The decline of Hollywood

[BigJake]

This io9 piece about the decline of creativity in Hollywood put the debate about the quality of many recent films in perspective. Coming across it led me to look up a couple of other pieces, one recent and one from a couple of years ago on the same topic. Interesting stuff.

 

[Gov Kodos]

Hollywood has been copying the last big blockbuster for ages. That's no new or even interesting indictment. The brief piece about productions finding better places for filming is a more interesting point, but that is only one of many problems that are connected to the rising costs of film making, competing film making areas like Bollywood for international markets and centering so much around funding big tent pole productions which can make a couple of failures like Green Lantern or John Carter a bigger problem for studios than they need have been because of how much they sunk into the things.

 

[EmoBorg]

I don't think Hollywood has declined. Even if it did, there is no other cinema industry that can replace it. The large Chinese and Indian movie industry don't have the international appeal that English speaking Hollywood has. The Korean and Nigerian movie industry have only regional appeal.

There has been box office bombs this year like the Lone Ranger and After Earth but Hollywood can weather it. The industry overall has made a tidy profit this year. I continue to see Hollywood domination for the decades to come unless the Aussies, Canadians or the British improve their movie industries by leaps and bounds so as to challenge us.

 

[BigJake]

Hollywood has been copying the last big blockbuster for ages. That's no new or even interesting indictment.

It's rather more interesting, however, that Hollywood has begun to refuse to copy successful blockbusters.

In Hollywood of a prior era, for example (as that third article points out, I think correctly) Inception's success would have spawned a horde of imitators of varying quality. Hollywood's current incarnation lacks even that degree of ambition; it predicted Inception's failure from the get-go and rooted for it to fail even as it was starting to rake in money at the box office and critical accolades.

By the time Nolan had grossed close to a billion dollars, the Hollywood wisdom was to say "Huh. Who knew?" and largely get on with the business of producing sequels to prequels to sequels of cartoons, comic books, remakes and toy promotions. The point that the exceptions to that rule have gotten noticeably scarce is what intrigues me. (Though I'm relieved to note that at least that Stretch Armstrong movie mentioned in the last piece isn't looking likely to get made.)

The brief piece about productions finding better places for filming is a more interesting point, but that is only one of many problems that are connected to the rising costs of film making, competing film making areas like Bollywood for international markets and centering so much around funding big tent pole productions which can make a couple of failures like Green Lantern or John Carter a bigger problem for studios than they need have been because of how much they sunk into the things.

The overreliance on big tentpole productions and the environment of increasing creative aridity go together, is my theory. It's the kind of business model that inevitably reinforces the tendency toward "safe" properties that aren't demanding in terms of execution. (The few exceptions are usually built around someone with star power or industry clout, like a Tom Cruise or Matt Damon or John Cameron.)

I don't think Hollywood has declined.

In factual terms, its share of the film and television market is declining.

Even if it did, there is no other cinema industry that can replace it.

Why would it need to? What's likely to keep happening is what's already happened, a suite of options growing at the expense of Hollywood, leaving it the biggest fish in a draining pond.

 

[BillJ]

Wasn't 2011 or 2012 one of the highest grossing years in the history of Hollywood?

 

[BigJake]

The "highest-grossing year of all time" is usually the year we are living in, partly because the dollar has been gradually inflating. It would be interesting to see what the highest-grossing year is in adjusted dollars.

 

[the G-man]

The "highest-grossing year of all time" is usually the year we are living in, partly because the dollar has been gradually inflating. It would be interesting to see what the highest-grossing year is in adjusted dollars.

Excellent point and I agree it would be interesting to see that.

My gut tells me the best adjusted year would be 1977. You had "Star Wars," obviously, but you also had "Close Encounters," "Saturday Night Fever," and "Smokey and the Bandit," in the top four, all of which were huge.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Has Hollywood really been any different though? I suppose way back when there was a little bit more of a focus on writing, but you still got the same stories over and over. It just wasn't superhero stories yet.

I suppose you could argue that due to increases in technology it's prohibitively expensive to make a marketable film, so there's less room for risk taking.

And if you don't like Hollywood, who needs it? We don't need one source to dominate the industry. If you don't want to watch Hollywood films, watch indie films or foreign films. They're out there for whenever you want to look for them.

 

[BigJake]

Has Hollywood really been any different though?

Hollywood didn't used to completely refuse to learn from or imitate even its own successes if they fell outside a certain extremely narrow model, I'm hearing as the difference.

