|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Nov 27, 2023 19:22:39 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Indiana Jones on Nov 28, 2023 0:53:07 GMT 1
That's been a part of the film industry since the early talkies. Whether it be horror movies like the Universal Monsters lineup or all those detective movies like the Falcon, Charlie Chan, Bulldog Drummond, The Thing Man, and of course, Sherlock Holmes.
|
|
|
Post by primemcgee on Nov 28, 2023 4:32:17 GMT 1
I don't know what he is saying that is valuable.
The problem is the lack of production companies and limited hiring of artists as a result. There is a lack of creative opportunity and audience choice--this has everything to do with the companies that Scorsese and Nolan work for. So they aren't going to admit it.
Sequels and series have been around since the early days but they were never global market films--they were targeted to certain audiences. Bulldog Drummond was made for fans of those kind of spy films--Charlie Chan or the Thin Man were for others. Variety. Diversity. You don't have it today because the big companies dominate and restrict little players.
It's like asking Eisenstein if he thinks Stalin should promote more filmmakers besides him. It is unlikely he would have said yes--so as not to offend his boss and patron.
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Nov 28, 2023 15:57:51 GMT 1
That's been a part of the film industry since the early talkies. Whether it be horror movies like the Universal Monsters lineup or all those detective movies like the Falcon, Charlie Chan, Bulldog Drummond, The Thing Man, and of course, Sherlock Holmes. Exactly right and there were countless others.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Nov 28, 2023 16:02:16 GMT 1
I don't know what he is saying that is valuable. The problem is the lack of production companies and limited hiring of artists as a result. There is a lack of creative opportunity and audience choice--this has everything to do with the companies that Scorsese and Nolan work for. So they aren't going to admit it. Sequels and series have been around since the early days but they were never global market films--they were targeted to certain audiences. Bulldog Drummond was made for fans of those kind of spy films--Charlie Chan or the Thin Man were for others. Variety. Diversity. You don't have it today because the big companies dominate and restrict little players. It's like asking Eisenstein if he thinks Stalin should promote more filmmakers besides him. It is unlikely he would have said yes--so as not to offend his boss and patron. Large production companies often gravitate towards established franchises because they offer a more predictable return on investment. This is not a restriction of creativity but a business strategy to balance risk. Nolan and other directors working within these systems are trying to balance artistic vision and commercial viability. While it's true that franchises and sequels have become more prominent, this doesn't inherently limit creativity. Many directors, including Nolan, have used the framework of established franchises to explore complex themes and innovative filmmaking techniques. The success of these franchises can also provide the financial stability that allows production companies to invest in new, riskier projects. The argument that today's cinema lacks diversity overlooks the multitude of films produced globally that cater to a wide array of tastes and interests. While big-budget franchises may dominate the box office, the rise of streaming services and independent film circuits has democratized access to a diverse range of films. Comparing the current state of Hollywood to Eisenstein's relationship with Stalin is just a hyperbolic analogy. Finally, the market's direction is significantly influenced by audience preferences. If there is a demand for diverse and original content, the market will adjust to meet these preferences. The responsibility doesn't lie solely with filmmakers or production companies but also with audiences to support the kind of content they wish to see more of.
|
|
|
Post by primemcgee on Nov 28, 2023 18:03:12 GMT 1
Large production companies often gravitate towards established franchises because they offer a more predictable return on investment.
The big companies throw away money all the time on vanity projects like Movie 43 or Till or the Ruth Ginsberg biopic. These are films no one wants. Totally Soviet in mentality. A complete disconnect between company and audience.
The USSR had wokeness too:
And in Soviet Russia there was no competition for Mosfilm. It wasn't allowed. It was work for the government or not at all. There was no Walt Disney Productions. There was no RKO or Monogram or independents.
As for diversity--the fact is--50 years ago, most of the artists employed in western companies were natives of European societies. You had dozens of directors of horror films for example from the US, England, France, Spain, Italy etc. Dario Argento, Curtis Harrington, John Moxley, Roy Ward Baker, Terence Fisher, Amando de Ossorio, Mario Bava, Robert Fuest, Jesus Franco, Bob Kelljan, Gordon Hessler, Daniel Haller, Freddie Francis, Robert Day, Peter Sasdy, Jean Rollin, Herschel Lewis, Dan Curtis, Pete Walker...and that's a partial list. There were so many others--just in commercial horror film of 1970. Not speaking about westerns, mysteries, and other genres which also had a big number of directors.
Now when people talk about world cinema--they talk about Asia. What happened to the European film artist? Film was invented in Europe by Europeans.
The reason there is such a lack of variety is because of the studio consolidation and mergers. It is turning into Mosfilm of the Soviet Russia days where only apparatchiks are hired. And as we have seen recently with politics--say the wrong thing and you get banned. They don't even care about what it does to film presentation or commerce. They fired the star of Scream for a social media post.
And yet James Gunn and Victor Salva were fine to be hired by a company that claimed to make films for children. This proves the "supply-demand" is BS with Hollywood. It runs on a money laundering system where they are fully subsidized and never need to worry about being out of business because they control the entire structure of media and prevent outsiders from having a voice.
Art is not complicated. You have the artist, the audience, and the patron. The problem is the media patron--the patron is not interested in entertainment, does not care about artists or audiences, and their main purpose is to preach messages which are not intended to entertain--but to agitate for political ends.
