Hollywood’s current state of failure and the reasons for it

[Birdie]

With regards to 'social messaging', that's always been there, but we used to have this novel concept called subtext. I'm not sure if modern script writers are too stupid to incorporate such techniques, or whether they think we're too stupid to recognise them.

 

[batguy]

A new movie is being shot, right now, with the AI likeness of James Dean...we'll see the results real soon.

Minor quibble -
The James Dean project has died out. (I always thought it smelled funny.)

 

[Cephus]

With regards to 'social messaging', that's always been there, but we used to have this novel concept called subtext. I'm not sure if modern script writers are too stupid to incorporate such techniques, or whether they think we're too stupid to recognise them.

There is a difference between a movie having a message, buried somewhere inside, and the movie being the message, which is what we see today. Obviously, the customers aren't too stupid to recognize what's going on, that's why these movies are failing at the box office. It's just a bunch of stupid writers, producers, directors and studios, who haven't recognized that what they're doing isn't working.

 

[Pepperbone]

I'm not sure if modern script writers are too stupid to incorporate such techniques, or whether they think we're too stupid to recognise them.

Both.

 

[JediMichael]

Reading all this reminds me of this movie feom 2002. I had forgotten about it.
A roommate at the time and I watched it.
He was into creating CGI, and while still learning, he was already making some good stuff. When we watched it, we just laughed at how "Hollywood" of a movie it was and how nothing like the stuff he did in the movie could ever happen.....and now 21 years later....yikes....

 

[HeartBlade]

The agenda/propaganda/lecture has to be subtle! Lord knows that Hollywood had some kind of agenda/propaganda/lecture from the get go...but it was soft and subtle. Now, it's in your face and feels like patronizing and condescending

I dont think Hollywood has really been all that "subtle" with their agenda and propaganda to be honest, just that the message was far more accepting. Some very very blatant like Transformers and the power of the US army for example with the “power of one” or the idea of “freedom from tyranny” with 300 spartans.

I do think one thing old movies (like pre 2000) did far better than modern movies is sub-text. Movies were far more open to interpretation where you and your friend can both watch the same movie and come away with different interpretations, hence why people talked about movies. I do think modern movies became far more blatant not only with allegory but what the “right” answer is meant to be.

I definitely havent seen every single major Hollywood movie ever but I dont really remember the last time I really debated or discussed the meaning or interpretation of a movie since Inception (the ending with the spinning top and what the movie actually represents). That does seem to be something lacking in modern movies.

 

[ghostryder]

Justine Bateman on the Destruction of the Film Business

Amid the SAG-AFTRA and WGA strikes, studio heads are scorching their own legacies, Justine Bateman writes.

www.thedailybeast.com

 

[Pepperbone]

Justine Bateman on the Destruction of the Film Business

Amid the SAG-AFTRA and WGA strikes, studio heads are scorching their own legacies, Justine Bateman writes.

www.thedailybeast.com

I get what Bateman is saying, but again; she's assuming all these people are qualified and deserve what they're demanding, but everyone k=knows that's not the case.

And things have gotten even dumber now.

WGA Introduces New Health Care Demands That Could Prolong Strike

A new health care demand has been by the WGA

deadline.com

 

[Cephus]

I get what Bateman is saying, but again; she's assuming all these people are qualified and deserve what they're demanding, but everyone k=knows that's not the case.

I read through her screed and she did exactly what I expected her to do. "The other side is completely in the wrong and we are completely in the right!" The problem is that neither side, and I don't like any of them, but all of them seem to think they are on the side of the angels, instead of realizing all of the problems they have caused and working to find an equitable solution that is good, not only for themselves, but for the public at large.

None of them care. That's the problem.

 

[Lightning]

I get what Bateman is saying, but again; she's assuming all these people are qualified and deserve what they're demanding, but everyone k=knows that's not the case.

Just because we didn't like some high profile projects doesn't mean writers don't deserve to be fairly compensated for them. They still did the work.

 

[Cephus]

Just because we didn't like some high profile projects doesn't mean writers don't deserve to be fairly compensated for them. They still did the work.

It's a matter of what constitutes "fair" compensation though. Doing bad work doesn't deserve lots of money and they are getting paid plenty. Their problems are almost entirely their own choices.

 

[ghostryder]

Well, to be fair, there are plenty of projects that get "noted" to death by executives and other stake holders "pissing on the script" - granted of course not all, some are just genuinely bad, but you'd be amazed how many projects start pretty great on the page, and then get ruined later on down the line as the sausage gets made.

