Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > Movie Talk
Reload this Page >

How would you "fix" movies?

Movie Talk A Discussion area for everything movie related including films In The Theaters

How would you "fix" movies?

Old 05-30-24, 03:28 PM
  #26  
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,111
Received 1,108 Likes on 644 Posts
Re: How would you "fix" movies?

Originally Posted by orangerunner
The corporate motto is to privatize financial success and socialize the losses and risk. All of the classic films we love were high-wire acts of financial risk and creativity, think Jaws, Star Wars, The Godfather and even Titanic. I think the corporate influence has driven the creativity out of the process and turned it into financial analytics and public test screening data in an attempt to formulate a hit which will play in any culture and language around the world.

They should have left the minimum six month gap between the theatre and home video - especially when DVD, cheap big screen HDTVs came along which narrowed the difference between home video and the theatrical experience. But "shorter gap = faster profits" was all too compelling to pass-up for the sake of growth.

Maybe the whole industry just can't come back to what it once was? Even if we know what went wrong and why, it doesn't mean it can be easily fixed. Time, technology and audience expectations have all moved on.
This is it exactly. Writers are now fighting tooth and nail with tech and finance bros about how to make content and what kind
The following users liked this post:
Abob Teff (06-04-24)
Old 06-01-24, 01:09 AM
  #27  
DVD Talk Hero
 
PhantomStranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Phantom Zone
Posts: 27,878
Received 899 Likes on 758 Posts
Re: How would you "fix" movies?

Problems have been building for years but foreign revenue papered over Hollywood's deep-rooted creative issues until that money started drying up. People with MBAs make far too many decisions in the creative process. I'd argue the talent drain has had an effect and it's tougher than ever for talented people without connections breaking into the industry. Hollywood has become increasingly incestuous in its business practices, outsiders are squeezed out when they threaten the status quo.

The rot is deep and how society consumes films is changing. I would probably look outside the United States for an answer. L.A. is an insular place. If I was trying to save one of the Hollywood studios, I'd likely move it out of California.
Old 06-01-24, 02:30 AM
  #28  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,069
Received 116 Likes on 69 Posts
Re: How would you "fix" movies?

Originally Posted by Draven
That's on the studios to manage. I'd stop giving them tax breaks if they fuck it up... (we could have a lot fewer streaming networks too).
Many of your points are well-intentioned and not unreasonable, but basically only work if three things happen: draconian and ethical government oversight; people being honest and not taking advantage of others and - crucially! - not being greedy, and everybody agreeing to be bound by the same rules as everybody else - and living up to that.

Never in a million years.
Old 06-01-24, 02:36 AM
  #29  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,069
Received 116 Likes on 69 Posts
Re: How would you "fix" movies?

Originally Posted by DJariya
I agree that budgets are out of control. If a movie has a $150M or more budget, the chances of it being successful financially are slim to none these days. Even major IPs are struggling just to break even. But then again, costs are a lot higher for everything.

But, there was absolutely no reason Universal had to spend $350M plus for Fast X. They already set that up for failure.
There are literally thousands of names in the credits of major movies. If we assume that everybody there gets paid basically-nothing and there are no other costs, budgets will still be immense.

And there are definitelt other costs, and many get paid a lot. And on that latter point, while it seems obvious that some people are radically over-paid (just as others may be noticably UNDER-paid), there is an element of supply and demand. If I want Chris Pratt in my movie, and someone else offers him $500 to be in theirs, I offer more. And someone else offers more. And before you know it, he can reasonably demand - and get - millions. Yes, I can then hire a cheaper actor. But then I lose half my funding and half my audience. If anyone even wants to show my no-budget, no-star movie...
Old 06-01-24, 02:43 AM
  #30  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,069
Received 116 Likes on 69 Posts
Re: How would you "fix" movies?

Originally Posted by Spiderbite
The irony is that people used to lament the days when studios used to make the directors cut their films. Film buffs like me cried "Foul!" and admonished the studios for doing this...

Now the filmmakers all seem to have final cut and their egos all get in the way. They do not want to cut anything, and we end up with these overlong messes of movies..
It must be tough to essentially film a six hour film and then have to cut and shape it into a more reasonable length. Logically, you don't film anything THINKING 'this can easily be cut,' so you necessarily want most of what you film to wind up on screen.

