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

[Cephus]

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)

Of course, and I, and a lot of other people, stood there and said that the dot.com boom would go bust and it did. We also said the same thing about the real estate debacle. We knew that wasn't how the real world worked. Nobody else wanted to listen. Tons of people lost money. We were just fine because we saw it coming all along.

You notice that most of the actors who are out there with their big mouths open are the ones who are rich and never have to work another day in their lives, right? It isn't the poor actors who need to put food on the table. It's the big wigs that decide to strike and make all of the absurd demands. It's the rest who get used as bodies on the picket lines and have to tighten their belts. Maybe they ought to stop listening to these crappy unions.

 

[Lightning]

You notice that most of the actors who are out there with their big mouths open are the ones who are rich and never have to work another day in their lives, right? It isn't the poor actors who need to put food on the table. It's the big wigs that decide to strike and make all of the absurd demands. It's the rest who get used as bodies on the picket lines and have to tighten their belts. Maybe they ought to stop listening to these crappy unions.

There are so many things wrong with this paragraph. The entire union votes to strike, it doesn't happen unless the rank and file want it. The famous actors dont need to strike but picket in solidarity because it helps bring publicity. They also get the press because celebrity gets clicks. No one cares what an unknown actor has to say (even if they should). Many of the big actors have also been donating millions of their own money to the relief fund in order to allow poorer actors to last longer.

 

[batguy]

There wre so many things wrong with this paragraph. The entire union votes to strike, it doesn't happen unless the rank and file want it. The famous actors dont need to strike but picket in solidarity because it helps bring publicity. They also get the press because celebrity gets clicks. No one cares what an unknown actor has to say (even if they should). Many of the big actors have also been donating millions of their own money to the relief fund in order to allow poorer actors to last longer.

This.
I was typing something similar.

There is also the issue of career risk. Famous actors have less risk of being black-balled later for what they do during these strikes. And if it does happen, they have more money & connections to ride it out & fight back. Etc.

If a struggling actor goes viral for criticizing the studios, they might just find themselves labeled "difficult" when the strike is over and lose any hope of a career. (Look at the tree-trimming incident at Universal recently - studios are big corps. Big corps fight dirty.)

It's totally logical that wealthy famous actors would be the leading faces of the strike.

 

[Cephus]

There are so many things wrong with this paragraph. The entire union votes to strike, it doesn't happen unless the rank and file want it. The famous actors dont need to strike but picket in solidarity because it helps bring publicity. They also get the press because celebrity gets clicks. No one cares what an unknown actor has to say (even if they should). Many of the big actors have also been donating millions of their own money to the relief fund in order to allow poorer actors to last longer.

If I remember right, only about 43% voted at all.

 

[pengbuzz]

This.
I was typing something similar.

There is also the issue of career risk. Famous actors have less risk of being black-balled later for what they do during these strikes. And if it does happen, they have more money & connections to ride it out & fight back. Etc.

If a struggling actor goes viral for criticizing the studios, they might just find themselves labeled "difficult" when the strike is over and lose any hope of a career. (Look at the tree-trimming incident at Universal recently - studios are big corps. Big corps fight dirty.)

It's totally logical that wealthy famous actors would be the leading faces of the strike.

What's to prevent Hollywood from simply editing out the strike and claiming "it never happened"?

Or digitally removing these actors'/ actresses' "embarrassing behavior"?

Or the reverse: an actor/ actress whom they feel "is being difficult" having been digitally made to say and do things they did not say or do, and then thrown to the wolves as punishment for daring to cross TPTB?

Does anyone think "it cannot happen?" The Purges under Joseph Stalin say otherwise....

 

[HeartBlade]

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.

Completely agree and is a common misconception corporations seem to have. Yes, spending and having a decent budget is important for a good product but putting in more money doesnt necessarily create a good product. I do think tv shows can be better in telling a longer, more complex narrative than movies due to their naturally longer view time but the core story needs to be interesting.

The thing is, Hollywood writers are in a union and there is likely some legal requirement where studios will need to pay extra if they just use writers, even from abroad. Thats the benefit of unions. Im not exactly on the studios side here either and while I dont think the writers are amazing, studio meddling also made a huge contribution to producing these bad by committee movies and shows.

 

[tcsmit29]

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.

I believe you are right. Unfortunately, IMO the end result will probably be that content will be more expensive for the consumers. Thats the way it usually happens. Personally, I'm not willing to pay much more than I am currently. I put a hard limit and only allow myself 3 streaming services at a time. The reality is that I don't watch them very often. I might watch a season of some new show when it releases or something like that but I hardly ever just browse and watch something because I'm bored.

So, what's the right answer? Pay-per-view?

 

[cboath]

There are so many things wrong with this paragraph. The entire union votes to strike, it doesn't happen unless the rank and file want it. The famous actors dont need to strike but picket in solidarity because it helps bring publicity. They also get the press because celebrity gets clicks. No one cares what an unknown actor has to say (even if they should). Many of the big actors have also been donating millions of their own money to the relief fund in order to allow poorer actors to last longer.

