14 replies to this topic

[Pasidon]

There's been something on my mind recently, especially this year, about the slow decay of the movie industry. I'm not stupid enough to claim the film industry will stop making money one day, I'm talking about how the creative processes are just so hard to find anymore. There are golden directors like Tarantino who stay consistent in their field and produce great movies constantly, but there are also directors like Spielberg who were known for their spree of creativity that has suddenly died in this new era of filming. It seemed to stop being about unique story boards and top quality drama, as now it's about who has the best looking CGI and what's in 3D, and so on. But people will continue to see these visually stunning movies, and over the past few years, directors have caught onto the tide. They have become lazy; focusing more on the filming and editing than the story. But a trailer can seem like something that's too good to pass up in this new age of film. So a director can completely skip over the story and go for the heart of the audience in a trailer filled with special effects and action and make millions. It's a cunning trap than will never fail.

I would go far in saying that James Cameron is to blame. He spends 11 years developing a 2nd rate story line for Avatar and makes it in the most stunning visuals mankind had the power to create, making billions from the title. Ever since then, movies seemed to loose their appeal since they can only compete by focusing on visuals. 3D is ruining creativity. I'd say it may be the fault of the audience in a part since we don't demand story as much as we should anymore and give our money to the lesser. There were two movies I liked this year, and one of them came out in a theater. I used to go to the theater every month. This year: twice. Once just because a friend invited me to see Thor... Films like The Immortals and Thor seemed like winners from their trailer traps, but like all movies this year, they're not as good as they look.

The film industry is important because it is the greatest raw source of inspiration. Movies becoming increasingly worse is only an view point, so it is a very valid debate topic for deep thought. I'm curious to see other opinions on the subject, especially more 'not American' ones.

[duke_Qa]

Watch less blockbusters, watch more artistic, low-budget movies .

Every time Hollywood fails at taking risks, they get more risk-averse. I think they are just as caught up in being as greedy as possible as the rest, which does not work in a creative business. "You don't get into movies to get rich" someone said.

Cameron is the one that actually understands what risk is, because he goes all out when he first makes a movie. I don't care if the script was trite for avatar, it had balls and it got the moviegoers. It might have been bad for people hoping for better stories, but you don't get hordes of people coming out for inception in the way they came out for Avatar.

3d takes a lot of time and competence, and that costs. But model-builders also costs a lot back in the day, more than 3d most likely. It's just that there's so much more potential with 3d than with models I guess, it takes some time to get a optimized workflow on it.

Edited by duke_Qa, 18 November 2011 - 06:00 PM.

[Beowulf]

Creative business is still a business. Sure, that stifles creativity, but there are independent, low budget studios already producing work so it's already there. There's a reason Hollywood is risk averse and it's all about the money, but the same is true with the gaming and music industries as well. The lack of creativity is not exclusive to any particular industry; business will always proceed with a title guaranteed to make sales, not to promote creative expression or quality. Avoiding risk is a good business strategy and there's a reason risk a negative thing, and it should be obvious. There's a fairly simple solution to this problem too: QUIT FUCKING PIRATING EVERYTHING. With piracy, a studio will always avoid a risky venture and always pick a blockbuster (or AAA game titles) to ensure profits. So, with more capital flowing in, studios will then be more apt to invest in something that may not guarantee profits.

Basically, WATCH MORE BLOCKBUSTERS. Pay for it so the studios will be less averse to taking a risk. Sounds backwards, but that's your solution.

Because, really, it's less a lack of creativity and more of a problem with risk taking.

Edited by Beowulf, 19 November 2011 - 08:07 AM.

[Pasidon]

Hmm... good point about the pirating being a factor. I know film is an industry, and like most industries, will make money with the least amount of strain possible, but they can do better. You can't fight pirating by making better movies or anything like that, but the problem with industry over quality is that people have forgotten how to make movies in the process. The same goes for TV and gaming, but their quality has not been dropping as much. I've found twice as many new TV shows to watch this year than I normally do, and have found twice as many games I like for the same.

Watch less blockbusters, watch more artistic, low-budget movies .

