Actual Storytelling In A High Concept Film

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Actual Storytelling In A High Concept Film

    Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
    But beyond that - yes, ancillary markets are important. Those are ways to sell the film beyond its first run. Which is why studios care about it being good - if most people walk out of the theater and say "it sucked, don't see it," it kills those other streams.
    One can argue this has been changing over the last decade, or so because many people are now preferring to wait for the DVD, or cable debut to see the film for the first time because of mediocre word-of-mouth, personal taste and most important in this economy... Price of a movie ticket.

    So, in an instance like this the studio still gets their additional revenue stream profit (DVD) and a lot of films are now finding their niche a.k.a. success on video as opposed to their initial theatrical run. This in turn might fuel the other ancillary streams like the OST and other promotions that are not time sensitive like a limited run McDonald's Happy Meal toy tie-in, etc.

    I'm not going to name specific titles because you're in this business, so you know the type of films I'm talking about. Studio films. Not small, indie films whose life blood is DVD and cable runs, either.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Now, to address the larger discussion we're having here and on the Business boards...

    To clarify, for me, when I think of a tentpole-type movie I think of something like "Transformers" by Michael Bay... And maybe THIS is the real problem and not so much how, or why the studio system is supposedly broken?

    One can argue films like Transformers are the epitome of a studio film / system because A) It is based on a existing IP, B) has ancillary profit streams built into it, and most of all... C) The end product, the movie itself, is not very good, generally speaking.

    It's not very good to someone like me who is much older than the target demographic, and who likes SMART ACTION -- There's that phrase again -- Instead of frat boy action on steroids, the kind of action Michael Bay excels in.

    Interestingly enough, to support what Jeff said, they tested the hell out of the first Transformers movie and it was through the roof in all four quadrants. Even Michael Bay and Steven Spielberg were surprised, apparently. They thought they just had a strong "kids" movie on their hands, but when the numbers came back and older people and females also liked it they knew they had done something "right".

    So, what's the problem then?

    Why are we even having this debate and discussion lamenting the whole studio system if so many people apparently like movies like "Transformers" that are mostly superficial flash and no substance?

    I can't speak for anyone else, but for me it's what I have been saying for a decade now: There are just too damn many of these Transformer-type movies out now at the major theaters at any given time.

    There is no choice anymore.

    (NOTE: I am talking about the regular movie season; not Oscar season)

    I know the argument can be made there is always a choice, and I and others who argue this position are not looking hard enough. OK, fair enough.

    However, on the other hand, if you look at what is released in the theaters a good portion of the year it is mostly studio films not only aimed at a younger and less sophisticated demographic, but that are also based on properties only this demographic finds engaging e.g. comic books, video games, etc. And they are all pre-existing IPs, too. Not every one, but a good majority I'd say.

    Even if I was not trying to break in... I think the over saturation and over-reliance on IPs is not a good thing for the industry as a whole.

    Jeff and others might have a more informed take, but from my own personal intuition, I feel this is a bad move (for a lot of reasons I won't go into here) for any industry to stagnate and become over-reliant on one type of product in the long-run.

    Like I said, in a similar thread, a lot of people like myself who are looking for something more sophisticated... SMART entertainment, regardless of genre... Are being forced to look for it on DVD and as foreign releases to satisfy this need as a resut.

    This is what *I* do not like about the current studio system.

    It has become so focused on catering to not only a niche demographic (18-25 year old males), that a lot of the offerings fall into the Transformers / Michael Bay category of film making that is not only unappealing on a personal level... But more importantly shuts out a huge portion of us who want the choice of SMART entertainment when we go the movie theater.

    I would love to go to the theater more often and support the industry I am trying to break into...

    But a lot of times when I look at what's playing at my local multiplex... I'd say half of it doesn't interest me. Of course, this is personal taste. Of course it is. One man's trash is another man's treasure. But I think what I am experiencing is not as uncommon as the studios want you to think, though. Maybe I am wrong, but from others who share my point of view I am not the only one.

    I am not 18-25-year olds. I do not like comic books. I do not want to see video game adaptations left and right. I want more than just CGI, explosions & teasing sexuality (Megan Fox). I don't begrudge those who fall into this criteria, or who really don't care about how they spend their money e.g. the movie doesn't have to be good enough just to have a good time out with friends, etc.

    And don't get me wrong. I'm not an elitist who only likes boring, four hour melodramatic period pieces by Merchant Ivory and company. Quite the opposite. I like escapist fair. I love sci-fi.