That's the reason they blackwash characters. If they were truly interested in diversity, then they would make the Equalizer Japanese, and Hannibal an Indian.
They don't do that--they only make them black.There's a nefarious anti-social strategy behind that choice.
Nolan and Scorsese are faithful apparatchiks so they aren't going to rock the boat with their central committee sponsors. This is the reality of the situation when you cut through the bs.
If you know the history of cinema (and Scorsese definitely does), then you can see this plainly.
Audiences aren't dictating a damn thing. The consumers of Bud Light did not request their recent product PR face. That was entirely a management decision. Hollywood is like the Budweiser boardroom x 100 in terms of social disconnect and political agendas.
We can debate whether film would have got stale anyway if it had more diverse company ownership but I am betting no--because as Italy in the 1960s showed--even a tired genre like the western could be revitalized by the particular artists behind the camera and the choices they made with cast or music.
The sickness in Hollywood is entirely from the boardroom. Change the boardroom to people from the Midwest and the content would change overnight.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Nov 28, 2023 23:02:29 GMT 1
Large production companies often gravitate towards established franchises because they offer a more predictable return on investment.
The big companies throw away money all the time on vanity projects like Movie 43 or Till or the Ruth Ginsberg biopic. These are films no one wants. Totally Soviet in mentality. A complete disconnect between company and audience.
The USSR had wokeness too:
And in Soviet Russia there was no competition for Mosfilm. It wasn't allowed. It was work for the government or not at all. There was no Walt Disney Productions. There was no RKO or Monogram or independents.
As for diversity--the fact is--50 years ago, most of the artists employed in western companies were natives of European societies. You had dozens of directors of horror films for example from the US, England, France, Spain, Italy etc. Dario Argento, Curtis Harrington, John Moxley, Roy Ward Baker, Terence Fisher, Amando de Ossorio, Mario Bava, Robert Fuest, Jesus Franco, Bob Kelljan, Gordon Hessler, Daniel Haller, Freddie Francis, Robert Day, Peter Sasdy, Jean Rollin, Herschel Lewis, Dan Curtis, Pete Walker...and that's a partial list. There were so many others--just in commercial horror film of 1970. Not speaking about westerns, mysteries, and other genres which also had a big number of directors.
Now when people talk about world cinema--they talk about Asia. What happened to the European film artist? Film was invented in Europe by Europeans.
The reason there is such a lack of variety is because of the studio consolidation and mergers. It is turning into Mosfilm of the Soviet Russia days where only apparatchiks are hired. And as we have seen recently with politics--say the wrong thing and you get banned. They don't even care about what it does to film presentation or commerce. They fired the star of Scream for a social media post.
And yet James Gunn and Victor Salva were fine to be hired by a company that claimed to make films for children. This proves the "supply-demand" is BS with Hollywood. It runs on a money laundering system where they are fully subsidized and never need to worry about being out of business because they control the entire structure of media and prevent outsiders from having a voice.
Art is not complicated. You have the artist, the audience, and the patron. The problem is the media patron--the patron is not interested in entertainment, does not care about artists or audiences, and their main purpose is to preach messages which are not intended to entertain--but to agitate for political ends.
That's the reason they blackwash characters. If they were truly interested in diversity, then they would make the Equalizer Japanese, and Hannibal an Indian.
They don't do that--they only make them black.There's a nefarious anti-social strategy behind that choice.
Nolan and Scorsese are faithful apparatchiks so they aren't going to rock the boat with their central committee sponsors. This is the reality of the situation when you cut through the bs.
If you know the history of cinema (and Scorsese definitely does), then you can see this plainly.
Audiences aren't dictating a damn thing. The consumers of Bud Light did not request their recent product PR face. That was entirely a management decision. Hollywood is like the Budweiser boardroom x 100 in terms of social disconnect and political agendas.
We can debate whether film would have got stale anyway if it had more diverse company ownership but I am betting no--because as Italy in the 1960s showed--even a tired genre like the western could be revitalized by the particular artists behind the camera and the choices they made with cast or music.
The sickness in Hollywood is entirely from the boardroom. Change the boardroom to people from the Midwest and the content would change overnight. "Movie 43" had a budget of approximately $6 million and grossed around $32 million worldwide. This translates to a profit of about 433%. "On the Basis of Sex" had a budget of around $20 million, grossing approximately $38.4 million globally. This results in a profit of about 92%. I don't know what your point is about so-called vanity projects. They can be profitable or fail, just like any other type of film. The film industry's history indeed reflects a strong European influence, particularly in the early and mid-20th century. However, non-European directors have significantly impacted world cinema. Examples include Akira Kurosawa (Japan), Satyajit Ray (India), Alejandro González Iñárritu (Mexico), Ang Lee (Taiwan), and Bong Joon-ho (South Korea). These filmmakers have not only contributed to the diversity of cinematic storytelling but have also influenced filmmakers worldwide. It's crucial to recognize that the art of storytelling in cinema is indeed not confined to a single culture or continent. The medium of film has been used globally to express a vast array of cultural, social, and personal narratives, reflecting the diversity of human experience. The concern about studio consolidation limiting creative variety is valid to an extent. However, this overlooks the rise of independent filmmakers, smaller studios, and streaming platforms, which have provided new avenues for diverse and innovative content. These platforms have also enabled a broader range of voices to be heard in the industry. The assertion that Hollywood operates with a singular political agenda oversimplifies the complexity of the industry. While it's undeniable that certain narratives and perspectives are more prevalent in mainstream media, the industry is not monolithic. There are myriad examples of films and filmmakers that diverge from mainstream narratives or challenge prevailing ideologies. While management decisions in Hollywood do influence film production, audience preferences and reactions play a significant role in shaping the industry. Box office receipts, viewer ratings, and public discourse can significantly impact what types of films are produced and who is cast in them.
