Here’s how Hollywood can recover after a summer of terrible movies | New York Post I read this, and my head hurt. So, so much analysis, projecting, reliance on tent pole blockbusters, etc. etc. etc. Too busy trying to be smart and not enough of the obvious. The problem isn't that Bourne came back again; the problems with some of these is that they suck!!! Example: Trek Beyond. Too much stupid stuff. On opening night I caught a 2D showing with plans to return in a few days for a 3D viewing. After watching it once, I decided to wait until blu ray. Example: ID:R. Where to even begin... the wasted Judd Hirsch story with the kids? Maybe the sequel to Cloverfield that I should have got instead of the street address? Ghostbusters... not gonna watch a movie where the filmmakers trash their audiences. Besides... sounds like more stupid sh*t based on reviews. Hollywood is spending too much time behind the 3D animation programs, and not enough time behind the word processors. THAT's the problem. It's not superhero fatigue... or sequel fatigue... it's crappy movie fatigue we are all suffering from. /Rant
You know what. Let it happen. Crash and Burn. Maybe we'll see a new age of original or more inspired ideas come to life afterwards.
The summer was so crowded there were some movies I wanted to see but I had to be more selective because I can't waste my time going to the movies every weekend combined with many uninteresting movies that didn't grasp my attention.
Removed some posts that were about journalism, instead of How Hollywood can recover... because the topic is, How Hollywood can recover. And for my piece, I agree with the article about the too much product bit. Focus on quality over quantity.
I agree that when it seems like there is some mega tent-pole event just about every week it's kind of hard to get excited about anything. You can just sort of shrug your shoulders and go eh because next weekend will bring some other film Hollywood spent an insane amount on. Plus the monster budgets on some of these films means they have to be so bland and generic that they fit all tastes while offending no one. A studio spends $150 to $200 million on production then the load it takes to advertise that you need a lot of tickets to even break a profit. Everyone and their grandma has to go see it. But something like Lights Out where they spent just $5 million making the movie can take chances because everyone doesn't have to see it to make it a huge success. Then on top of bland movies can't be too witty, depend on word play, or get too rapid fire because you have to have something that will translate into some many languages and fit the cultural tastes of multiple nations. It's not like the movies of other nations where they don't have to fit the tastes of other nations so Monster Hunt didn't have to worry about if Americans would like it, just that the Chinese market liked it. Yea I wouldn't mind seeing a few studios go under if the underwhelming movies is all they going to crank out. Kind of pinning some hopes of Paramount going under so Hasbro could shop GI Joe around to another studio.
The article gets it right at least in that the studios should go out of business if they cant reasonably produce a profitable product. It's not like noone else is producing alternative media.
But, srsly, AS I ALREADY SAID, it's really just the Hollywood machine grinding on as it ever has in perpetuity. Big movies make big money that finances little movies that cost nothing yet hopefully make relatively HUGE money to finance the big pix that make the little pix that make the big pix, etc. BUSINESS AS USUAL.
the problem with "The problem isn't that Bourne came back again; the problems with some of these is that they suck!!!" and; "Example: Trek Beyond. Too much stupid stuff." is that these opinions, and not really the cause of the downfall of theater released films. but more or less, netflix, and redbox are. that and the rapidly rising cost of theatrical tickets. somebody can buy a bluray disc, for the same price as 2 tickets these days. you can go to redbox and rent one for a dollar. you can go to netflix and see it there. you can see it on amazon. whether or not you, or anybody else, or the critics think the movies are terrible, or the greatest thing ever, really doesn't seem to matter. as people are going to see them anyways. but these days there are so many options that theater prices are just at this point insane. well unless you have a cheap theater near by. the theatrical movie is just something that is now obsolete. how can hollywood recover? lower the costs of the tickets.
I'm half-tempted to say something like, "OMFG THIS GUY GETS IT" because you're on the right track, except I don't really feel like you're QUITE there yet. Movie theaters still offer BIGASS screens, IMAX, 70 mm, 7.1, 3D, etc., HELL, even LieMax! If theaters make it worthwhile for the audience to get their dead asses out of their safe-spaces for the first time in months/years then THEY WILL ACTUALLY DO THAT. The problem is basically that a lot of movies are kinda MEH and not worth it. IF YOU BUILD IT THEY WILL COME.