I support that, and even one of the two movies I liked this year was an 'artsy' movie. I usually find more, but independent film makers are finding it difficult to live in a world of mass produced Marvel Comic films. You got men like Louis C.K. who make great independent films under fifty bucks that outmatch the entertainment values of most billion dollar productions, and that's a great lesson. I hope there is a good market for independent film makers in the future that promotes the short film industry and low-budget features to the popularity of a James Cameron's normal stains. Short films like Louis C.K.'s Ice Cream for example.

Edited by {IP}Pasidon, 19 November 2011 - 09:37 AM.

[duke_Qa]

QUIT FUCKING PIRATING EVERYTHING.

This is after my opinion a false argument, since pirating has been a problem since the 60s. Sure, because of digitization we can get lossless copies and the internet lets us download whatever we want, without really working for it. But I suspect that the business of Hollywood has turned up their level of greed from an 8/10 to a 10/10 during the same time. There was a trial in Spain now where a person sued for piracy got off clean. The judge based his judgement on research that said piracy increases the exposure of the product, and is very rarely the main reason something fails to earn money.

Naturally, that does not mean I endorse 100% piracy of whatever media you enjoy. Like=buy / meh=delete. And if you liked it, at least spread the word on it so that you have contributed in some commercial way.


If the movie business is collapsing because of their phobia of piracy, then they don't deserve to live. This is supposed to be a vanguard business where you do your best at figuring out what the people want. You can theoretically force the people to like what you want them to like, but that only works for a few movies until someone else actually makes a gutsy move and makes something the people actually like.

I was at a lecture in the House of Film in Oslo, where Mark Osborne, director of Kung-Fu Panda and other films, also talked about his short movie "more". Which is a fine example of the flow of creative businesses(light and dark). Lets see if vimeo embeds:

http://vimeo.com/988244

Edited by duke_Qa, 19 November 2011 - 03:49 PM.

[Ash]

There are golden directors like Tarantino who stay consistent in their field and produce great movies constantly...

Are you shitting me? The man's a pretentious, up-his-own-arse prickish idiot. Quite why so many of his films are lauded is beyond me.

[Beowulf]

This is after my opinion a false argument, since pirating has been a problem since the 60s. Sure, because of digitization we can get lossless copies and the internet lets us download whatever we want, without really working for it. But I suspect that the business of Hollywood has turned up their level of greed from an 8/10 to a 10/10 during the same time. There was a trial in Spain now where a person sued for piracy got off clean. The judge based his judgement on research that said piracy increases the exposure of the product, and is very rarely the main reason something fails to earn money.

Piracy has been a problem since then, you're right, but it wasn't nearly as convenient as it is now. Just find a torrent with seeds; bam, free shit right there. Takes two minutes and a high speed connection to get whatever digital media you want. However, we're all part of the generation that believes this shit should be free. You can deny it up and down, but it's the stone cold truth. The reason piracy is so harmful is that it really does keep the creative and avant garde out of the hands of the masses who may actually enjoy it! It's a truly vicious circle.

Naturally, that does not mean I endorse 100% piracy of whatever media you enjoy. Like=buy / meh=delete. And if you liked it, at least spread the word on it so that you have contributed in some commercial way.

This is just a rationalization we all use and it hammers my point home pretty well I think. Granted, this is a positive side effect of piracy, but still, it's how we view movies, music, games and software.

If the movie business is collapsing because of their phobia of piracy, then they don't deserve to live. This is supposed to be a vanguard business where you do your best at figuring out what the people want. You can theoretically force the people to like what you want them to like, but that only works for a few movies until someone else actually makes a gutsy move and makes something the people actually like.

The media businesses aren't collapsing. Oh no. They're just growing more and more shallow to sustain their economic viability. This is a direct result of piracy, but appears not to exist because these industries still pull in huge amounts of revenue each year. The downside is that we're less likely to see those gutsy movies come out. The more we rationalize our behavior, the more this trend will continue.

Are you shitting me? The man's a pretentious, up-his-own-arse prickish idiot. Quite why so many of his films are lauded is beyond me.

His movies are fucking brilliant. You're just British. That explains most it. HERP AND DERP.

