How to Save Hollywood

[Buscemi]

Box office is down. Movies left and right are underperforming. And the way things are going, the only movies we may be seeing in the next few movies are action films for teen boys and comedies for overgrown teen boys. Last year, Steven Spielberg, among others, warned us about how things needed to change but we laughed at him. Who's laughing now?

So, how can Hollywood be saved? Well, it looks like that the studios themselves don't want to do it as the next few years are going to be more of the same (comic book movies, sequels and fantasy adaptations). And the theatre chains don't want to do it as they are more interested in playing the same few movies as they won't run titles that are released on VOD at the same time. So who will?

Here are some ideas.

- Spread out the release schedule. Though this is being done somewhat, it's not being done well enough. For example, why are there so many tentpole movies coming out in March? When did late July turn into a dumping ground? And how come there are so many weeks with only one new wide release but others with four or five? It feels like every studio is competing to release their titles are the same time. But why? Movies like Gravity and Ride Along did well at dates that Hollywood typically never thinks of. It can be done so why not do it?

- Make movies that more than one audience will watch. Ignoring the disappointing numbers on How to Train Your Dragon 2 (which I fully blame on the distributor), we need more movies that groups such as children, families, women and non-white groups can watch. Right now, it's turning into a field when the only audience has become the prototypical 19 year-old white boy. Many of today's movies are basically one-track movies where white people blow up shit for 120-150 minutes. The studios today aren't even trying and they are shooting themselves in the foot by continuing to ignore audiences that aren't young white adults. We've already seen that non-white male cinema can make money so why haven't we seen more of them?

- Theatre chains must end their personal biases. For years, chains have seen VOD as a threat and have refused to run titles that debut on the format at the same time. But, any effect to ticket sales has been minimal at best (if anything, they allow certain movies to find a wider audience). As a result, product shortages have been rampant and theatres end up being empty due to playing the same 4-5 movies on every screen. Meanwhile, the same chains insist on playing fare (such as religious films) that have a very limited audience outside of a few groups and the owners themselves. And most of these titles flop (even the recent mini-boom is tailing off). If more chains were focused on filling their screens and providing a wide selection rather than focusing on an outdated fear, chains would be in far better shape than they are now.

- Stop cutting slates. You've seen studios reducing slates in the name of money. But where does that money go? Into increasing the budgets of other movies! The average budget of a film tends to be in the $60-70 million range. But most of the time, it feels like it's double that. And even after foreign totals and home video/VOD/television sales, the profit isn't all that much. So why are studios (such as Disney) going with all tentpole slates and trying to bet the farm on a potential flop rather than be conservative and finance a year of mid-budgeted titles that will get in the black way sooner? I know it's gambling but in a number of recent cases, the gamble has failed.

- Take more chances. No one takes chances anymore. And when they do, it's only because certain people demand it. And even then, they aren't really chances. Studios lack courage or the balls today. It feels like it's turned into the 1940's studio system where everything is focus-group tested and creativity is discouraged. And what happened to the studio system? It collapsed.

I feel that after this year, things will collapse. But who will pick up the rubble? In the 1960's, where Hollywood lost grasp of reality, it was left to groups of independent filmmakers that had to make their stories come true on their own. In the process, they started the New Hollywood movement (which ran into the 1970's until fully ending in the early 1980's). There's definitely a foundation to build a New New Hollywood, but will the big studios help it grow? I feel that the filmmakers will have to do themselves for anyone to listen.

Comments?

[BanksIsDaFuture]

I've heard that same thing about the stiffness of the 60s leading to the 70s free-for-all, but I don't think that can happen again. Not with studios snatching up any promising new talent for their huge tentpoles - I mean, JJ Abraham made a great M:I movie, created a huge series in Lost, made his passion project in Super 8, and the studios stamped all that originality out to rope him into making Star Trek and Star Wars sequels.

Rian Johnson, a new talented director, has been seduced by Star Wars as well. Matt Reeves created Cloverfield, a thrill ride if there ever was one, and a great redo in Let Me In, and now the studio has him locked down for Planet of The Apes sequels. Marc Webb does fantastic original work in 500 Days of Summer, and is tied up with Spiderman redo-s for the foreseeable future.

And to your VOD point, I can't see the studios ever caving in. VOD still hasn't made an impact yet, and I can't see how it ever will. I think it's good though, personally. I don't want VOD to become a widespread thing at all - theater experience fo' eva!

[Buscemi]

J.J. Abrams was hardly new talent. He was a Hollywood guy years before Lost (writing Regarding Henry, Forever Young and Joy Ride and co-creating Felicity with Matt Reeves, another hardly new talent case, and Alias). Johnson seems to be more interested in trying pass pretty colors off as talent (to me, he feels like the anti-Terrence Malick in that he does style well but cannot come up with original stories to save his life) while Marc Webb got lucky with one film and has gone on prove his shortcomings with the Amazing Spider-Man movies.

