and with a degree that practically means nothing to the industry as a whole. Wow, film school, great investment huh? But it could be and that's what gets me. If only there were a push to make these changes, then the industry wouldn't be in the state it's in with a massive lack of originality and creativity and with displeased movie goers all around making jokes and losing interest at disturbingly rapid rates.

 

[jpp]

The main objection to the libertarian view is that it's fundamentally utopian, that society is far too complex and power relations far too unequal to allow these forces to play out and expect anything but misery and destruction.

The theory of government doesn't necessarily demand that we make everyone rich, or offer rewards strictly on competitive advantage. The mercantile model of human life is not one that's universally embraced. On the contrary, the market model which prevails in the U.S. and Britain is the exception, not the norm, in modern industrial democracies. And that model doesn't necessarily promote excellence. Most successful businessmen are not geniuses or visionaries. Rather, they're bankers who buy mortgage securities without bothering to inquire what's inside.

There *are* countries which have done a far better job than we have, at distributing wealth. If "distributing wealth" offends an ideology, I'm sorry. But there are higher goals, in democratic societies of hundreds of millions of people, than the freedom to get rich quickly. Democracy cannot function with huge disparities of wealth. We've seen what happens when powerful interests buy government and run it as they please. To the degree government is responsive to citizens, government intrusion in daily life is better than the intrusion of big business. But you're going to have to chose one or the other.

 

[Joel Kaye]

Most successful business men are not geniuses or visionaries. Rather, they're bankers who buy mortgage securities without bothering to inquire what's inside.

And those bankers give a portion of their profits to Congress so they'll be protected by a bailout and avoid prosecution for negligence or wrongdoing.

When corporations control gov't and are not accountable for wrongdoing you get what we've got.

Currently big business owns and runs gov't. You have to regulate both effectively. Bad regulation kills competition but good regulation prevents forseeable disasters. That's why these conversations are impossible to view in a black and white way. It's not black and white.

 

[Joseph Ward]

Most people in the U.S. don't understand how the Federal Reserve or Fractional Reserve Banking works and how Federal Income Taxes pay off the Interest to that. I understand how it can get confusing but I don't understand why people in general don't question anything, that's not intelligence but...

Well back to topic, I think overall creativity is flourishing now and not just back in the "Golden Era". Technology is what is allowing competition to thrive not a hollywood cartel or government.

 

[GlennChan]

My point is, companies which make terrible products get very rich, when the market operates the way you want it to.

There are companies out there that deserved to be criticized for truly bad products or services (most financial products and "innovations", companies which sell extended warranties, etc.). I don't think Microsoft is one of them.

If Windows/MS-DOS sucked, they never would have blown past Apple in market share and became the market leader.

Microsoft generally has to make good products to succeed. Xbox, its search engine, Office, Zune, etc. - all these products have to be good, or else Microsoft will not make a lot of money off them. On some of its products, it loses money. They're not a company that can get away with selling crap.

If you were to run Microsoft as ethically as possible, I think it would look very similar to what it looks like today. Their prices are reasonable (they aren't trying to squeeze the market), shareholders are getting value on their investment, they are trying to make useful products + services, there is little deception in how they sell their products, they aren't selling dubious products like extended warranties, copy protection is reasonable, they bundle a lot of free and useful software into Windows (web browser, movie maker, etc.), etc. etc.

 

[Liam Hall]

All it would take would be to have film schools actually mean something. Yes, like almost every other profession, you should have to go to school for it. Of course, nobody can stop a self taught person's success if they win an Oscar, win at a film festival, network their way up, etc.

There's more to life than school. You'll learn that in a few years...

 

[Jay Voutour]

Govt. currently controls the money supply (The Federal Reserve)...

Most people in the U.S. don't understand how the Federal Reserve or Fractional Reserve Banking works...

I could be wrong here (so please correct me if I am), but I thought the Federal Reserve was privately owned and operated (i.e. NON-governmental) and that about the only thing "federal" about it was the name...

...I have no time for people decrying a lack of "moral values" in films. That should be left up to us, the viewer, to decide.

The quality of movies has gone downhill for one reason -- the audience has poor taste, IMO...

Agreed 100% on both counts. The latter portion rings true especially in NA I think.

I miss the small art house cinemas that proliferated during the 70's, but were essentially locked out of distribution by the studios and the large multiplex chains for first run films and wound up going bust...

Me too. One of my favourite places to watch movies is BLOOR CINEMA in Toronto. It has a balcony, an outdoor ticket booth and is a venue for TIFF, HotDocs FF, JFF...I think it's safe to say that the place is not going anywhere any time soon.

OTOH, there were two arthouse theatres near my place that closed down during the super-ultra-mega-multiplex obsession in the early 90's. One got turned into a convenience store (the screen - still there - is permanently plastered with ads for Snapple) and the other was actually saved by the community (yours truly included) from being demo'd for a parking lot. After some much needed reno, it was re-opened two years ago. It still shows CheeseFest (50's, 60's, 70's b-movies) every 2nd Thursday of every month.
________
Asian amateur

 

[Liam Hall]

Hollywood movies suck because Hollywood studios are run by bean counters.

They like lowest common denominator movies and rule by committee. As a bloke once said "a camel is a horse designed by committee".

 

[Chris Nuzzaco]

I could be wrong here (so please correct me if I am), but I thought the Federal Reserve was privately owned and operated (i.e. NON-governmental) and that about the only thing "federal" about it was the name...

It is technically private, however that is highly debatable as the President and Congress appoint its leader... so how is that private? Again, rabbit hole.