I suppose you could argue that due to increases in technology it's prohibitively expensive to make a marketable film, so there's less room for risk taking.

Increase in technology doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the expense of making marketable films, I think would be the take-away from Hollywood's declining market share. The one only leads to the other if you're defining "marketable film" as a massive effects showcase, which is question-begging.

And if you don't like Hollywood, who needs it?

I do believe that's the (rhetorical) question of the day for filmmakers.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

The thing is, the people who don't just want to watch special effects fests either download the film for free or wait for it to appear on Netflix. The people who want more writing-oriented films abstain to vote with their dollars. Kids are the majority of people who still see films in the theaters.

I don't think Inception is a good example of a film Hollywood refuses to copy. Inception has a very complicated plot and Hollywood resists complicated plots. The only people who get away with complexity in Hollywood are people like Nolan who are enough of a draw just by their name to have hand with the studio execs. Also Inception's appeal is so specific you can't copy it without completely rehashing it. It'd be like copying Groundhog Day. If you make an Iron Man film people won't say 'Oh, that's just Spiderman'. But if people make an Inception copy they'd be like 'This is just Inception but crappy'.

Lord of the Rings was a success so they made The Hobbit. Dark Knight Trilogy was a success so they made a darker, grittier Superman and Spiderman. Movies based on best sellers have been successful so they've started to make even more. Inception is the exception.

 

[BigJake]

The thing is, the people who don't just want to watch special effects fests either download the film for free or wait for it to appear on Netflix. The people who want more writing-oriented films abstain to vote with their dollars. Kids are the majority of people who still see films in the theaters.

This again is question-begging, though. People don't go to theatre to see dramas any more because there is little or nothing at the theatre that targets them. That has nothing to do with whether they would go to such movies; the assumption that they won't is just like the assumption that was made that Inception was going to fail, it's just hacks pooh-poohing a model that requires execution and passing that cowardice off as hard-nosed business sense.

I don't think Inception is a good example of a film Hollywood refuses to copy. Inception has a very complicated plot and Hollywood resists complicated plots. The only people who get away with complexity in Hollywood are people like Nolan who are enough of a draw just by their name to have hand with the studio execs.

I think it's an excellent example of a film Hollywood refuses to copy, for the precise reason that it has a "complicated" structure (not so much plot), and they assumed it was "too smart for the room." It's also an excellent demonstration of why that kind of thinking is creatively-bankrupt path-of-least-resistance movie-making symptomatic of decline.

Also Inception's appeal is so specific you can't copy it without completely rehashing it.

This I don't buy for a moment. Inception is basically a heist movie. Its appeal is not that "specific."

 

[Reverend]

The "highest-grossing year of all time" is usually the year we are living in, partly because the dollar has been gradually inflating. It would be interesting to see what the highest-grossing year is in adjusted dollars.

Excellent point and I agree it would be interesting to see that.

My gut tells me the best adjusted year would be 1977. You had "Star Wars," obviously, but you also had "Close Encounters," "Saturday Night Fever," and "Smokey and the Bandit," in the top four, all of which were huge.

According to wikipedia: -

1. Gone with the Wind - $3,301,400,000 - 1939
2. Avatar - $2,782,300,000 - 2009
3. Star Wars - $2,710,800,000 - 1977
4. Titanic - $2,413,800,000 - 1997
5. The Sound of Music - $2,269,800,000 - 1965
6. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial - $2,216,800,000 - 1982
7. The Ten Commandments - $2,098,600,000 - 1956
8. Doctor Zhivago - $1,988,600,000 - 1965
9. Jaws - $1,945,100,000 - 1975
10. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs - $1,746,100,000 - 1937

Looks like a fairly even spread, but then these are the all time great blockbusters of their day, which are by definition the exceptions to the rule. To get a proper idea you'd have to look at the annual totals.
Still, in this small dataset, the "peak" appears to be in '97 with two high grossers in one year. The closest it comes before that is the mid 70's to early 80's with three within 7 years of one another.

 

[Kelthaz]

The "highest-grossing year of all time" is usually the year we are living in, partly because the dollar has been gradually inflating. It would be interesting to see what the highest-grossing year is in adjusted dollars.

You also have to factor in population increase and the rise of the developed world when comparing years.