|
|
|
Post by primemcgee on Nov 28, 2023 23:36:31 GMT 1
The assertion that Hollywood operates with a singular political agenda oversimplifies the complexity of the industry. It is undeniable that there are only around 6 major media companies and they own all the smaller ones. That is not my simplification--it is the reality. And on Movie 43--keep in mind they had a famous cast that was usually be getting a big paycheck but for whatever reason--blackmail or what--they did it on the cheap.
Same is true for Woody Allen actually--you look at his films--he always got funding and casts (I don't think anyone is ever reported to have said no to one of this films--not for scheduling or anything else)-no matter what the box office.
It is not supply and demand.
Hollywood is subsidized--by taxpayers--so they never need to worry about losing money. And competition because there is no other game in town. They control advertising and media access.
It is consolidated among a tiny group. That wasn't so bad in the 1940s and 60s because there was more variety in ownership even though you also had the large companies.
When people complain why movies suck--and you hear this all the time--the buck stops with the ownership. They even blame audiences for not liking their movies. That's the level of disconnect because the companies cannot go out of business. They have too much money at the head office--it's like a KFC franchise that stays open in some town yet no one goes there. The money from other sources keep it open. That is how it is for these media companies and film.
But really--at the end of the day, Scorsese and others should be saying "we need more companies--more diverse ownership, more freedom in ideas and access to marketplace and audience. But they don't say that--they just whine about superheroes and get wishy-washy about the specifics.
|
|
|
Post by primemcgee on Nov 28, 2023 23:53:52 GMT 1
Another thing--if you take a company like Blumhouse and Halloween.
Halloween H20 was something of a big deal because Curtis returned after 20 years. But the advertising wasn't wall to wall because the company that made it didn't have the market access that Blumhouse has. But what kind of marketing hook did Blumhouse have for it?
The first had Curtis again-but the big draw supposedly was the return of Nick Castle. Not really a big marketing hook when you stop to think about it. Not worthy of the wall to wall marketing. And then the next one--which also had immense marketing--what was the big selling point? The return of Lindsey.
These are not audience grabber marketing hooks--so it just shows how mechanical and fake it is.
They have massive media access but marketing hooks that are not really all that special. That is part of the problem too--with franchises etc. They really are used up as stories.
|
|
|
Post by Merv on Nov 29, 2023 1:27:30 GMT 1
Another thing--if you take a company like Blumhouse and Halloween. Halloween H20 was something of a big deal because Curtis returned after 20 years. But the advertising wasn't wall to wall because the company that made it didn't have the market access that Blumhouse has. But what kind of marketing hook did Blumhouse have for it? The first had Curtis again-but the big draw supposedly was the return of Nick Castle. Not really a big marketing hook when you stop to think about it. Not worthy of the wall to wall marketing. And then the next one--which also had immense marketing--what was the big selling point? The return of Lindsey. These are not audience grabber marketing hooks--so it just shows how mechanical and fake it is. They have massive media access but marketing hooks that are not really all that special. That is part of the problem too--with franchises etc. They really are used up as stories. I feel like I’m a steady in the horror circles…but I don’t think Nick Castle was a bigger selling point than Curtis back as Laurie Strode. The Nick Castle excitement was mostly there in the deeper horror circles because he’s an iconic incarnation of the character. Not as big as Robert Englund or Kane Hodder but still a noteworthy name in the horror fandom. I also feel like Tommy was much heavier in the marketing of Halloween Kills than Lindsey was. Most people probably had to be reminded who Lindsey was but Tommy is much more of a character in that first Halloween. And was portrayed by a recognizable actor and all over the trailer if I remember. But the selling point of any Halloween movie is always Michael Myers. Do him well and fans will love it no matter who the protagonists are.
|
|
|
Post by primemcgee on Nov 29, 2023 1:42:04 GMT 1
I feel like I’m a steady in the horror circles…but I don’t think Nick Castle was a bigger selling point than Curtis back as Laurie Strode. The Nick Castle excitement was mostly there in the deeper horror circles because he’s an iconic incarnation of the character. Not as big as Robert Englund or Kane Hodder but still a noteworthy name in the horror fandom. I also feel like Tommy was much heavier in the marketing of Halloween Kills than Lindsey was. Most people probably had to be reminded who Lindsey was but Tommy is much more of a character in that first Halloween. And was portrayed by a recognizable actor and all over the trailer if I remember. But the selling point of any Halloween movie is always Michael Myers. Do him well and fans will love it no matter who the protagonists are. The point I am making is that Curtis coming back after 20 years for Halloween H20 was a much bigger deal--but the advertising for it was much less than for the Blumhouse film (there was more competition for attention and less media consolidation back then--the internet was young). Her coming back again--is not that big deal-she's done that before---so they felt they had to promote something else--and what did they pick--the kids, or the guy who hadn't played the stunt man role in 40 years. It is so not an event. But that's because it is so tired. There's nothing there really--they have drained the tank dry--but their advertising for it is far beyond what even the original film had--because the media consolidation is such that you have less--and more promotion of less.
