Entertainment

by justed

Ever wonder why movies are so disposable?

The problem with movie theaters (amongst perhaps many) is that they typically have to pay 'Hollywood' 90%, even 100% of their first week’s gross (FIRST WEEK’S GROSS). And on a slowly decreasing scale a lesser percentage of the gross, over the weeks of the 'run'.

Also, frequently deals are made to tie in the showing of other movies as a condition of 'getting' Blockbusters. This helps ensure showings of lesser works and is a result of the leverage Blockbusters create for the studios - and it's why you see some real dogs available at your local multiplex.

Consequently, movie chains make a greater profit through sale of confectionaries (soda pop, popcorn, etc) than the actual movie (unless it runs for an extended time, at which point the cost can become as low as 10% of the gross).

Is it any wonder, then, that movie-going costs can more than double the ticket price if you buy confectionaries?

Another consequence of this Hollywood business model is the pressure it puts on the distributors (movie studios) to ensure the largest opening (most screens) possible to get the quickest return on investment.

Unfortunately, some bean counter once figured out: if you spend enough to advertise you can suck in enough people the first weekend to cover your production costs. At no time does any consideration of actual movie quality play a part. It’s all a numbers game.

With no incentive to produce works of any lasting merit, with everything being about the immediacy of the weekend’s gross, the result, the way it's currently set up, is the super-hyped, big budget 'smash-em-up' that has become the industry’s financial ticket to success.

Ever wonder why movies are so disposable - why it seems they have a staying power that can be measured in minutes rather than weeks? Did you think it was just simple incompetence?

The answer is: that in the Beancounter world of Hollywood, it's really all about the money: actual content has nothing to do with the business of making movies, and it shows.

justed

People want disposable movies, they're meant as escapist entertainment, not all movies have to be poignant, pretentious, works of "aht".

Since the dawn of filmmaking there has always been a few good movies per year, the rest are crap.

We don't remember the loads of wasted celluloid that was put out in the same years as Casablanca or Citizen Cane or Apocolypse Now, so we judge the filmmaking of the past by those high standards.

Likewise, 30 years from now, we won't remember that in the same year that "Insert Favorite New Movie Title Here" came out, we were also subjected to Gigli, Grind, another remake of Freaky Friday, another fucking Freddy Krueger movie, and a sea of other shit.

Movies keep getting better, better acting, production, special effects, scripts...

If you disagree, compare something like "Tango and Cash", (which was popular at the time for a mediocre action movie), to the stupidest looking, straight to video, Dean Cain starring, peeza shit you can find at the local Blockbuster, and compare.

Even the shitty movies of today are less shitty than their shitty counterparts from the past.

And if you STILL scoff, and think Hollywood sucks, watch some other countries' movies,(not their artsy stuff, the popular stuff).

After two hours of watching an average popular movie from Bollywood, or Hong Kong or the Phillipines or wherever, you'll be begging for Pauly Shore to burst onto the set and teach these guys how to act, to say nothing about the baffling plot and cheap production and editing.

Most of us will never have this pleasure because the shitty movies from abroad never get released here, we only get the good ones, as a result, we get the impression that only Hollywood makes crappy movies.

This article argues that Hollywood imposes shitty movies on us when in actuality, it's the other way around.

The same thing has been said about the RIAA regarding pop music, and while i still think that they are douchebags, I can't blame them for the quality of the product, the blame rests squarely on the tone deaf, musical retards that most of us are.

And in spite of it all, good music/movies do get made, rather than obssess over the bad stuff, seek out and celebrate the good stuff.

Shoshidge: First, on a personal level: Thank you for taking the time to comment. Whether or not I agree with you, I appreciate your opinion. (justed)

That said; let me “set the stage.” I am not an “expert” self-proclaimed or otherwise. What I am is a movie fan who, having willingly suspended my sense of disbelief, enjoys the entertainment provided.

But, there are limits to my ability to suspend my disbelief. For instance I don’t believe a movie that has as its primary “reason d’etre” (owes its existence principally) to the maximum recouping of financial investment through some high-powered blitzkrieg of advertising that in no way respects my anticipation of being entertained because all other qualities are secondary – and it shows, is something I can tolerate.

Perhaps this makes me the movie going equivalent of the “tone deaf, musical retards that most of us are” that you referred to?