At the end of the day though, are they willing to reduce those mega deals for the rank and file to get more? I highly doubt it. Easy to chip in 1m when you know post strike they will give you 40 50m more to do FF72.

 

[Cephus]

I believe you are right. Unfortunately, IMO the end result will probably be that content will be more expensive for the consumers. Thats the way it usually happens. Personally, I'm not willing to pay much more than I am currently. I put a hard limit and only allow myself 3 streaming services at a time. The reality is that I don't watch them very often. I might watch a season of some new show when it releases or something like that but I hardly ever just browse and watch something because I'm bored.

So, what's the right answer? Pay-per-view?

Hollywood never learns. This is what happened with cable. All of a sudden, you had hundreds and hundreds of cable channels and there wasn't enough money to go around for all of them. They're just doing the same thing now, except they are competing for a very limited audience by throwing money around like it's going out of style. There is probably only room for 2-3 streaming services, period. The only solution is moderation and Hollywood isn't known for moderation these days, is it?

 

[joberg]

I believe you are right. Unfortunately, IMO the end result will probably be that content will be more expensive for the consumers. Thats the way it usually happens. Personally, I'm not willing to pay much more than I am currently. I put a hard limit and only allow myself 3 streaming services at a time. The reality is that I don't watch them very often. I might watch a season of some new show when it releases or something like that but I hardly ever just browse and watch something because I'm bored.

So, what's the right answer? Pay-per-view?

Some cheap packages come with adds...isn't the wrong strategy since I stopped watching regular T.V. because of adds in the first place?

 

[ghostryder]

Death Spiral of Hollywood Monopolies

Too big to fail? Not so fast. A showrunner's cautionary memo

theankler.com

 

[Cephus]

Death Spiral of Hollywood Monopolies

Too big to fail? Not so fast. A showrunner's cautionary memo

theankler.com

Another instance of one side pointing to the other side and saying "it's all their fault!"

It's not. It's just not.

 

[pengbuzz]

Hollywood never learns. This is what happened with cable. All of a sudden, you had hundreds and hundreds of cable channels and there wasn't enough money to go around for all of them. They're just doing the same thing now, except they are competing for a very limited audience by throwing money around like it's going out of style. There is probably only room for 2-3 streaming services, period. The only solution is moderation and Hollywood isn't known for moderation these days, is it?

Fifty-seven channels and nothing on...

 

[Cephus]

Fifty-seven channels and nothing on...

No kidding. My wife and I will get on Netflix or Amazon Prime and just give up. Either we have the DVD and have seen it a bazillion times, or it's crap that we have no interest in watching.

 

[Lightning]

At the end of the day though, are they willing to reduce those mega deals for the rank and file to get more? I highly doubt it. Easy to chip in 1m when you know post strike they will give you 40 50m more to do FF72.

That's the beauty of it, they don't have to agree to reduce their paychecks. Union negotiations are about standards and minimums. If those numbers go up there is less money to pay the stars. Star paychecks (or percentages) are based on percieved value added to the box office. If there is less profit to go around the big stars either work for less or don't work at all.

 

[robstyle]

Having been in and around the entertainment industry for my entire life, nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.


*if I've read correctly a writer wants money for me quoting that on the internet.

 

[Riceball]

When CGI was first used in the 80s and even more in the 90s, it was really expensive. Although I don't know what the cost was, or how they even determined a price. Maybe per scene.

I'm pretty certain that the amount charged is based on the number of man hours, plus a profit margin and likely also includes render time. So the effects house will probably have an hourly rate that's probably based on a rough average of their artists, multiplied by the number or artists and that's more or less what they'll charge the production. It pretty neatly explains why the effects (particularly CG) usually look better in the big budget movies than in lower ones, the big budget films have the money to pay the effects house to take a few more passes over each shot they work on to get things as close to perfect as they can. But on a lower budget production, they can't afford to pay the effects house to do those extra passes to make things so they settle for good enough,

You already can. A lot of lower-budget movies and TV shows are already done on home computers. They might not be as flashy but it can be done with enough creativity.

Also, who says the artists are in Hollywood? I don't remember seeing a lot of artistry in any films of late. The future of AI might bring about the biggest creative boom in human history. It could actually make everyone happy (except the people who get rich off of movies today). Imagine telling an AI exactly what you want in a movie, and an hour later, you can watch it, Any characters, any actors, any scenario you want, you get precisely what you are looking for from the privacy of your own home. I think it would be glorious, except, of course, to the people who are only in it to make money.

Babylon 5 did this back in the '90s early home computers, Amigas if I remember correctly. The effects were better than Tron but pretty bad by today's standards but they were considered groundbreaking for the time. This is especially true when you consider how heavily CG was used on the show.

