the customer has changed, and so you must change too. ID10T. OI. Really, it is as much dilution of choices as anything. If I can watch a cutting edge anime on the net, and you can get a 5 minute satire sent to your iPhone, and tivo is quietly queing up something else...
I think a lot of people are longing for what never was. How many people saw those movies in the 70's? Were they successful, really? Revisionist history, if you ask me...
i agree that to some degree it's a bit of revisionist history/nostalgia, but not, imho, for the most part. emmocv.
definitions of "successful" aside, there were less films released then, which certainly contributed to the "event-ness" of film and film viewing. films cost less to see - in adjusted dollars - so more people went more often i think; but also, because there were fewer films, and most were in "pretty good" and up categories, it quantitatively feels like films from then were better.
absent doing studies to account for per capita adjustments in population vs viewing audience size, and ROI against costs, i think he's in safe territory with his generalization.
my problem with his last paragraph in particular, and with dumbasses like Ms Fox - and elistist Hollywood - in general, is the utter refusal to acknowledge that their films could simply just suck, or, to be fair, that the subject matter could have too narrow an appeal. instead, they just blame "middle America" for being too obtuse/uneducated/bourgeois/white/close-minded/provincial, etc, etc, ad nauseum. in short, refusing to take any responsibility whatsoever for their own roles in the outcome.
oh, yeah, much with the elitest... funnily for MFox mostly the people that watch her stuff, are the middle america ones, anywya, for what little that definition means in truth...
IMHO the thing with the taking of responsibility is all about how they feel that we should just shut up and fork over the dough, since middle America is too stupid to know what's good for it. :shrug:
IMHO the thing with the taking of responsibility is all about how they feel that we should just shut up and fork over the dough, since middle America is too stupid to know what's good for it. :shrug:
yep, which is exactly why middle America tells Hollywood exactly what it can do with its elitist bullshit but *not* forking over cash. dumb lot, them.
spook just told me, in a related aside, that Modern Warfare 2 just made 301 MILLION dollars in 24 hours.
note to Hollywood: provide the public what they want and they will THROW money at you.
Yeah, but top execs at movie companies aren't actually all that much smarter than the average paramedic or college professor or truck driver or daycare worker or restaurant manager or Planned Parenthood nurse or call centre CSR. Hollywood's highly-paid execs are lousy at figuring out what will make money and what won't.
It's not a huge surprise that the people whose films they greenlight aren't any better at it. If Shraeger wants to make good quality entertainment that people will actually watch, first he needs to quit dumping on his audience. Then he needs to come up with a kickass idea for a TV show about morally grey stuff, and start shopping it around USA, TNT, Showtime, HBO, etc.
Yeah, but top execs at movie companies aren't actually all that much smarter than the average paramedic or college professor or truck driver or daycare worker or restaurant manager or Planned Parenthood nurse or call centre CSR. Hollywood's highly-paid execs are lousy at figuring out what will make money and what won't.
i don't agree with that first sentence, necessarily. plenty of them are genuinely brilliant. though i don't disagree with where i think you were going with it, because that brilliance - which i believe is there - doesn't in any way disprove your second sentence, which is absolutely true.
and i'd argue that it's not intelligence, or lack thereof, that's the deciding variable, honestly. it's the arrogance and elitism that's the problem, compounded by their genuine cultural, experiential disconnection from the average Joe.
Most of "Hollywood" exists in an echo chamber that started at film school, or J-school or biz school. they literally can't relate.
and when you make decisions based on what you and your peers personally think is good - which is how i'd do it, too, honestly - that "good" is defined by your perceptions of the world.
if you only get your news from NPR, the NYT and the WSJ, and the Industry Trades, and only associate with your "peers" who are just like you in terms of education/world view/money/etc, you're only going to see the world in a very limited way.
which is fine, if that suits you, but as a model to make very expensive business decisions against, it's fairly flawed....unless, of course, the only people you're making films and television for are your echo chamber, and losing millions of dollars doesn't bother you.
the gaming industry, otoh, *gets* their audience. principally, i think, because they still *are* their audience. the gaming industry are gamers, making games for gamers. it *matters* to them what the broad scope of gamers think about the end product. Hollywood could care less, because clearly, the audience is too stupid or they'd understand.
We're more likely to remember the good movies, that's true. But there's also the fact that entertainment consumers have FAR more options today htan they did in the 1970's. THey had, what, 3 television networks back then? This was before the day of VCR's, so if you missed a TV show you were stuck until they showed a rerun in a few months. I suspect that going out to the movies is a lot more appealing on a night when there's nothing on TV you want to watch. We've got tons of channels now. Granted, half the time there's *still* nothing on, but you can usually find something. Or catch up on stuff you recorded and haven't watched yet. Or rent a DVD from a video store. Or download something from the internet. And while much of network TV is still tired and pedestrian, there are some very original shows happening on cable. When there are only three games in town (i.e. CBS, NBC and ABC) there's no such thing as a low budget TV show that can survive on a specialty audience. I'm not dogging 1970's TV, which was sometimes very innovative, but viewers have a lot more different choices these days.
It's not three channels or a movie theatre. It's 47 channels, or the internet, or watching DVD's, or a movie theatre. And given that the add-on costs of going to a theatre add up. i.e. tTcket price per person, rather than a DVD or a monthly cable bill that costs the same whether one person's watching it or four. Popcorn, beverages, etc. It's expensive, and if you need to go to the bathroom, you can't pause a movie at the multiplex. Plus, back in the 70's most movies were less than 2 hours long. Most people can hold it for that long. 2.5 or 3 hours, though, and you're practically guaranteed to need to run out partway through, which means missing something. It's inconvenient, especially when, if you're just willing to wait a few months, you can watch the movie on DVD. You have to be *really* interested in a given movie to prioritise an expensive and inconvenient viewing now over a cheap and convenient viewing in a few months.
Now, I was born in 1976, so VCR's have been around for a pretty significant chunk of my childhood. But I remember the days when the convenience of watching a movie on TV meant a significant sacrifice in terms of picture quality, sound quality, picture size etc. There's still some sacrifice even today, but good home theatre systems are getting significantly cheaper. I bought a 37 inch flatscreen TV recently, and it wasn't *that* expensive. It wasn't cheap, but it's got a much larger and crisper display than my old TV, while taking up significantly less space. My existing DVD's look fabulous on my new TV. There are some damn good shows on cable, with as much sophistication as a movie (mainly because they're not stuck with network restrictions on foul language, sex, etc). And even when there's nothing on but endless reality shows and procedural cop shows, I can re-watch something on DVD. I don't need to go to a theatre to get my smart cinema fix.
to be fair, he was only referring to film, so i restricted myself to a film-centric reply. though your argument is a totally valid, and HUGE factor in the "cuz movies suck so we stay home" column. home playback options have certainly not added to the predicament their in.
I think the last movie I went to see in the theatres was "A Quantum of Solace" and even that was due to a relative wanting a trip to see that movie as his birthday treat. I did want to see it, but without that external push, I probably would've waited a few months. And let's face it, it was a Bond movie. A big-budget, special effects-heavy, highly advertised shoot-em-up and nothing like Mr. Schraeger's movies. There are an awful lot of people just as lazy as me in this world. If we do see a movie in the theatres, it's probably not an edgy indie tale, it's probably a Hollywood blockbuster.
Actually, I just remembered. I went to see "Easy Virtue" a few months ago. Again, my usual inertia was only overcome by a friend wanting to see it and asking me to come with. And honestly, while I really enjoyed Easy Virtue, I felt my money was much better spent on the Bond movie, because it made full use of the playback ability of the 21st century multiplex. Easy Virtue was a comfy movie with no special effects, so I didn't *need* to see it in a state of the art theatre to get the full effect of the movie. I'm betting that calculus may be another reason little films often don't get great ticket sales. People who enjoy both razzle-dazzle blockbusters and quiet little low-budget movies have an incentive to skip the theatrical showing of the indie movie and just get it on DVD.
I did *want* to go to Star Trek, but I got sick when my friends were going, and by the time I was feeling back to myself, it was at the crappy little second run theatres. You know, the ones where the tickets are cheap, but the cinemas and their equpment haven't been updated since the '70's. I pre-ordered it from Amazon and that was that.
i loved QoS. it was a tad lecturish in places, but not so much that the film was ruined for me.
when i can afford, i try to see everything that i *really* want to see on the big screen, because the films are made specifically for that medium. the aspect ratio, the sound, stock choices if it's shot on film...all of that matters to me, even before i started doing this for a living. but then, i grew up that way.
if a small theater can keep the aspect ratio and sound quality, i'd still go, but i'm totally with you if their equipment blows.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sforzinda
no subject
Date: 2009-11-24 10:37 pm (UTC)I think a lot of people are longing for what never was. How many people saw those movies in the 70's? Were they successful, really? Revisionist history, if you ask me...
no subject
Date: 2009-11-24 10:54 pm (UTC)definitions of "successful" aside, there were less films released then, which certainly contributed to the "event-ness" of film and film viewing. films cost less to see - in adjusted dollars - so more people went more often i think; but also, because there were fewer films, and most were in "pretty good" and up categories, it quantitatively feels like films from then were better.
absent doing studies to account for per capita adjustments in population vs viewing audience size, and ROI against costs, i think he's in safe territory with his generalization.
my problem with his last paragraph in particular, and with dumbasses like Ms Fox - and elistist Hollywood - in general, is the utter refusal to acknowledge that their films could simply just suck, or, to be fair, that the subject matter could have too narrow an appeal. instead, they just blame "middle America" for being too obtuse/uneducated/bourgeois/
white/close-minded/provincial, etc, etc, ad nauseum. in short, refusing to take any responsibility whatsoever for their own roles in the outcome.no subject
Date: 2009-11-24 11:23 pm (UTC)IMHO the thing with the taking of responsibility is all about how they feel that we should just shut up and fork over the dough, since middle America is too stupid to know what's good for it. :shrug:
no subject
Date: 2009-11-25 03:21 am (UTC)yep, which is exactly why middle America tells Hollywood exactly what it can do with its elitist bullshit but *not* forking over cash. dumb lot, them.