Also, as prices rise and expectations are higher, people do feel 'ripped off' if they don't get their money's worth. I think films have, on average, gone from 90m to 120m for that reason alone - to give audiences a feeling of 'worth'.
Old 06-01-24, 04:43 AM
  #31  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Hazel Motes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,538
Received 416 Likes on 279 Posts
Re: How would you "fix" movies?

Theater chains owning their own land ala McDonalds would be a godsend for the film industry. But unless Elon Musk wakes up one day and decides heís a major cinephile, something like that will never happen. But as someone who worked at an 19 screen multiplex for a long time, I know that rent is gonna kill the movie theater just as quick as the streaming giants will. If someone bought the biggest theater chain in America (whatever that is, Iím Canadian I donít know) and bought the land the theaters are sitting on, itíd be like 3000 collective feet being taken off the neck of the film industry.
The following users liked this post:
Abob Teff (06-04-24)
Old 06-01-24, 11:21 AM
  #32  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,996
Received 150 Likes on 114 Posts
Re: How would you "fix" movies?

The rising cost of land is a huge factor right across every industry. The late 1990s we saw the trend of stadium-seat megaplexes opening on rural land outside the major cities and downtown theatres closing as a result. At the same time we saw younger moviegoers (the prime customers) have less and less access to cars coupled with the rising cost of gasoline.
Old 06-01-24, 11:49 AM
  #33  
DVD Talk God
 
DJariya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: La Palma, CA
Posts: 79,844
Received 3,909 Likes on 2,790 Posts
Re: How would you "fix" movies?

The last thing you want to do is have streamers become the dominant force in making movies. They care much more about quantity over quality.

Same goes with DTV distributors like Grindstone or Vertical. They will just make more trash under $10M cheapies with shitty scripts starring washed up actors or no-names. Mel Gibson and Aaron Eckhart have been making a lot of those these days.

Those who simply don't care and just look at movies as "content" to kill time, then more of the above will be coming.
Old 06-01-24, 02:47 PM
  #34  
DVD Talk Reviewer & TOAT Winner
 
Alan Smithee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: USA
Posts: 10,563
Received 352 Likes on 266 Posts
Re: How would you "fix" movies?

#1 thing right now is FIX the digital cinema standard so that 2.35 scope is handled properly! That means either put an anamorphic lens over the projectors to stretch the native 1.85 frame similar to how 35mm worked (though many theaters would likely screw that up) or put out a new standard where the frame is natively 2.35 and 1.85 content is presented with side bars, opposite of the way itís handled now. Scope should be the BIGGEST format but the current digital standard letterboxes it just like video. Theaters with proper 2.35 screens have to zoom it, resulting in lower resolution. The industry never should have gone along with that.
Old 06-01-24, 03:02 PM
  #35  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
The Questyen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,586
Received 614 Likes on 450 Posts
Re: How would you "fix" movies?

Originally Posted by Noonan
Definitely cut overall budgets. There's a reason the big studios are hemorrhaging money, but Blumhouse is making bank. Rather than trying to make 200m movies that make 1b, they should be trying to make 20m movies that make 100m.
Yep. This is a huge problem in the videogame industry also.
Old 06-01-24, 06:01 PM
  #36  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,996
Received 150 Likes on 114 Posts
Re: How would you "fix" movies?

Originally Posted by Alan Smithee
#1 thing right now is FIX the digital cinema standard so that 2.35 scope is handled properly! That means either put an anamorphic lens over the projectors to stretch the native 1.85 frame similar to how 35mm worked (though many theaters would likely screw that up) or put out a new standard where the frame is natively 2.35 and 1.85 content is presented with side bars, opposite of the way it’s handled now. Scope should be the BIGGEST format but the current digital standard letterboxes it just like video. Theaters with proper 2.35 screens have to zoom it, resulting in lower resolution. The industry never should have gone along with that.
I'm not sure how every individual movie theatre screen works but I think most modern stadium screen theatres use a 1:1 ratio screen, for simplicity let's say 20 feet X 20 feet. By the nature of its shape, a 2.35:1 ratio won't give the audience the biggest picture. The maximum width is 20 feet wide X 8.5 feet in height.

With a 1.85:1 ratio, this will give the audience a bigger overall image of 20 feet wide by 10.8 feet in height.

The 2.35:1 ratio just gives the audience the sense of a wider "vista" composition but doesn't deliver an overall bigger picture.

