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

[JOATRASH FX]

95% of people working on movies or TV shows don't get residuals and honestly, I don't think the last 5% should either. Until the set dressers are making money, the actors shouldn't be either, and we all know there just isn't enough money out there to pay them all. We have to be realistic and Hollywood is based on absurd wishful thinking.

I'm inclined to agree on that, and I would extend it to the entire chain. Either everyone that contributed keeps making money in proportion to their contribution, or no one does. In video games, SAG managed to force a contract clause that grants VO actors percentage rights when production has a certain budget- the problem is, as talented as the actors might be, VO has virtually ZERO impact on the success or sales of a video game. (Well, unless it's bad... 'cause bad VO can actually help sink the sales of a game.) There is almost NO benefit to have 'name' actors. (I know, because I've cast name actors several times and while it's awesome to have them and work with them for several reasons, gamers don't really care. In fact, you can get a backlash of people saying "they spent money on actors instead of making the game better". ) When it comes to games, the actual developers (artists, designers, programmers) are the ones doing the heavy lifting, often to the point of endangering their health (I know people who've gotten nosebleeds from the stress) and they don't' get residuals.

That will change and people need to adapt to the new reality.

Of course we need to adapt to an ever-changing world, but that doesn't mean we have to sit down and take whatever gets shoveled our way. I can see uses for AI- it's apparently great at detecting cancer, so having a human doctor use an AI to get a second opinion might be great. And when it comes to writing, well... in my 'day job' I can see a couple minor instances where it would be useful, like when you need to write 10 slightly different versions of a line for randomization; doing that with 1000 lines becomes soul-crushing work!


But anyway, that's not why Hollywood is failing. I think another major shift in attitude is they way studios are approaching selling their creations. Sure, they've always wanted to make loads of money- nothing wrong with that, but they've gone from "we need to find a movie that the public will probably like, take a chance on this creator, so we can sell it for a modest profit" to "we need to keep shoveling content in a nonstop stream and make 1 billion dollars with every movie or it's not worth it". It has been pointed out taht many current studio heads come from the business realm- they don't care at all about making movies or entertainment, just raking in the bucks by whatever means necessary. It feels like that shift happened slowly over the last 20-30 years.

 

[Knightmare]

I'm inclined to agree on that, and I would extend it to the entire chain. Either everyone that contributed keeps making money in proportion to their contribution, or no one does. In video games, SAG managed to force a contract clause that grants VO actors percentage rights when production has a certain budget- the problem is, as talented as the actors might be, VO has virtually ZERO impact on the success or sales of a video game. (Well, unless it's bad... 'cause bad VO can actually help sink the sales of a game.) There is almost NO benefit to have 'name' actors. (I know, because I've cast name actors several times and while it's awesome to have them and work with them for several reasons, gamers don't really care. In fact, you can get a backlash of people saying "they spent money on actors instead of making the game better". ) When it comes to games, the actual developers (artists, designers, programmers) are the ones doing the heavy lifting, often to the point of endangering their health (I know people who've gotten nosebleeds from the stress) and they don't' get residuals.



Of course we need to adapt to an ever-changing world, but that doesn't mean we have to sit down and take whatever gets shoveled our way. I can see uses for AI- it's apparently great at detecting cancer, so having a human doctor use an AI to get a second opinion might be great. And when it comes to writing, well... in my 'day job' I can see a couple minor instances where it would be useful, like when you need to write 10 slightly different versions of a line for randomization; doing that with 1000 lines becomes soul-crushing work!


But anyway, that's not why Hollywood is failing. I think another major shift in attitude is they way studios are approaching selling their creations. Sure, they've always wanted to make loads of money- nothing wrong with that, but they've gone from "we need to find a movie that the public will probably like, take a chance on this creator, so we can sell it for a modest profit" to "we need to keep shoveling content in a nonstop stream and make 1 billion dollars with every movie or it's not worth it". It has been pointed out taht many current studio heads come from the business realm- they don't care at all about making movies or entertainment, just raking in the bucks by whatever means necessary. It feels like that shift happened slowly over the last 20-30 years.

They are getting paid to make films a certain way it’s a fact end of story . Studios will not make films unless certain talking points are highlighted its in every film big or small can’t be argued or debated . No it is not going to change no matter if you see these films or subscribe to these streaming services .

 

[batguy]

It has been pointed out taht many current studio heads come from the business realm- they don't care at all about making movies or entertainment, just raking in the bucks by whatever means necessary. It feels like that shift happened slowly over the last 20-30 years.