|
|
|
Post by Merv on Nov 29, 2023 1:49:11 GMT 1
I feel like I’m a steady in the horror circles…but I don’t think Nick Castle was a bigger selling point than Curtis back as Laurie Strode. The Nick Castle excitement was mostly there in the deeper horror circles because he’s an iconic incarnation of the character. Not as big as Robert Englund or Kane Hodder but still a noteworthy name in the horror fandom. I also feel like Tommy was much heavier in the marketing of Halloween Kills than Lindsey was. Most people probably had to be reminded who Lindsey was but Tommy is much more of a character in that first Halloween. And was portrayed by a recognizable actor and all over the trailer if I remember. But the selling point of any Halloween movie is always Michael Myers. Do him well and fans will love it no matter who the protagonists are. The point I am making is that Curtis coming back after 20 years for Halloween H20 was a much bigger deal--but the advertising for it was much less than for the Blumhouse film (there was more competition for attention and less media consolidation back then--the internet was young). Her coming back again--is not that big deal-she's done that before---so they felt they had to promote something else--and what did they pick--the kids, or the guy who hadn't played the stunt man role in 40 years. It is so not an event. But that's because it is so tired. There's nothing there really--they have drained the tank dry--but their advertising for it is far beyond what even the original film had--because the media consolidation is such that you have less--and more promotion of less.
I get that. I also think in this day and age advertisements are everywhere...if the companies do them right. So many people are glued to electronics and even now I can see an advert for Bass Pro Shops at the top of my screem on this very sight. I haven't fished in 20 years! I'm sure theres more advertisements for everything but I also think we're in a more advertiseable state as a society. We don't have to randomly drive down I-80 and look left toward the billboards to get an advertisement for Burger King, ya dig? The funny thing is that I think a Halloween film sells itself. All you really need to do is make it good and announce its release date. Maybe not right now, because Ends was the shits. But in a few years they'll be back to it.
|
|
|
Post by primemcgee on Nov 29, 2023 2:03:55 GMT 1
The funny thing is that I think a Halloween film sells itself. All you really need to do is make it good and announce its release date. Maybe not right now, because Ends was the shits. But in a few years they'll be back to it. I don't think it has the range of possibilities as say a Dracula does
He is a zombie-like guy who doesn't talk and goes around stabbing people. And if they use someone else as the star--ok but it is still not a very lively concept.
Jason is pretty tired too but maybe there is something so corny about it that he can go into space or the past. Michael Myers feels like something more grounded in a particular type of situation--and man--I forgot about the remakes! They even did remakes of it. It is soooo tired...
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Nov 29, 2023 5:40:58 GMT 1
The assertion that Hollywood operates with a singular political agenda oversimplifies the complexity of the industry. It is undeniable that there are only around 6 major media companies and they own all the smaller ones. That is not my simplification--it is the reality. And on Movie 43--keep in mind they had a famous cast that was usually be getting a big paycheck but for whatever reason--blackmail or what--they did it on the cheap.
Same is true for Woody Allen actually--you look at his films--he always got funding and casts (I don't think anyone is ever reported to have said no to one of this films--not for scheduling or anything else)-no matter what the box office.
It is not supply and demand.
Hollywood is subsidized--by taxpayers--so they never need to worry about losing money. And competition because there is no other game in town. They control advertising and media access.
It is consolidated among a tiny group. That wasn't so bad in the 1940s and 60s because there was more variety in ownership even though you also had the large companies.
When people complain why movies suck--and you hear this all the time--the buck stops with the ownership. They even blame audiences for not liking their movies. That's the level of disconnect because the companies cannot go out of business. They have too much money at the head office--it's like a KFC franchise that stays open in some town yet no one goes there. The money from other sources keep it open. That is how it is for these media companies and film.
