My Studios

Let's speculate.

I think the age of special effects for the sake of special effects is coming to a close. People like to see a good story as well...

Where do you see Hollywood going?

What makes you think SFX-driven movies are going down. If anything, Hollywood is getting MORE vacuous than ever before. I mean, they have to remake The Lives of Others as its they can't come up with their own strong stories.

I'm not an expert, but I see vacuous SFX-Driven films as a problem. The story should be king, IMO.

I see them as a problem too, and I agree that story is King, but Hollywood is not really interested in that, and since SFX-driven movies are still making money, why would they change?

Well i have a physical movement of Hollywood. I heard from several sources that the film industry is thinking of using Michigan as the next big place for film next to New York. It is said that there will be several studios in michigan sometime in the next 10 years.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with numbersix, people spend their money to go see SFX so hollywood is going to keep making plotless crapfests as long as that trend continues. I really hope that the moviegoers begin to demand better story, but I think that's a little too much wishful thinking.

~D

Indeed , there are a few movies memorable made recently. But i don't see the SFX as a bad thing. But this shouldn't define a movie! When i finish watching a movie i don't want to say only "Cool special effects!" A movie is defined by many other things...

The six big studios in Hollywood will always be interested in where the money comes from. Prestige is a nice little prize at Oscar time but little art house fare or foreign films are not counted upon to deliver the dollars that keep the companies going. There are break-out hits ('Forty Year Old Virgin,' 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,' etc) that are exceptions but studios rely on what will generate the most money. If that is Spiderman 7, Shrek 9 and Transformers 4, then that is what Hollywood will continue to pump out. They aim for blockbusters or they aim for films that they can sell for the best deal on television and through video rental/sales.

Aside from the major parent company, they may be a bit more adventurous with their smaller genre studios or specialty branches. But make no mistake, the goal of a genre studio like New Line is still to put as many butts in seats as possible because they still have their parent company to answer to. They focus on teen movies, or horror, or sci-fi -- riskier, less mainstream audiences with films that don't have blockbuster budgets. The goal is the same as their parent studios -- just with margins and expectations that are scaled down.

The only reason that the six major studios have specialty art house divisions is that they looked at market share and realized that they don't want Lionsgate or Weinstein monopolizing what is at heart a largely fringe market. There is enough money to be made that it is attractive, but not enough to shut off the production of the next sequel or blockbuster. It's like adding a spoonful of sugar to my cup of coffee -- nice to have and I enjoy it, but I don't need it. Still, I take the spoonful of sugar because I see you enjoying one. We can't have that now can we? There is a second advantage to having an arthouse division. Say I want Angelina Jolie to be in the latest potential blockbuster I have in my studio's production pipeline. Ms. Jolie wants to be taken more seriously as an actress though and won't be in my film until she makes a pet project she's been sitting on. I'll let her husband take all the risk and produce the film with his dollars, and then distribute it through my art house division. 'A Mighty Heart' wins me good faith with Angelina and I have an easier time recruiting her for a project that earns me more money later. There is also the idea that I give her a bunch of people I want to see get a little movie-making experience and practical training. They're grateful and easily recruited later.

The current system won't change because it doesn't have to. If the art house crowd decides Hell should freeze over and they start going in droves to the theatre ... maybe. But that isn't going to happen.

Transformers is an art-house film.

Die Hard 4.0 is a great example of having a good story, characters we can sympathize with and great special effects. It didn't cost that much to make and it's already exceeding expectations.

Another film that I thought incorporated good special effect, a strong storyline, great characters and some excellent action was Casino Royale--but I know alot of people didn't care for it. I thought it kicked Arse!!!

Lovely wrote:

Another film that I thought incorporated good special effect, a strong storyline, great characters and some excellent action was Casino Royale--but I know alot of people didn't care for it. I thought it kicked Arse!!!

Hell yeah!!!

Casino Royale and Die Hard both kicked major ass without over doing the cgi. don't get me wrong. I love special effects. They add alot to a movie. Especially actions and sci fi. But I see this also as a serious problem. I mentioned this in another forum. Anybody remember the south park espisode with speilberg and lucas. I think those guys were hinting at something. I really don't want to see every movie made before 2000 become a frickin remake. While some remakes are really really good and I enjoyed watching them. Others should burn in hell. I took some time one day and checked out some upcoming movies on the imbd. They are practically remaking everything that made any kind of money back in the day. Especially horror and comic movies. I know comic movies are in now. But seriously. How long are we gonna ride this infatuation out before anybody makes something different and original. I said before. Leave the classics alone.
In the end I think it all comes down to money. The companies don't have to come up with anything original. Just watch an old movie. Hire new actors. Make a huge special effects budget and boom. Theres a couple hundred million dollars in the big wigs pockets. Its very irritating. I hope hollywood doesn't continue down this path because I seriously think they would be destroying a great not only american past time, but for the whole world.(at least the countrys that can afford it.)
P.S. If we can't get ahold of the greedy power hungy men in this world than soon I fear they will destroy our world and everything worth living for in it. I guess thats basic human nature though. To keep consuming until theres nothing left. Of course none of this will take place in any of our lifetime.(hopefully) But there is no doubt that if something isn't done there will be nothing left and we'll be right back were we started. The fricking stone age.

I can't wait until they bring my original space adventure to the screen.

CraZy, you make some excellent points.

Building an industry around SFX is like building a house of cards...someday it's going to fall. There are so many interesting films coming out of the international and indie market right now. Sure they aren't making Billions, but slowly they are cutting into the market share. Also, I really would not like to see American Film continue to be seen as all SFX and no substance.

There are few movies that are of substance coming out of the States at this time and when one is made, the studios are so busy promoting thier SFX load of rot that the marketing budgets for something like your "Rocket Sciences" or "Rescue Dawns" are so small that you have to search to find anything on them.

Meanwhile, McDonalds is giving out Spiderman 3 dolls with it's Happy Meals.

If the good movies aren't marketed, of course they aren't going to make a load of B.O. receipts...only makes sense.

I could see them following in Bay's footsteps with Transformers.

More actors that are not as well known, but have been in quite a few things to keep the price tag down, not necessarily a bad thing, and I've seen alot of great movies with some less known actors in them.

Special Effects cut down and more practical effects used with CGI and comptuer effects supplementing what's missing rather than going photo-real for the whole scene. Less Green screen and less compositing later and it costs you a bit less in the long run.

Move with the shooting. Lots of set-ups in a day to cut down on shooting time, although not alot of movies would require this.

I think one of the things that the sequels of this year really seemed to forget that was that a movie can be fun and serious all at the same time. I mean sure I liked the serious moments in Spidey 3, but I had alot more fun at Transformers, 300, TMNT, and Pirates 3 who had a bit of humor to them. Pirates 3 seemed to take itself alot more seriously than it should have. I can see them taking a bit of the hint and lightening up the mood a bit. You can have a serious film without us wanting to jump off a cliff after we're done watching the movie.

My Studios

ADVICE & ANALYSIS: