A future of Box Office Bombs?

[George Ebersole]

 

Spot on in your analysis of the market being aimed at adults who don't want to see their childhood go...

 

Although the numbers you quoted refer to 3D films only, and 3D is aimed at a younger audience only, because Hollywood wants to capture their imagination before their parents' 60" flat screen does.

 

Nicolas, I guess my final say here is that we are talking the big budget films. But, at one point in the industry, there were more moderately budgeted films that were a pleasure to watch (note, not "fun" with all kinds of SFX, loud music, witty 12-year old zingers and the like). But those films are gone for some reason.

 

And I think it's a case of the industry not being able to see the forest because the trees are in the way. I mean, the movies and the audience for those movies that built the industry, are gone, and yet the industry is crying foul in spite of the numbers. The opening audience may be thriving for comic book films, but that's not the audience you should rely on. You want to rely on the consumer who likes your product, and will come back to see it again.

 

I can watch "His Girl Friday" or "My Man Godfrey" countless times and still feel entertained. Likewise with the first Star Wars film and the Chris Reeve Superman film. But I don't get that sensation with something like "The Shawshank Redemption" or "Superman Returns" or "What's your Number".

 

I just think there's a bigger untapped audience that doesn't go to films on opening weekend, are disaffected by films, do not have their minds perpetually set at 13 years old, and want something better. That's the audience that built the film industry, that's the audience that's gone, that's the audience that I personally think the majors have lost.

 

No amount of small indy artsy films are going to bring them back, because that's not what they want.

 

Taking up the slack are the cable network exclusives like HBO, Showtime, Lifetime/Oxygen productions, but even there those films aren't the caliber of what people used to see when my parents were avid film goers.

 

Just my opinion. Hollywood may have engineered the nostalgia cycle, but I think it's a dead end proposition.

[Keith Walters]

 

heh, Keith, I'm wondering if you got a burning script you wrote that you've been wanting to shoot.

Of course not. If that was the case I'd still be over on Reduser telling people what they want to hear. :wub:

 

But it's damned difficult, typing with fingers crossed on both hands behind your back, and hitting the keys with your nose.

I suppose it gets get easier as time goes by and your nose gets longer, but then you have to sit further and further from the keyboard, and eventually you need a bigger screen. B)

[James Steven Beverly]

Nicolas Courdouan, on 09 Aug 2013 - 01:11 AM, said:

 

I think Hollywood is not run by fools, and they know exactly what they're doing.

 

 

To quote William Goldman: "Nobody knows anything."

[Phil Rhodes]

 

 

Just my opinion. Hollywood may have engineered the nostalgia cycle, but I think it's a dead end proposition.

 

I tend to agree. Nostalgia might be a good way to make people more interested in seeing the movie, but it isn't nearly enough to make the movie good. That'll have to be achieved using other, more conventional means, like scriptwriting and directing.

[Nicolas Courdouan]

 

Nicolas, I guess my final say here is that we are talking the big budget films. But, at one point in the industry, there were more moderately budgeted films that were a pleasure to watch (note, not "fun" with all kinds of SFX, loud music, witty 12-year old zingers and the like). But those films are gone for some reason.

 

(...)

 

Just my opinion. Hollywood may have engineered the nostalgia cycle, but I think it's a dead end proposition.

 

Hey George,

 

I agree 100% with your first sentence. The moderately budgeted films you refer to now suffer from a lack of exposure due to the ever increasing presence of blockbusters on our screens. However they are available if you know where to look (I agree that this can be a problem though, because a lot of people don't bother to look).

 

I think that when you rely on the past (nostalgia), you always end up narrowing the horizon instead of broadening it, and there's a risk that the industry will fester and rot because of that.

 

However I do disagree that we have to feel depressed about it, because in my opinion the only cinema that is at risk is specifically the blockbuster industry. I am confident that the worst that can happen is a return to a more "moderately-budgeted cinema".

 

Auteur and independent cinemas will survive, because the only audience they need is the audience they already have. It is certainly a "niche", I guess, but so far it's enough, and it has proven to be able to constantly renew itself throughout the years. For example, we have the Irish Film Institute in Dublin, which is a cinema that screens independent films only. It's a smaller cinema, with smaller films, and yet it survives on its own (despite never having to screen the occasional blockbuster nor sell film food on the side to keep afloat). My point being that these films always find a way to reach their audience, without compromise, without fail. And the big difference between those and the blockbusters is that the independent films lovers are not becoming tired of the movies they watch.

 

Like all businessmen, the guys in Hollywood rely on demand. When people finally get fed up of this constant stream (more like a tidal wave actually) of big nothing movies, something will happen. All we have to do is trust that people will indeed get fed up, and to quote Fox Mulder, I want to believe.

