|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Discussion about how the perceived risks of original content leads retreads
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 12-23-2019 04:56 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
So much of what has followed has been re-treading over the same idea. There's far too little of anyone taking big chances on new ideas these days.
quote: Mike Blakesley
The thing they all fail to get is, there's no duplicating the thrill of experiencing something for the first time, especially if the thing was a major cultural phenomenon. It'd be the same if Universal bought Marvel from Disney and tried to make a new Iron Man movie. It could be the best movie ever made in the history of time, but fans of the original would say it sucked because it didn't feel the way the original did.
That's all the more reason to for "film-makers" and movie studios to put more effort in developing new ideas. Even if they're phoning-it-in with the Save the Cat! clip art template approach they're not going to invite nearly as much negative comparisons and fan reactions with something "new" as opposed to making something based on something else. The story and characters may only be new in name only, but the worst they can suffer is people just saying it wasn't a very good show. It's not like the bad movie is taking a giant piss on another beloved title.
When a studio chooses to re-make a movie whose original was a success or spawn sequels from a successful movie they're going to be stuck having to accept fan reaction, whether it's good or bad. Fans are going to feel how they are going to feel. Regarding George Lucas and Star Wars Episodes I-II-III, a good amount of the negative reaction from fans of the original trilogy were 100% justified. And this doesn't get into the whole digital projection controversy in 1999. There are parts of those prequels that are truly cringe-inducing. And the further alterations of the original 3 movies (like that Darth Vader "noooooo" bullshit in ROTJ) did more to further outrage fans. Those movies may have been owned by George Lucas, but it was something he was selling to us. If we're going to be asked to fork over our money and time to watch it we're going to be entitled to our own reactions and opinions afterward.
I don't want to sound like I'm singling out George Lucas. Others have thoroughly botched movie sagas with bad sequels. After Alien and Aliens the rest of the saga that followed was really shitty; the same goes for Predator as well. The two sequels for The Matrix had all kinds of problems (which doesn't make me feel good at all about this fourth movie coming in the next year or so).
quote: Justin Hamaker
The problem with this idea is it suggest people are still reading newspapers to see the advertisements. We dropped our newspaper ad a number of years ago when we discovered less than 5% of our customers were getting show times from the newspaper. We actually extrapolated it out and found that our newspaper ad was costing about $1.25 per ticket sale it generated.
The point of bringing up the decline of newspaper advertising was more to do about the overall way movies are marketed to the public. 30 years ago it was a pretty simple equation for movie studios: run commercials on national TV and publish ads in newspapers. That approach covered much of the nation. The only things special they did outside of that was place ads on billboards, bus benches and train platforms in big cities. It didn't take all that much effort to get a movie ad campaign a hell of a lot of exposure.
Today everything is fractured to hell. The four big OTA TV networks generate maybe half the ratings numbers they did in the early 1990's. The rising popularity of streaming services and cord-cutting is putting a serious dent in TV advertising sales. We all know what the Internet did to the daily newspaper. Everyone is on the Internet but no two people visit all the same sites. Overall it's now a lot harder to reach the same percentages of people with movie ads. Basically the ad buys have to be spread out in a much wider, more complicated fashion. The big studios might be able to deal with the burden better than the indie outfits. I still miss big newspaper ads for movies. There was something about them that seemed "bigger" and more legit than looking at a small electronic ad for a movie on a computer screen or mobile phone.
quote: Justin Hamaker
I think the biggest factor has been the narrowing of the theatrical release window. There is less incentive for people to go to a theatre to see a movie when they know they can watch it at home in just a few months.
I think the shrinking window has been particularly harmful to the movie business in general. I don't even understand why the studios continue to trim the length of that window. How well are digital-download versions of movies even selling? Physical media sales are in the toilet. Companies like Samsung are getting out of the movie disc player business. The studios are in such a rush to push movies from the theater into the home, but it seems like the home market is cannibalizing itself. Is there really that much money in merely having a movie play on Netflix for a couple or so months?
Another thing I think hurts the movie industry is the real estate market in big cities. Some high profile theaters in big cities have been closing to make way for other kinds of businesses or luxury condos. Some of these urban theaters were outlets for more artsy types of movies. The remaining balance of theater screens is getting to be more of the suburban McMovies multiplex variety.
quote: Justin Hamaker
I also think there is a comfort factor. Many people are more likely to put down their money for something they know they will like. Why spend $ on that potentially boring art film when they now they'll have a good time watching Avengers 134.
Well, the Marvel movies are kind of their own unique thing. The "MCU" has been a continuing story line of sorts for a decade. And Marvel has been for the most part pretty consistent at delivering the goods (and even winning critical praise). The success of Marvel's movies often don't translate over to all the other hero movies, sequels and re-makes the big Hollywood studios keep dishing out to the public. X-Men: Dark Phoenix and Hellboy were two serious bombs this year. That last X-Men movie might have been bad enough to kill that franchise. Not only did they make some of the same fan-outraging mistakes they did in The Last Stand they doubled down on the mistakes rather than correct any of them.