On another note:

Steven Soderbergh: Streaming Data Transparency a Bigger Worry Than AI

The filmmaker says media companies are either hiding big profits or big losses from creatives.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

 

[batguy]

Well, to be fair, there are plenty of projects that get "noted" to death by executives and other stake holders "pissing on the script" - granted of course not all, some are just genuinely bad, but you'd be amazed how many projects start pretty great on the page, and then get ruined later on down the line as the sausage gets made.

That's what I've been trying to point out. Blaming "the writers" for a lot of this bad content is like saying the Star Wars prequels were full of bad actors.


Soderberg's comments -

There's a widespread suspicion that streaming revenues are way lower than the studios are implying. That's probably what is being hidden. The strikers may get their royalties but it's gonna result in far fewer job openings overall. If the streaming revenues really are crap, then the fallout will put pressure on the studios to quit throwing money down a hole. They will slash the total amount of content they put out.

 

[Lightning]

We could approximate how much a given service brings in since we know the rate and the number of subscribers, except an unknown number of people are subscribed at a discount or as an add on through other services.

it's gonna result in far fewer job openings overall.

It seems like there are already more writers than jobs. I keep coming back to the idea of long term contracts, sort of like the old studio system, but not so draconian. But you would trade freedom for stability.

 

[Cephus]

That's what I've been trying to point out. Blaming "the writers" for a lot of this bad content is like saying the Star Wars prequels were full of bad actors.

As I keep saying, it's a collective failure. I don't think any of them deserve any more money. The DGA isn't on strike right now so they're "safe", but they are every bit as responsible.

Soderberg's comments -

There's a widespread suspicion that streaming revenues are way lower than the studios are implying. That's probably what is being hidden. The strikers may get their royalties but it's gonna result in far fewer job openings overall. If the streaming revenues really are crap, then the fallout will put pressure on the studios to quit throwing money down a hole. They will slash the total amount of content they put out.

We've been saying that for a long time. Streaming is a failure, full stop. If you opened the books, and I think that's what we need to do, then I think we'd find that nobody is watching most of these shows and it is costing far more to bring the shows to the platform than it makes the streamers in the end. The streamers can't pay them any more because there just isn't any money! All of these platforms are going to have to cut way back on the amount of content they produce, meaning everyone is going to lose.

 

[Cephus]

It seems like there are already more writers than jobs. I keep coming back to the idea of long term contracts, sort of like the old studio system, but not so draconian. But you would trade freedom for stability.

I tried to look into the increase in membership for the WGA since the beginning of COVID/streaming and while they do not report actual numbers, what I did see suggested that a lot of people have joined the WGA and/or started writing for streaming in recent years. One of the complaints was that most WGA writers were at the bottom rung, which is what we'd expect to see from a whole bunch of people with no seniority.

What I figure happened is a whole bunch of people assumed that streaming would grow forever and there would be money flowing from the sky for anyone who could put a pen to paper. It was never realistic. Now, these people want money that they assumed they were going to get, but that was never there to begin with.

 

[batguy]

There are always too many people chasing writing jobs just like there are too many people chasing actor or director or stuntman jobs. It's inherent in Hollywood.

But yeah, the streaming situation of the last 10 years has driven expectations up into stupid territory.

That, and the raw cost-of-living in Cali is out of control. There are people making $100k while they drive a 17yo car and eat Taco Bell & Ramen noodles.

 

[HeartBlade]

I get what Bateman is saying, but again; she's assuming all these people are qualified and deserve what they're demanding, but everyone k=knows that's not the case.

And things have gotten even dumber now.

WGA Introduces New Health Care Demands That Could Prolong Strike

A new health care demand has been by the WGA

deadline.com

True but her argument seems to be more “of the wealth made in Hollywood, it should go around more so everyone has a fairer share rather than the CEOs hogging it while the people doing the actual work get left out in the cold.”

Which I agree with. The CEOs dont do much and have honestly cratered their respective studios under their watch. Iger only looks good because Feigie was amazing with the MCU and basically screwed the pooch by buying up every IP he could get his hands on and passing the buck. Zaslav made Discovery channel into tv for idiots and is cancelling films for tax write-offs.

I dont see the current CEOs doing well to improve film or foster creativity in the industry, just reward themselves with obscene paychecks which have been the highest in history.

We've been saying that for a long time. Streaming is a failure, full stop. If you opened the books, and I think that's what we need to do, then I think we'd find that nobody is watching most of these shows and it is costing far more to bring the shows to the platform than it makes the streamers in the end. The streamers can't pay them any more because there just isn't any money! All of these platforms are going to have to cut way back on the amount of content they produce, meaning everyone is going to lose.

