The state of American cinema

Sad Professor

Soderbergh's "State of Cinema" address at SFFF. He apparently asked people not to record it but it ended up online anyway. It's long but insightful. You can either watch it or read the transcript.

It's essential viewing for anyone with even a passing interest in the current state of film.

missingtime

Very interesting.

Bullseye1

Thanks for posting.

expectationlost

can we get tl:dr? are would he complain about that too?

FlashD

His work is hit and miss with me but thanks for uploading this link.

Definately interesting.

Sad Professor

The whole thing is worth reading/watching. But one of the most interesting issues he raises is the cost of releasing/marketing a film. A film might only cost 5 million to make but cost 60 million to release/market worldwide. And since the theatres take half the gross, that 5 million film would have to make 120 million worldwide to make a profit during its theatrical run. This is why even small films have trouble getting made and why mid-budget films have practically disappeared. If a studio is going to spend 60 to 100 million releasing a film they might as well go the whole hog and make some big generic blockbuster and market the hell out of it. And these blockbusters are becoming even more generic due to increased reliance on international box office, which now accounts for 70 percent of revenue. In other words, Hollywood films aren't even primarily aimed at American audiences anymore.

krudler

Sad Professor wrote: »

The whole thing is worth reading/watching. But one of the most interesting issues he raises is the cost of releasing/marketing a film. A film might only cost 5 million to make but cost 60 million to release/market worldwide. And since the theatres take half the gross, that 5 million film would have to make 120 million worldwide to make a profit during its theatrical run. This is why even small films have trouble getting made and why mid-budget films have practically disappeared. If a studio is going to spend 60 to 100 million releasing a film they might as well go the whole hog and make some big generic blockbuster and market the hell out of it. And these blockbusters are becoming even more generic due to increased reliance on international box office, which now accounts for 70 percent of revenue. In other words, Hollywood films aren't even primarily aimed at American audiences anymore.

China is the other big new market now sure Iron Man 3 has a whole subplot shot specifially for Chinese audiences, the Asian guy Tony is introduced to in the beginning has a bigger role in the version released over there.

Sad Professor

Yeah, it was Chinese co-productions. Looper was the same. Originally JGL was going to travel to France (which is still referenced in the film) but they changed it to China to get financing.

expectationlost

and his solution?

Sad Professor

He thinks studios should "back horses not races". i.e. they should find talented directors and nurture that talent so that it might pay off in the long haul. He uses Christopher Nolan as an example. Despite being a huge hit on the festival circuit, nobody in the US wanted to buy Memento and the financiers were forced to form their own company and distribute it themselves. Nolan has made a fortune for the studios since. He blames this inability to recognise talent on the fact that studios are run by people who don't know anything about films.

mike65

Hollywood is disappearing up its own fundament as it chases its marketing tail which is now wagging the whole industry. Increasingly the proper talent is moving into television (or just staying in TV having started there) as it has the screen space combined with increased resources. World War Z is shaping up to be a good example of a story that was made for long form drama and which is being hacked about to make it "summer blockbuster/foreign language market" friendly.

Antar Bolaeisk

This paragraph had me in disbelief:

But let's sex this up with some more numbers. In 2003, 455 films were released. 275 of those were independent, 180 were studio films. Last year 677 films were released. So you're not imagining things, there are a lot of movies that open every weekend. 549 of those were independent, 128 were studio films. So, a 100% increase in independent films, and a 28% drop in studio films, and yet, ten years ago: Studio market share 69%, last year 76%. You've got fewer studio movies now taking up a bigger piece of the pie and you've got twice as many independent films scrambling for a smaller piece of the pie. That's hard. That's really hard.

Are audiences that averse to trying something different or has the saturation of simultaneous 3D/2D showings eaten up a lot of the available space.

It's an interesting read, bit of a ramble but still interesting. I do think he's right about backing the best talent.

Sad Professor

Antar Bolaeisk wrote: »

Are audiences that averse to trying something different or has the saturation of simultaneous 3D/2D showings eaten up a lot of the available space.

I think it's just that it's become easier and cheaper to make films but harder and more expensive to release them. In the meantime, audience numbers are dropping. The indies are trying to fill the gap left by Hollywood but they can't compete with the marketing might of the studios.