But really--at the end of the day, Scorsese and others should be saying "we need more companies--more diverse ownership, more freedom in ideas and access to marketplace and audience. But they don't say that--they just whine about superheroes and get wishy-washy about the specifics. A few large companies indeed dominate the media landscape. Disney, WarnerMedia, NBCUniversal, ViacomCBS, and Sony Pictures hold significant market shares. However, this consolidation doesn't inherently negate competition or diversity within the industry. For instance, the rise of streaming services like Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu has disrupted traditional media models, offering new platforms for diverse content creation. Regarding 'Movie 43', the unique nature of its production, featuring a star-studded cast who may have accepted lower than usual fees, is an exception rather than the norm in Hollywood. This doesn't necessarily represent a widespread practice of manipulation or coercion in the industry. Despite varying box office success, Woody Allen's ability to secure funding and cast for his films can be attributed to his reputation and track record in the industry. This reflects the value placed on established relationships and proven talent in Hollywood rather than a systemic disregard for audience demand or financial viability. With the right cast and a compelling story, Woody Allen films can be highly profitable relative to their cost base. 1. Annie Hall (1977) - Budget: $4 million - Box Office: $38.3 million - Profit Percentage: 857.5% 2. Manhattan (1979) - Budget: $9 million - Box Office: $39.9 million - Profit Percentage: 343.3% 3. Hannah and Her Sisters (1986) - Budget: $6.4 million - Box Office: $40.1 million - Profit Percentage: 526.6% 4. Match Point (2005) - Budget: $15 million - Box Office: $85 million - Profit Percentage: 466.7% 5. Midnight in Paris (2011) - Budget: $17 million - Box Office: $151 million - Profit Percentage: 788.2% 6. Blue Jasmine (2013) - Budget: $18 million - Box Office: $97.5 million - Profit Percentage: 441.7% 7. Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008) - Budget: $15 million - Box Office: $96.4 million - Profit Percentage: 542.7% The claim that Hollywood is heavily subsidized by taxpayers and thus insulated from financial failure requires scrutiny. While tax incentives for film production exist and can be significant, they are not uniform across all projects or sufficient to entirely mitigate financial risk. Like any other, the film industry is subject to market forces and audience preferences. The assertion that a small group controls all media access and advertising is an oversimplification. While major studios have significant influence, the advent of digital media and independent platforms has democratized content creation and distribution. For example, YouTube, TikTok, and other social media platforms have given rise to new content creators who operate outside traditional media structures. The historical context of media ownership does show more variety in the past. Still, the current media landscape also includes a range of independent producers and international studios contributing to a diverse array of content. While some in the industry may blame audiences for poor reception of certain films, this does not represent a universal attitude. Many filmmakers and studios take audience feedback seriously, as evidenced by the adjustments made in response to viewer reactions (e.g., the redesign of the Sonic the Hedgehog character in the 2020 film). The suggestion for more companies and diverse ownership for greater freedom of ideas and access to the marketplace is a valid point. However, we need to recognize efforts within the industry to foster diversity and independent filmmaking, such as independent film festivals, grants, and mentorship programs that support emerging filmmakers from varied backgrounds.
|
|
|
Post by primemcgee on Nov 29, 2023 7:58:10 GMT 1
The claim that Hollywood is heavily subsidized by taxpayers and thus insulated from financial failure requires scrutiny. While tax incentives for film production exist and can be significant, they are not uniform across all projects or sufficient to entirely mitigate financial risk. Like any other, the film industry is subject to market forces and audience preferences. The assertion that a small group controls all media access and advertising is an oversimplification. While major studios have significant influence, the advent of digital media and independent platforms has democratized content creation and distribution. For example, YouTube, TikTok, and other social media platforms have given rise to new content creators who operate outside traditional media structures. But we are talking about traditional commercial film media not the ghetto of Youtube etc. Netflix and Amazon see film much like the corporate studios do--as something minor.
The comparable period for what you speak of is the 1960s when cheap film stock caused an explosion in world cinema--especially for independent European production, the Philippines etc. AIP, Hammer etc.
If someone made a film that would be a crowd pleaser for a specific audience--it would be denied marketing through any major internet or traditional media because it has to be vetted for ideology. If it doesn't fit, they shun it. They let a Chinese giant shark movie get through because of coziness with the CPC and the multicultural agenda.
And the costs of movies have exploded. From 1960 to 1975, film production costs for studio film were steady at a $1million. There were exceptions--Catch 22 cost upwards of $20 million and didn't make its money back (because the studios did throwaway vanity projects too-one notorious example is the The Games by Michael Winner--woke for its time--about 4 runners competing in the Olympics. Even though the film was made for North America and western Europe--they had the US and English runner fail miserably--the winner was an Australian aborigine. If the wokeness was left at that--it would have been somewhat passable but they went a step further and had a Soviet Bloc athlete who was forced by his government to compete get the silver medal and he was grateful to the communist government for their forcing him to run. It wasn't a black comedy either. Of course it bombed.
They say they can't take risks because movies cost too much to make--but this is bullshit. They create the cost spikes. And why do they need so much money from governments? Gladiator 2 was the biggest subsidy in the history of European film agreements with Hollywood.
Company mismanagement is the culprit.
Plus they have a special term for it: "Hollywood Accounting." Essentially it means "we lie about business." It has always been like that with the big studios.
The US-founded ones like Disney and RKO did not have the creative accounting.
One of the biggest box office hits of the 1970s was Bootleggers--a Charles Pierce film. It cost $200 000 to make and grossed $15 million--through the South where it was targeted.
So the idea that a film must be global is just Hollywood lunacy.
They could have amazing box office success if they catered to European American audiences in targeted US regions at the fraction of their current film costs --they don't care. They want to market a single film to the world.
Christopher Lee said in the early 2000s, studios no longer make films for audiences--they make them for the studio owners. This from someone who worked in the business since the late 40s.
The studios are run by corporate appointees who have zero interest in film or audiences. It is not something that concerns them at all. That explains the crazy decisions they make.
Releasing a film about two homosexual men and then bellowing at audiences for not appreciating it.
We aren't dealing with sharp tacks here.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Nov 29, 2023 20:46:35 GMT 1
The claim that Hollywood is heavily subsidized by taxpayers and thus insulated from financial failure requires scrutiny. While tax incentives for film production exist and can be significant, they are not uniform across all projects or sufficient to entirely mitigate financial risk. Like any other, the film industry is subject to market forces and audience preferences. The assertion that a small group controls all media access and advertising is an oversimplification. While major studios have significant influence, the advent of digital media and independent platforms has democratized content creation and distribution. For example, YouTube, TikTok, and other social media platforms have given rise to new content creators who operate outside traditional media structures. But we are talking about traditional commercial film media not the ghetto of Youtube etc. Netflix and Amazon see film much like the corporate studios do--as something minor.