Yeah, streaming is 100% a money loser right now. They are basically doing what Uber/lyft did during the heyday (pay drivers well and offer insane discounts so that there will be more users joining their platform, the focus being on increasing the number of users to their platform). Uber and Lyft were huge money losers that were losing money for every ride offered and only survived because investors thought it was a winning idea and basically funded them. Now that Uber and Lyft are the only ridesharing competition around after killing the rest, they have raised prices and are finally starting to be profitable.

Streaming is currently in the exact same situation. Spending money and incurring huge short-term losses for the prospect of long-term profits once the market has been widdled down to a few key players (ideally a monopoly). This necessitates streaming platforms charging less than necessary to attract subscribers with the intention to raise rates once there is no competition left (and thus the user is forced to use their platform at the higher rate).

Unfortunately, these studios dont have investors willing to bankroll them and are also eating into their own profits with streaming taking revenue away from movies and tv shows with ads. It was stupid to announce that they were going to try to starve out the writers but I do think Hollywood needs to be more austere with their spending with the heyday of the majority of actors, writers, and directors making millions coming to an end.

 

[blewis17]

What I figure happened is a whole bunch of people assumed that streaming would grow forever and there would be money flowing from the sky for anyone who could put a pen to paper. It was never realistic. Now, these people want money that they assumed they were going to get, but that was never there to begin with.

You mean the Hollywood system over-promised, and under-delivered? This reminds a LOT of the late 1990s DOT.COM boom, when everyone was into website corporate representation. and quick money. And it all came crashing down, with only the big companies with $$$ to ride out the storm surviving. Educated professionals who thought themselves day-traders suddenly were in the lurch with their investments.

But on another note: with the the current Screen Actor's Guild strike, how many "actors" that are top tier and can command-millions-per-project are there, compared to the (presumed vast majority) of actors who mainly perform as B or C tier characters or work mainly on smaller projects and receive scale pay, or barely above? For every Ford and Schwarzenegger and Cruise and Downey Jr. and Robbie, I would think there are hundreds of lesser known/ unknown faces that are not pulling in 7 or 6 figure paychecks, right? So who is the fight really for?

1) These lesser knowns that don't want to be replaced by digital doubles, and often struggle to get by...
2) ...or the famous celebrities who want to secure a piece of the lucrative digital residual check pie? (but certainly are in no danger of living paycheck to paycheck)

 

[Cephus]

Yeah, streaming is 100% a money loser right now. They are basically doing what Uber/lyft did during the heyday (pay drivers well and offer insane discounts so that there will be more users joining their platform, the focus being on increasing the number of users to their platform). Uber and Lyft were huge money losers that were losing money for every ride offered and only survived because investors thought it was a winning idea and basically funded them. Now that Uber and Lyft are the only ridesharing competition around after killing the rest, they have raised prices and are finally starting to be profitable.

Streaming is currently in the exact same situation. Spending money and incurring huge short-term losses for the prospect of long-term profits once the market has been widdled down to a few key players (ideally a monopoly). This necessitates streaming platforms charging less than necessary to attract subscribers with the intention to raise rates once there is no competition left (and thus the user is forced to use their platform at the higher rate).

Unfortunately, these studios dont have investors willing to bankroll them and are also eating into their own profits with streaming taking revenue away from movies and tv shows with ads. It was stupid to announce that they were going to try to starve out the writers but I do think Hollywood needs to be more austere with their spending with the heyday of the majority of actors, writers, and directors making millions coming to an end.

The problem, like most of the other problems in Hollywood, is that they're just throwing money at the wall and hoping something sticks. There is no reason to spend theatrical movie money on 6-episode TV series, but that's exactly what they're doing. They think that money spent means success and they are finding out very rapidly that it doesn't. As you say, there are just way too many platforms out there and too much "exclusive content" that they're throwing money at and most of it doesn't make any money at all.

The writers picked the wrong time to go on strike, when the streaming services are hemorrhaging money, the box office is tanking and now they are whining about wanting more money. Whether they are solely responsible or not, this is not the time to go looking at the general public and play the victim. Hollywood is crap right now. It has been crap for a very long time. This isn't the pre-pandemic days when there were lots of movies that were making a billion dollars. Now, it's rare. It's why most people don't give a crap about the writers or actors. Let them stay on strike forever. They haven't proven they're worth anything at all.

Netflix doesn't care because they invested in overseas properties. Nobody in South Korea is on strike. They'll keep making shows for the west because even if they don't make a lot here, it's still a lot more than they're making at home. I figure Netflix is just going to laugh as the writers and actors starve.

Frankly, that's fine with me.