Cephus
Master Member
It doesn't really matter. A bad movie is a bad movie. It takes a village to make these things suck.
Hollywood’s current state of failure and the reasons for it
- Thread starter Pepperbone
- Start date
- Status
Cephus
Master Member
None of them come off as enlightened at all.
Lightning
Master Member
Not the writers, the audience. What I was trying to say is the writers are (trying to) apply current postmodern philosophy to movies, but most of the audience is still grappling with understanding the world via the scientific method.
Edit: then there's all the modernists stuck in the middle.
Cephus
Master Member
Postmodernism is crap though. It's not even a legitimate philosophical position, even if you're talking about someone like Richard Rorty.
Lightning
Master Member
We aren't disagreeing. You have writers that have an iffy understanding of an ill advised philosophy, applying it to their writing, and wondering why the audience of largely traditionalists and modernists hate the results.
It’s not all failures all the time.
We are in the midst of one of the most succesful 2 weeks ever at the box office (going into the 3rd strong). No franchise tent pole or super heroes. Just some girls toys and a somewhat obscure historical figure from 80 years ago.
What did Barbie get right? Why is it going to make a billion? Why the repeat biz? Why more folks dressing up for it than Star Wars.
Why is Oppenheimer doing so well?
Why is an R rated , 3 hour, historical biopic going past half a billion on a 100 million budget?
These 2 got something right.
We are in the midst of one of the most succesful 2 weeks ever at the box office (going into the 3rd strong). No franchise tent pole or super heroes. Just some girls toys and a somewhat obscure historical figure from 80 years ago.
What did Barbie get right? Why is it going to make a billion? Why the repeat biz? Why more folks dressing up for it than Star Wars.
Why is Oppenheimer doing so well?
Why is an R rated , 3 hour, historical biopic going past half a billion on a 100 million budget?
These 2 got something right.
Good article, thanks for posting it here. It sheds some light on a few things.New Yorker had a pretty accurate take on this exact thing here:
Hollywood’s Slo-Mo Self-Sabotage
Since the streaming era, movies and television feel less special, labor conditions have plummeted, and turbulent mergers and layoffs call into question which legendary institutions will still stand in another ten or twenty years.www.newyorker.com
From what I can tell?
Barbie- optimistic/ funny. Women having an excuse to dress up/ their outfits are allowed where most Star Wars costumes wouldn't be allowed in a theater anymore. (After the Dark Knight trilogy all of the theaters in my area wouldn't allow people to dress up in costume anymore.)
Oppenheimer- Gorgeous cinematography and was shot on film vs. digital as far as I can tell. Christopher Nolan is one of the only distinct directors who makes his own movies that you can't mistake for anyone else's- something you really don't see these days with the proliferation of paint by the numbers movie plots and directors. Great ensemble casting with a very human story.
What they both have going for them?
They were something fresh. They weren't your typical tentpole movies, nor were they sequels, reboots, or parts of an overarching franchise. Just singular movies with something different to explore. Culturally I feel like people just want to get out of the house. With the pandemic being mostly over, they just want life to return back to normal and one of those things means going to the movies.
Those are my best guesses.
Yeah, that's kinda the point. We (wife & I) used to make the effort to go out and catch a movie we thought would be worth seeing on the big screen. Hence our lack of trips over the last four years. Saw Dune and Oppeheimer, nothing else even close to inspiring the effort. TBH, I'm not even catching up on streaming, there's just nothing being produced that I have any interest in watching. Still finding good content on TV (European shows, mostly), but movies....meh.
HeartBlade
Sr Member
Alot of discussion points but the main ones seem to boil down to:
- bad new writers
- overblown budgets and the death of the movie star.
- the scare of new technology (AI).
Regarding writing quality, I disagree that all new writers are bad or even that veterans are always better. What I do think is that Hollywood in general has promoted the subversive post-modern breaking down tropes analysis of writing as “good” and made it the center of their current movies. Could this be because most writers are straight out of college and years of breaking down tropes? Maybe and what we are given is “new” like Velma removing Scooby Doo and delving into the relationships of the characters. The problem is that the stories themselves/characters are bad.
There is this praise for toxic relationships, supporting toxic behavior, and being “independent and a free-thinker” over cooperation and genuine friendship. Most movies are gloomy and dull because of this focus (Superman with Cavill is bleak because Daddy Kent basically tells Clark not to trust humanity over and over).
