MST3K: Anti-cinema?

Hollywood's business model really is under a potentially mortal threat, though. And that's because of Netflix and the other big companies with streaming operations which don't need to make a profit from streaming, necessarily, while at the same time putting up some tough competition for audiences' attention.

The next decade or two will determine who controls the future of mass entertainment. And, for better or worse, a lot of it may be determined by nothing more than mere algorithms.

Honestly, because of the crap Hollywood has been investing in, and their constant pandering to the lowest instincts of their audience, not only do they probably deserve to tank everything, I also don't even think that I'd care.


Not that I have faith in Netflix or algorithms. They will likely be even worse.


But maybe opening up a little room for moviemakers who dare to think outside of the broken box Hollywood has been squatting in for two decades might be a good thing. It was after all studios being garbage for years back in the 60s (where they were investing and losing in second rate epics like Cleopatra) that allowed New Hollywood to take over.


And, lo and behold, look what happened there. It turned out there actually was an audience for modestly budgeted, unique, sometimes (dare I say) even artistic films. You could even make a profit (gasp)


So we don't have to let the notion that the idiot market should dictate to us a bunch of idiot films. Not by a longshot. But I guess if we want to be completely ridiculous, we can just keep believing in what the studio's have been telling us for years. Blow the trumpet for them that everything is about returning investment, and nothing can or should be done about the current horrendous state of mainstream filmmaking. I guess some people, especially those that actually are just as offended by the notion of Art as the studios assume we are, think that's a good way to sound like they've really got something smart to say. But I don't. I actually think art has value and social import. That it might be the only way to combat the disgusting apathy that has completely taken over the senses of so many.

But at the end of the day, someone still has to bring home the bacon, right?

I'm not saying movies shouldn't make money. Making a movie thoughtful or unique or that is a quiet slow burn or is made on the cheap, doesn't negate its financial potential. This has always been a load of crap that we are supposed to believe so studios don't actually have to do anything outside of what they consider a safe bet. So they can make their lives easier by just reheating a bunch of past successes. And the main reason they don't understand that it can actually be beneficial to make new and interesting things is because they are almost always creatively empty people who don't actually understand the products they are producing.

I think the case of Heaven's Gate was a real warning for the industry.

It shouldn’t have been. Heavens Gate is actually quite excellent.
But yes, you can point towards that film as the decline of the auteur in some ways. And I get producers wanting to make sure they aren’t wasting their money, but I look at Suzuki in the 60’s and consider how his films weren’t understood and it lead to him being fired I think? Or released from the studio in any case, and it impacted his career by about a decade. And his films, viewed today, are absolutely amazing. Some producers are too controlling. They should trust in the director a little more, and stand by his film good or bad you know?
Feige is an example of what happens when you are overbearing and looking over your directors shoulders every minute. His marvel films have become stagnant (not that they were exactly amazing films each time, anyways but they were at least enjoyable).

That's utter nonsense. He's by far the most successful producer in history, and he has hired an amazing number of indie directors, which is not something most studios could say.

Not really the point of that paragraph in my post.

Didn't say it was

Look, a good producer helps but only so far as everyone's got realistic expectations of what could come from a project, both artistically and commercially. Not everything has to be done with commercial results in mind, but you also can't burn studio's money and not expect ramifications.

And exactly what warning should be learned from Heaven's Gate?


Was the problem artistic freedom? Or was the problem that movies in general were exploding their budgets at that time in the hopes of striking the kind of gold they did with Star Wars and Jaws?


Yes, these issues somewhat overlap in the case of Cimino and Heaven's Gate. But if all we learn in this situation is that the problem all along was giving creatives the freedom to make the movies they want, and not that studios begun to introduce a horrible business model into the industry, then you are buying into the line that studio executives want you to believe. That artistic freedom is the enemy and leads to the end of cinema, and that executives are the rational ones when they greenlight movies with exorbitant budgets, and create situations where a single bad film can tank an entire studio.

The problem was simply that it showed that a big enough flop could bankrupt a studio.

Also, I don't know anyone who buys the studio line and I know you didn't, either

A good director should also foster these young and upcoming directors, wouldn’t you agree? In many of these cases with Feige and the director of the month he picks up, many have said they eventually give up creative control and are unable to put in up a film With their vision.
Now, is it a ramification of being offered that lucrative contract to film a big budget movie? If one wants to suggest it is, fine, but it shouldn’t be.
It should be less stick, and more carrot, but Feige prefers it the other way around.

I couldn't disagree with you more completely. A good director knows what they signed up for... and especially in the case of a movie series, they should absolutely not sign on the dotted line if they don't have a contract they're happy with.

Huh?


To this day when the Heaven's Gate debacle gets referenced, it's almost always about how negligent the director was, and how the studios were now at the mercy of the egos of their creatives.



It's also the movie you chose to mention in direct response to me talking about how artistic freedom and making money can co-exist.

That’s fine. I doubt we could come to an agreement on how much control a director should maintain, but it should be more than many producers are willing to give.

That's not the context in which you brought up a hypothetical "studio line".

Directors have to have clout before they can realistically hope to have any real control.

I said if this is what we take away from the Heaven's Gate situation, that the directors are the problem, and not the way the executives were budgeting their films, than you are believing what the studios want you to believe.


I have no idea what context you read it in, but that's the one I wrote it in.

Look, the movie was a reminder that a big enough flop could take down a studio.

It doesn't matter who was to blame for the flop, or whether other studios tried to spin what happened.

It happened then and it has happened again in somewhat less notorious ways - Orion Pictures, Participant Media, etc.

Too many losses can kill a studio or a production company - there is no spin there. It's just plain math!

And why can a big flop take down an entire studio? Did Cimino make such a bad movie, an entire business fell apart. Or is it more complicated than that?


No, it matters who was to blame, and it matters what the eventual take away regarding this failure became. Because how we view things shapes how we think about things. But sure, just gloss over what I was actually talking about to talk about your 'simple math'