    I just want SMART action. SMART comedy (versus raunch). SMART sci-fi, etc. Mainstream Hollywood studios don't seem to be capable of producing these kinds of stories anymore, IMO.

    Somewhere in the process "SMART" is getting lost whether due to the director, and or studio mandates that declare anything that is going to have a wide appeal somehow must be "dumbed down" to achieve that appeal. I do not believe in this philosophy, but I know it is a reality. This is why discussions like this and possible ways to over come it are valuable, IMHO.
    Positive outcomes. Only.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Actual Storytelling In A High Concept Film

      I wasn't referring specifically to you. I was being intentionally vague.

      It's a common theme for people to blame the nameless and faceless.

      We all do it. It's easy. It beats the ever living #### of personal responsibility.

      Look at this thread or the other active concept thread.

      It's all about writers who are upset that buyers dare be picky about the story they're going to pay millions to produce.

      How dare those nameless, faceless jerks.

      They should just buy whatever we give them. F@#k concept.

      We're WRITERS for crying out loud. We shouldn't be required to accept responsibility.

      That's for the suits. They are our nameless, faceless slaves.

      It's all Hollywood's fault, damnit!!!

      They (I love that word) ruin everything with their damn remakes and comic book movies.

      They caused that quake in Haiti. I'm sure of it.

      I also believe they tricked Romeo into believing Juliet was dead.

      Bastards!!!

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Actual Storytelling In A High Concept Film

        Originally posted by WritersBlock2010 View Post

        Somewhere in the process "SMART" is getting lost whether due to the director, and or studio mandates that declare anything that is going to have a wide appeal somehow must be "dumbed down" to achieve that appeal. I do not believe in this philosophy, but I know it is a reality. This is why discussions like this and possible ways to over come it are valuable, IMHO.
        Good post.

        Wanna focus on this for a minute.

        Read an interview with Scott Frank a while back. He made a great point.

        To paraphrase:

        This industry is about getting MOVIES MADE. Most scripts have what Frank calls "The Problem." Sometimes even a script with "The Problem" still intact is "good" enough (however nebulous the term) to get all of the necessary parties lined up to push it into production.

        Once a film is a "go" picture, the powers-that-be think "oh, we'll take care of The Problem in preproduction."

        But time is money, and next thing you know the first day of principle photography is looming. "That's okay, we'll fix The Problem during production." But a successful production is generally plotted out with little margin for error or deviance. So you run out of time.

        "Maybe we can fix The Problem in post." Possibly in the editing room, etc, etc, etc...

        And eventually you end up with a finished film with a looming release date and lo and behold... there it is, THE PROBLEM, fifty feet tall in a dark theater, in front of a paying audience.



        Smart films take time. The scripts take time. Sophistication doesn't come easy, unless you are some sort of savant or genius. Genius and time... too things we are always short on.

        I think a lack of "smart" is often "The Problem," in a general sense. But in the marketplace, when a TRANSFORMERS (with a pretty much agreed-upon lack of "smart") tests great across all four quadrants and the entire marketing machine is in place and ready to steamroll ahead... for the shareholders, what's the problem?

        There isn't one.

        Not really. Not if the bottom line is satisfied. And when I say there's a lack of "smart," in regards to TRANSFORMERS, I mean "smart" in the storytelling sense. The effects work, sound design, stunts, etc are all top-notch and the craftsman and artists behind them deserve their props.

        Also, in another thread we talked about the globalization of film markets. Effects-laden spectacle plays great overseas. Dialogue-driven nuance and subtext... not so much.

        This only backs up Mat's point about the studios caring less about story. The more visual, the better they play to a global market. But sadly, due to a lack of smart and the time-crunched madness that is America as we know it, and a by-product of capitalism - the visual storytelling we usually get is mere spectacle, not visual storytelling in a more sophisticated sense.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Actual Storytelling In A High Concept Film

          Here's the problem with Hollywood. It's made up of a bunch of people.

          People make mistakes. They screw up. They have faults and dreams and passions. In short, people are imperfect.

          If Hollywood ever wants to get it right, it needs to lose the people.

          People suck.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Actual Storytelling In A High Concept Film

            Originally posted by ihavebiglips View Post
            the visual storytelling we usually get is mere spectacle, not visual storytelling in a more sophisticated sense.
            This could be "The Problem" with a lot of big budget, mainstream movies...

            -------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Prescribe22:

            You seem like a cool, dude. I've read your posts over the years and agree with most of them.