The comparable period for what you speak of is the 1960s when cheap film stock caused an explosion in world cinema--especially for independent European production, the Philippines etc. AIP, Hammer etc.
If someone made a film that would be a crowd pleaser for a specific audience--it would be denied marketing through any major internet or traditional media because it has to be vetted for ideology. If it doesn't fit, they shun it. They let a Chinese giant shark movie get through because of coziness with the CPC and the multicultural agenda.
And the costs of movies have exploded. From 1960 to 1975, film production costs for studio film were steady at a $1million. There were exceptions--Catch 22 cost upwards of $20 million and didn't make its money back (because the studios did throwaway vanity projects too-one notorious example is the The Games by Michael Winner--woke for its time--about 4 runners competing in the Olympics. Even though the film was made for North America and western Europe--they had the US and English runner fail miserably--the winner was an Australian aborigine. If the wokeness was left at that--it would have been somewhat passable but they went a step further and had a Soviet Bloc athlete who was forced by his government to compete get the silver medal and he was grateful to the communist government for their forcing him to run. It wasn't a black comedy either. Of course it bombed.
They say they can't take risks because movies cost too much to make--but this is bullshit. They create the cost spikes. And why do they need so much money from governments? Gladiator 2 was the biggest subsidy in the history of European film agreements with Hollywood.
Company mismanagement is the culprit.
Plus they have a special term for it: "Hollywood Accounting." Essentially it means "we lie about business." It has always been like that with the big studios.
The US-founded ones like Disney and RKO did not have the creative accounting.
One of the biggest box office hits of the 1970s was Bootleggers--a Charles Pierce film. It cost $200 000 to make and grossed $15 million--through the South where it was targeted.
So the idea that a film must be global is just Hollywood lunacy.
They could have amazing box office success if they catered to European American audiences in targeted US regions at the fraction of their current film costs --they don't care. They want to market a single film to the world.
Christopher Lee said in the early 2000s, studios no longer make films for audiences--they make them for the studio owners. This from someone who worked in the business since the late 40s.
The studios are run by corporate appointees who have zero interest in film or audiences. It is not something that concerns them at all. That explains the crazy decisions they make.
Releasing a film about two homosexual men and then bellowing at audiences for not appreciating it.
We aren't dealing with sharp tacks here. I've addressed your points below - as best as I understood them and tried to supply examples and data. Traditional vs. New Media Platforms:
The rise of digital platforms like Netflix and Amazon has significantly altered the film landscape. Netflix's content budget for 2021 was around $17 billion, a clear indication of its investment in film and series production. Amazon spent approximately $11 billion on video and music content in 2020. These figures challenge the notion that these platforms view film as a minor component of their content strategy. Comparison to 1960s Independent Cinema:
The 1960s independent cinema boom, facilitated by cheaper film stock, can be likened to the current digital era. The cost of professional-grade digital cameras and editing software has decreased, enabling independent filmmakers to produce content with lower budgets. For example, the 2015 film "Tangerine" was shot entirely on an iPhone and had a budget of just $100,000, yet it grossed over $900,000 and received critical acclaim. Ideological Vetting and Market Access:
While mainstream studios may favor certain narratives, the diversity of films released each year suggests a range of ideologies are represented. For instance, the 2019 South Korean film "Parasite" by Bong Joon-ho, which presents a critique of social inequality, grossed over $258 million worldwide against a budget of $11 million, showing that films with diverse ideological perspectives can achieve commercial success. Rising Costs of Movie Production:
Film production costs have indeed risen, but not uniformly. While blockbuster films often have large budgets (e.g., "Avengers: Endgame" with an estimated budget of $356 million), many successful films are made with modest budgets. "Get Out" (2017), for example, had a budget of $4.5 million and grossed over $255 million. This demonstrates that high production costs are not a prerequisite for commercial success. The assertion that studios deliberately create cost spikes needs more nuanced examination, considering factors like inflation, technological advancements, and market expectations.Government Subsidies and Hollywood Accounting:Government subsidies are common in film industries worldwide. For example, the UK government's film tax relief led to a record £1.95 billion expenditure on film production in 2019. While "Hollywood Accounting" practices have been criticized, they are part of broader corporate accounting strategies and not exclusive to the film industry.Success of Targeted Films:Targeted marketing strategies can lead to significant success. "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" (2002), produced on a budget of $5 million, grossed over $368 million worldwide, largely due to its appeal to a specific demographic and effective word-of-mouth marketing. Audience Reception and Film:
Audience preferences play a significant role in a film's success. Films with diverse themes can perform variably. "Brokeback Mountain" (2005), a film centered on a homosexual relationship, had a budget of $14 million and grossed over $178 million worldwide, indicating that audiences can be receptive to diverse narratives.
|
|
|
Post by AQUA RAPTOR! on Nov 29, 2023 23:07:30 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Merv on Nov 29, 2023 23:23:42 GMT 1
I wouldn't call myself a Nolanite but I definitely appreciate almost all of his movies.