 

[Riceball]

Which I agree with. The CEOs don't 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 don't 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.

I disagree with the whole idea of the "evil" CEO who does nothing all day but sit behind their desk and collect a massive paycheck. I'm not sure what most CEOs of major corporations do but I imagine that they're some of the first people and likely some of the last to leave. They likely start working on their way to the office, on the way home, and probably at home as well. Most of their days are likely spent going from one meeting to another, reading and writing reports, taking and making countless phone calls. And not to mention the countless amount of OT worked, missed recitals & ball games, and working vacations they've had over the years climbing the corporate ladder to get where they are now. Given all of that and the immense responsibility of running a multi-million or even multi-billion dollar company, I say that they deserve every penny they get.

I will say, however, that I don't think that they deserve golden parachutes where they're guaranteed a fat bonus regardless if the company has made or lost money during their tenure or the year. That is ridiculous, they should get a (generous) base salary with bonuses being paid based on the performance of the company. The company does well, they do well, but it has to be a multi-tier matrix that's not based solely on the company's bank account since it's too easy for an unethical CEO to layoff large numbers of employees just to make the company's ledgers look good in order to get their bonus.

 

[HeartBlade]

Having been in and around the entertainment industry for my entire life, nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.


*if I've read correctly a writer wants money for me quoting that on the internet.

On behalf of WGA, you can pay your $80,000 fee at the front desk lol

No kidding. My wife and I will get on Netflix or Amazon Prime and just give up. Either we have the DVD and have seen it a bazillion times, or it's crap that we have no interest in watching.

Its ironic that Netflix was created at first to centralize all these shows into a one stop platform where everyone can then also watch these shows that were divided by cable packages but now that competition has entered, Netflix has become one of the many platforms competing for exclusive shows just like cable. Just need to wait for the next Netflix delivered through another platform.

The big challenge with the platform business is in the end, content is king or more accurately, good content. People may favor one platform over another due to better UI, searchability, or other features like skipping intros and credits but people will go to a bad platform if the content on there is superior to others.

When the streaming wars started, I honestly thought it was Disney's war to win. Not only do they have decades of experience making movies and own some of the most prominent studios like Pixar and Lucasfilm now, they own a ton of IPs of beloved franchises like Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Disney and Pixar classics, Disney tv shows, etc that essentially covers the gambit of little kids to adults.

 

[HeartBlade]

I disagree with the whole idea of the "evil" CEO who does nothing all day but sit behind their desk and collect a massive paycheck. I'm not sure what most CEOs of major corporations do but I imagine that they're some of the first people and likely some of the last to leave. They likely start working on their way to the office, on the way home, and probably at home as well. Most of their days are likely spent going from one meeting to another, reading and writing reports, taking and making countless phone calls. And not to mention the countless amount of OT worked, missed recitals & ball games, and working vacations they've had over the years climbing the corporate ladder to get where they are now. Given all of that and the immense responsibility of running a multi-million or even multi-billion dollar company, I say that they deserve every penny they get.

I will say, however, that I don't think that they deserve golden parachutes where they're guaranteed a fat bonus regardless if the company has made or lost money during their tenure or the year. That is ridiculous, they should get a (generous) base salary with bonuses being paid based on the performance of the company. The company does well, they do well, but it has to be a multi-tier matrix that's not based solely on the company's bank account since it's too easy for an unethical CEO to layoff large numbers of employees just to make the company's ledgers look good in order to get their bonus.

I know most CEOs arnt just fat cats playing golf while raking in the dough and did work hard to climb the corporate ladder but their compensation is far too high for what they are contributing to the company.

And just to clarify some things, golden parachutes are the compensation/severance packages a C-suite exec gets when they are fired/asked to leave the company which usually occurs due to a merger or takeover (basically their company gets bought out and new management comes in) although it has also come to apply to execs who get fired or retire. Unlike normal people, executives get a very generous paycheck, stock options, bonuses, etc when they leave like in 2012 when the CEO of ConocoPhillips got $156M in addition to salary, bonus, and other compensation which is basically paid by shareholders.

Execs are paid as you say with a very generous base salary performance bonus, and stock options meaning their income changes based on the performance of the company. The tricky thing is "how do you measure if a company is doing well?" which is done by stock price where if the stock price is higher, the company is doing better (which is not always the case to be honest). This has resulted in incentivizing executives to make short term benefits that dont necessarily result in long term benefits although their interests are more aligned with shareholders.

It is a fact that CEO compensation is probably the highest in history in terms of discrepancy to the average worker. In 1989, the ratio of compensation between worker and CEO was 1 to 61. In 2021, its 1 to 399. Doesnt leave a great taste in people's mouths when CEOs reward themselves with several million dollar bonuses despite the company losing money and being forced to cut thousands of jobs either.

This is getting off topic so dont want to delve into this further but its not like we are getting revolutionaries like Henry Ford who doubled wages to hire better workers and ensure his customers could actually buy the products he was producing.