 

I think Hollywood are pretty much scraping the bottom of the barrel with their constant remakes and FX extravaganzas. And when you're at the bottom of something, the only way out is up.

 

So let's keep our heads up and cheer.

 

 

To quote William Goldman: "Nobody knows anything."

 

Hey James,

 

I saw that video by the way. Thanks for posting it.

 

I guess what I meant is not that they "knew" in a ubiquitous, all-knowing kind of way, but that they were pretty confident in their choice, and reasonably so, since the numbers justified it. However I also think that, like all fads, it's a temporary thing, and Hollywood will have to stay on their toes and open to whatever comes next if they want to keep their audience.

[Pat Murray]

 

I tend to agree. Nostalgia might be a good way to make people more interested in seeing the movie, but it isn't nearly enough to make the movie good. That'll have to be achieved using other, more conventional means, like scriptwriting and directing.

 

I think Casino Royale would be a good model for the new Star Wars franchise. Where nostalgia (the source material, a Bond movie more like the Connery movies with less gadgets etc.) mixed with solid scriptwriting and directing were used to breath new life into the Bond franchise.

 

Then they went back to good guy chases bad guy. Then turned it around and did bad guy chases good guy in the recent film. How about going back to interesting story with intrigue and plot twists and multiple storylines and agendas. Rather than a) identify villain b) chase villain

 

As for shooting on digital. To my eyes, it has its own look, but I've watched a lot of shot on digital movies in the cinema and just like film, some look ok, some looks aren't my cup of tea and others look great. That said, it's my understanding that to be able to get a terrific digital look, it's going to cost you a lot of money. That should be understood. It certainly hasn't democratized the blockbuster as discussed in this thread. When movies making $175-250 million dollars are being called box office bombs, something isn't right in Kansas.

 

Shooting on film or digital, miniatures or CGI, costs have to come down. I agree with Freya that the decision to shoot on film and use practical effects is probably partly based on going with what worked in the past. It can also be the preferred medium for Abrams and frankly practical effects shot on 35mm can look really impressive and I'd be interested to find out if it'll be less expensive than the recent Disney "adventures" in cinema.

[Pat Murray]

In other words, digital has arrived as a cinematic medium. I don't think that can be argued.

[Pat Murray]

REALLY!? No, but I was in a movie Hal Ashby directed Called Second Hand Hearts" that was originally titled "The Hamster of Happiness" Now I have GOT to see it!!

 

LOL! You can find Hammy Hamster on Youtube. I used to watch those shows as a kid after school. I look at them now and I want to shoot myself after 2 minutes. :-)

[James Steven Beverly]

 

Hey George,

 

I agree 100% with your first sentence. The moderately budgeted films you refer to now suffer from a lack of exposure due to the ever increasing presence of blockbusters on our screens. However they are available if you know where to look (I agree that this can be a problem though, because a lot of people don't bother to look).

 

I think that when you rely on the past (nostalgia), you always end up narrowing the horizon instead of broadening it, and there's a risk that the industry will fester and rot because of that.

 

However I do disagree that we have to feel depressed about it, because in my opinion the only cinema that is at risk is specifically the blockbuster industry. I am confident that the worst that can happen is a return to a more "moderately-budgeted cinema".

 

Auteur and independent cinemas will survive, because the only audience they need is the audience they already have. It is certainly a "niche", I guess, but so far it's enough, and it has proven to be able to constantly renew itself throughout the years. For example, we have the Irish Film Institute in Dublin, which is a cinema that screens independent films only. It's a smaller cinema, with smaller films, and yet it survives on its own (despite never having to screen the occasional blockbuster nor sell film food on the side to keep afloat). My point being that these films always find a way to reach their audience, without compromise, without fail. And the big difference between those and the blockbusters is that the independent films lovers are not becoming tired of the movies they watch.

 

Like all businessmen, the guys in Hollywood rely on demand. When people finally get fed up of this constant stream (more like a tidal wave actually) of big nothing movies, something will happen. All we have to do is trust that people will indeed get fed up, and to quote Fox Mulder, I want to believe.

 

I think Hollywood are pretty much scraping the bottom of the barrel with their constant remakes and FX extravaganzas. And when you're at the bottom of something, the only way out is up.

 

So let's keep our heads up and cheer.

 

 

 

Hey James,

 

I saw that video by the way. Thanks for posting it.

 

I guess what I meant is not that they "knew" in a ubiquitous, all-knowing kind of way, but that they were pretty confident in their choice, and reasonably so, since the numbers justified it. However I also think that, like all fads, it's a temporary thing, and Hollywood will have to stay on their toes and open to whatever comes next if they want to keep their audience.