In fact a 4:3 ratio (think early IMAX) would potentially deliver the biggest picture at 20 feet in width X 15 feet in height.

If a theatre chooses to mask both sides of the 20 foot screen with the curtains by, say 3 feet, for 1.85:1 presentation and then moves the curtains right to the edge exposing the whole 20 feet of screen width for a 2.35:1 presentation, then yes, the audience feels they are seeing a larger, wider image.

Last edited by orangerunner; 06-01-24 at 06:07 PM.
Old 06-02-24, 10:51 AM
  #37  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 44,980
Received 2,166 Likes on 1,667 Posts
Re: How would you "fix" movies?

Originally Posted by The Questyen
Yep. This is a huge problem in the videogame industry also.
There are a lot of parallels:
Overinflated budgets and timelines killing profit margins and studios
Consumers going mainly for the bigger known franchises hence sequelitis
Consumers waiting for things to be cheaper/not falling for FOMO (moving to digital allowing everything to be available on demand at any time)
Competition from more convenient platforms (streaming/mobile)
Somewhat underpriced subscription services offering more bang for the buck making the value of a day one purchase seem lesser
General consolidation of studios as smaller ones can't survive
Needless padding of runtime/playtime to give more bang for the buck
Higher up interference to guide the product to something they feel is more palatable to the audience (though this has been the case forever)

Obviously there are lots of things that are different: real estate, the theater/studio relationship and how each makes a profit, etc.
The following 2 users liked this post by fujishig:
tanman (06-04-24), The Questyen (06-02-24)
Old 06-02-24, 12:57 PM
  #38  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Runaway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 1,844
Received 416 Likes on 333 Posts
Re: How would you "fix" movies?

Originally Posted by ntnon
There are literally thousands of names in the credits of major movies. If we assume that everybody there gets paid basically-nothing and there are no other costs, budgets will still be immense.

And there are definitelt other costs, and many get paid a lot. And on that latter point, while it seems obvious that some people are radically over-paid (just as others may be noticably UNDER-paid), there is an element of supply and demand. If I want Chris Pratt in my movie, and someone else offers him $500 to be in theirs, I offer more. And someone else offers more. And before you know it, he can reasonably demand - and get - millions. Yes, I can then hire a cheaper actor. But then I lose half my funding and half my audience. If anyone even wants to show my no-budget, no-star movie...
It still isn't impossible to make big movies on lower budgets. Not that the Sony makes good movies with Morbius, Madame Webb or even Venom, but they have a buffer of 150M to get better scripts, before they reach the budgets of proper Marvel. The Creator is a good movie, looks great and didn't cost 200M.
The following users liked this post:
ntnon (06-02-24)
Old 06-02-24, 09:34 PM
  #39  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Atascadero, CA
Posts: 10,842
Received 303 Likes on 222 Posts
Re: How would you "fix" movies?

On the subject

The following users liked this post:
Bluelitespecial (06-02-24)
Old 06-02-24, 09:37 PM
  #40  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Bluelitespecial's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 10,910
Received 470 Likes on 341 Posts
Re: How would you "fix" movies?

I was just going to post the same video. It covers a lot of the same ground already being discussed here but with the usual humor of a RLM video.
The following users liked this post:
Nesbit (06-02-24)
Old 06-02-24, 10:25 PM
  #41  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Atascadero, CA
Posts: 10,842
Received 303 Likes on 222 Posts
Re: How would you "fix" movies?

Any excuse to spread the RLM gospel.
Old 06-03-24, 12:13 AM
  #42  
DVD Talk Hero
 
PhantomStranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Phantom Zone
Posts: 27,878
Received 899 Likes on 758 Posts
Re: How would you "fix" movies?

I'd also forbid using CGI. It's a cheap, lazy crutch which has noticeably affected creative filmmaking. I think people would be surprised to learn how much green screen and CGI are used even for so-called dramas these days. If the action can't be filmed within the camera - cut the scene from the screenplay. CGI is a cancer on good cinema.
The following 3 users liked this post by PhantomStranger:
Ash Ketchum (06-03-24), Hazel Motes (06-03-24), IBJoel (06-03-24)
Old 06-03-24, 08:14 AM
  #43  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Bluelitespecial's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 10,910
Received 470 Likes on 341 Posts
Re: How would you "fix" movies?