spook just told me, in a related aside, that Modern Warfare 2 just made 301 MILLION dollars in 24 hours.
note to Hollywood: provide the public what they want and they will THROW money at you.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-25 04:27 am (UTC)It's not a huge surprise that the people whose films they greenlight aren't any better at it. If Shraeger wants to make good quality entertainment that people will actually watch, first he needs to quit dumping on his audience. Then he needs to come up with a kickass idea for a TV show about morally grey stuff, and start shopping it around USA, TNT, Showtime, HBO, etc.
replying finally
Date: 2009-12-08 03:30 am (UTC)i don't agree with that first sentence, necessarily. plenty of them are genuinely brilliant. though i don't disagree with where i think you were going with it, because that brilliance - which i believe is there - doesn't in any way disprove your second sentence, which is absolutely true.
and i'd argue that it's not intelligence, or lack thereof, that's the deciding variable, honestly. it's the arrogance and elitism that's the problem, compounded by their genuine cultural, experiential disconnection from the average Joe.
Most of "Hollywood" exists in an echo chamber that started at film school, or J-school or biz school. they literally can't relate.
and when you make decisions based on what you and your peers personally think is good - which is how i'd do it, too, honestly - that "good" is defined by your perceptions of the world.
if you only get your news from NPR, the NYT and the WSJ, and the Industry Trades, and only associate with your "peers" who are just like you in terms of education/world view/money/etc, you're only going to see the world in a very limited way.
which is fine, if that suits you, but as a model to make very expensive business decisions against, it's fairly flawed....unless, of course, the only people you're making films and television for are your echo chamber, and losing millions of dollars doesn't bother you.
the gaming industry, otoh, *gets* their audience. principally, i think, because they still *are* their audience. the gaming industry are gamers, making games for gamers. it *matters* to them what the broad scope of gamers think about the end product. Hollywood could care less, because clearly, the audience is too stupid or they'd understand.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-25 03:16 am (UTC)It's not three channels or a movie theatre. It's 47 channels, or the internet, or watching DVD's, or a movie theatre. And given that the add-on costs of going to a theatre add up. i.e. tTcket price per person, rather than a DVD or a monthly cable bill that costs the same whether one person's watching it or four. Popcorn, beverages, etc. It's expensive, and if you need to go to the bathroom, you can't pause a movie at the multiplex. Plus, back in the 70's most movies were less than 2 hours long. Most people can hold it for that long. 2.5 or 3 hours, though, and you're practically guaranteed to need to run out partway through, which means missing something. It's inconvenient, especially when, if you're just willing to wait a few months, you can watch the movie on DVD. You have to be *really* interested in a given movie to prioritise an expensive and inconvenient viewing now over a cheap and convenient viewing in a few months.
Now, I was born in 1976, so VCR's have been around for a pretty significant chunk of my childhood. But I remember the days when the convenience of watching a movie on TV meant a significant sacrifice in terms of picture quality, sound quality, picture size etc. There's still some sacrifice even today, but good home theatre systems are getting significantly cheaper. I bought a 37 inch flatscreen TV recently, and it wasn't *that* expensive. It wasn't cheap, but it's got a much larger and crisper display than my old TV, while taking up significantly less space. My existing DVD's look fabulous on my new TV. There are some damn good shows on cable, with as much sophistication as a movie (mainly because they're not stuck with network restrictions on foul language, sex, etc). And even when there's nothing on but endless reality shows and procedural cop shows, I can re-watch something on DVD. I don't need to go to a theatre to get my smart cinema fix.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-25 03:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-25 04:18 am (UTC)Actually, I just remembered. I went to see "Easy Virtue" a few months ago. Again, my usual inertia was only overcome by a friend wanting to see it and asking me to come with. And honestly, while I really enjoyed Easy Virtue, I felt my money was much better spent on the Bond movie, because it made full use of the playback ability of the 21st century multiplex. Easy Virtue was a comfy movie with no special effects, so I didn't *need* to see it in a state of the art theatre to get the full effect of the movie. I'm betting that calculus may be another reason little films often don't get great ticket sales. People who enjoy both razzle-dazzle blockbusters and quiet little low-budget movies have an incentive to skip the theatrical showing of the indie movie and just get it on DVD.
I did *want* to go to Star Trek, but I got sick when my friends were going, and by the time I was feeling back to myself, it was at the crappy little second run theatres. You know, the ones where the tickets are cheap, but the cinemas and their equpment haven't been updated since the '70's. I pre-ordered it from Amazon and that was that.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-08 03:38 am (UTC)when i can afford, i try to see everything that i *really* want to see on the big screen, because the films are made specifically for that medium. the aspect ratio, the sound, stock choices if it's shot on film...all of that matters to me, even before i started doing this for a living. but then, i grew up that way.
if a small theater can keep the aspect ratio and sound quality, i'd still go, but i'm totally with you if their equipment blows.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-25 05:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-08 03:33 am (UTC)