The gravitational pull of mediocrity in hollywood
Reply to Topic
there is difference between drawing audience to theaters based on the name of the director or actor and drawing audience based on an IP like superhero or cartoon character.
I am talking about the former not the latter. A monkey can direct an MCU movie and audience will show up..it has nothing to do with the directors of those movies.
I am talking about the former not the latter. A monkey can direct an MCU movie and audience will show up..it has nothing to do with the directors of those movies.
Vast majority of other filmmakers are okay with streaming sharing space with theaters and not just theaters. But the problem with this approach is, many of the quirky indie directors with vision and distinct style can't make movies that appeal to wide audience so they end up at streaming and are not talented to hit it out of the park each time they make a movie. So they are rooting for theaters to die through their actions maybe not consciously. The examples are Charlie Kaufman, Coen brothers etc.
I think that it's because the OP has two contradictory notions of mediocrity. On the one hand, he seems to regard people who aren't financially successful as being failures/mediocre. But he also clearly has derision for the "generic" entertainment that automatically makes it to the theater (sequels in franchises, Disney films).
It's just kind of a fact that entertainment that is more palatable (and thus more often bland and less artistic) will get a bigger audience. It's not unheard of for innovative, original, or edgy films to be successful at the box office. But when I look at movies that top the box office, most of them just seem "fine."
Film (like literature or fashion or any other art) is a huge landscape. And within that landscape I think that people have different goals. Someone like Frank Hennenlotter (someone who has a good grasp of craft) clearly isn't aiming to push out a big-budget rom-com or even direct some slick horror franchise sequel.
It's just kind of a fact that entertainment that is more palatable (and thus more often bland and less artistic) will get a bigger audience. It's not unheard of for innovative, original, or edgy films to be successful at the box office. But when I look at movies that top the box office, most of them just seem "fine."
Film (like literature or fashion or any other art) is a huge landscape. And within that landscape I think that people have different goals. Someone like Frank Hennenlotter (someone who has a good grasp of craft) clearly isn't aiming to push out a big-budget rom-com or even direct some slick horror franchise sequel.
" isn't someone an inherent risk taker by choosing to be an artist for living ? "
For one thing, look back at the history of movies. Most of them ARE dreck. Some of them look good for a while and don't age well...they become dreck but a lot are dreck right out of the gate.
The other aspect is only peripherally about movie quality and that's money. Once budgets start to get big, the movie is basically an investment, like buying stocks. People toss some millions into the hat and hope to get back even more millions. It makes sense that the film maker, whose job is to give the investors a return on investment, needs to pitch a movie that puts a lot of butts in the seats and sells lots of popcorn and hopefully sets up a sequel. That hasn't been much about some sort of vaguely defined vision of quality, but it's been about putting people with nice looks into spandex and cranking up the FX or whatever is popular. Popular IS the point.
I know that's cynical, but really, that doesn't mean that I'm wrong. In recent years, it seems like budget and some sort of literary/cinematic quality are almost inversely related....more money = more mediocrity....play to the middle, package up a deal with Burger King.
Fortunately or unfortunately, that's never NOT been true. Movies have always been an unholy combination of art and investment and the more money goes in, the more it becomes an investment. The art is like the wrapping on the burger.
For one thing, look back at the history of movies. Most of them ARE dreck. Some of them look good for a while and don't age well...they become dreck but a lot are dreck right out of the gate.
The other aspect is only peripherally about movie quality and that's money. Once budgets start to get big, the movie is basically an investment, like buying stocks. People toss some millions into the hat and hope to get back even more millions. It makes sense that the film maker, whose job is to give the investors a return on investment, needs to pitch a movie that puts a lot of butts in the seats and sells lots of popcorn and hopefully sets up a sequel. That hasn't been much about some sort of vaguely defined vision of quality, but it's been about putting people with nice looks into spandex and cranking up the FX or whatever is popular. Popular IS the point.
I know that's cynical, but really, that doesn't mean that I'm wrong. In recent years, it seems like budget and some sort of literary/cinematic quality are almost inversely related....more money = more mediocrity....play to the middle, package up a deal with Burger King.