[duke_Qa]

Our defense of piracy is probably self-entitled. That does not mean that the entire situation is black and white. I believe piracy is an evil, but it can be stopped if there is a fair and easily accessible product out there to replace it. If it wasn't for piracy, we wouldn't have Steam and most of our computer games would come 3-5 months after they've been sent to the presses, and the prices would be terrible. Piracy is the people rising up against conservative and abusive systems for a more fair balance. There might be pirate-"anarchists" and "communists" around that have some crazy ideas about how to run things, but the system gets improved step by step.

The media businesses aren't collapsing. Oh no. They're just growing more and more shallow to sustain their economic viability. This is a direct result of piracy, but appears not to exist because these industries still pull in huge amounts of revenue each year. The downside is that we're less likely to see those gutsy movies come out. The more we rationalize our behavior, the more this trend will continue.

IE, they are optimizing for easy and safe money. They are not even trying to hit the jackpot, they are just mass-producing movies they know will sell acceptable like a factory. I don't see how piracy can be given the blame for the moviemakers surrender from creative art to investment firm. "Give us 100 and we will return 110 within two years"

Tarantino: Eh, I never got converted to that a level. Sure he is good at what he does, but he ain't this generation's sliced bread. For me he probably got hit by the Seinfeldt is unfunny theory/trope.

[Beowulf]

Our defense of piracy is probably self-entitled. That does not mean that the entire situation is black and white. I believe piracy is an evil, but it can be stopped if there is a fair and easily accessible product out there to replace it. If it wasn't for piracy, we wouldn't have Steam and most of our computer games would come 3-5 months after they've been sent to the presses, and the prices would be terrible. Piracy is the people rising up against conservative and abusive systems for a more fair balance. There might be pirate-"anarchists" and "communists" around that have some crazy ideas about how to run things, but the system gets improved step by step.

Self-entitlement led to piracy in the first place and in this generation, the ease of piracy makes the rationalizing easier. The thing is that if more people bought instead of leisurely stole, studios would have MORE GODDAMN MONEY. Therefore, the cost of goods would be less steep because of the income flowing in more easily. Unfortunately, piracy suckerpunched these greedy dickwads and we created a nasty cycle for EVERYONE, not just the studios. Money is the KEY to seeing more innovative movies and games, and more incredible music.

IE, they are optimizing for easy and safe money. They are not even trying to hit the jackpot, they are just mass-producing movies they know will sell acceptable like a factory. I don't see how piracy can be given the blame for the moviemakers surrender from creative art to investment firm. "Give us 100 and we will return 110 within two years"

Business is in it to make money, not create. That's the entire point of the deal. And because we pirate so much of the content, studios are forced to settle with blockbuster titles to ensure the profits. If the studios had more capital to work with, a risky venture bombing wouldn't kill the studio. If you ran a studio, would you really sink millions into a title that has no guarantee of recouping that investment? If you said yes, you should never run a business. Monolithic studios could get away with it, but they won't. Even they need to keep their profit margins high.

Edited by Beowulf, 20 November 2011 - 05:52 AM.

[duke_Qa]

Self-entitlement led to piracy in the first place and in this generation, the ease of piracy makes the rationalizing easier. The thing is that if more people bought instead of leisurely stole, studios would have MORE GODDAMN MONEY. Therefore, the cost of goods would be less steep because of the income flowing in more easily. Unfortunately, piracy suckerpunched these greedy dickwads and we created a nasty cycle for EVERYONE, not just the studios. Money is the KEY to seeing more innovative movies and games, and more incredible music.

It sounds to me that piracy is in your opinion the only self-entitlement in the movie/media industry. I'd say such a human trait can be found in anyone, including the higher-ups of of whatever firms we think of. The "church of profit" has grown large the last 30 years. What happened to pride in your product and having a balanced budget instead of maximizing profits for the shareholders?

The conversion to the radical "church of profit" is in my opinion something that has happened to most western nations, and is a much better fit for why Hollywood/etc have become factories and not creative entities, than piracy. Some businesses were not meant to turn a massive surplus on every product. Some businesses are meant to go around and say "Hey rich dude, if you got some cash to bet on us, you could get more money back or you could get tax-reductions on your losses". Instead every creative firm has to think firm value and avoiding hostile takeovers by staying big and economically sexy but without a soul(like a stereotypical cheerleader or something).