I do think Soderbergh is bit too pessimistic due his own creative burnout. Lots of off-Hollywood auteur-types are still managing to survive and do good work. It was just revealed last week that PTA's next film Inherent Vice will be totally financed by Warner Bros. It was previously believed that Megan Ellison was going to have to fund it like she did The Master.

charlie_says

That was interesting, particularly the numbers he talks about. Thanks for posting.

I rarely see any films that are aggressively marketed. Most of the time the marketing actually puts me off the film - usually cheesy generic trailers that give away too much or are unimaginative. It's crazy the money that is thrown at it.

Although saying that, I don't listen to the radio anymore (because my new phone doesn't have one), I don't have any TV service, I don't get news from papers and use an adblocker in web browsers. So I don't get it forced on me thankfully.

nyarlothothep

Sad Professor wrote: »

I think it's just that it's become easier and cheaper to make films but harder and more expensive to release them. In the meantime, audience numbers are dropping. The indies are trying to fill the gap left by Hollywood but they can't compete with the marketing might of the studios.

I do think Soderbergh is bit too pessimistic due his own creative burnout. Lots of off-Hollywood auteur-types are still managing to survive and do good work. It was just revealed last week that PTA's next film Inherent Vice will be totally financed by Warner Bros. It was previously believed that Megan Ellison was going to have to fund it like she did The Master.

Could you name some auteurs that are moderately successful in recent years, I wouldn't mind seeing some of their films.

nyarlothothep

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Could you name some auteurs that are moderately successful in recent years, I wouldn't mind seeing some of their films.

Check out the following directors, Wong Kar-wai, David Lynch, Darren Aronofsky, Coen brothers, Alfonso Cuaron, Cristian Mungiu, Wes Anderson, Pedro Almodovar, Richard Linklater, Michael Haneke, David Fincher, Paul Thomas Anderson, Alejandro González Iñárritu, Julian Schnabel, Spike Lee, Gus Van Sant, Zhang Yimou, Aoyama Shinji, Claire Denis, Harmony Korine, Takeshi Miike, Takeshi Kitano, Gaspar Noe, Tom Tkywer, Todd Solondz, Fatih Akin, Guy Maddin, Shane Medows.

krudler

So apparently Steven Spielberg and George Lucas think the film industry is heading for a meltdown:

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=37811

Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, helping to open the University of Southern California’s new Interactive Media Building, offered a rather bleak prognosis of the future of cinema. Revealing that Lincoln was "this close" to appearing on HBO, Spielberg predicted that a few high-profile blockbuster flops will spark a radical overhaul of the Hollywood business model.

"The big danger is that there’s eventually going to be a big meltdown", Spielberg said, "where three or four, maybe even a half a dozen of these mega-budgeted movies are going to go crashing into the ground. That’s going to change the paradigm again."

"You're at the point right now where a studio would rather invest $250 million in one film for a real shot at the brass ring", he added, "than make a whole bunch of really interesting, deeply personal projects that may get lost in the shuffle."

The pair's big worries - of fragmenting distribution channels, the vast choice open to audiences and a breakdown of the narrative form – add up to a world in which their own passion projects, Lincoln and Red Tails, struggled for distribution.

Do they have a point? or is this a pretty ironical statement given the involvement by both of them in some of the biggest film franchises and blockbusters of all time?
I definitely agree that too much of Hollywood filmmaking centres around mega budget tentpole summer movies, but it's been like that since..well both these two started making films like that.

I see why studios bankroll enormous budget films, especially ones that are sequels or remakes of existing popular properties, the profits from those often bankroll smaller passion projects, it is a business after all, but there have been some very successful, both critically and commercially, smaller movies recently. Argo and Zero Dark Thirty spring to mind, neither was exactly typical fluffy Hollywood fare (even though Argo is hilariously funny in places) that didn't cost $250+ million dollars to make and market.
So is Hollywood on the verge of a change? Will we see a return to smaller, more intimate and more importantly, original films? Channels such as Netflix, Hulu and iTunes will become the youtube and spotify for smaller budget films, giving them an audience previously unheard of. Or will budgets just keep getting bigger? No studio can afford to have too many John Carter size flops on their books before they have to start looking at their approach to films.

Sad Professor

Lucas always thought this, so nothing new there. Spielberg's comments are more noteworthy, though I'm not sure i believe him that Lincoln was almost a HBO film. He could get anything bankrolled, but probably not as easily as he used to.