Fortunately or unfortunately, that's never NOT been true. Movies have always been an unholy combination of art and investment and the more money goes in, the more it becomes an investment. The art is like the wrapping on the burger.
X
User Lists
Exactly. His position is strange and eats its own tail.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
OP also wrote that a film didn't deserve to be released in theatres if it cost less than $80m, called Paul Thomas Anderson's films "inconsequential" because they didn't have the four-quadrant appeal of the average blockbuster, and that filmmakers should be given bigger budgets in the hopes of inspiring them to turn out "good" blockbusters. He's...inconsistent.
__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
X
Favorite Movies
OP also wrote that a film didn't deserve to be released in theatres if it cost less than $80m, called Paul Thomas Anderson's films "inconsequential" because they didn't have the four-quadrant appeal of the average blockbuster, and that filmmakers should be given bigger budgets in the hopes of inspiring them to turn out "good" blockbusters. He's...inconsistent.
Everyone went to see John Wick because Keanu Reeves was in it.
__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.
Real star power doesnt mean luck...yes, keanu Reeves was the reason people saw john wick but that was more luck than anything...why didn't those people show up to replicas ? or the movie he did with winona ryder ? or scanner darkly ? same with Dwayne johnson or kevin hart..ask them to make a serious movie like collateral beauty or concussion and their movies will bomb. This directly dictates what kind of movies they can make. Studio is not gonna give money even with them as stars to make a movie like moonlight or 12 years a slave.
And actors can make whatever kind of film they want. Keanu Reeves came off of having made over $15 million for each of the Matrix films. He (and all of the other big name actors in A Scanner Darkly) worked for a scale rate, which kept the budget to about $9 million.
In order to make huge box office profits, a movie has to have broad appeal. The fact is that there are some stories (like, say a rotoscoped, depressing, slow-burn sci-fi comedy) that will not appeal to many people. These stories should still be told. And the fact that a ton of actors were willing to take huge paycuts to make it happen attests to this.
Like the earlier post above explains: studios give money to films as an investment. And as such they have to be realistic about what they will earn back from that investment. Things like superhero movies are more of a sure deal. More niche films will be given a smaller budget to work with.
when you put something on TV....you are essentially cheaping a piece of art and denying it the respected it deserves. People can talk over it, eat over it, pause it and sleep for a while..all this during a 2.5 hr movie.
I like watching movies at home. I can react with complete honesty to moments (by laughing or crying or whatever) without worrying that I might be affecting someone else's experience. I can immediately go back and rewatch an amazing scene. It's possible to show disrespect to a film in a theater, and it's possible to show reverence to a film that you're watching on a TV. It's down to how the viewer chooses to behave, not the context in which the film is viewed.
Romantic comedies is another garbage genre. They are all the same movies. Its a waste of time from artistic perspective because anything you can do. woody allen probably done it decades ago and 10 times better. So its just to fill pockets of corporations and not for artistic reasons.
It seems like the idea of directors working on TV or for streaming services bothers you because you see it as diminishing the art form or as those people compromising their artistic integrity. But maybe it's just that different artists have different goals for themselves and maybe even different desired mediums. And if someone can't get millions and millions of dollars in funding, surely working for a streaming service or TV show is exactly what they should be doing, because it makes them more visible. Because the alternative is . . . not directing things?
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
..when you put something on TV....you are essentially cheaping a piece of art and denying it the respected it deserves. People can talk over it, eat over it, pause it and sleep for a while..all this during a 2.5 hr movie. Any filmmaker that settles for that should be slightly ashamed, especially established filmmakers. How many tv shows you remember from 70s...but there are tons of movies that are memorable. Netflix is a bottomless pit..any movie that is thrown in it..will never see the light of the day.
I like watching movies at home. I can react with complete honesty to moments (by laughing or crying or whatever) without worrying that I might be affecting someone else's experience. I can immediately go back and rewatch an amazing scene. It's possible to show disrespect to a film in a theater, and it's possible to show reverence to a film that you're watching on a TV. It's down to how the viewer chooses to behave, not the context in which the film is viewed.