2 ms·

Are you arguing that bankability explains the originality? That's possible. Perhaps current directors and stars are less bankable? Or perhaps current bankable

Are you arguing that bankability explains the originality? That's possible. Perhaps current directors and stars are less bankable? Or perhaps current bankable directors and stars are less original?

TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
There's been a trend in all the mainstream entertainment divisions to avoid risks and maximise profitability. The result is bankable but bland and homogenised "content". There used to be indie scenes in music and movies that would kickstart the careers of the next wave of creators. Ironically, making the tools affordable and accessible has killed that next wave, because success depends as much on access to mainstream distribution and monetisation as it does on creation - and there's far less money available to distribute, promote, and monetise non-mainstream projects than there used to be. Not only is there no money in true indie originality now, there isn't even much chance of exposure.
WorldMaker 9y ago
"Bankability" is a variable in the risk-reward equation, certainly. I think I was more trying to get a point across that most of those probably were perceived to be relatively "low risk" original or not. If you compare apples to apples you could probably find an equal number of relatively bankable directors/stars making mostly original stuff. Guillermo del Toro is a big one in my mind thinking about this decade; Paul Feig and Edgar Wright also come to mind as bankable directors. Between them you can probably point to plenty of original films that might stand toe to toe with ET or Ghostbusters. Don't forget to take off any rose-colored glasses when comparing of course; there's always that nostalgic factor when comparing one's childhood favorites to today's output. If there is a big difference between the Top 10 list in the 80s and the Top 10 list this decade so far might be that audiences rewarded the big experiments in ET and Ghostbusters a bit more fondly at the box office than any equivalents this decade, but mainstream favor is always the hardest part of that risk/reward equation for Hollywood. Not to mention on top of that you have the market shifts of bigger international audiences, smaller domestic theater audiences (shifting to home theater setups), etc. How do you even compare Okja, for instance? (That one is a bankability "hire", too, in that the director proved himself in adaptation and foreign market work.) One of the most original films in the last decade, and who knows what its equivalent box office numbers might be except maybe some formula of a Netflix accountant somewhere?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

Are you arguing that bankability explains the originality? That's possible. Perhaps current directors and stars are less bankable? Or perhaps current bankable directors and stars are less original?

TheOtherHobbes 9y ago

There's been a trend in all the mainstream entertainment divisions to avoid risks and maximise profitability. The result is bankable but bland and homogenised "content". There used to be indie scenes in music and movies that would kickstart the careers of the next wave of creators. Ironically, making the tools affordable and accessible has killed that next wave, because success depends as much on access to mainstream distribution and monetisation as it does on creation - and there's far less money available to distribute, promote, and monetise non-mainstream projects than there used to be. Not only is there no money in true indie originality now, there isn't even much chance of exposure.

WorldMaker 9y ago

"Bankability" is a variable in the risk-reward equation, certainly. I think I was more trying to get a point across that most of those probably were perceived to be relatively "low risk" original or not. If you compare apples to apples you could probably find an equal number of relatively bankable directors/stars making mostly original stuff. Guillermo del Toro is a big one in my mind thinking about this decade; Paul Feig and Edgar Wright also come to mind as bankable directors. Between them you can probably point to plenty of original films that might stand toe to toe with ET or Ghostbusters. Don't forget to take off any rose-colored glasses when comparing of course; there's always that nostalgic factor when comparing one's childhood favorites to today's output. If there is a big difference between the Top 10 list in the 80s and the Top 10 list this decade so far might be that audiences rewarded the big experiments in ET and Ghostbusters a bit more fondly at the box office than any equivalents this decade, but mainstream favor is always the hardest part of that risk/reward equation for Hollywood. Not to mention on top of that you have the market shifts of bigger international audiences, smaller domestic theater audiences (shifting to home theater setups), etc. How do you even compare Okja, for instance? (That one is a bankability "hire", too, in that the director proved himself in adaptation and foreign market work.) One of the most original films in the last decade, and who knows what its equivalent box office numbers might be except maybe some formula of a Netflix accountant somewhere?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]