You said, “This article argues that Hollywood imposes shitty movies on us when in actuality, it's the other way around.” I’m not sure I understand, are you saying: “Hollywood” “gives” us what we want? And therefore: “obviously” we want “shitty movies”? I think, however lacking I may have been, I was trying to say that: That is exactly not true: “Hollywood” is not “giving” us what I want, and perhaps not what others want also.

“After two hours of watching an average popular movie from Bollywood, or Hong Kong or the Phillipines or wherever, you'll be begging for Pauly Shore to burst onto the set and teach these guys how to act, to say nothing about the baffling plot and cheap production and editing.”

First, I don’t (necessarily) dislike “Pauly Shore” movies in fact my “standards” are so “low” that I can say I have watched “average” movies, that is to say: not “A budget” and I have enjoyed them. And I have watched (and enjoyed) “failed” big budget movies; Ishtar, Waterworld, Pluto Nash, they weren’t “great” but they weren’t bad either.

Second, “After two hours of watching an average popular movie from…” perhaps I don’t live in as insular a world as you do. The thing about “foreign” movies of all genres (and one of the things I enjoy) is that they bring a foreign sensibility to their movies. Now you might say it is a failure to “ape” “Hollywood” successfully, and I’m sure that is one viewpoint. But I find the suspension of disbelief (when not too radically distorted), while watching a movie in a genre I can generally enjoy (both subtitled or dubbed), allows me to observe the contrasts that cultural differences bring to the process. I admit: I don’t always “get it” the full subtleties and nuances of the plot. But over time I am and have developed an appreciation of some of the cultural differences that I have observed. And I feel I have a slightly better understanding of some of the existing foreign cultural dynamics as a consequence.

In fact my next column I plan to discuss a “foreign” movie that I think holds some interesting insights about the movie “industry.”

In closing, another point of view from another thread: “MPAA” Splendor, posted by “RingdemBells, Date: August 30, 2003 @ 6:26 AM” (http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/7545).

“Also, think of the Golden Age of Hollywood. It was Golden in large part because of the great diversity of movie studios out there. Look at companies like Republic, for instance. They produced pretty good films with a lower budget. The majors also cranked out a wide selection of films, so there was pretty much something for everybody at any given time.

Few silent movie actors ever got rich, nor did they expect to retire after doing a couple of "big films". Acting was what they did, and they were in it for the long haul because that's what they did...it was their passion, their art!”

While not something I agree with in its entirety, Mack Sennett of Keystone Studios fame used to bemoan: he got them started, but they went to other studios to get rich. Still there is much about the sentiments expressed I find I can agree with.

In conclusion, I said: With no incentive to produce works of any lasting merit, with everything being about the immediacy of the weekend's gross, the result, the way it's currently set up, is the super-hyped, big budget 'smash-em-up' that has become the industry's financial ticket to success.

Shoshidge, I feel you have failed to address this critical flaw in “Hollywood’s” business model.

Once again, thanking you for your thoughtful comments, I am, justed.

I was addressing broader things when i ranted off up there.
There is a tendency among some folks around here to cite low-quality product, as a reason to resent major record labels, this also carries over to movies and television.

my general gripe with this has been that it places the responsibility of preceived bad quality on the shoulders of the record labels/Hollywood/TV networks when I believe they are just giving us what we want.

When I say "we" i don't mean you and I, I mean our culture.
If you looked at the average level of aestetic sophistication in North America and put it on a graph you would have a bell curve.

A small percentage of us at the bottom lack any sense of artistic merit and are baffled by anything more sophisticated than prat falls and fart jokes.

A small percentage at the top, have a high level of artistic appreciation, they are the critics, and enthusiasts who set the quality standards for whatever genre we are talking about be it music, film or TV. Only a few Cd's/movies/shows a year qualify as good to their picky standards.

The rest of us are in the middle, between the two extremes, and these are the folks who the record companies, film studios, etc have to please because they are the biggest demographic.

The qualitative output of the various entertainment media indusrties reflects the curve, you get a few real stinkers a year, and a few critically acclaimed masterworks, and the rest fall in between, not great or original but not totally sucking either.

Also I think the only problem with Hollywood's business model is its raging success.
American popular culture is insidiously burrowing itself into the minds of every person on this planet, it has become a more effective tool for ensuring America's cultural dominance over the world than any army or bomb could ever be.

They must be doing something right in Hollywood