            However, I think even you realize the studio system of today is not what it used to be. It is all corporate and shareholder driven more so than any other time in history I don't mean this in an naive, idealistic way. I mean this in a point-of-fact, art and story come second as long as the film is a loss leader for ancillary products streams kind of way.

            You can't possibly think this is good for writers in the long run, can you?

            Maybe you do, but I do not.

            That doesn't mean I am a hypocrite and don't want to work with the system, either. However, I can still lament what I don't like about it and possibly, if given the chance, do something to change it. Maybe not a radical, industry-wide change, but a personal change like taking that rewrite assignment for an obscure TV show and executing it as SMART action and visual storytelling and not Michael Bay spectacle that insults the intelligence of even the target demographic.
            Positive outcomes. Only.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Actual Storytelling In A High Concept Film

              If we find ourselves bemoaning that films aren't as "smart" as they were when we first fell in love with film, it's because we're looking back at the past.

              It seems to me, more and more, when people want "smart" and "story" they go to cable TV scripted entertainment.

              There's been a lot of change. A lot of new forms of entertainment available. All of which keep people out of the theater. And change keeps coming. There's been a contraction of the number of theater-release films. There may be further contraction.

              In such an environment, I can see the industry is clearly trying to keep its foothold. What is the one thing they can do over all other options? They can deliver spectacle and monster special effects (and super stars). So it's logical these would take priority over story. (And there's a good chance Avatar has confirmed their game plan.)

              This is a marketing choice. The kind of choice other corporations in other industries make all the time to thrive in a rapidly changing marketplace.

              If I take off my aspiring writer hat and look at it soley from a marketing POV, they're likely making a wise choice. When I put my aspiring writer hat on, and slip on my film-lover glasses, I mourn the erosion of "smart" films.

              There's really no easy answer. Except perhaps to create a new channel for smart films outside the industry. And to do that you've got to give up the dream of getting 7-figures, or even high 6-figures, for your script. You can't have it both ways.
              Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. "Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.-

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Actual Storytelling In A High Concept Film

                What about those of us who want to make a shitload of money? What should we do?

                I've decided that I want to be the next David Koepp rather than the next Gregg Araki. What advice do people in the industry have for me in light of the changing economic model? Is it possible these days for a screenwriter to burst onto the scene with super-mainstream fare and rake in ungodly sums of money?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Actual Storytelling In A High Concept Film

                  Originally posted by sc111 View Post
                  If we find ourselves bemoaning that films aren't as "smart" as they were when we first fell in love with film, it's because we're looking back at the past.

                  It seems to me, more and more, when people want "smart" and "story" they go to cable TV scripted entertainment.

                  There's been a lot of change. A lot of new forms of entertainment available. All of which keep people out of the theater. And change keeps coming. There's been a contraction of the number of theater-release films. There may be further contraction.

                  In such an environment, I can see the industry is clearly trying to keep its foothold. What is the one thing they can do over all other options? They can deliver spectacle and monster special effects (and super stars). So it's logical these would take priority over story. (And there's a good chance Avatar has confirmed their game plan.)

                  This is a marketing choice. The kind of choice other corporations in other industries make all the time to thrive in a rapidly changing marketplace.

                  If I take off my aspiring writer hat and look at it soley from a marketing POV, they're likely making a wise choice. When I put my aspiring writer hat on, and slip on my film-lover glasses, I mourn the erosion of "smart" films.

                  There's really no easy answer. Except perhaps to create a new channel for smart films outside the industry. And to do that you've got to give up the dream of getting 7-figures, or even high 6-figures, for your script. You can't have it both ways.
                  I think there are more "smart," sophisticated, artistic films being produced than ever... they just aren't getting worldwide theatrical distribution, and aren't usually coming through a corporate studio system. Luckily, thanks to Netflix and emerging distro models, we can access these films (though not as quickly as we'd often like).

                  But I contended earlier that smart films do slip through the cracks in the studio system from time to time. Be it because a star actor or esteemed director drove the greenlight (Eastwood films), the IP it was based off of is smarter than average (REVOLUTIONARY ROAD, UP IN THE AIR), or that rare spec that catches the zeitgeist or beautifully renders the human condition (the work of Charlie Kaufman).

                  I'm interested in learning how to maneuver and manipulate the system to get in on some of THIS action, while also exploring some of the less lucrative avenues outside of the system as well. I don't see why it has to be an either/or proposition.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Actual Storytelling In A High Concept Film

                    SC and Lips:

                    You both make a lot of good points.