That goes back longer than 20-30 years.

The studios were being taken over by new corporate blood in the late 60s/early 70s. At the same time, TV had been eroding their sales for 15 years. In the late-60s there was already serious talk about movie theaters going extinct.

Those new studio bosses didn't know anything about filmmaking but they knew the old system was dying. So they started taking chances on young film school geeks. Spieberg, Lucas, Coppola, Scorcese, etc.

'Easy Rider' (1969) and 'American Graffiti' (1973) were two movies in a row that crapped on Hollywood convention and made huge amounts of money on tiny budgets. That got the ball rolling. Today everybody talks about 'Jaws' and 'Star Wars' but it was the low-budget earlier shows that got them greenlit.


I don't think we will see another 'Easy Rider' or 'Graffiti' moment happen again. There is so much more content being made and corporate studios do more market research. But today does parallel that time in many ways.

 

[chibobber]

The Automated Movie Factory( AMF, some will get it). AI generated, script, actors, production, editing, marketing. Little human involvement. No residuals to pay. Glorified cartoon animation.

 

[ghostryder]

New Yorker had a pretty accurate take on this exact thing here:

https://archive.ph/n1XNk

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

 

[JediMichael]

So I was busy yesterday and then fell asleep early, so I've missed everything said here,....but somehow I have a feeling this is veining off of the Indy 5 thread....lol.

 

[Birdie]

I've been to see two movies since the pandemic, and not many more in the few years before. For everything else I just watch Pitch Meeting. Ryan sums it all up pretty well and at least makes you laugh about it.

 

[Cephus]

I'm inclined to agree on that, and I would extend it to the entire chain. Either everyone that contributed keeps making money in proportion to their contribution, or no one does. In video games, SAG managed to force a contract clause that grants VO actors percentage rights when production has a certain budget- the problem is, as talented as the actors might be, VO has virtually ZERO impact on the success or sales of a video game. (Well, unless it's bad... 'cause bad VO can actually help sink the sales of a game.) There is almost NO benefit to have 'name' actors. (I know, because I've cast name actors several times and while it's awesome to have them and work with them for several reasons, gamers don't really care. In fact, you can get a backlash of people saying "they spent money on actors instead of making the game better". ) When it comes to games, the actual developers (artists, designers, programmers) are the ones doing the heavy lifting, often to the point of endangering their health (I know people who've gotten nosebleeds from the stress) and they don't' get residuals.

Except we know that's unrealistic. Look at the credits of any AAA video game. There is no way that every single one of those people are going to get a check, every time someone buys the game. It's bizarrely absurd. It's an economic impossibility. The vast majority of those people have already moved on to work on other projects. We do not live in a world where that makes any sense. Things have to change.

You also have to remember that the only reason these unions exist anymore is through sheer momentum. They've just always been there and today, it certainly seems that they exist, only to benefit themselves. They want as many dues-paying members as they can get so that they make money. I don't know that they care about the actors at all, except as a way to keep getting paid.

The simple reality is, and this goes for games as well as other media, is that the era of the big name actor is going away. There are no superstars anymore. There are virtually no actors that put butts in seats. Today, that's been replaced with flashy CGI, which honestly is just as dumb. Absolutely nobody deserves millions and millions of dollars to be in a movie. I mean, if you can negotiate it into your contract, more power to you, I guess, but given that so many movies just crash under the weight of their overblown budgets, that just has to go away. We have to get away from the idea of "I did a thing once, keep paying me". The public just isn't going to buy into it anymore.

Of course we need to adapt to an ever-changing world, but that doesn't mean we have to sit down and take whatever gets shoveled our way. I can see uses for AI- it's apparently great at detecting cancer, so having a human doctor use an AI to get a second opinion might be great. And when it comes to writing, well... in my 'day job' I can see a couple minor instances where it would be useful, like when you need to write 10 slightly different versions of a line for randomization; doing that with 1000 lines becomes soul-crushing work!


But anyway, that's not why Hollywood is failing. I think another major shift in attitude is they way studios are approaching selling their creations. Sure, they've always wanted to make loads of money- nothing wrong with that, but they've gone from "we need to find a movie that the public will probably like, take a chance on this creator, so we can sell it for a modest profit" to "we need to keep shoveling content in a nonstop stream and make 1 billion dollars with every movie or it's not worth it". It has been pointed out taht many current studio heads come from the business realm- they don't care at all about making movies or entertainment, just raking in the bucks by whatever means necessary. It feels like that shift happened slowly over the last 20-30 years.

