Studios are not in the film biz anymore.

Great article.

"It's very common now to spend more money selling a movie than making a movie. So the reason they make remakes and sequels is because they're brands, like Coca Cola. They remake movies because they have presold titles...All their decisions are based on fear"
Click to expand...

Hard to argue with that, really.
But hasn't it always been a big risk making movies? Why are the studios so scared now? Does it come down to piracy or is it just getting far too expensive to make movies? Or are the studios just being run by people who no longer know or care much about the films themselves.

"So you have movies like Avatar, or Alfonso Cuaron's Gravity. It's wonderful to look at. Now, is it a good movie? No! But it's entertaining, and it's a spectacle and technically astonishing."
Click to expand...

Bit harsh, perhaps? I think he could've picked better examples to emphasise his point, but I get where he's coming from.

But even with all the piracy that happens (which obviously isn't going anywhere) cinema attendances still seem good don't they? I haven't done any research but it still seems as popular a pastime as ever. So why can't the studios afford to take risks?

Or maybe they do. The studios do still make quality films sometimes right? Maybe the inundation of sequels and remakes we are exposed to has made us all a little too jaded, and we forget about the little gems that pop up.
 
"One of the problems with the Internet that no one has solved is that for YouTube, Google, Yahoo to exist, they thrive on piracy"

Another quote from this guy in the article that doesn't make him look smart. I'm not sure if Landis has ever used the Internet, or has done any research, but not even an ounce of that statement is true.
 
Do a little study on the history of movie theaters and you will see we are heading into the same type of period that occurred when TVs became a house hold item. That created the Grindhouse genre and also changes the aspect ratio of films. Now our homes are basically theaters... and they thought 3D and iMax would save theaters and it's probably staved off the huge decline of the theater biz...

but consider this... the theater gets about 50% of the box office... if this was really profitable, wouldn't the studios own theater chains?

i wish the theaters would work deals with the studios to release some classics

i'd love to see Casabanca, Gaslight, Space Odessey... all of them on the big screen... that I would pay for

I won't pay to see Avatar 2
 
Main point of the article is that studios no longer belong to individuals,but to corporations. So each film is treated strictly from the financial perspective as shareholders don't care if film is a artistic masterpiece. Hence why A listers,international pre sales and franchise films are so popular,they have a proven record and existing market. Once you have to spend 300mils the last thing you care about is originality.

If you read Soderberg's speech on marketing you get why studios don't have 2-3 secure massive blockbusters and 20 5 mil low budgets indies.
 
tokenwhiteboy said:
Do a little study on the history of movie theaters and you will see we are heading into the same type of period that occurred when TVs became a house hold item. That created the Grindhouse genre and also changes the aspect ratio of films. Now our homes are basically theaters... and they thought 3D and iMax would save theaters and it's probably staved off the huge decline of the theater biz...

but consider this... the theater gets about 50% of the box office... if this was really profitable, wouldn't the studios own theater chains?

i wish the theaters would work deals with the studios to release some classics

i'd love to see Casabanca, Gaslight, Space Odessey... all of them on the big screen... that I would pay for

I won't pay to see Avatar 2
Click to expand...

You can still see them on big screen. And you have Criterion collection.
 
baoliun said:
So each film is treated strictly from the financial perspective as shareholders don't care if film is a artistic masterpiece. Hence why A listers,international pre sales and franchise films are so popular,they have a proven record and existing market. Once you have to spend 300mils the last thing you care about is originality.
Click to expand...
Yup.

And I suspect many ITers get kinda weary of my approach to filmmaking in much the same manner, but... it's just a business model.

The question to any gainful occupation is HOW do you want to make your money?

Do you wanna dig around in people's mouths?
Do you wanna make and sell cars?
Do you want to provide financial or legal advice?

WHAT is it you want to do to put bread on the table and a roof over your head?
HOW do you want to make your money?


I get tired of people complaining about sky high healthcare and education costs.
Well... hospitals and colleges are businesses just like WalMart and Chevrolet are, but you don't hear anyone b!tchin' and complaining about their "profit model."

What do people think the film business is all about?
Film business is a commodity business like corn, coal, and iron ore.
Any one kernel of corn or lump of coal isn't worth sh!t.
On top of that, the commodity aggregators don't care if the small mom and pop shops do or don't participate or even survive.
There will be commodity product coming from someone else.
The commodity provider bears the majority of the risk.
The commodity distributor exploits this risk by seeking multiple sources of commodities of varrying values.

Likewise, filmmakers bear the majority of financial risk.
A certain film of no particular genre has the potential of $X due to story and genre.
If production costs were <$X then the filmmaker stands to make money.
If production costs were >$X then the filmmaker stands to loose money.

Distributors don't really care if your indie film never gets off the hard drive.
There're plenty of other filmmakers looking to offset their expenses with any distribution revenue.

Keep you budgets low.
 
"So you have movies like Avatar, or Alfonso Cuaron's Gravity. It's wonderful to look at. Now, is it a good movie? No!"
They're still better than anything he has ever done...
 
While I disagree with some parts of the article, the idea that many films are made for profit, rather than profit AND innovation and creativity. Oh... and this...

"The film studios are all now subdivisions of huge multinational corporations," he stated. "Time Warner, British Petroleum, Sony -- these aren't companies, they are f---ing nations. They are these giant international things that don't pay taxes! It's ridiculous. They're like pirates. It really has to do with desperation, because they don't know how to get people into the theaters, so they bring back 3D and make all this kind of shit."

"There are no original ideas. What there is -- and this is something no one understands -- is that it is never about the idea, it is about the execution of the idea."

"It's very common now to spend more money selling a movie than making a movie. So the reason they make remakes and sequels is because they're brands, like Coca Cola. They remake movies because they have presold titles. It's tragic, because you have things like Tobe Hooper's The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, which is a brilliant movie, and yet the remakes have made a lot more money,"

...the studios are no longer interested in making good movies -- they're interested in movies that will bring you in...



IndiePaul said:
Thanks for posting.
Click to expand...

You're welcome.

Doghouse Reilly said:
But hasn't it always been a big risk making movies?
Click to expand...

Yep.

Why are the studios so scared now?
Click to expand...

Fear of financial loss.

Does it come down to piracy or is it just getting far too expensive to make movies? Or are the studios just being run by people who no longer know or care much about the films themselves.
Click to expand...

All three.

But even with all the piracy that happens (which obviously isn't going anywhere) cinema attendances still seem good don't they? I haven't done any research but it still seems as popular a pastime as ever. So why can't the studios afford to take risks?
Click to expand...


Sure, but there could be a far larger amount of money if content wasn't as easy to access/portable.

Fear of financial loss.

Or maybe they do. The studios do still make quality films sometimes right? Maybe the inundation of sequels and remakes we are exposed to has made us all a little too jaded, and we forget about the little gems that pop up.
Click to expand...

Sure. But I've found more gems outside of the studio world.

mussonman said:
Entertainment is the point in movies, so you can't say it was entertaining, but not good!
Click to expand...

Like most statements in this conversation, we're talking opinions. Although there are many different reasons films are made. Some are made to capture a time in history. Some are to capture zeitgeist from a particular generation. Some are to entertain. Some are political and religious propaganda. Some are made to get a point across. Some are to experiment with new technology. Some are made for all or some of those reasons.

baoliun said:
Main point of the article is that studios no longer belong to individuals,but to corporations. So each film is treated strictly from the financial perspective as shareholders don't care if film is a artistic masterpiece. Hence why A listers,international pre sales and franchise films are so popular,they have a proven record and existing market. Once you have to spend 300mils the last thing you care about is originality.

If you read Soderberg's speech on marketing you get why studios don't have 2-3 secure massive blockbusters and 20 5 mil low budgets indies.
Click to expand...

Yep.

photon said:
"So you have movies like Avatar, or Alfonso Cuaron's Gravity. It's wonderful to look at. Now, is it a good movie? No!"
They're still better than anything he has ever done...
Click to expand...

While I liked Gravity, I hated Avatar. Again, opinion. :D

I'll take American Werewolf over Avatar any day of the week :cool:
 
The title of the article makes no sense. Can anyone say "Plot hole" ??

The studios aren't in movie business anymore, though he's complaining about the decisions the studios are making about movies purely for business decisions. It's hard to agree with an article that doesn't understand its own basics.

If he wrote, "The studios aren't making art anymore" I'd agree. Saying they're not in the movie business because they're making decisions based on the current financial realities of movies doesn't make any sense to me.

His argument makes about as much sense as arguing that 1+1 equals 2 because F comes after B in the alphabet.

While I agree with a lot of his observations, it has very little to do with the title of the article and blaming studios for adjusting to the realities of the film business world didn't work for me.
 
The people don't want good movies, they want entertaining ones.
I'm not going to pretend to care how these studio businesses make their money.

Only filmmakers, artists, and intellectuals want good movies and we are the minority.
That's why indie filmmaking exists and always will.
 
Last edited:
It can be both, but if the audience doesn't care if it's good, and if it's cheaper to make a bad movie than a good one, the need for good movies disappears completely.
 
Also, I think the only reason studio films end up being good sometimes is because the artists involved (director, actors, etc.) put in the extra work to make good art, and they somehow manage to do it without their studios intervening.
 
"Steve Jobs destroyed the music industry. He decided a song is worth 20 cents, just like that. (Snaps his fingers.) Boom. Destroyed."

Nuff said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top