                    I also believe, for the sake of this discussion, we need a working definition of smart films.

                    To me, a smart film... Regardless of genre... Is a film that does not talk down the its audience. It is written from a "adult" perspective. That is a perspective of gained life experience and a broad knowledge of many things that influence the writing e.g. wit, dialogue, pacing, how a sequence is constructed and plays out, etc. It is also something anyone of any age can watch and not feel pandered to, or like it is pandering to just one quadrant, ironically.

                    This might sound like an impossible ideal. Maybe it is? But I believe a lot of older films fit this bill and as a result were received as "smart" films by both audiences and critics alike.

                    It sounds cliche, but I truly believe older films produced under the old, non-shareholder driven system were allowed to be smarter because ROI wasn't as paramount as it is now.

                    RIO has always been the number one goal for studios. I'm not that naive to think other-wise. However, again, comparing the climate of studios 20, 30 years ago to now... RIO is the number one thing above all else (RIO includes ancillary revenue streams) right now and may be exactly why spectacle and "dumbing down" is the name of the game versus taking risks with films that might take more brain power for the audience to appreciate and understand because they are produced with everyone in mind. Not just a certain demographic that may, or may not be as sophisticated as they (the demographic itself) think.

                    Lips makes some excellent points, too.

                    I share this goal and philosophy of wanting to get in on "smart" films that have a realistic chance of being seen by the masses.

                    Is this a contradiction in 2010 because of the corporate mandate studios are being run under?
                    Positive outcomes. Only.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Actual Storytelling In A High Concept Film

                      Originally posted by ihavebiglips View Post
                      I think there are more "smart," sophisticated, artistic films being produced than ever... they just aren't getting worldwide theatrical distribution, and aren't usually coming through a corporate studio system. Luckily, thanks to Netflix and emerging distro models, we can access these films (though not as quickly as we'd often like).

                      But I contended earlier that smart films do slip through the cracks in the studio system from time to time. Be it because a star actor or esteemed director drove the greenlight (Eastwood films), the IP it was based off of is smarter than average (REVOLUTIONARY ROAD, UP IN THE AIR), or that rare spec that catches the zeitgeist or beautifully renders the human condition (the work of Charlie Kaufman).

                      I'm interested in learning how to maneuver and manipulate the system to get in on some of THIS action, while also exploring some of the less lucrative avenues outside of the system as well. I don't see why it has to be an either/or proposition.
                      On the boldfaced part -- I think it's good to work both sides of the model. Just be realistic about the number of opportunities for when a smart film slips through the studios' cracks and makes it into production.

                      The films you reference, including Eastwood's, a number are novel adaptations. And of those, there are novels that have proven themselves in the marketplace. We can't ignore that. And Kaufman -- I love his films. But I have to ask myself how much room does the industry have for more Kaufmans in this economic climate.
                      Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. "Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.-

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Actual Storytelling In A High Concept Film

                        Originally posted by WritersBlock2010 View Post

                        But I believe a lot of older films fit this bill and as a result were received as "smart" films by both audiences and critics alike.
                        What comes to mind is -- these older "smarter" films were not produced in an era when TV was offering Mad Men or The Sopranos, or Brothers and Sisters, or any number of scripted shows that appeal to a more mature market (the NON-18-to-25 market).
                        Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. "Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.-

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Actual Storytelling In A High Concept Film

                          First, people have been complaining about the studio system since the silent era.

                          Somebody's always mad, and some nameless, faceless jerk always has to take the blame.

                          Second, I think EVERYONE in the Hollywood industry -- from grips to writers to agents to execs and even to those nameless, faceless corporate prick shareholders -- is hurting right now.

                          As an industry, we can't meet demand! And it sucks. For EVERYONE!

                          Some of what you guys are saying is absolutely right. Shareholders want to avoid losing money (who doesn't?). And, yes, at this point in time that means cutting back.

                          But it's very nearsighted to assume this is good for shareholders. It's not. And they know it better than anyone. The big shareholders in Disney aren't slapping each other on the back because Disney slashed production.

                          GROWTH is the greatest single stock market motivator ever. Stock holders desperately want growth. They HATE contraction.

                          Hollywood is not growing. It's contracting. Hollywood is making fewer and fewer movies. It has been for a long time.

                          That's bad. It's bad for shareholders. It's bad for consumers who want more movies and more diversity. It's bad for EVERYONE in the industry. And it's bad for everyone who wants to be in the industry.