 

[JarodRussell]

Of all the movies I watched in the last 10 years, I couldn't help but think how much better these would have been had they been produced in the late 80s and early 90s. SOMETHING has changed for the worse, I can't exactly pinpoint what it is, but it's everywhere. Scripting, directing, editing, scoring, casting, everywhere.

 

[Gov Kodos]

The thing is, the people who don't just want to watch special effects fests either download the film for free or wait for it to appear on Netflix. The people who want more writing-oriented films abstain to vote with their dollars. Kids are the majority of people who still see films in the theaters.

This again is question-begging, though. People don't go to theatre to see dramas any more because there is little or nothing at the theatre that targets them. That has nothing to do with whether they would go to such movies; the assumption that they won't is just like the assumption that was made that Inception was going to fail, it's just hacks pooh-poohing a model that requires execution and passing that cowardice off as hard-nosed business sense.

I don't think Inception is a good example of a film Hollywood refuses to copy. Inception has a very complicated plot and Hollywood resists complicated plots. The only people who get away with complexity in Hollywood are people like Nolan who are enough of a draw just by their name to have hand with the studio execs.

I think it's an excellent example of a film Hollywood refuses to copy, for the precise reason that it has a "complicated" structure (not so much plot), and they assumed it was "too smart for the room." It's also an excellent demonstration of why that kind of thinking is creatively-bankrupt path-of-least-resistance movie-making symptomatic of decline.

Also Inception's appeal is so specific you can't copy it without completely rehashing it.

This I don't buy for a moment. Inception is basically a heist movie. Its appeal is not that "specific."

So, could we call JJ's Star Trek, or the Pirates of the Caribbean films the safe sort of story that Hollywood is growing overly dependent on?

 

[FPAlpha]

What do people expect? Hollywood is a business first and foremost and businesses like to bet on safe things so they just transposed business 101 to movies and analyzed what former blockbusters who were successful had and are now copying it endlessly.

Problem is that these aren't cars or houses.. movies are about creativity and it's not always clear cut why some movies were so successful while other, similar movies are not. There are just too many variables but movie execs still try to push movies into their little marketing research checklists in the hope that if they cover enough variables the movie will be a financial success (they sure don't care if it's a good movie liked with critics and the audience).

However as long as we want to see summer blockbuster movies they will make them.. some will fail but every once in a while you get an Avatar, Avengers and something like that that makes up for it (at least financially).

 

[sidious618]

In the last decade it's been expected that all releases have to make huge bank and this has killed a lot of quality films. There's a sense that this might be changing thanks to the success of smaller films like The Conjuring and Now You See Me this year and the flops of major blockbusters. The entire blockbuster industry is pretty much a house of cards at this point and I can't say that I'll be sad to see it fall down.

 

[BigJake]

What do people expect? Hollywood is a business first and foremost and businesses like to bet on safe things. . .

Hollywood has always been a business (a set of businesses) first and foremost. Businesses on the upswing are outgoing, creative and confident, willing to take risks to convert a proof-of-concept into profit. Businesses on the downswing are the opposite, overcautious, hidebound, trapped in "proven" models that produce short-term profit (maybe) but lose overall market share in the long term.

So the real question is whether there's anyone in Hollywood capable of making a transition from being the second kind of business back to being the first. Downward spirals can be hard to pull out of once they start, but it's early in this particular spiral yet. I think it will indeed take the blockbuster model really dramatically collapsing to change the trend... but it may be more likely to see a long, gradual shift like we already see playing out.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

This again is question-begging, though. People don't go to theatre to see dramas any more because there is little or nothing at the theatre that targets them.

Let me run down a list of critically acclaimed, probable oscar nominated films this year.

12 Years A Slave: 37 million
Inside Llewyn Davis: 2 million
American Hustle: 34 million
Dallas Buyers Club: 15 million
The Wolf Of Wall Street: 9 million
Blue Jasmine: 32 million
Blue Is The Warmest Color: 2 million
Gravity: 253 million

All great films. Notice which of them got the most money.

These movies are out there. Some people go to see them. Just not a whole lot of people, compared to the special effects fests.

Also, which one is likely to come in second. (The one with the celebrity cast).

Also Inception's appeal is so specific you can't copy it without completely rehashing it.

This I don't buy for a moment. Inception is basically a heist movie. Its appeal is not that "specific."

Its appeal is all the complicated dream mechanics and the cool special effects.

 

[sidious618]

The Wolf of Wall Street just came out yesterday. Hardly fair to list it.