Regarding budgets, definately think there needs to be a reassessment of what is the “new normal.” The biggest threat to Hollywood is not AI but streaming, introducing a brand new model of content delivery where margins are much thinner and competition much fiercer. The Hollywood party where writers and actors get paid millions for subpar work is gone. For better or worse, film and tv shows are more scrutinized than ever with metrics to assess watch time/views/repeated watches/etc. Residuals wont be a thing and while I believe the human element will always be essential in any work; there wont be a fat payday for any but the top performers.
Although this might age poorly, in regard to AI I think its impact is overblown. AI will help speed up or do “menial” analysis work but when it comes to what to analyze and promote and what choices to make; human intervention is needed. While people fear about AI being too intelligent, people dont give enough credence to the fear of AI being too stupid with our increasing trust in it resulting in harmful consequences.
- bad new writers
- overblown budgets and the death of the movie star.
- the scare of new technology (AI).
Regarding writing quality, I disagree that all new writers are bad or even that veterans are always better. What I do think is that Hollywood in general has promoted the subversive post-modern breaking down tropes analysis of writing as “good” and made it the center of their current movies. Could this be because most writers are straight out of college and years of breaking down tropes? Maybe and what we are given is “new” like Velma removing Scooby Doo and delving into the relationships of the characters. The problem is that the stories themselves/characters are bad.
There is this praise for toxic relationships, supporting toxic behavior, and being “independent and a free-thinker” over cooperation and genuine friendship. Most movies are gloomy and dull because of this focus (Superman with Cavill is bleak because Daddy Kent basically tells Clark not to trust humanity over and over).
Regarding budgets, definately think there needs to be a reassessment of what is the “new normal.” The biggest threat to Hollywood is not AI but streaming, introducing a brand new model of content delivery where margins are much thinner and competition much fiercer. The Hollywood party where writers and actors get paid millions for subpar work is gone. For better or worse, film and tv shows are more scrutinized than ever with metrics to assess watch time/views/repeated watches/etc. Residuals wont be a thing and while I believe the human element will always be essential in any work; there wont be a fat payday for any but the top performers.
Although this might age poorly, in regard to AI I think its impact is overblown. AI will help speed up or do “menial” analysis work but when it comes to what to analyze and promote and what choices to make; human intervention is needed. While people fear about AI being too intelligent, people dont give enough credence to the fear of AI being too stupid with our increasing trust in it resulting in harmful consequences.
My guess is the usual new-tech pattern. It will lag behind predictions in the early stages but then eventually exceed them in the decades-long timeline.
IMO it's entirely possible for Hollywood to be out of business in a few decades. 'Real' movies will become like live theater, a niche thing that still has fans but is no longer THE big art form in the culture.
The studios will spend the first half of this transition going full-throttle to shift the creative & production workload over to AI. They will think they're geniuses. But then the public will decide studios aren't really necessary to make entertainment at all. D'oh!
I'm wondering about the role of celebrities/stars in the future, though. IMO they won't go away entirely. There will always be famous people who are trendy for their physical looks & personalities & behaviors. Hollywood (and the music industry) has provided the go-to platform to sell celebrities for the last 100+ years. What takes up the slack if Hollywood is over?
Will it just be the Instagram-type social media stuff alone? That could work in some ways. But I suspect that the dominant social media platform will end up being a perpetually-moving target. From MySpace to Facebook, etc. The trendiest bar/club in town doesn't stay the same one for decades, just like trendy hair & clothes styles are ever-changing.
JediMichael
Legendary Member
Having the hype to see it on IMAX has sure helped, as those tickets are like double the price, therefore bringing in a lot of extra money.
Also, his claim that he recreated a nuclear bomb scene with no CGI has also interested plenty people to check it out. Myself included.
Christopher Nolan's track record of well made films that get rated pretty high has also helped.
Had this been from a no name director shot digitally, or even on typical 35mm film, but basically the same movie, I don't think it would be doing even close to as good.
Of course you would get the history people that want to see it and know the Oppenheimer story, but those people wouldn't be near enough to bring in these type numbers.
adamszki427
Active Member
some really interesting points made in this thread especially about everyone involved in a project getting paid appropriate to their contribution, but how do you agree who is worth what.... an actor gets say 5 million dollars for the movie where as a prop studio gets way less, but if the costumes and props make the character then why should that not be more evenly distributed? take a movie such as deadpool for example, would it have still been the same movie with someone else playing Wade Wilson? or was that entire movie just Ryan Reynolds doing what he does that made it what it is? is he worthy of more money than the costume designers/makers? who worked more hours on their part etc? very interesting indeed.
VanPersie
Well-Known Member
Except Solo dying was a restriction imposed by Harrison himself, as a requirement for him to consider doing the film.
AFAIK that has only ever been a rumor.
He appeared in 'Rise of Skywalker' anyway.