One takeaway from the RLM video was they said Mission Impossible 8 is nearing a budget of $400 million. 😲 How on earth does Paramount expect to make money? They won't even break even.
Old 06-03-24, 09:33 AM
  #44  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: St Louis, MO
Posts: 8,064
Received 361 Likes on 243 Posts
Re: How would you "fix" movies?

Originally Posted by orangerunner
I'm not sure how every individual movie theatre screen works but I think most modern stadium screen theatres use a 1:1 ratio screen, for simplicity let's say 20 feet X 20 feet. By the nature of its shape, a 2.35:1 ratio won't give the audience the biggest picture. The maximum width is 20 feet wide X 8.5 feet in height.

With a 1.85:1 ratio, this will give the audience a bigger overall image of 20 feet wide by 10.8 feet in height.

The 2.35:1 ratio just gives the audience the sense of a wider "vista" composition but doesn't deliver an overall bigger picture.

In fact a 4:3 ratio (think early IMAX) would potentially deliver the biggest picture at 20 feet in width X 15 feet in height.

If a theatre chooses to mask both sides of the 20 foot screen with the curtains by, say 3 feet, for 1.85:1 presentation and then moves the curtains right to the edge exposing the whole 20 feet of screen width for a 2.35:1 presentation, then yes, the audience feels they are seeing a larger, wider image.
I'm very confused by this - I don't think I've ever been to a movie theater where the physical screen has a 1:1 aspect ratio, stadium seating or otherwise. Even the legacy true IMAX theaters have a 1.43:1 screen, which is the most "square" screen I've seen and I've been to a ton of movie theaters. As far as I've been able to observe, the vast majority of movie theaters have a roughly 2.35:1 physical aspect ratio with curtains that are moved in from the edge to reduce the aspect ratio as needed, with a "fixed image height" approach, unless they've been purpose built in recent years for some other purpose. Out of curiosity, where have you seen a 1:1 physical screen in a movie theater?
The following users liked this post:
IBJoel (06-03-24)
Old 06-03-24, 12:53 PM
  #45  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,996
Received 150 Likes on 114 Posts
Re: How would you "fix" movies?

Originally Posted by kefrank
I'm very confused by this - I don't think I've ever been to a movie theater where the physical screen has a 1:1 aspect ratio, stadium seating or otherwise. Even the legacy true IMAX theaters have a 1.43:1 screen, which is the most "square" screen I've seen and I've been to a ton of movie theaters. As far as I've been able to observe, the vast majority of movie theaters have a roughly 2.35:1 physical aspect ratio with curtains that are moved in from the edge to reduce the aspect ratio as needed, with a "fixed image height" approach, unless they've been purpose built in recent years for some other purpose. Out of curiosity, where have you seen a 1:1 physical screen in a movie theater?
After some further research, I take back my false assumption that stadium-seat movie screens commonly use 1:1 screens but I think this ratio would provide the most versatility when having to accommodate the various aspect ratios. If the width is always stagnant at 20 feet, then the top and bottom can always be masked-off accordingly. If theatres choose a wider 2.35:1 screen, then any 1.85:1 or 1.37:1 presentation gets compromised with a smaller image.

Of course every auditorium's height and width limitations may not accommodate a 1:1 screen either. Ultimately there's no one perfect-sized screen for every composition.

Last edited by orangerunner; 06-03-24 at 01:40 PM.
Old 06-03-24, 02:01 PM
  #46  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
Giantrobo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Gateway Cities/Harbor Region
Posts: 63,586
Received 1,964 Likes on 1,203 Posts
Re: How would you "fix" movies?

Over the weekend I heard a discussion on a podcast about how everyone whines about reducing movie budgets and how studios should make smaller films to fix things; but recently, quite a few "smaller films" that had good reviews bombed bad. People simply didn't support them. It reminds me of the discussion in the Black Community where people say "we should demand Hollywood make more Black lead films". The problem is when it happens, Blacks don't support them. They bomb and Hollywood shrugs its shoulders and points at the failures when the discussion comes up again.

So one wonders if reducing budgets will really help. I mean big or small do those budgets really hurt anyone NOT directly involved with the making of the films? I've noticed for many years that people, right or wrong, tend to equate "Bad films" with big budgets. So is the "reduce budgets" thing just a part of that mindset?
The following users liked this post:
Abob Teff (06-04-24)
Old 06-03-24, 02:08 PM
  #47  
DVD Talk God
 
DJariya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: La Palma, CA
Posts: 79,844
Received 3,909 Likes on 2,790 Posts
Re: How would you "fix" movies?