Minderbinder

"The big danger is that there's eventually going to be a meltdown"

He says this as if it's a bad thing. Spielberg and Lucas selling out were probably the final nails in the coffin. The sooner Hollywood dies the better for the actual film industry. Can't see it happening though because I don't have faith in humanity to make short term sacrifices for long term gains.

Bipolar Joe

I think Red Tails struggled for distribution because it sucks, not because of some sort of impending melt down.

FlashD

krudler wrote: »

So is Hollywood on the verge of a change? Will we see a return to smaller, more intimate and more importantly, original films? .

BUt these films have always been there, they just don't come with all the in your face hoopla that goes with a massive blockbuster.

It's the huge youth market that are pushing the demand for 'bang crash wallop' blockbuster rubbish that we see week in, week out in the cinemas. So long as there is a market then there will be a supply. That's business.

Yeah, studios could collapse but there will always be people with money ready to make more. Hollywood won't collapse but the brand and industry could end up in the hands of the chinese moneymen.

johnny_ultimate

Spielberg and Lucas criticising mainstream blockbuster cinema is a little like Hitler decrying the rise of Nazism :pac:

Would only really repeat myself if I went into a big detailed response about this. Yes, there is a frustrating dearth of imagination in mainstream cinema, but there is no shortage of wonderful cinema still being made, including by some directors who manage to slip into multiplexes from time to time. Yes, it would be great if Hollywood was funding a host of more ambitious productions, but it was be equally fantastic if a much wider audience started being more discerning in their cinemagoing habits. Hollywood will only get away with murder so long as we encourage it.

mike65

Hmmm they are right but yeah its a bit rich for either of them to complain having do so much to create the no expense spared/no brains blockbuster behemoth. Granted Transformers and the like are far removed from Jaws and Indy but the former could never have happened without the latter.

Its hard to know if its a valid comparison but the nearest we've been here previously was 1968-1972 when a string of very expensive films failed as old Hollywood was shoved aside by the youth/counter culture market and then the "new cinema brats" (who of course included Lucas and Spielberg). 20th Century Fox was within a sneeze of going broke saved by the unexpected success of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. MGM went into a plateaued decline from which it never recovered. The modern MGM is really a different beast. UA was bought by TransAmerica and MGM was merged into it, Columbia and Warners shared costs with Burbank.

Right now Hollywoods corporate owned big studios are perched on a narrowing base of ever more expensive productions and at some point one of them will release two or three that die on their arses, quite possibly due to a shift in the audience a la the late 60s. Trends are usually only spotted when its already too late for one pasty, who is left holding the baby. I think its just a case when it happens.

The void will of course be filled, there is a deep well of international capital floating about these days and films will get made somewhere by others.

Technocentral

That is quite shocking, especially after all Lucas did to try revive and invigorate mainstream cinema with Star Wars Eps 1 - 3.

don ramo

pretty good speech by Steven Soderberg about the current state of cinema he made recently at the San Francisco Film Festival, methinks tweetle dum and tweetle dee are hopping aboard the band wagon, lucas was over the hill decades ago, and speilberg is kinda like bono these days just rambling and rambling, and most people are just sick of him at this point,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhR_7D20CMk

its like he say films are not being developed by people interested in making the Art form that is cinema which let be honest is what makes cinema what it is, great characters being developed and driven by emotions, relatable emotions, not some teen angst bull****,

he says that hollywood now makes 28% less films than a decade ago but have grown their market share and now own 76% of the market, but independent films have grown by 100% in the same period but are struggling to get a piece of the reaming 24%

the problem at he states is that it to hard for new talent to break into hollywood, the studio will only trust you with 10-20 million dollars films, which dont get wide releases because its not economically viable to spend 60 million dollars on a world wide release of a 10 million dollar film,

i do like my blockbuster summer flicks, like most people do, but they do seem to be all over the place in quality terms, like how they done such a spectacular relaunch of star trek in 2009, yet completely blew it with this years effort,

Sad Professor

I'm merging this with the old Soderbergh thread since it's basically the same topic.