This is probably the thing I like the least about our society today: You can't do anything that does not return a "profit". And by profit I mean 5-15% straight to the shareholders every year, 5-15% that could have been used on making the business better, but instead must be used to pay off the people who believe in the "church of profit". A balanced budget in a growing firm is anathema for this church, because there's no profit to the shareholders.
And when you start getting into the creative businesses where a firm should be able to take risks, should be able to massively fail one year without getting bought up by rivals or dismantled by its owners, you got a problem.

[1] Business is in it to make money, not create. That's the entire point of the deal. [2] And because we pirate so much of the content, studios are forced to settle with blockbuster titles to ensure the profits. [3] If the studios had more capital to work with, a risky venture bombing wouldn't kill the studio. [4] If you ran a studio, would you really sink millions into a title that has no guarantee of recouping that investment? If you said yes, you should never run a business. [5] Monolithic studios could get away with it, but they won't. Even they need to keep their profit margins high.

[1],[3],[5] these points I touched upon above.

[4] You do market research before you sink money into a project, but if the demands from the investors is that the product is 100% certain that it returns their money and more... I probably wouldn't get in bed with them. Who the hell can protect themselves from all force-majeure? Venture capital and high-risk investments are usually about taking risks.
[2] Still don't think that is a good excuse. the stats from this article are an better explanation for the music industry at least

Massive explosion in games and DVDs. The people playing games are probably less inclined to buy music off the bat since they already spent the cash on games.

Edited by duke_Qa, 20 November 2011 - 12:36 PM.

[Pasidon]

Good info. But I'm surprised that chart doesn't include professional sports. Here in the US, sports has made so much money, ESPN literally have bought out hundreds of networks just so they can constantly stream sports and sports news. They even buy out FOX in the fall just so they can cancel shows just to show Baseball. ... They have hundreds of networks and they cave to interrupt the shows I want to watch just so I can watch rich white people hit a ball around. It really bugs me as an archaeologist that sports memorabilia that's 50 years old is considered more valuable than Civil War era artifacts just because people have dumped soooooooooooooo much money into the America sports industry.

There are golden directors like Tarantino who stay consistent in their field and produce great movies constantly...

Are you shitting me? The man's a pretentious, up-his-own-arse prickish idiot. Quite why so many of his films are lauded is beyond me.

Oh man... no violent imagination. I mainly like him because he's one of the last directors I know of that keeps a balance between good dialogue and action. There's a couple films of his I don't care for, but that doesn't mean they're not well made. Lots of people don't like him because he spits on reporters, encourages kids to watch his movies and makes movies where people talk too much. These are all things I support.

[duke_Qa]

It was primarily British media consumption, and probably screen/speaker oriented at that. It does reveal that digital media/film is not controlled by the same people that control sports, so that's something.

I would love to see EA try to buy out FIFA or visa versa. I suspect there is more cash in physical sports today though.

Yeah, Tarantino has some great movies and a few misses. The fact that he is allowed to do so speaks on his behalf.

[Pasidon]

Oh, EA is a good subject to bring up. It's an example of when an industry makes so much money, they can control their field. But I don't think they're making as much money as FIFA or ESPN / ESPN 2 (yes, there is a sequel to ESPN )... but I predict EA will be able to buy out the Xbox and PS here in the future. They've talked about it quite a bit two years ago and how it was a realistic goal. I think the equivalent of such a feat would be Universal Pictures. Of how long they've been around and how much money they've made after all these years, I can't even begin to imagine what they could do to the film industry if they wanted to.

[Beowulf]

It sounds to me that piracy is in your opinion the only self-entitlement in the movie/media industry. I'd say such a human trait can be found in anyone, including the higher-ups of of whatever firms we think of. The "church of profit" has grown large the last 30 years. What happened to pride in your product and having a balanced budget instead of maximizing profits for the shareholders?

The conversion to the radical "church of profit" is in my opinion something that has happened to most western nations, and is a much better fit for why Hollywood/etc have become factories and not creative entities, than piracy. Some businesses were not meant to turn a massive surplus on every product. Some businesses are meant to go around and say "Hey rich dude, if you got some cash to bet on us, you could get more money back or you could get tax-reductions on your losses". Instead every creative firm has to think firm value and avoiding hostile takeovers by staying big and economically sexy but without a soul(like a stereotypical cheerleader or something).