There's plenty of new talent out there that haven't been seduced to doing tentpoles. Ben Wheatley's a big one (not too new but Hollywood still doesn't know him), Adam Wingard could have hit the big time had Lionsgate not sat on You're Next for two years, Ryan Coogler sticking with the independents by making his next one (a Rocky spinoff) through an output deal and there's always potential at Sundance (I think the director of Dear White People has a lot of potential, even if Sundance didn't see it), SXSW and Tribeca (hell, YouTube has become an outlet for showcasing short films).

As for VOD, it's getting bigger every year. It allows people who might not be able to see certain films (due to the draconian attitudes of the chains) to catch them without waiting three months for them to hit Redbox or Netflix. Recently, They Came Together proved to be a hit on VOD after Lionsgate dumped it into a few theatres (not even reporting box office). Had the studio put a few dollars into actually promoting it and advertised the theatres in addition to the VOD (rather than their pro-Tea Party propaganda flick that opens on Wednesday), who knows how well it could have done. And this goes towards other movies. Imagine how well Veronica Mars could have done had it opened in 1,000 theatres rather than the 250 that it got. And Joe could have found an audience and ended the Nicolas Cage jokes (temporarily). Pieta could have been a smash in arthouses across the nation instead of dying in a "one show per evening" engagement. And there's the case of Bachelorette, which the Weinsteins dumped in less than 50 theatres but was wildly successful on VOD. Many of these movies can do well on both platforms. Very few are willing to allow it.

[Ron Burgundy]

Sounds like a plan.

Heres my comments...

Spreading the release schedule is a big one, it can be easily done, but that will never happen. Studio bigwigs get the last say. Money talks.

non-white male cinema? that just sounds ridiculous, but i get your point, yes there should be more family fare out there, something like Avatar didnt have a specific target audience and look how that went, pretty good.

Agree with your VOD views, though its not much of a factor here in Australia

Yes, the budget system is apparently not working, The Lego Movie took home plenty while Peabody and Sherman did less than half than at the Box Office. And which one cost more to make? This whole thing i just dont get, is it advertising costs?, do they people that get fired in one studio then just go to the next and blow that studios budget? Do actors get overpaid (YES!), it makes me sick sometimes how much they can demand, especially if the movie is total rubbish like Pirates of the Caribbean 3/4

It may be a while, Independent cinema is slowly on the rise, i like the idea of another film revolution, but ultimately (blockbuster) movie making is big business and thats the end of it

[numbersix]

I JJ Abraham made a great M:I movie, created a huge series in Lost, made his passion project in Super 8, and the studios stamped all that originality out to rope him into making Star Trek and Star Wars sequels.

Hilarious. Super 8 was one of the most unoriginal films I've ever seen. It's the equivalent of a covers album.

[Buscemi]

non-white male cinema? that just sounds ridiculous, but i get your point, yes there should be more family fare out there, something like Avatar didnt have a specific target audience and look how that went, pretty good.

Maybe I didn't word that correctly but most of Hollywood's decisions and methods on making films seem to be based around what a white male in interested in. Look at most of the big studio tentpoles that have come out in recent years. Transformers. White male. 22 Jump Street. White male. The Avengers. Filled with white males. X-Men. Supposed to be diverse but always headlined by a white guy. But last year, the two biggest films were headlined by women (and not far behind was Gravity, which was also won the most Oscars). Diversity can work and has proven to work.

Recently, I was on a website and there was a blog saying that The Wedding Ringer would be Kevin Hart's breakout because it appealed to white audiences. But wasn't Kevin Hart's breakout Ride Along? That definitely had a diverse audience or at least I thought it did. Did the mainstream media ignore it or something?

But anyway, the blockbuster age has been going for close to 40 years and now some of the people behind it are starting to denounce it. You know something's going to happen sooner or later.

[numbersix]

I agree with you Boosch on the points about taking risks and about not cutting slates. It's very frustrating to see a company like Pathé pretty much state they only want to make Oscar-winning films and ignore everything else. We're int he age of franchises, and have been for a decade now. There is such a fear of losing money/jobs that adaptations and sequels are everywhere. The problem is that it's still working. Just look at what Marvel are raking in. Even if some of their films underperform all they need to do is another Avengers sequel and they're set. I think we need to see a few Marvel movies seriously underperform before this era of franchises begins to crumble.

It would be great to see more original stories with big budgets on screens. Indeed, personally the Best Original Scripts over awards season are always better to the Adapted ones. I wasn't crazy about Gravity, but at least it was an original story. Maybe a few more similar successes could see studios daring to take a risk.

Or perhaps with distribution models changing we might see the end of studios, and instead independent films releasing independently could become the norm (a little like how Bandcamp can sustain the careers of new and niche musicians). All it takes are a succession of positive cases.

[BrocksterDuex]

theater experience fo' eva!