Here's an interesting recent article on the subject:

Lynda Obst: Hollywood’s completely broken

In a nutshell, DVDs used to account for 50 percent of studio profits. The DVD business is now more or less dead, meaning studio profits have been cut almost in half (Blu-ray is a niche format). The DVD business was destroyed by new technology. Be it piracy or VOD services, people aren't buying films like they used to. The studios haven't adapted to new technology yet and are no longer able to accurately estimate profits coming from these sources. They've been focusing more on international box office because that the only other reliable revenue stream, but it has implications on the type of films being made. According to Peter Chernin (former head of Fox), the studios are frozen and terrified.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

There's an interview with Soderbergh in this months Empire where he talks about this same thing. It's not hugely in depth but he makes some interesting points.

karaokeman

Technocentral wrote: »

That is quite shocking, especially after all Lucas did to try revive and invigorate mainstream cinema with Star Wars Eps 1 - 3.

I was disappointed by the prequel trilogy too but they were streets ahead of some of the superhero movies that are currently being made imo.

krudler

karaokeman wrote: »

I was disappointed by the prequel trilogy too but they were streets ahead of some of the superhero movies that are currently being made imo.

They really weren't tbh, they don't stand up to rewatches at all, aspects of them do but as a whole they were terrible. Lucas is a great ideas/creative guy but he can't write a script to save his life. Did any of the prequels have more than a single draft of the screenplay? he probably knocked them out over a weekend.

Fysh

Sad Professor wrote: »

I'm merging this with the old Soderbergh thread since it's basically the same topic.

Here's an interesting recent article on the subject:

Lynda Obst: Hollywood’s completely broken

In a nutshell, DVDs used to account for 50 percent of studio profits. The DVD business is now more or less dead, meaning studio profits have been cut almost in half (Blu-ray is a niche format). The DVD business was destroyed by new technology. Be it piracy or VOD services, people aren't buying films like they used to. The studios haven't adapted to new technology yet and are no longer able to accurately estimate profits coming from these sources. They've been focusing more on international box office because that the only other reliable revenue stream, but it has implications on the type of films being made. According to Peter Chernin (former head of Fox), the studios are frozen and terrified.

That's really interesting, and explains a lot. It's nice to hear an honest statement about the actual penetration of Blu-Ray - I know it's a technically impressive format, but I don't have any plans to hop on board until the spec is changed to remove the requirement for supporting remote upgrades (along with the attendant bollockery of constantly revising the encryption used on the discs, effectively keeping you on an upgrade-treadmill for both software and hardware players). This admission suggests to me that BR hasn't taken off as much as was hoped, which would explain why studios are now making some features and extras BR-only (eg Sucker Punch extended cut, the full array of deleted scenes from Looper and Prometheus, etc).

The failure to understand that the smart move is to follow the music-industry's lead and offer DRM-free high-quality downloads is a bad indictment of their failure to understand the market, tbh. As long as these comics accurately describe the experience of trying to buy digital media, studios will continue to be their own worst enemy.

karaokeman wrote: »

I was disappointed by the prequel trilogy too but they were streets ahead of some of the superhero movies that are currently being made imo.

Being better than some load of arsegravy today doesn't make them any good, and it's pretty clear than in terms of plot, dialogue and visual storytelling the Prequel Trilogy are pretty damn awful. The fact that eg Daredevil, Spider-Man 3 or Punisher are also awful doesn't really help.

The sad thing for Hollywood is that the best superhero film I've seen in the last few years was last year's Chronicle; the best action film I've seen in ages was last year's The Raid (and the only film likely to challenge it any time soon is Pacific Rim); the best fantasy film I've seen in several years was Ink. Those are films which cost comparatively little to make and where the filmmakers involved had a specific idea of what they were trying to do, and which they weren't forced by a studio to compromise their idea to ensure some sort of Everyman audience appeal. That is a smarter way, to my mind, of making good films which are successful than throwing huge budget at ever-more-expensive-and-generic tentpole films which have no narrative integrity.

krudler

Chronicle was excellent, it was cool seeing people react like how I'd react if I woke up one morning and could fly, who hasn't ever had that dream?

Fysh

krudler wrote: »

Chronicle was excellent, it was cool seeing people react like how I'd react if I woke up one morning and could fly, who hasn't ever had that dream?

That realism of response was exactly what I liked about it - the lack of a franchise tacked onto it meant that instead of the superhero-mandated "I shall don a gimpsuit and fight crime!" response, the three lads were much more realistic in how they behaved (I loved the bit where they were playing pranks in the car park, for example).