This is probably the thing I like the least about our society today: You can't do anything that does not return a "profit". And by profit I mean 5-15% straight to the shareholders every year, 5-15% that could have been used on making the business better, but instead must be used to pay off the people who believe in the "church of profit". A balanced budget in a growing firm is anathema for this church, because there's no profit to the shareholders.
And when you start getting into the creative businesses where a firm should be able to take risks, should be able to massively fail one year without getting bought up by rivals or dismantled by its owners, you got a problem.

I don't even disagree with you, Duke. I'm well aware of the situation and aware of what you're describing. And I don't like it as much as you do, but both generations are causing the problems we see today. It's a two-fold attack against creative progress: piracy and profits. Alone, neither of these things amount to much, but together like we see today, it creates a narrow margin for that elusive buck. When in the business world, making money is your goal. Unfortunately those with the highest capital control the markets so severely that we don't see any brilliant independent work coming forward because no one wants to take a risk since it'll either be downloaded or not seen at all. I remember back in the 80s and 90s when studios took risks and had films bomb, but then gain a following later on. We're not going to see that anymore because of that vicious cycle of easy piracy. So, basically, I don't disagree with your sentiment, duke, but we need to address the entire picture before really discussing how to improve any aspects.

Bottom line is this: if we want to see more creative, or risky, films being produced in major studios, we need to make it so those studios feel more comfortable with that risk.

[4] You do market research before you sink money into a project, but if the demands from the investors is that the product is 100% certain that it returns their money and more... I probably wouldn't get in bed with them. Who the hell can protect themselves from all force-majeure? Venture capital and high-risk investments are usually about taking risks.

The business world is about making as much profit as possible. I still fail to see why that's always a problem. In any case, risk is the worst thing for any corporation and this extends beyond the industries we're focusing on. Would you really want to sink your money into a project still not guaranteed to recoup your losses? A business going under could put people out of work and nobody wants that. In terms of balancing the budget, you're right on, but you have to keep in mind all facets of the business as well.

Oh man... no violent imagination. I mainly like him because he's one of the last directors I know of that keeps a balance between good dialogue and action. There's a couple films of his I don't care for, but that doesn't mean they're not well made. Lots of people don't like him because he spits on reporters, encourages kids to watch his movies and makes movies where people talk too much. These are all things I support.

At least I can agree with you on this.

[duke_Qa]

Bottom line is this: if we want to see more creative, or risky, films being produced in major studios, we need to make it so those studios feel more comfortable with that risk.

Then we need laws that give these creative firms sanctuary from being out-bought and dismantled at the first failure. Combined with good tax exempts for the losses of those that are willing to invest in them.

[1]The business world is about making as much profit as possible. I still fail to see why that's always a problem.[2] In any case, risk is the worst thing for any corporation and this extends beyond the industries we're focusing on. Would you really want to sink your money into a project still not guaranteed to recoup your losses? A business going under could put people out of work and nobody wants that. [3] In terms of balancing the budget, you're right on, but you have to keep in mind all facets of the business as well.

[1]Of course you are to make money, but what's wrong with a focus beyond profit? All I see these days are firms with little interest in the product they are selling and more interest in the money you'll pay, for a product they don't believe in.

This video brought up the difference between the different ideas quite well. Does contain a lot of Apple namedropping, but mostly because it lampshades why they are successful.

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp0HIF3SfI4
This Simon Sinek guy has the silver tongue, he should have been a pope or president . I Also like this theory of diffusion of innovations he brings up

[2] Risk is always present, so I'd say saying "risk" on its own is too vague. Risk/Reward is why people start new businesses, build new factories, hire new employees. If we were 100% risk averse, we wouldn't have started farming.
So yeah, I'd probably risk sinking my money into a project that is not guaranteed to recoup any given losses, because I wouldn't invest the money if I weren't willing to lose them in the first place. Risking jobs is not something the leaders in a greedy firm is worried about though. If they cause a synthetic unemployment within VFX, they've created a market where the VFX-artists come cheaper.

[3] All facets of the business? There are facets of the Creative business that needs neutering and facets of the business that needs rediscovering. You can't make all of these live together in harmony, because there are opposed facets that needs to be removed.

Edited by duke_Qa, 22 November 2011 - 08:18 AM.