The ST centered each movie around killing off one of the "big 3" OT characters. I suspect that Harrison & Kennedy were both just fine with the choice to kill Han Solo.
. . . and that backs up my original point. It wasn't the screenwriter who made the decision.
There's a writer & actor strike going on right now. Writers are taking quite a beating in the press/internet for all the crap that Hollywood has made in the last 15 years. IMO the writers aren't innocent but they bear less responsibility for the foul-ups than people tend to assume.
Agree on those points.
I think the 3 major things these 2 movies have going for them that separate them from the rest of this years or past failures are:
Budget - moderate to reasonable as compared to recent flops
Visions -both are visions of the the director and both were written or co- written by the director.
Studio interference - Or lack thereof. Both seem to be pure representations of the makers. I can’t believe a studio inserted bonkers musical numbers into an already bonkers Barbie movie or suggested hey Nolan don’t use any CGI in the entire movie.
These types of things will be overlooked as they scramble for the next big thing- Mattel has at least 14 movies currently in development.
The bad news is after this boost got folks back to theaters en mass, the strike will slow it right back down.
I think 'Barbie' was an obvious slam-dunk that somehow went un-made during the last 20 years. The whole thing, the concept, the production design, it feels like a flick from 2003. That's a selling point compared to the poop we've been getting lately.
Combine that mojo with a good cast & director, so there is enough quality to keep adults entertained, and there you have it. 'Barbie' also has multi-generational appeal. It was gonna be a cash cow even if the budget was twice as high. If the quality of the film was much lower it would probably still have been a decent mid-pack earner.
'Oppenheimer' . . . I think it's coasting on Nolan's reputation, franky. The public had an appetite to see what he would do with an Oppenheimer movie but this is not really what they wanted/expected. This show will make money, but Nolan's next prestigious auteur movie will take a hit from it.
Combine that mojo with a good cast & director, so there is enough quality to keep adults entertained, and there you have it. 'Barbie' also has multi-generational appeal. It was gonna be a cash cow even if the budget was twice as high. If the quality of the film was much lower it would probably still have been a decent mid-pack earner.
'Oppenheimer' . . . I think it's coasting on Nolan's reputation, franky. The public had an appetite to see what he would do with an Oppenheimer movie but this is not really what they wanted/expected. This show will make money, but Nolan's next prestigious auteur movie will take a hit from it.
Last edited:
Cephus
Master Member
We used to buy a ton of DVDs and Blurays. Hell, we had "DVD Christmas" every year because we got so many. Now, while we still get older movies and TV shows, we get very little modern. I might see one or two movies a year, never in a theater, usually not on streaming, if it looks good and has gotten good reviews, I'll just buy it. That is the only money that Hollywood is ever going to make from me and with more studios not putting things out on physical media, they are just losing money. Between bad decisions and bad movies, I'm saving a ton of money.
JediMichael
Legendary Member
When I heard they were doing Barbie, I had no interest, as I don't have a sister or daughter or really have known anyone that played with the dolls.
Since the dolls are aimed at girls around 10ish and under, I expected the movie to do the same with parents only going to watch it because their daughters begging to see it.
But then right before it hit theaters, I saw that PG-13 rating....and was like, oh, well now THATS a game changer.
Without knowing anything, I figured they must have aimed it more towards adults who had it as a kid, teens and technically kids, sneaking in the adult humor.
Now only having seen the trailer, looks like thats how they approached it.
Using Barbie's 64 year history with modern day humor that gets edgy but not go too far seems to have really paid off.
Because my first thoughts were, hows a movie about this doll going to bring in a lot of money??? That was figuring it would be G or at most, PG aiming at young girls only.
They were smart to do it like this.
Well, lets hope Hollywood can get real smart again....and not have to only rely on the tactic of being overly crude and vulgar with their R rated movies.
Since the dolls are aimed at girls around 10ish and under, I expected the movie to do the same with parents only going to watch it because their daughters begging to see it.
But then right before it hit theaters, I saw that PG-13 rating....and was like, oh, well now THATS a game changer.
Without knowing anything, I figured they must have aimed it more towards adults who had it as a kid, teens and technically kids, sneaking in the adult humor.
Now only having seen the trailer, looks like thats how they approached it.
Using Barbie's 64 year history with modern day humor that gets edgy but not go too far seems to have really paid off.
Because my first thoughts were, hows a movie about this doll going to bring in a lot of money??? That was figuring it would be G or at most, PG aiming at young girls only.
They were smart to do it like this.
Well, lets hope Hollywood can get real smart again....and not have to only rely on the tactic of being overly crude and vulgar with their R rated movies.
- Status
Similar threads