FlashD

Sad Professor wrote: »

The DVD business is now more or less dead, meaning studio profits have been cut almost in half (Blu-ray is a niche format). The DVD business was destroyed by new technology. Be it piracy or VOD services, people aren't buying films like they used to. The studios haven't adapted to new technology yet and are no longer able to accurately estimate profits coming from these sources. They've been focusing more on international box office because that the only other reliable revenue stream, but it has implications on the type of films being made. According to Peter Chernin (former head of Fox), the studios are frozen and terrified.

Probably also why they are pushing the whole 3d angle so aggressively within the youth markets .....trying to add a new USP to the cinema experience to guarantee future audiences.

Get them hooked while they're young seems to be the mantra.

If 3d becomes the norm then every movie will have to have 'x' amount of explosions and 'y' amount of stuff flying towards the camera.

Blisterman

One thing he doesn't mention, which I think is largely responsible for the current state of cinema, is merchandising. For some studios, such as Disney, the majority of revenue now comes from merchandising rather than box office. Which is going to have massive repercussions on what sorts of films get the green light.

It's much easier to earn merchandising money off, say Transformers than the likes of Memento.

I also think chasing non English language markets is going to have a big effect. A lot of subtly in dialogue and characterisation is lost when a film is translated and dubbed. Whereas special effects and sexy ladies are universal.

krudler

Fysh wrote: »

That realism of response was exactly what I liked about it - the lack of a franchise tacked onto it meant that instead of the superhero-mandated "I shall don a gimpsuit and fight crime!" response, the three lads were much more realistic in how they behaved (I loved the bit where they were playing pranks in the car park, for example).

It turned into a mini live action Akira as well, which was impressive given its budget, coulda done without the whole found footage thing though but it wasnt the worst example of that genre.

Sleepy

It seems Bill Hicks had it right all along: if we can get all those in marketing and advertising to kill themselves, $10m films can compete against $100m blockbusters again...

ScumLord

I have little pity for them, they've saturated the market with any old crud they can fling through the door. If they see one film making 1 million, they'll assume if they make 50 films they'll make 50 million, if you asked them what the films were about they'd tell you "around 90 minutes".

They've turned film into a manufacturing process. I don't think it has anything to do with a lack of talent, colleges and self education is spitting out a never ending queue of people that can do the work and I'm sure the talent is out there, it's just choked into blandness.

Hollywood is doomed because it's a false economy that produces very little of merit these days. It's like a property bubble waiting to pop.

Sleepy

Honestly, the answer's probably far simpler than anyone in Hollywood wants to realise: almost everyone involved is going to have to accept lower pay.

Like many other formerly glamorous professions, the barriers of entry and the market have changed and so too must Hollywood. The airline industry is possibly the closest analogy I can come up with here: the days of well paid hostesses and massively paid pilots are gone. Many of the positions from the industries glory days have been replaced by technology (ticket sales staff, travel agents etc.). Instead of the glamorous world of Pam Am we have the well oiled, cost-controlled world of Ryanair.

I'd argue that this was inevitable tbh. Quite simply anything involved with the movies is too desirable a career to be able to sustain super-normative wages. We live in a world where the vast majority of middle-class kids get third level educations and have parents who'll support them well into their 20's as they "follow their dreams". Combine such a vast supply of labour, massive reductions in the costs of the capital required to produce high quality images and a distribution platform like the internet and it becomes quite easy to see where the market is going to go.

Of course huge budgets will still be required to put out things like the Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, Star Wars etc. but once studios realise that after their initial box-office, the income stream will be measured in cents per viewer (via Netflix or iTunes like platforms) you'll see these being made with the stars, directors, producers etc. getting paid hundreds of thousands rather than the millions they have in times past..

Fysh

Sleepy wrote: »

Honestly, the answer's probably far simpler than anyone in Hollywood wants to realise: almost everyone involved is going to have to accept lower pay.

Like many other formerly glamorous professions, the barriers of entry and the market have changed and so too must Hollywood. The airline industry is possibly the closest analogy I can come up with here: the days of well paid hostesses and massively paid pilots are gone. Many of the positions from the industries glory days have been replaced by technology (ticket sales staff, travel agents etc.). Instead of the glamorous world of Pam Am we have the well oiled, cost-controlled world of Ryanair.