                          Nobody (except maybe someone who hates movies) is out there celebrating the fact that Studio production schedules have shrunk and shrunk over the past 20 odd years.

                          I promise you that shareholders would much rather see Hollywood growing and producing more and more movies. Movies in all different genres.

                          It's just not feasible at this time. If you make more movies in the current distribution system YOU WILL GO MOTHERF###ING BROKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                          I dare anyone here to prove me wrong. Go finance your own movies and see how it goes.

                          There's nobody to blame for this. There's not a group of conspirators sitting in a dark room cackling right now.

                          Technology has changed the way people watch movies. Period.

                          The home theater is a HUGE issue. People want more movies. They want more diversity. They want your anti-high concept intimate little character piece about the 80 year old midget who grows tulips.

                          They just want to watch it at home on their spiffy flat screen with dynamic surround sound while they sip adult beverages and have convenient pause button should they have to tinkle. Cuz nobody wants to miss the part where the old midget harvests a seed from a pollinated tulip flower pod so he can grow new tulips.

                          If and when a profitable home distribution system is implemented, EVERYONE involved in Hollywood will prosper.

                          More movies will be made. More scripts will sell. More writers will get opportunities. Shareholders will make money. We'll all sing "The lollipop guild" as we dance arm-in-arm down the yellow brick road.

                          It's just not there yet. And there's nobody to blame.

                          My biggest problem with everyone around her blaming the nameless and faceless is that you're all targeting your own feet and you don't even know it.

                          We are ALL in this together. Hollywood is not your enemy. You ARE Hollywood!

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Actual Storytelling In A High Concept Film

                            Prescribe:

                            As usual, you make some compelling and accurate statements.

                            The big problem is, as you stated, is the current economic system for the industry, big or small, is not working. Period.

                            This is also the Catch-22 because as you said... The alternative for a lot of us who don't like what the big studios are producing is to finance our own movies / scripts... But we'll also lose our shirts in the process, too.

                            In addition, I also know there are many on this site who have financed & made their own films, but are up sh1t creek without a distributor... Let alone a major distributor like a Sony, or a Warner Brothers Indie arm to give them mass exposure and marketing power.

                            So, you are right there is no one faceless person, or entity to blame in the overall sense.

                            However, we also agree that any industry that is stagnating and contracting is bad for business. It's bad all around. For those working in it and those wanting to work in it, too.

                            On the flip side, we might have to agree to disagree because I think a big problem is the old guard (studio system) does not want to embrace new technologies (digital distribution) and trends (people preferring home theater), either. So, in this instance they are to blame, IMO. They are so paranoid about piracy and losing control they are taking a draconian approach by ignoring obvious trends and tech in a last ditch effort to maintain the status quo... And this is what I think has contributed to the industry being in such bad shape, similar to how the big auto makers in the U.S. almost collapsed because they refused to adjust to market trends (Green) and customer preferences (Green cars with better gas mileage).

                            I don't have the answers, but it is nice to discuss these realities in a mature manner with other like-minded individuals such as yourself
                            Positive outcomes. Only.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Actual Storytelling In A High Concept Film

                              Originally posted by prescribe22 View Post
                              First, people have been complaining about the studio system since the silent era.

                              Somebody's always mad, and some nameless, faceless jerk always has to take the blame.

                              Second, I think EVERYONE in the Hollywood industry -- from grips to writers to agents to execs and even to those nameless, faceless corporate prick shareholders -- is hurting right now.

                              As an industry, we can't meet demand! And it sucks. For EVERYONE!

                              Some of what you guys are saying is absolutely right. Shareholders want to avoid losing money (who doesn't?). And, yes, at this point in time that means cutting back.

                              But it's very nearsighted to assume this is good for shareholders. It's not. And they know it better than anyone. The big shareholders in Disney aren't slapping each other on the back because Disney slashed production.

                              GROWTH is the greatest single stock market motivator ever. Stock holders desperately want growth. They HATE contraction.

                              Hollywood is not growing. It's contracting. Hollywood is making fewer and fewer movies. It has been for a long time.

                              That's bad. It's bad for shareholders. It's bad for consumers who want more movies and more diversity. It's bad for EVERYONE in the industry. And it's bad for everyone who wants to be in the industry.

                              Nobody (except maybe someone who hates movies) is out there celebrating the fact that Studio production schedules have shrunk and shrunk over the past 20 odd years.