|
|
|
Post by AQUA RAPTOR! on Nov 30, 2023 0:11:25 GMT 1
I wouldn't call myself a Nolanite but I definitely appreciate almost all of his movies. Understandable. I can be very spiteful. At the high point of the "MCU vs. DC movies" rivalry, people who hate the MCU often went full Scorsese and worshiped Nolan as the last savior of cinema. So, between already thinking he's overrated and having him weaponized by MCU haters, the choice to just stop going to see his films was an easy one to make, but it was still motivated by spite.
|
|
|
Post by primemcgee on Nov 30, 2023 0:24:04 GMT 1
I've addressed your points below - as best as I understood them and tried to supply examples and data. The examples you cite are part of that multicultural agenda. Parasite, Get Out etc. They were admitted through the gates of the corporate media because they fit agendas of the media companies for globalist multicultural propaganda. Get Out is the perfect example of Hollywood creating a fake popularity story--because the director was black and the film had an anti-white message.
It gets discarded quickly in terms of legacy.
The true analog for AIP today is Blumhouse but it is not an indie studio--it is someone with ties to the big media corporations and they give him space because he follows the same agenda points (weak males, strong women, diversity messages etc). There may be some traditional films through Netflix or Amazon but none have been on the radar at Cinemageddon or other film aficionado forums where they would highlight obscure movies and if they exist, the corporate media will ignore them because of the ideological focus. And so there are no true independent production companies with a more traditional approach or audience-friendly taste. They will not be given market access. Even Amazon and Netflix would shun promotion of them if they existed.
They give the promotion to the Parasite or Get Out type of film.
It is a lot like Canada--where Atom Egoyan was heavily promoted as Canada's greatest filmmaker (even though he was born in Egypt) and no Canadian on the street has ever heard of him.
It is a total disconnect between artistic patronage and audience tastes.
In 50 years Argento, Bava and others will still be talked about. Will Peele be included among them in horror film circles? Unlikely. He is not an audience-selected filmmaker--it is the corporate boardroom that advanced him.
Art is a reflection of biology--the behaviors and ideas of a people. That's culture. So for most of the 20th century--Europeans had varying degrees of cultural expression AND access to audiences. But these days--they are in a ghetto. This is not just because of technology--it is because the big companies shut out all media they consider hostile or deviant--and for them--a homogeneous crew and cast (especially if is European) is anathema. But that is why audiences are increasingly alienated. You cannot create one-size fits all art. It doesn't work. It is like saying lovers of opera, country, jazz, Celtic song, they should all be satisfied with Rap.
That's the logic at work here. Eliminating variety and then claiming they are diverse.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Nov 30, 2023 0:47:10 GMT 1
I wouldn't call myself a Nolanite but I definitely appreciate almost all of his movies. I think Nolan is the guy who's almost at the top of the directorial evolution chart. He's like that nearly fully evolved human, spear in hand, stepping out of the cave. He's got the whole package - artistic vision and business smarts - and treats his team right. He's a real contrast to some of the old-school 'geniuses' who, while brilliant, were a nightmare behind the scenes. Take Stanley Kubrick, for example. The guy was a genius, no doubt. His movies are like nothing else. But let's be real: his on-set antics? Super intense. Shelley Duvall in "The Shining" is a classic example. Kubrick was like the Homo erectus of our director evolution - groundbreaking but not exactly the model of modern filmmaking practices. And Hitchcock? Total master of suspense and a colossal figure in film history. But how he treated some of his actresses, like Tippi Hedren, was problematic. He's our 'Homo neanderthalensis' in this analogy. Nolan is close to the Homo sapiens with a spear. He's not just surviving in the wild world of Hollywood; he's thriving. His movies hit the mark artistically and commercially, and he's known for being on time and on budget. Plus, he's got a rep for being decent to work with. It's like he took the lessons from the past, kept the good stuff, and ditched the bad. I have a lot of respect for his films, regardless of whether or not I like them personally. The cult around him has grown insufferable, but I can't blame him for that, as he doesn't do anything to acknowledge or encourage them.
|
|
|
Post by Indiana Jones on Nov 30, 2023 1:14:03 GMT 1
I count myself as a big time Nolan fan and from what I've seen so far, he always struck me as a fairly down-to-earth kind of guy that leans in the auteur direction but is self-aware enough to recognize he's in the entertainment business.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Nov 30, 2023 1:22:37 GMT 1
I've addressed your points below - as best as I understood them and tried to supply examples and data. The examples you cite are part of that multicultural agenda. Parasite, Get Out etc. They were admitted through the gates of the corporate media because they fit agendas of the media companies for globalist multicultural propaganda. Get Out is the perfect example of Hollywood creating a fake popularity story--because the director was black and the film had an anti-white message.
It gets discarded quickly in terms of legacy.
The true analog for AIP today is Blumhouse but it is not an indie studio--it is someone with ties to the big media corporations and they give him space because he follows the same agenda points (weak males, strong women, diversity messages etc). There may be some traditional films through Netflix or Amazon but none have been on the radar at Cinemageddon or other film aficionado forums where they would highlight obscure movies and if they exist, the corporate media will ignore them because of the ideological focus. And so there are no true independent production companies with a more traditional approach or audience-friendly taste. They will not be given market access. Even Amazon and Netflix would shun promotion of them if they existed.
They give the promotion to the Parasite or Get Out type of film.