I'd argue that this was inevitable tbh. Quite simply anything involved with the movies is too desirable a career to be able to sustain super-normative wages. We live in a world where the vast majority of middle-class kids get third level educations and have parents who'll support them well into their 20's as they "follow their dreams". Combine such a vast supply of labour, massive reductions in the costs of the capital required to produce high quality images and a distribution platform like the internet and it becomes quite easy to see where the market is going to go.

Of course huge budgets will still be required to put out things like the Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, Star Wars etc. but once studios realise that after their initial box-office, the income stream will be measured in cents per viewer (via Netflix or iTunes like platforms) you'll see these being made with the stars, directors, producers etc. getting paid hundreds of thousands rather than the millions they have in times past..

That sounds about right - Brad Pitt has made similar comments about the end of the multimillion dollar salary era a while ago, and it makes sense. Technological developments have vastly reduced the upfront cost of making and distributing films compared to a couple of decades ago, and there's a much higher number of people interested in either pursuing it full time or dabbling in it as a hobby.

ScumLord

Are the actors the biggest expense? You have unionised workers there that force big budget films to be overstaffed.

Fysh

ScumLord wrote: »

Are the actors the biggest expense? You have unionised workers there that force big budget films to be overstaffed.

I would imagine that as a highly-paid actor (or at least former highly-paid actor), Brad Pitt saying that "those days are over" is a diplomatic way of saying those days are over for everyone while avoiding the potential fallout of "Rich bastard says union workers have to take a pay cut".

It's always tricky to suggest that unions are a problem without immediately having the radically-anti-union types trying to get on board and go on an outright assault on any and all collective bargaining.

Sleepy

And airline pilots, baggage handlers, air hostesses etc. were all heavily unionised in the past too. The studios will adapt, or be replaced by the film industry's versions of Ryanair, Southwest etc: New startups who won't take on union staff.

As I said in my first sentence, this will effect everyone involved in movies from the stars on screen to the lawyers writing the contracts.

Sad Professor

New technologies have reduced the cost of making films, but marketing costs seem to be getting higher and higher. Unless everyone goes VOD, but the only way I see that happening is if the studios and multiplexes go belly up or are eventually supplanted by television. And maybe that's where things are headed...

desertcircus

There's every chance that the existing studio system will wither away and not be replaced. The quality of TV productions (and Netflix et al) is far higher than it used to be, and so is the cultural reach. Who's a bigger star: Scarlett Johansson or Sarah Jessica Parker? Tom Hiddleston or Peter Dinklage? Ambition and quality will migrate to television (if it hasn't already), and the studios will be left trying to pump as much money as possible out of their superhero franchises (which are eventually going to implode spectacularly). The modern equivalent of a Spielberg or a Lucas is likely to gravitate towards television, where their concept can get maybe sixty hours of top-shelf production for the same cost as a single three-hour blockbuster. Unless your vision involves nothing but widescreen destruction, what advantage does cinema present over television?

krudler

desertcircus wrote: »

There's every chance that the existing studio system will wither away and not be replaced. The quality of TV productions (and Netflix et al) is far higher than it used to be, and so is the cultural reach. Who's a bigger star: Scarlett Johansson or Sarah Jessica Parker? Tom Hiddleston or Peter Dinklage? Ambition and quality will migrate to television (if it hasn't already), and the studios will be left trying to pump as much money as possible out of their superhero franchises (which are eventually going to implode spectacularly). The modern equivalent of a Spielberg or a Lucas is likely to gravitate towards television, where their concept can get maybe sixty hours of top-shelf production for the same cost as a single three-hour blockbuster. Unless your vision involves nothing but widescreen destruction, what advantage does cinema present over television?

That's a good point, I'll never stop going to the movies, but tv is so good right now. But it has the luxury of hours upon hours to develop characters whereas films don't.

ScumLord

Fysh wrote: »

I would imagine that as a highly-paid actor (or at least former highly-paid actor), Brad Pitt saying that "those days are over" is a diplomatic way of saying those days are over for everyone while avoiding the potential fallout of "Rich bastard says union workers have to take a pay cut".

I don't think the union guys are rich, they'd be the working class of the film industry putting up sets, holding cables and so on.