 

[jpp]

If Windows/MS-DOS sucked, they never would have blown past Apple in market share and became the market leader.

Microsoft generally has to make good products to succeed. Xbox, its search engine, Office, Zune, etc. - all these products have to be good, or else Microsoft will not make a lot of money off them.

Talk about circular arguments.... I thought the whole beauty of being a monopoly is that you don't have to answer to customers and can sell them crap. Your cable company doesn't answer to customers, your internet provider doesn't answer to customers, your gas company doesn't answer to customers and Microsoft doesn't have to answer to customers, because there's nowhere else to go. It's a great business model, the best anywhere.

they aren't selling dubious products like extended warranties

A good thing, too, since not a day passes without a Microsoft Windows security alert. Any kind of warranty, extended or otherwise, would bankrupt Microsoft in about 10 days.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

We had a free market in our 5th grade. With class dollars. No regulation.

A friend and I completely monopolized the economy and bankrupted all the other students.

If I wanted to destroy competition. A lack of regulation or rules is the fastest way to do that.

If I have a billion dollars. And you have 100k. I can sell my product at under cost until you go out of business. Bam. Competition gone.

What if Sony decided that movies shot on RED couldn't be burned to Blu-Ray or shown in theaters where Sony movies shown? What if Sony payed Universal, WB and Fox to follow suit? Why wouldn't they? It's free money. They don't care what camera their work is shot on.

It's regulation that keeps RED in the market. If Sony was really pure free market then they could destroy RED's future in feature film production over night.

 

[Jay Voutour]

It is technically private, however that is highly debatable as the President and Congress appoint its leader... so how is that private? Again, rabbit hole.

Ah, didn't know that. Cronyism, perhaps? (<<< SARCASM :thumbsup

I learned almost everything I know from movies.
________
SUBARU EF ENGINE

 

[Tom Lowe]

What if Sony decided that movies shot on RED couldn't be burned to Blu-Ray?

Then Red can put them out on RedRAY, with far superior technology. (Thanks, Graeme! :sifone The market can sort that out just fine. It didn't take government interference to solve the HD DVD vs Bluray battle. It just took huge bribes from Sony to the major studios. Now Sony is nearly broke. They gambled heavily on Bluray, and are probably living in terror of the prospect that download distribution or something like a RedRAY codec could blow their whole business model out of the water for the next two decades. The market can pick winners and losers far better than the government can.

 

[Joseph Ward]

I could be wrong here (so please correct me if I am), but I thought the Federal Reserve was privately owned and operated (i.e. NON-governmental) and that about the only thing "federal" about it was the name...

Correct.

 

[Joe G.]

"Govt. currently controls the money supply (The Federal Reserve), that comes with enormous powers. Think about that. "

I have, and you're technically flat wrong. The "Federal Reserve" (sic, sic) is neither federal nor a reserve. It is a private, for-profit corporation. Abolishing it, and its parasitic siphoning of the nation's wealth should be job one.

Your dogmatic libertarianism is simplistic, at best. These are large issues. And, probably the discussion will be shut down pretty swiftly.

Bottom line: a corrupt federal government, corrupt beyond anyone's ability to even comprehend the depth and depravity of it all is our main problem. This problem is behind most other problems we currently face.

The oligarchs have a stranglehold on power. Through media manipulation (and endless propaganda), they have wrapped up the control of the empire, so that democratic challengers can not get anywhere. Once they have secured this unaccountable power, they are comfortable exploiting it by the ongoing raping and pillaging in the financial sector we now witness. What are you gonna do about it?

Nothing.

 

[jpp]

Correct.

Sorry, but no. The Federal Reserve is known as a quasi-governmental institution, with elements of private governance. It's not a government agency, but it's not a private business either. In practice, the Federal Reserve is very unlikely to thwart presidential directives. And the president appoints the Fed chief.

 

[Andrew Kimery]

Then Red can put them out on RedRAY, with far superior technology. (Thanks, Graeme! :sifone The market can sort that out just fine.

If the market could always sort things out just fine no one would've gone to the trouble to write and pass regulation legislation.


-A

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Then Red can put them out on RedRAY, with far superior technology. (Thanks, Graeme! :sifone The market can sort that out just fine.

You needed to read the following sentences. They also talked Universal, WB and Fox into going exclusive. If you want to watch indie RED movies then you could use redray. But if you want to watch real movies then you have to use Sony Exclusive Blu-Ray.

Content is king. If they could buy their way into a monopoly on the big budget, high gross films then they can absolutely destroy anyone else's chance to get a screening.

This sort of thing isn't speculation. It's based on past businesses who were broken up by the government.

WE DON'T NEED TO GUESS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD HAPPEN. It DID happen/It HAS happened/It WILL happen. This isn't rocket science or even really open for debate. It's as well proven as gravity or earth's curvature. An unregulated market results in monopolies which destroy competition. And it's how anyone with half a mind in business would operate if they had the opportunity to legally do it. Because it works. REALLY really well.

Sometimes a monopoly make sense (Who needs two sewage lines running into every house?) but lots of time people are pinned into monopolies due to a lack of resources. Who has the money to buy two different kinds of televisions? Sony could pay samsung a shitton of money to only play back big studio movies. Since 99.9% of the market are distributed by Sony, WB, Fox and Universal consumers wouldn't be willing to spend extra money on a product which only delivered tiny unestablished players' movies. The cost of entry to create demand for your product before being established would be far too high. When there is no room for a small entrepreneur to compete then you see the death of innovation.

So yeah. RED could release: REDRay and REDVision (TV). But if it didn't play a big studio movie that's a huge expenditure that plays almost no content (*cough DVHS*).