                              I promise you that shareholders would much rather see Hollywood growing and producing more and more movies. Movies in all different genres.

                              It's just not feasible at this time. If you make more movies in the current distribution system YOU WILL GO MOTHERF###ING BROKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                              I dare anyone here to prove me wrong. Go finance your own movies and see how it goes.

                              There's nobody to blame for this. There's not a group of conspirators sitting in a dark room cackling right now.

                              Technology has changed the way people watch movies. Period.

                              The home theater is a HUGE issue. People want more movies. They want more diversity. They want your anti-high concept intimate little character piece about the 80 year old midget who grows tulips.

                              They just want to watch it at home on their spiffy flat screen with dynamic surround sound while they sip adult beverages and have convenient pause button should they have to tinkle. Cuz nobody wants to miss the part where the old midget harvests a seed from a pollinated tulip flower pod so he can grow new tulips.

                              If and when a profitable home distribution system is implemented, EVERYONE involved in Hollywood will prosper.

                              More movies will be made. More scripts will sell. More writers will get opportunities. Shareholders will make money. We'll all sing "The lollipop guild" as we dance arm-in-arm down the yellow brick road.

                              It's just not there yet. And there's nobody to blame.

                              My biggest problem with everyone around her blaming the nameless and faceless is that you're all targeting your own feet and you don't even know it.

                              We are ALL in this together. Hollywood is not your enemy. You ARE Hollywood!
                              Forgive my confusion, but isn't HW making money?

                              In a recession, the industry is contracting, cutting, dicing, slicing, screwing over any and all employees/contractors, etc., to turn a buck. And it's working.

                              I don't get this over-protective maternal instinct to defend an industry who succeeds, in spite of producing crap, to turn a profit.

                              Why aren't we allowed to criticize this industry like we criticize the oil industry, banking industry, etc.?

                              It's a business. Not our family. And if we're part of the industry, we should criticize more often and louder.

                              Corporations pay hefty sums to professionals who examine aspects of their business and who provide suggestions on how to improve (make more money) for their business. The process begins with criticism of status quo. If everything is perfect, there's no room for improvement.

                              I'm sorry, I just don't get it.
                              Brown-Balled by the Hollywood Clika

                              Latino Heart Project's MEXICAN HEART...ATTACK!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Actual Storytelling In A High Concept Film

                                Originally posted by WritersBlock2010 View Post
                                On the flip side, we might have to agree to disagree because I think a big problem is the old guard (studio system) does not want to embrace new technologies (digital distribution) and trends (people preferring home theater), either. So, in this instance they are to blame, IMO. They are so paranoid about piracy and losing control they are taking a draconian approach by ignoring obvious trends and tech in a last ditch effort to maintain the status quo... And this is what I think has contributed to the industry being in such bad shape, similar to how the big auto makers in the U.S. almost collapsed because they refused to adjust to market trends (Green) and customer preferences (Green cars with better gas mileage).

                                I don't have the answers, but it is nice to discuss these realities in a mature manner with other like-minded individuals such as yourself
                                Thanks! You're the first person to ever call me mature.

                                Actually, we aren't necessarily disagreeing on embracing new technologies.

                                I fully agree that some folks are reluctant to jump into new distribution methods.

                                I just don't really blame anyone for being cautious, and I can empathize with certain POVs even if I might disagree with their tact.

                                It's easy for me to sit in the stands and say Studio Exec X should put out most of her movies on VOD same day it goes in theaters.

                                I *think* it will work. I *think* it will allow them to make more money off smaller titles that appeal to the growing home audiences. Which will breath new life into those types of films.

                                But I carry no risk in that view.

                                If the movies go out on VOD and get ripped and traded by millions of people for free while the studio eats millions... I don't really suffer the brunt force consequence.

                                The Studio Exec, however, is up late at night slamming antacid tablets over that possibility.

                                Her entire career -- the life she's built through long hours, blood, tear etc -- hangs in the balance.

                                If she's wrong, it's over. Poof. Gone.

                                When I meet with various people in this industry, I see a lot of fear and uncertainty.

                                It worries me. Not just because it affects my writing career, but because it affects everyone. Friends. Neighbors. Even enemies.

                                Lots of good people who have poured their souls into this industry are seeing their lives turned upside down right now.

                                Sure there are some jerk-wads out there, but there's always going to be a jerk-wad or two.

                                There were jerk-wads in the Golden Era of Hollywood and there will be jerk-wads in the next Golden Era (if we're lucky enough to see one).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X