They won't like to give up their bit of power and being at the lower end of the pay scale they'll fight tooth and nail for everything they have.

I'd agree though that if they don't change they'll simply become redundant. But the film industry is unique, there are thousands of companies making movies and it is difficult to break through. I think people just expect a higher class of film these days, if it looks cheap people seem to have a problem buying into the story.

Sleepy

Sad Professor wrote: »

New technologies have reduced the cost of making films, but marketing costs seem to be getting higher and higher. Unless everyone goes VOD, but the only way I see that happening is if the studios and multiplexes go belly up or are eventually supplanted by television. And maybe that's where things are headed...

I'd wager vast amounts of those marketing budgets are swallowed in consultancy fees / high salaries. As a profession, marketers are (unsurprisingly) very good at marketing themselves and subsequently, in my experience, often earn more than the value they bring to an organisation. It'd be another industry I'd expect to see major declines in salary levels in: just think of all the celtic cubs who went for degrees in "morkeshing". It's not a particularly intellectually challenging role (low barrier of entry) and there's huge amounts of supply so it's inevitable that prices (wages) will fall.

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't think the union guys are rich, they'd be the working class of the film industry putting up sets, holding cables and so on.

They won't like to give up their bit of power and being at the lower end of the pay scale they'll fight tooth and nail for everything they have.

I'd agree though that if they don't change they'll simply become redundant. But the film industry is unique, there are thousands of companies making movies and it is difficult to break through. I think people just expect a higher class of film these days, if it looks cheap people seem to have a problem buying into the story.

And the baggage handlers and check-in staff were the working class of the airline industry. Their jobs are either gone or pay significantly less than they did in the past. The age of the traditional working class in the western world is over. If you don't avail of the educational options open to you to upskill, you're going to live a pretty meager existence imo.

Posters on boards have put up footage of their experiments with sfx (e.g. the Doctor Who regeneration) that are considerably more advanced than the BBC could achieve in the 80's. Honestly, you really need to be shooting something that involves vast amounts of CGI, a huge cast etc. for it to be massively expensive these days.

Fysh

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't think the union guys are rich, they'd be the working class of the film industry putting up sets, holding cables and so on.

They won't like to give up their bit of power and being at the lower end of the pay scale they'll fight tooth and nail for everything they have.

I'd agree though that if they don't change they'll simply become redundant. But the film industry is unique, there are thousands of companies making movies and it is difficult to break through. I think people just expect a higher class of film these days, if it looks cheap people seem to have a problem buying into the story.

I don't think they're particularly well-paid, but because of the nature of most union negotations in the US and the amount of time and effort that would have gone into winning any concessions and benefits for union members (combined in some cases with some less-than-salubrious restrictions on using non-union suppliers) I think that they could easily be as bad at accepting the likely future developments that will shape their industry as the Old White Men Scared Of Change (TM) who keep trying to avoid opening up the DRM-free download marketplace for films & TV (despite this driving a huge demand for Naughty versions of the same thing from dodgy sites).

Sleepy

I'd agree with that Fysh. I'd often download a movie I already "own" on DVD simply because I can download it faster than finding the DVD on the shelf. As broadband speeds increase I can see this becoming par for the course tbh. The genie is out of the bottle with regards to digitisable media, it's never going back in. Media companies need to harness the technology and adapt their business models to suit or they're going to go the way of the telegram service.

Fysh

Sleepy wrote: »

I'd agree with that Fysh. I'd often download a movie I already "own" on DVD simply because I can download it faster than finding the DVD on the shelf. As broadband speeds increase I can see this becoming par for the course tbh. The genie is out of the bottle with regards to digitisable media, it's never going back in. Media companies need to harness the technology and adapt their business models to suit or they're going to go the way of the telegram service.

Yeah, it's pretty pathetic - where things stand today, any option falling short of "go here to buy a DRM-free download of this episode for ~£1.50 SD, ~£2.50 HD, or click here to buy a season pass of DRM-free downloads for the season for ~£17 SD, £25 HD" is silly. Delaying the release of DVD season sets to the release of the next season on TV is silly.

(At the moment the lack of DRM-free video offerings means I stick with buying DVDs and ripping them, which is tediously time-consuming. But it means I don't have to worry about those rips being playable when I replace my HTPC, or expiring licences when some company decides they'd like to get paid again for something I was already sold...)