Originally Posted by Giantrobo
Over the weekend I heard a discussion on a podcast about how everyone whines about reducing movie budgets and how studios should make smaller films to fix things; but recently, quite a few "smaller films" that had good reviews bombed bad. People simply didn't support them. It reminds me of the discussion in the Black Community where people say "we should demand Hollywood make more Black lead films". The problem is when it happens, Blacks don't support them. They bomb and Hollywood shrugs its shoulders and points at the failures when the discussion comes up again.

So one wonders if reducing budgets will really help. I mean big or small do those budgets really hurt anyone NOT directly involved with the making of the films?

For the average and casual film goer, No. They don’t care about budgets or box office revenue. They just want a good movie that is worth the money and time invested.

Hollywood people and nerds are so obsessed with box office and opening weekend that it’s become a big part of the discussion. And I think it sort of detracts from actually talking about a really good movie or a filmmaker. It’s just “Will this make money?” Or “How will this do opening weekend?”

And if it didn’t make money, then some people assume, “Oh, no one saw it, so it must suck”. Smaller films or Mid-budget films that don't have the big marketing budgets then get screwed because low box office means= "No one cares" which sucks.

Last edited by DJariya; 06-03-24 at 02:30 PM.
The following 2 users liked this post by DJariya:
IBJoel (06-03-24), ntnon (06-11-24)
Old 06-03-24, 03:10 PM
  #48  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 44,980
Received 2,166 Likes on 1,667 Posts
Re: How would you "fix" movies?

I mean it's probably easier to recoup a smaller budget film with streaming and whatnot than it is a huge budget film that is apparently easier to write down?
The following users liked this post:
IBJoel (06-03-24)
Old 06-03-24, 05:53 PM
  #49  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: St Louis, MO
Posts: 8,064
Received 361 Likes on 243 Posts
Re: How would you "fix" movies?

Originally Posted by orangerunner
After some further research, I take back my false assumption that stadium-seat movie screens commonly use 1:1 screens but I think this ratio would provide the most versatility when having to accommodate the various aspect ratios. If the width is always stagnant at 20 feet, then the top and bottom can always be masked-off accordingly. If theatres choose a wider 2.35:1 screen, then any 1.85:1 or 1.37:1 presentation gets compromised with a smaller image.

Of course every auditorium's height and width limitations may not accommodate a 1:1 screen either. Ultimately there's no one perfect-sized screen for every composition.
I'm still struggling to follow you, but I'll just say there are good reasons that no movie theaters have a 1:1 screen.
Old 06-04-24, 12:27 AM
  #50  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Runaway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 1,844
Received 416 Likes on 333 Posts
Re: How would you "fix" movies?

Originally Posted by Giantrobo
Over the weekend I heard a discussion on a podcast about how everyone whines about reducing movie budgets and how studios should make smaller films to fix things; but recently, quite a few "smaller films" that had good reviews bombed bad. People simply didn't support them. It reminds me of the discussion in the Black Community where people say "we should demand Hollywood make more Black lead films". The problem is when it happens, Blacks don't support them. They bomb and Hollywood shrugs its shoulders and points at the failures when the discussion comes up again.

So one wonders if reducing budgets will really help. I mean big or small do those budgets really hurt anyone NOT directly involved with the making of the films? I've noticed for many years that people, right or wrong, tend to equate "Bad films" with big budgets. So is the "reduce budgets" thing just a part of that mindset?
I think big budget movies aren't the problem, but a lot of those movies have higher budgets then they should have. Black Widow's budget was nearly threetimes higher then Venom and it's basically a movie about a spy. Of course the latest Mission: Impossible movies had ballooning budgets as well.
I'm pretty sure a lot of the money is just wasted becaucse they do have the money and it's not spent intellegently. The movie has three credited writers, neither was expierenced all of them got paid and the finished script is as average as it can be and if the studio wasted money like that in every department of the movie, it's is no suprise a movie that should cost between 100 and 150M costs 289M.
For 100M it's still a big budget movie. Due to covid it only made 380M at the box office but even without covid it never was a billion dollar movie. Just spent your budget intelligently and it's easier to make your money back.
The following users liked this post:
IBJoel (06-04-24)

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Your Privacy Choices -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.