Anyway, the big studios and their media company parents believe they're playing a safe, dependable game by producing all this regurgitated content. But I think there is a growing risk to that strategy. The public isn't always just going to keep buying it just because it is there.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jack Ondracek
Film God
Posts: 2348
From: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Registered: Oct 2002
|
posted 12-23-2019 07:04 PM
Political correctness and corporate greed aside, I think a lot of it is that it takes more to impress us nowadays.
When Star Wars first hit the screen, spaceships looked more like toilet paper cores with sparklers attached. We didn't know a lot of aliens, and of the few we had seen, not many flew like Superman. Supergirl wasn't even a cinematic thing then, was she?
At least we had Batgirl... sometimes... and even then, compared to the dynamic duo, all she had was a cool, non-atomic-powered motorcycle.
Now, everything flies and shoots laser-like rays, and there's so much action to stuff into a 3-hour film, you can only devote 1/4 to 1/2 second to any particular action scene.
I get that Hollywood thinks they're making what the public wants to see, but Marvel sure has dominated the screen lately.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 12-24-2019 12:52 AM
quote: Jack Ondracek
Political correctness and corporate greed aside, I think a lot of it is that it takes more to impress us nowadays.
To be honest, I'm almost thinking we're heading the other way those days. For me, there is definitely something like a Special Effects fatigue. I take those things for granted nowadays. In many cases you don't even know what's a special effect and what's not. While it's still impressive on a technical level and I have the highest regards for the people that do make those special effects, today we're at a point in history where the imagination of the storyteller and/or director is almost no limitation anymore to what we can make happen, given sufficient budget.
But like Frank indicated, often you don't even need a single drop of CGI. A good, memorable image is often achieved by reducing stuff by the core, not by over-stuffing the image with explosions and lasers blasting in all directions, with the camera rotating right through in all kinds of impossible directions.
quote: Mike Blakesley
Yeah but nobody ever has to stay dead anymore, either. They can be brought back by "flashbacks," memories, prequels, time travel, or (in the case of Star Wars movies) apparently magic.
I totally agree. Death, in a movie (or series), used to mean something, something definitive, just like in real life. With characters respawning like some cheap videogame at the whim of the story writer, you're killing (pun somewhat intended) one of the most powerful story writing tools.
quote: Bobby Henderson
And that moves to another big point: 2 hour theatrical movies have a big disadvantage to TV. Traditional feature movies don't have the level of freedom with story lines and character arcs that various types of shows on TV enjoy, be it a 2 hour made-for-TV movie, a limited mini-series or a series with multiple seasons.
I do think that the 45-minutes TV-series format has a pretty big flaw though and that's why I still prefer feature movies above this delivery format.
The 45 minute to an hour timespan simply isn't sufficient to deliver most elaborate self-containing stories. A 2 hour or even 2 hour+ movie usually has sufficient time to both introduce the characters, the story's premise and do something interesting with the plot. Many series nowadays therefore choose an over-arching story plot, that spans multiple episodes, often even seasons or the entire run.
The problem though is that every episode in itself is a run from cliffhanger to cliffhanger, because people need to be enticed to view the next episode.
That's why I still like the traditional "feature format" the most. Also, a proper "feature format" release still has the allure of greatness coupled to it. A movie is something big, something you've often been waiting for for weeks, months, maybe even years. I know that many people now anticipate a new season for their favorite show for months on end, but a show still doesn't feel like a movie to me. There is NO "red carpet feeling" anywhere, nowadays it's often just a "season dump" on a streaming platform...
quote: Justin Hamaker
I also think there is a comfort factor. Many people are more likely to put down their money for something they know they will like. Why spend $ on that potentially boring art film when they now they'll have a good time watching Avengers 134.
While this works to some pretty great extend, I see this effect wearing off now all around me. Yes, I might not be the perfect reference when it comes to those things, but I'm pretty sure you only need to put your nose and ears into your crowds to spot some major fatigue growing among them regarding this whole barrage of sequels, prequels and other templated franchise releases. Sequelitis is a highly contagious kind of virus, but it takes some time to activate, but when it hits, it hits hard...
Like Mike aptly put it, there is simply nothing that compares to the experience of "experiencing something for the first time". It can certainly be fun, watching that good-old movie again, but watching something new AND good for the first time, is truly a unique experience you tend to remember forever.
And we have so few of them those days... Many movies feel like I've seen them a thousand times before. It's almost like everything big that's produced right now, has to fit into the complete package... the ticking boxes again:
[x] Compatible with multiple sequels, prequels and side stories
[x] Can sell sufficient toys
[x] Can be made into a video game
[x] Fits within an overarching theme in it's own themed land in at least one major theme park.