These guys are no fools, most have a lot of education and are VERY savvy about the business which is why they're in the positions they are. The problem is most of the money comes from broadly accessible films that don't challenge the audience and are forced by the circumstances of the business to be geared to the lowest common denominator and UNFORTUNATELY, there are a LOT of really stupid people out there that seem to drag us down to their level, BUT maybe I'm being a bit pedantic. Being a writer, I KNOW how hard it is to find new, not as yet seen stories that also will engage an audience on a deeply emotional level while still being light enough to make it accessible to a broad spectrum of viewers that will bring a significant financial return which is essential to further success in the industry. It's a crap shoot and all you can do is go with your gut because the audience is fickled and changeable as the summer wind. All there is, is your instincts. May was GREAT for the studios, July sucked ass, no REAL rhyme nor reason.

 

As for posting the video, de nada. I like to listen to people smarter than me and sharing what I learn about our business is my way of paying is back to the industry I love.

[Nicolas Courdouan]

The problem is most of the money comes from broadly accessible films that don't challenge the audience and are forced by the circumstances of the business to be geared to the lowest common denominator and UNFORTUNATELY, there are a LOT of really stupid people out there that seem to drag us down to their level, BUT maybe I'm being a bit pedantic.

 

I don't know. I have to say I feel the same way but I'm a bit ashamed to admit it. I think the problem is not that people are stupid, but that they are lazy. If you walk down the street and hand them free McDonald's, they're not going to bother looking around for something better to eat. That's the mentality that I blame for the dumbing down of the bigger movies nowadays. I'm pretty sure that if the studios trusted the people with more intelligent films, the audience would follow.

 

But as long as there'll be a McDonald's down the road, people won't venture any farther.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Nicolas Courdouan

[Brian Drysdale]

Unfortunately, the larger the budget the broader the audience spectrum you need to attract.

[Nicolas Courdouan]

Yes, so we just have to hope for the sake of diversity that people will eventually get fed up with junk food and go healthy.

 

Of course a little McDonald's every now and then doesn't hurt.

[George Ebersole]

 

I think we must be talking at cross purposes.

I was meaning the issue of there being a finite number of screens to play on.

Obviously having good, or even great scripts isn't going to change that.

 

Freya

 

Freya, I used to routinely read scripts over at Francis Ford Coppola's Zoetrope.com website. There are professionals there who post under assumed names that write for TV and major releases. Their scripts are good, but formulaic. The other breed of scripts are "old fashioned" comedies and family films which don't get posted as much anymore.

 

Those scripts are moderately budgeted films that really have a lot of talent injected into them. You can tell the author knows their stuff by picking one up, reading the first few pages, and then not being able to put it down.

 

I read one called "Stealing God's Guy". It was a rom-com about a woman who was attracted to a man who was slated to go into the priesthood. There was no swearing beyond one or two "damns", no nudity, no fast-delivery zingers, no 12-year old / toilet humor, but a lot of old fashioned situational romantic humor that reminded me of a lot of films prior to 1989 about mature adults who came across one another, found each other interesting, got their signals crossed, and then wound up dating (not having sex with one another) and becoming an item at the end. It was a tasteful, funny, heart felt, script.

 

But no one makes those films anymore because the market data says you need to have ancillary tie-ins to pay for all those CGI artists to earn back your negative cost on opening weekend. Because, hey, that's where the money is.

 

My point is that if you can clamp down on piracy, reformulate a distribution model to get to your target audience without putting them out, or, as Peter McGowan used to say when he saved the SF Giants from moving to St. Petersburg in Florida, "Enhance the shopping experience", then you can recall that audience to have a look at your product again and again.

 

But first off you need to cut budgets, bring down ticket and food prices, then make something that'll ensure responsible ticket buyers who have the means and desire to see your product again.

 

On Zoetrope; there used to be upwards of 60+ scripts posted a month there back in 2009 and before. Now there's barely 16, maybe 30 on a good month. A lot of that is because much of the talent has migrated to Amazon studios, or given up. But Amazon is pumping out a lot of junk, so...

 

Anyway, just another passionate rant brought to you by me.

[Phil Rhodes]

If it's any consolation the tickets are even more expensive here, invariably for a far worse experience.

[George Ebersole]

If it's any consolation the tickets are even more expensive here, invariably for a far worse experience.

 

I think someone here posted a link showing that movies, at least here in the U.S., were still cheaper than going to sporting event.

 

Big f-ing deal; if the product sucks and the people sitting around you suck, then there's no point in going in the first place.