Best part of this post

[Wrestler]

As far as widen the release schedule goes they have made great strides in the past few years. Unfortunately someone seems to need to either take the big risk first or there ends up being a movie in a certain date or month that over performs and lets hollywood know "okay guys we can put a big movie in march now(300) or April(Fast and furious)" Certain types of movies still get released in certain times or year because thats their proven go to money maker. Someone always has to open the door for hollywood to see there is something behind it. Bridesmaids, gravity, heat have all helped HW see that women can drive movies. Kevin hart in particular seems to have taken over the gap left my Tyler Perry. They are getting there slowly but when has hollywood ever been fast to do anything.

As far as VOD goes I think it comes down purely to theaters being able to distinguish themselves and create a unique experience. If they can do that then people will still want to go, if not people start to question what they are paying 11$ for.

[Buscemi]

Sorry I have to bring this up but I have been wondering if the summer of 2012 was a major factor in why the box office was down this year (and how it's probably not going to get better in the near future).

My examples:
- Announcing sequels before the previous installment opens. This got rampant in 2012 and in 2014, we are starting to see the effects (the end result: mixed). And it's only getting worse.
- Internet backlash of Brave and The Dark Knight Rises. Pixar, still under the cloud of Cars 2, got hit by a vocal minority over the film, while The Dark Knight Rises simply didn't meet the Internet's impossible expectations. In 2014, neither Pixar nor DC had movies and box office suffered as a result (while 2012 and 2013 had films from both and box office was up). Had the Internet been nicer to these two, would things have been different? Who knows?
- Too many films with a conservative/middle American slant. The Hunger Games was the third biggest movie while 2016 (somehow) made over $35 million. So what came next? Saturate the market with movies that appeal to that underserved crowd. The end result? A glut of low-quality religious films and conservative documentaries and films that put emphasis on middle American values rather than a story. This luckily looks to be on the way out but you don't know with religious filmmakers.
- People convincing Marvel that they owned the world. This is a bit of stretch but after the box office result of The Avengers, Hollywood turned into a 1980's high school movie with Kevin Feige being a rich bully and his admirers becoming his gang. In 2014, Marvel glutted up the screens and though they had another big year, this will be the first year since 2011 that they don't have a $400 million grosser (Guardians of the Galaxy has proved to be a legs film but I'd say that had more to do with weak competition and the Internet turning Groot into the new Loki). Is Marvel backlash beginning to set in? Too early to tell.
- Treating bro culture as a sacred cow. 21 Jump Street showed that such films could survive in a post-Apatow world. This year, we got a lot of movies that were designed for such an audience and many of them made money. What I'm getting at is there have been few attempts to make fun of it. It's a subculture that's asking to be made fun of but unlike guidos, no one is doing it. Rant over.
- Too many fantasy films. In 2012, The Hunger Games began and Twilight ended. In 2014, everyone wants a big fantasy franchise. And so far, none of them have really met the audience demand of either of Lionsgate's big two (Divergent maybe but even that one somewhat disappointed). And in a way, fatigue has somewhat set it as the teen romance is now looking like the big thing (as evidenced by The Fault in Our Stars, whose $12 million budget translated to worldwide box office success).

Those are simply a few ramblings I wanted to get off my chest.

[Spectre]

I think a big part of it is that entertainment budget dollars are getting stretched too thin.

Tickets for 2 at my local theater are $10.50 a piece or $14.00 for a 3D movie. Throw in a decent popcorn and drink to share and you're looking at ~ $40 for a couple to see a movie. If I'm willing to wait a few months, I can take that money, OWN the movie and have all the snacks/drinks I could ever want from the comfort of my home... or I can rent it from Redbox and have a nice dinner beforehand. That's not even mentioning families. A lot of people are making a choice with their dollars that seeing movies in the theater is too expensive and waiting for streaming/renting/purchase or other methods to see what they're interested in. The appeal of seeing something right away and getting the "full" experience only does so much. Even when people do make a choice to go to the theater and bite the bullet, there's oversaturation.

During the summer, it's literally blockbuster after blockbuster. There's so much to see between them and any smaller films/indies that I want to watch that there's no way to see them all in theaters (yet in September, I can't find a thing to watch). But of course, I'm in the target demographic. People who aren't interested in superheroes or blockbuster fare are screwed into hoping that counter-programming is up their alley. It's so much easier to put out Spiderman XIV and print money than it is to take a gamble on something unique that might have a much wider appeal. People get fired for taking chances and when there's an easy way out (use old IP) very few do. It's a problem though because sequel fatigue is real and we're starting to see it. Not to mention, one demographic has too much to watch. Others have nothing at all. Multiple plays being made on the same dollars while no play is being made for others is a great way to stretch the former super thin.

Take an embarrassing lack of big budget creativity, make it appealing to the same narrow demographic, cram it all into certain parts of the calendar and then price it so expensively (due to ridiculous budgets) that the target demo can't possibly afford to see it all in theaters... frankly, there should be no surprise that the box office is down across the board.