[x] ...
Even when someone comes up with something "new and original", you clearly see they at least try to tick multiple of those boxes. This limits the amount of creativity, the width of the canvas on which the movie can be "painted". If it doesn't fit in the box, it will not be funded.
Heck, even Scorsese had to go to Netflix to get his movie about "painting houses" made, because no regular studio wanted to foot the bill.
There is something rotting in Hollywood and if they don't get the exterminator in soon, the only thing left is to let it crash and burn. Maybe some like to watch this happening with certain levels of "schadenfreude", but this will have serious consequences for the exhibition industry, which still is almost entirely dependent on Hollywood's output, at least in the western world.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 12-24-2019 10:34 AM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
The 45 minute to an hour timespan simply isn't sufficient to deliver most elaborate self-containing stories. A 2 hour or even 2 hour+ movie usually has sufficient time to both introduce the characters, the story's premise and do something interesting with the plot. Many series nowadays therefore choose an over-arching story plot, that spans multiple episodes, often even seasons or the entire run.
Very few TV series feature story lines that are completely contained within single episodes anymore. Most feature larger, continuing stories that span an entire season or span multiple seasons across the entire series run. I think book adaptations tend to work much better in these environments because there is more room for the story's details. The traditional 2 hour movie format often reduces a novel down to a cliff notes version, or even goofs things up with asinine alterations (story changes, different endings, etc).
I kind of wish at least some TV series would make every episode a stand-alone self-contained story. Now if I want to watch a certain TV series I basically have to watch the whole damned thing rather than a few episodes here or there. That's a big time commitment.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
The problem though is that every episode in itself is a run from cliffhanger to cliffhanger, because people need to be enticed to view the next episode.
Some series do that while others don't. Streaming has dramatically changed the approach to series TV. Entire seasons can be binge-watched all at once or however many episodes the viewer wants to take in at once. I don't mind episodes having a logical break to them. It's a little like a writer breaking up a book into chapters or long passages of text in paragraphs.
Besides, feature length movies often have plenty of their own "cliffhanger" style moments to move from one big fade to black story beat to the next "chapter" of the story. These movies play in theaters for only a very short percentage of their useful life. At the end of the run they're playing on basic cable, punctuated with commercial breaks. Even big studio movies put some thought into how the show will play on other platforms like commercial TV.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
That's why I still like the traditional "feature format" the most. Also, a proper "feature format" release still has the allure of greatness coupled to it. A movie is something big, something you've often been waiting for for weeks, months, maybe even years. I know that many people now anticipate a new season for their favorite show for months on end, but a show still doesn't feel like a movie to me. There is NO "red carpet feeling" anywhere, nowadays it's often just a "season dump" on a streaming platform...
Not many first run theaters deliver the "red carpet feeling" anymore. How many 1000+ seat theater auditoriums still exist? These days if I'm not spending a $3 or more surcharge on top of the normal ticket price I'll get to watch the movie in an auditorium with a modest sized screen, maybe 100-150 seats, low volume audio and a letter-boxed picture that looks like the TV screen at home, but not as focused. What's so great about that?
In the past movie theaters had two big advantages over TV. They could show certain things that could not be aired on TV and those shows would play on the big screen first. Back when I was a kid and the home video revolution was just beginning the window between theatrical release and home video was often a year or more. Today the window is maybe 8 weeks before the digital-download is available to buy. 30 years ago premium cable could show R-rated Hollywood movies and some other R-rated level adult content. Today the cable and streaming services can show NC-17/unrated content that would rarely ever make it into a Hollywood theatrical release. Some chains still refuse to book NC-17/unrated movies. These differences are allowing content on premium cable and streaming services to be more edgy and less predictable. Big Hollywood studio movies already too often suffer from the vibe of making viewers feel like they've seen the same movie 1000 times before. Add a good dose of bland to that vibe. Most R-rated Hollywood movies are only R-rated for the profanity and some violence. You'll see a lot more than that on TV.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Yes, I might not be the perfect reference when it comes to those things, but I'm pretty sure you only need to put your nose and ears into your crowds to spot some major fatigue growing among them regarding this whole barrage of sequels, prequels and other templated franchise releases.
Any movie studio executive could get a loud hint just by listening to the reactions of audiences when a trailer plays for the latest remake, spin-off, reboot, etc. It's often a mix of groans and laughter, peppered with comments like what the fuck and why do they keep doing this?. Audiences are sick of the shit. But the movie industry operates as an oligopoly and deliberately provides as little change and innovation as possible. The business model is to sell the public the same shit over and over again while charging ever more money for it. The customers have no other choice than to find some other source of entertainment. At some point the customers will end up doing that.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic