Grantland piece on current state of Hollywood cinema

http://grantland.com/features/2014-hollywood-blockbusters-franchises-box-office/

Thought this was worth sharing here.

Quote :

The term “comic-book movie” is convenient shorthand for the films on that list, but perhaps its time has passed. It suggests there is a bright line separating DC and Marvel films from most of the rest of what you will see between now and 2020. In fact, these 34 films are on a continuum with five Star Wars movies (a trilogy and two stand-alones), three Avatar sequels, three (more) Terminator films, three (more) Lego movies, and a trilogy of movies based on Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, a book by J.K. Rowling that is 42 pages long. Here is a list of sequels and franchise installments — 70 of them at current count, although the actual number will, of course, be much higher, probably more than 150 if the 2015 lineup is any indication — that are set to open over the next six years.

Quote :

The movie business has never seen the likes of these lists before. They are the beginning of something. They are also the end.

I had no idea about Transporter Legacy

Cheesy, silly, but I am so there.

They are making a sequel to "Paul Blart: Mall Cop".  They are really scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

Until about 10 years ago, I went to the cinema two or three times a week. Now it's maybe once a month - there's hardly anything left for an adult to see and that Grantland piece explains why.

That said, episodic stories (or whatever they're calling television drama this week) is greatly improved, at least outside the UK where the dead-hand of political correctness has killed things. And although I have no interest in the Marvel productions I can't deny I would be excited if a revived Hammer Films had a similarly ambitious schedule.

Quite a good--if depressing--piece.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Until about 10 years ago, I went to the cinema two or three times a week. Now it's maybe once a month - there's hardly anything left for an adult to see and that Grantland piece explains why.

Put yourself in the studio's position. Would you be willing to invest millions in something for adults to see, when they might not be as willing to come to the cinema to see it?

Besides, what would you define as an 'adult' oriented picture? Also, if it's from an original screenplay, it might be very hard to sell if no one knows anything about it.

Would you describe 'Ouija' as something for adults? It's not for kids, but still geared towards the market for those who like something creepy. Cost $5m to make and made 10x that in the USA...

The most worrying thing is that the medium where most of the serious writers flocked to (TV) is now being invaded by the same crap. Many of the most successful new shows have been superhero-based. And even Netflix is getting in on the action.

Not sure where you are supposed to go as a serious auteur if the current trend persists. Online distribution through smaller, independent companies? That would probably relegate any such project to the scope of micro-to-small budgets.

I would've thought the cost of the average superhero production would make such a series unviable for television. What did something like Heroes cost? Must've been more than the average housewife drama though maybe not more than something like Deadwood.

bitchcraft wrote:

what would you define as an 'adult' oriented picture?

Well, I haven't thought I could fly since I was a very young boy. The things that preoccupy adults are money, sex, power, and betrayal. Probably not things the average child pays much attention to, but that's the stuff of drama for me.

Erica Ambler wrote:

I would've thought the cost of the average superhero production would make such a series unviable for television. What did something like Heroes cost? Must've been more than the average housewife drama though maybe not more than something like Deadwood.

Not sure if all of them are that expensive. Several of them are on smaller channels.

I'm guessing that Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. probably has the highest production budget?

I've tuned them out, but maybe I won't be able to for much longer.

Oh well. There's always porn.

Erica Ambler wrote:

bitchcraft wrote:

what would you define as an 'adult' oriented picture?

Well, I haven't thought I could fly since I was a very young boy. The things that preoccupy adults are money, sex, power, and betrayal. Probably not things the average child pays much attention to, but that's the stuff of drama for me.

I'm as average as they come and I was quite fascinated with sex and power when I was a kid. Betrayal too to a point. only thing meaningless for kids is money I'd say. The difference between adults and kids is much less in what we are fascinated by, it's how easily we are lured into the fantasy. P*rn is the best example, any kid would immediately know the moans are fake.

Studios are only willing to make mega-budget movies because that's where the most money comes from, hence why it's nothing but blockbusters appealing to people of all ages. This is a very informative article on how much has changed since TITANIC came out: http://flavorwire.com/492985/how-the-death-of-mid-budget-cinema-left-a-generation-of-iconic-filmmakers-mia

Hollywood is no longer run by people who love movies, it's by people who are only concerned with business.

Makeshift Python wrote:

Hollywood is no longer run by people who love movies, it's by people who are only concerned with business.

But when was Hollywood ever run by people who loved movies? The cost factor has always been an underlying one.

Incidently...from the 2015 list posted above by Salome, I can count 15 that I'm interested in seeing.

bitchcraft wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

Hollywood is no longer run by people who love movies, it's by people who are only concerned with business.

But when was Hollywood ever run by people who loved movies? The cost factor has always been an underlying one.

The cost factor has always been there, but after corporate powers took over that's all it's become to them. All these e-mail leaks only confirm how out of touch they really are.

Makeshift Python wrote:

Studios are only willing to make mega-budget movies because that's where the most money comes from.

Yep, and then indy films are picked up by studios if they are made on a micro budget, because profits would be easier to make. But there's no in-between.

Wesley Morris' follow-up article is worth reading too:

http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/2014-year-in-movies/

Quote :

But its sputter (or the perception of one, in Tomorrow’s case) creates the sense that the days for these movies are numbered. It was never my favorite genre, but the Total Recalls of the movie world (the original Verhoeven-Schwarzenegger Total Recall, not the remake that bombed a couple of summers ago) could sneak up and surprise you. No one’s looking for Verhoeven now. They’re looking to remake him (a so-so new RoboCop came and went in the winter).

I can see where Morris is coming from - it's a bit worrying when something like Edge of Tomorrow is one of the best films of the year. What would normally be just a good film is made to look something special.

Probably too late for a best of 2014, but Under the Skin all the way for me.