what don't i get? if nobody goes to see the film, the film is being played anyways. just how much does it cost the theater to rewind a projector every 3 hours? you can say all those "wonderful" things, like huge screens, and imax, and 7.1, 3d, and all that. but, all of that does not improve the movie. in fact in some cases, it can totally ruin a good film. plus, you are talking about an age, where your average person can watch the movie on their 5 inch phone. an experience that will only cost you the price of it on amazon. it really is the cost of movie tickets. and nothing else. you can get the same experience, if not BETTER experience at home, with a 40 to 60 inch tv, with 1080p, and 7.1 speakers, and then go to redbox and spend a DOLLAR on that film. or whatever it is to rent blurays... and that covers everyone who wants to watch that film with you. you, your family, your neighbors, your entire neighborhood if you want to... and just get the popcorn and soda at your local store; or; you can spend 12 dollars per person, just on the tickets, then another 13 dollars per person, for food and drinks, and then all that just to have a fat dude sit in front of you, blocking your entire experience for two and half hours. i don't think YOU quite get it. theater prices are too high.
Once Netflix started getting more and more South Korean films I've noticed I tend to like the South Korean movies better than some of the Hollywood movies. With Monster Hunt and Mermaid it seems like China is gunning for their own studios to be the big hits in China rather than having to import hits from Hollywood. So I agree if Hollywood drops the ball too badly it's not just a few Hollywood studios that make movies. It's still tough for international films to crack into the chain theaters but if theaters get desperate enough to pack seats then who knows what the future might hold.
I mean, first of all it's just ******ed to buy food and drinks at a movie theater unless you absolutely HAVE to for whatever reason. If audiences could set aside two hours of their day to NOT keep stuffing their fat faces full of garbage then that would cut the price in half AT LEAST right there. So that leaves us with only the cost of tickets. Yeah, people could just watch movies on their shitty little cellphone screens with horrible speakers and headphones. My point was that theaters offer FAR BETTER THAN THAT for a relatively reasonable price. It's really their ONE selling point. And, sure, you could ALSO save money by just investing in your own home theater...but that easily costs THOUSANDS of dollars at once as opposed to a few tickets now and then so that's obviously not happening in a hurry for most people. Hell, people still pay movie ticket prices purely for the AIR CONDITIONING during summertime heatwaves, lol. Again, the point is that in a market full of competing technology, movie theaters need to offer an experience which is better and more unique than the home experience to justify the cost of a night at the movies and history has shown time after time that if they do so the audience is happily willing and able.
Don't care to read the article at the moment, honestly. My suggestions for how to recover: 1. Don't bank on pure nostalgia alone. (So many examples) 2. Don't bank on a brand name or an actor's name alone. (Going with Alice in Wonderland because Depp's fall from grace destroyed the big pillar of that film) 3. Don't ignore reviews, Rotten Tomatoes or otherwise, especially if you're planning a sequel. (DCEU) 4. Don't overstuff a movie. (Age of Ultron) 5. Don't ignore the source material if you're adapting something. (Deadpool's strength) 6. Don't whitewash a movie. Yes, it's absolutely problem and that is all I will say. 7. Don't assume because your prior movie made a bunch of money that your sequel will print $2 billion without any changes whatsoever (Alice in Wonderland) 8. Stop making every film with the intention of setting up a sequel, because it may never happen if your movie is shit (Independence Day). That's all I got right now.
Considering the success of Deadpool and Sausage Party, we may start seeing more. Granted they're raunchy comedies but still. Kek. YES.
but is it really better? from my experience, watching a movie on my 32 inch tv, and watching it on the big screen, really doesn't make a movie suck less. it also does not cost 1000s of dollars to get a good hdmi tv, a decent sound system, and bluray player. a bluray player is roughly 50 dollars these days, a 40 inch tv will run you around 200 dollars, and a sound system can be bought for around 100. sometimes with a bluray player. so it isn't 1000s of dollars. it isn't the 90's anymore. visuals do not make a shitty movie good, it doesn't make a good movie better. it's the acting, and the plot that makes a movie good, or complete shit. whether you watch it on your phone, or on a big huge screen, it doesn't change the fact that you may walk out of that theater going "wow this was terrible." which is why most people would rather just buy a theater system, then watch it at home. theaters are NOT offering a better experience. they are offering a larger screen, and that's about it.
I remember when I could see 4 movies in one day for $20 at the theaters. I can't even get two tickets today for that price. So yeah, it definitely is the price. So unless, it is a big film that benefits from being seen in a theater, I'll just wait for the dvd in 3 months. Sometimes I can even skip those. The fact I also know that it only takes a few months for the dvd to hit retail makes waiting a whole lot easier.