AI is here. People need to deal with it. It isn't going away. People need to adapt, just like the people who made saddles and cart wheels had to deal with the coming of the automobile. Stuff happens. Deal. I think someone said something about the people who made phone booths hating the development of the cell phone. Too bad. Now phone booths are all but extinct and anyone who worked in those fields had to move on to something else. The only constant is change. If you're not willing to change then you've got some problems. It isn't like all writers are going to be out of a job tomorrow. It will take time. They have time to adapt to the new reality. It doesn't matter if they want to, they have to. AI is not going away. Tomorrow, it might be some other technology and other people will need to adapt. That's it. Welcome to the real world. It's sad how many people refuse to deal with it as it is.

 

[Cephus]

I've been to see two movies since the pandemic, and not many more in the few years before. For everything else I just watch Pitch Meeting. Ryan sums it all up pretty well and at least makes you laugh about it.

I haven't. I haven't been in a movie theater since 2007 with the first Transformers, and the only reason I saw that was because my wife and I were driving home from San Diego Comicon and we wanted to sit down in air conditioning for a while. I don't care about the theaters, I care about the products. They too will have to adapt. If people choose not to go sit in a big room to watch a movie, then they'll have to find something else to do. People have chosen to shop online, which means a lot of malls are going under. We can't live in the past. Reality continually moves forward.

 

[dascoyne]

There are some very good reasons why the quality of writing has gone down overall.

I blame the new breed of younger writers who come straight out of college with very little real life experience from which to draw inspiration. If you think about it, the great writers and directors of the past often didn't even attend college. They were war veterans, vaudeville entertainers, news journalists, gamblers, ranch hands, alcoholics, etc. They were immigrants or came from broken homes and lived through times of war, famine and poverty. Somehow they managed to find their way to the bizarre world of the early film industry. Their movies and writing reflected deep, unique and diverse perspectives fueled by degrees of personal angst. It should come as no surprise that this setting would give rise to great writing and great stories.

In time, established veteran writers and directors also grew to command very high salaries. Nowadays, with the volume and velocity of content on streaming services, the profit margins are even slimmer, so it is only natural to bring in newer, cheaper "talent" to replace the older talent.

Of course, the writing and interests of younger writers will also reflect their experiences and interests prevalent in their formative years in college. It is no secret that the social and political atmosphere in colleges and universities is dominated by issues of race/gender diversity/inclusion. Writers forged in this setting will naturally tend to infuse their creative output with this same sensibility. This is also why so many things seem to be written with the same formulaic tone, voice and style.

We could use more blue collar writers again.

 

[simiouno]

I just watch old movies and avoid the head wreck ! Like a petulant attention seeker clawing for attention ignore it ! Asses on seats, that's the prime mover !

 

[Psab keel]

There are some very good reasons why the quality of writing has gone down overall.

I blame the new breed of younger writers who come straight out of college with very little real life experience from which to draw inspiration. If you think about it, the great writers and directors of the past often didn't even attend college. They were war veterans, vaudeville entertainers, news journalists, gamblers, ranch hands, alcoholics, etc. They were immigrants or came from broken homes and lived through times of war, famine and poverty. Somehow they managed to find their way to the bizarre world of the early film industry. Their movies and writing reflected deep, unique and diverse perspectives fueled by degrees of personal angst. It should come as no surprise that this setting would give rise to great writing and great stories.

In time, established veteran writers and directors also grew to command very high salaries. Nowadays, with the volume and velocity of content on streaming services, the profit margins are even slimmer, so it is only natural to bring in newer, cheaper "talent" to replace the older talent.

Of course, the writing and interests of younger writers will also reflect their experiences and interests prevalent in their formative years in college. It is no secret that the social and political atmosphere in colleges and universities is dominated by issues of race/gender diversity/inclusion. Writers forged in this setting will naturally tend to infuse their creative output with this same sensibility. This is also why so many things seem to be written with the same formulaic tone, voice and style.

We could use more blue collar writers again.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. It's a combination of experience and also having something interesting or meaningful to say. While it certainly helps your writing if you've experienced different walks of life or you've traveled etc, it's also a necessity to have a clear idea of what you want to say. Too often what we're seeing is writers who are only regurgitating what they were taught in school without any insight of their own. It's one thing to embrace an idea or to use the narrative structure of fiction writing to tell your story but if you have no distinct theme that you can summarize in a sentence, your work is going to be far less impactful. In fact, any sensible publisher or literary agent won't even bother with your work if you have a weak logline.