It is a lot like Canada--where Atom Egoyan was heavily promoted as Canada's greatest filmmaker (even though he was born in Egypt) and no Canadian on the street has ever heard of him.
It is a total disconnect between artistic patronage and audience tastes.
In 50 years Argento, Bava and others will still be talked about. Will Peele be included among them in horror film circles? Unlikely. He is not an audience-selected filmmaker--it is the corporate boardroom that advanced him.
Art is a reflection of biology--the behaviors and ideas of a people. That's culture. So for most of the 20th century--Europeans had varying degrees of cultural expression AND access to audiences. But these days--they are in a ghetto. This is not just because of technology--it is because the big companies shut out all media they consider hostile or deviant--and for them--a homogeneous crew and cast (especially if is European) is anathema. But that is why audiences are increasingly alienated. You cannot create one-size fits all art. It doesn't work. It is like saying lovers of opera, country, jazz, Celtic song, they should all be satisfied with Rap.
That's the logic at work here. Eliminating variety and then claiming they are diverse. Likely, we won't find common ground here because I don't share your euro-centric view of Hollywood, nor do I agree with your view that what you call "multiculturalism" is a toxic influence on the filmmaking industry. Any culture can contribute to any art form without diluting or compromising the culture of origin - this process is known as transculturalism. We can see ourselves in others. A handful of your points have merit regarding business practice reform. Still, it seems you are advancing a broader agenda of European or perhaps white male supremacy, which I can't get behind. To that end, I leave you with my final thoughts and observations. Thank you kindly for your observations and input. The Success of 'Parasite' and 'Get Out':The assertion that 'Parasite' and 'Get Out' were successful due to fitting a multicultural agenda overlooks their cinematic merits and audience reception. 'Parasite' won the Palme d'Or at Cannes, a festival known for celebrating artistic achievement, and it grossed over $258 million worldwide, indicating broad audience appeal. 'Get Out' was both a critical and commercial success, grossing over $255 million on a $4.5 million budget. Its success was driven by its innovative approach to horror and social commentary, resonating with a wide audience. Both films had nominal marketing campaigns compared to traditional big-budget films out of Hollywood. Stating that they had preferential treatment and increased budgets for promotional efforts is just revisionist history. Both films only warranted increased marketing spending toward the tail end of their box office runs when they were deemed proven quantities. Blumhouse Productions as a Modern AIP:
Blumhouse Productions, often compared to American International Pictures (AIP) for its low-budget, high-return model, has produced a diverse range of films. While some of their films do feature themes of strong women and diversity, they also produce traditional horror and genre films. For instance, "The Purge" series doesn't necessarily fit the described agenda but has been highly successful. Independent Films on Streaming Platforms:Contrary to the claim that independent films with traditional approaches don't gain traction on platforms like Netflix or Amazon, there are numerous examples of such films finding an audience. For instance, Netflix's "The Irishman," directed by Martin Scorsese, is a traditional mob drama that received significant attention and acclaim. These platforms have also been instrumental in distributing films from various cultural backgrounds that might not have found an audience through traditional studio releases. Legacy of Contemporary Filmmakers:Predicting the long-term legacy of contemporary filmmakers like Jordan Peele is speculative. However, Peele's impact on the horror genre and pop culture, in general, is significant. His films have sparked widespread discussion and have been both commercially successful and critically acclaimed, suggesting that they may well be remembered and discussed in the future alongside directors like Argento and Bava. Cultural Representation in FilmThe claim that European culture is being sidelined in favor of a multicultural agenda is not supported by the data. European films and filmmakers continue to have a strong presence in global cinema. The Cannes Film Festival, Berlin International Film Festival, and Venice Film Festival, among others, regularly showcase and award European films and filmmakers. Diversity in Film: The comparison of film genres to music genres in terms of audience preference is an oversimplification. While it's true that not every film or genre will appeal to every viewer, the diversity in film allows for a wide range of tastes to be catered to. The global film market is more diverse than ever, with films from various cultures finding international audiences, as evidenced by the success of films from Asia, Africa, and Latin America in recent years.
|
|
|
Post by primemcgee on Nov 30, 2023 3:38:06 GMT 1
Likely, we won't find common ground here because I don't share your euro-centric view of Hollywood, nor do I agree with your view that what you call "multiculturalism" is a toxic influence on the filmmaking industry. Any culture can contribute to any art form without diluting or compromising the culture of origin - this process is known as transculturalism. We can see ourselves in others. A handful of your points have merit regarding business practice reform. Still, it seems you are advancing a broader agenda of European or perhaps white male supremacy, which I can't get behind. It's no different than saying "Italians shouldn't make pizza." That is the mentality. It has nothing to do with Italian Supremacy if you say Italians have a right to make pizza.
Western film production--the commercial sphere--the one that has the major platforms--deliberately shuns European artists for European audiences. That is extremely grotesque.
Hp Lovecraft and Truman Capote decried it for literature--even when it was more Euro-focused--they criticized the censorship of ideas by the media owners.
It isn't a race thing--everyone should have right to be creative and be able to access audiences. The fact that the media companies deliberately exclude Europeans is totally wrong. If one really cares about art. Film was invented in Europe so one would think they should have a place--just as Italians should have a place in making pizzas. Or Japanese in kabuki theater.
It's just normal for cultural expression and continuation.
|
|