We all know that ultimately there are only a handful of plots and themes to use for a story. No one is able to reinvent the wheel and why would you bother? The originality comes from how skilled the writer is when conveying those ideas. Just like an artist using certain tools to sculpt a piece of clay, it will ALWAYS boil down to how well they are using those tools to create something that people can empathize with, relate to, or get excited about. Sometimes writers can use a mixture of genres, or they can borrow ideas from other stories but reverse the symbolism to enhance their own theme. There's no limits to the ways that these things can be worked to get unique results. So many modern writers (it seems) may have the tools at their disposal (a college education or connections in the film business) but they lack the skills or talent to use them in insightful or interesting ways.

The problem I'm seeing is that so many of the writers (barring the hinderances of the studio heads- which is a very real issue) is that they don't know what they want to say. They have the tools, but that lump of clay sits as an unformed mass because they couldn't decide what to make out of it. So they fall back on what their professors or parents taught them rather than having a thought of their own. While I'm not nearly as well read as I ought to be, I do think back to high school when we learned about Melville and Hawthorne. The literary world had an almost electric dialog between them where one writer's work sparked a response from another's. The ideas and themes one would present would be given response by the other's book. It was a really, really interesting way to see ideas being exchanged through fiction.

It would be wonderful to see some of that type of intellectual/ artistic discussion happening where fiction is creating a call and response. Then again I'm also not seeing a whole lot of introspection or depth of thought being celebrated in the culture.

 

[Cephus]

I blame the new breed of younger writers who come straight out of college with very little real life experience from which to draw inspiration. If you think about it, the great writers and directors of the past often didn't even attend college. They were war veterans, vaudeville entertainers, news journalists, gamblers, ranch hands, alcoholics, etc. They were immigrants or came from broken homes and lived through times of war, famine and poverty. Somehow they managed to find their way to the bizarre world of the early film industry. Their movies and writing reflected deep, unique and diverse perspectives fueled by degrees of personal angst. It should come as no surprise that this setting would give rise to great writing and great stories.

That's a fantastic point. Even beyond Hollywood, most kids that I run into have horrible expectations. They figure that because they have that piece of paper, that makes them special. They're not. Just about everyone has a piece of paper. You need to show what you can do with it and sadly, most of them can't actually do anything. They have book knowledge, but no clue about the real world. By the time I got out of college with my degrees, I had been working for close to a decade. I had proven myself. I was already in management, working full time and going to school full time. I had no college loans, I paid for it all out of my own pocket. Once I had that degree in my hand, I was set and I never looked back. I worked my ass off and most young adults that I see today, the ones that come and want a job, they are absolutely not qualified for anything but sweeping up. A lot of them aren't even reliable enough to do that. "What do you mean I have to show up on time?" Yeah, thanks, but don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

In time, established veteran writers and directors also grew to command very high salaries. Nowadays, with the volume and velocity of content on streaming services, the profit margins are even slimmer, so it is only natural to bring in newer, cheaper "talent" to replace the older talent.

Of course, the writing and interests of younger writers will also reflect their experiences and interests prevalent in their formative years in college. It is no secret that the social and political atmosphere in colleges and universities is dominated by issues of race/gender diversity/inclusion. Writers forged in this setting will naturally tend to infuse their creative output with this same sensibility. This is also why so many things seem to be written with the same formulaic tone, voice and style.

We could use more blue collar writers again.

But they had to earn it. Today, you have writers who have been in the industry for just a couple of years marching on the picket lines because they figure they just deserve to make a lot of money. Who has to earn things? It should be theirs because they bothered to wake up in the morning! They don't know anything, they just passed some tests and suddenly, they think they're magic!

They're just wrong.

 

[Lightning]

Too often what we're seeing is writers who are only regurgitating what they were taught in school without any insight of their own.

Sounds familiar, no wonder they are so scared of AI.

 

[dascoyne]

I agree with this wholeheartedly. It's a combination of experience and also having something interesting or meaningful to say. While it certainly helps your writing if you've experienced different walks of life or you've traveled etc, it's also a necessity to have a clear idea of what you want to say. Too often what we're seeing is writers who are only regurgitating what they were taught in school without any insight of their own. It's one thing to embrace an idea or to use the narrative structure of fiction writing to tell your story but if you have no distinct theme that you can summarize in a sentence, your work is going to be far less impactful. In fact, andy sensible publisher or literary agent won't even bother with your work if you have a weak logline.

We all know that ultimately there are only a handful of plots and themes to use for a story. No one is able to reinvent the wheel and why would you bother? The originality comes from how skilled the writer is when conveying those ideas. Just like an artist using certain tools to sculpt a piece of clay, it will ALWAYS boil down to how well they are using those tools to create something that people can empathize with, relate to, or get excited about. Sometimes writers can use a mixture of genres, or they can borrow ideas from other stories but reverse the symbolism to enhance their own theme. There's no limits to the ways that these things can be worked to get unique results. So many modern writers (it seems) may have the tools at their disposal (a college education or connections in the film business) but they lack the skills or talent to use them in insightful or interesting ways.

The problem I'm seeing is that so many of the writers (barring the hinderances of the studio heads- which is a very real issue) is that they don't know what they want to say. They have the tools, but that lump of clay sits as an unformed mass because they couldn't decide what to make out of it. So they fall back on what their professors or parents taught them rather than having a thought of their own. While I'm not nearly as well read as I ought to be, I do think back to high school when we learned about Melville and Hawthorne. The literary world had an almost electric dialog between them where one writer's work sparked a response from another's. The ideas and themes one would present would be given response by the other's book. It was a really, really interesting way to see ideas being exchanged through fiction.

It would be wonderful to see some of that type of intellectual/ artistic discussion happening where fiction is creating a call and response. Then again I'm also not seeing a whole lot of introspection or depth of thought being celebrated in the culture.

I forgot to mention that younger writers draw not only from their world-view through the college lens but also from the movies they grew up watching. This might explain the disproportionate interest in remaking or, even worse, deconstructing iconic movies and franchises instead of building new worlds or forging their own mythologies.

 

[Psab keel]

Absolutely. The initial draft of my novel was a mashup of movies and shows I loved with some of my own ideas in there. It was pretty bad. I was also in my early 20s. Lol

 

[Paul Andrew]

Absolutely. The initial draft of my novel was a mashup of movies and shows I loved with some of my own ideas in there. It was pretty bad. I was also in my early 20s. Lol

I think this is exactly where many starting novelists are at.

 

[Jm419]

Like someone else mentioned higher up in the thread, I too have been to the theater only twice since the pandemic. That's a strange thing to say - that I've only been to the movies twice since Avengers: Endgame in 2019... but there hasn't been anything worth seeing. Marvel's gone downhill,, Star Wars might as well be dead, and there just isn't any justification for spending $50 for two tickets these days. There's nothing exciting.

One of those two movies that got me back into the theater was Top Gun: Maverick - a movie which I think most people would agree is a marginal improvement on the original. But that's the thing - it's only marginally better, and it was one of the only things worth seeing recently (at least IMO). How many good films came out in 1986 alone? Ferris Bueller, Crocodile Dundee, Karate Kid II, and can't forget Aliens...

What else even came out last year? Avatar was a hit, but that was only because the first one was amazing to experience in theaters in 2009... like its predecessor, it's completely left the conversation, left virtually no impact on the cultural zeitgeist. Then you have a bunch of mediocre Marvel sequels, most of which weren't well received despite the box office earnings... Black Panther 2, Dr. Strange 2, Thor 4 or whatever we're on now... not, in my opinion, comparable to the offerings of 1986.

I just rewatched Maverick this week, and I think the thing that's so successful, so refreshing about it, is that it's actually a good movie. It's just well structured, well acted, and well written. If that's what is so refreshing about it, that it's actually good... what does that say about Hollywood?

The real answer to this question is not that movies are too expensive. They always were. Maybe not to the same degree, or the same percentage of a disposable income of a family of four, but going to the movies has always been a luxury. No, I think the real answer is that there's nothing worth seeing. Nothing is good. And when it is, when there's something in theaters that was just made for the love of the game, like Maverick, people love it.

And why isn't there anything good anymore? Why are movies just... bad?

That's on the writers, IMO. Yes, studios meddle as much as they always have, but people don't go to the movies for a lecture, for the writers to talk down to you from their ivory towers. Literally - people don't go to the movies to be lectured.

So what happens when the movies want to lecture you?

We don't go.

 

[batguy]

A lot of 'bad writing' doesn't come from writers. It comes from directors & producers.

Take a movie like 'The Force Awakens' - It's not the writers who decide to kill Han Solo, or make Rey flawless, or put Luke Skywalker in hiding, etc. Those decisions get made higher up.

 

[Jm419]

Perhaps not, but it  is the writers who are creating convoluted, hard to follow plots, stilted, awkward dialogue, and new characters with whom the audience doesn't identify.