3 ms·

> uses the term "movies" to refer to "big budget movies", which are by no means the only movies out there They kinda are. Franchises have sucked all the air ou

> uses the term "movies" to refer to "big budget movies", which are by no means the only movies out there They kinda are. Franchises have sucked all the air out of the room, and movies are given money on the premise that they will make money. Edit: not just money. But shit-tons of money that can be milked from multiple angles for many years. Already 10 years ago filmmakers were struggling to find funding for their projects. Birdman and Gravity were very close to not being made even they had Oscar-winning directors and stellar casts. It's significantly worse today.

chii 5y ago
> movies are given money on the premise that they will make money so what would be an alternative funding model? A patreon or kickstarter like model where directors and stars are pre-paid via crowd funding? A state sponsored funding model? Non-profit model?
- dmitriid 5y ago
  The original model where 1 big movie would pay for 6 break-even and 4 non-profitable movies :) Too bad we may never return to that.
  - chii 5y ago
    If you could make 1 big movie that pays out a lot (enough to cover the "duds"), then why not just drop the "duds" and keep making those big movies? the current status quo is a natural evolution of the prior status quo. That's why i think you have to have a new status quo by finding an alternative funding model. I think potential crowd funding is possible - a movie is crowd funded with no expectation of profit from the funders (they only get a ticket/copy of the movie for their backing dollar). I don't like a state-sponsored funding model, mainly due to the ability for the state then to manipulate the movie against the artistic vision. This can't happen with a crowd funding model, since the crowd cannot directly manipulate the director (after all, the money is already paid, the director would not need to acquiesce to anyone but his own artistic direction!). Whether these funding models can out-compete a studio big budget funding model remains to be seen. I'm not holding my breath tho.
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      > the current status quo is a natural evolution of the prior status quo. Indeed, unfortunately. > I think potential crowd funding is possible - a movie is crowd funded with no expectation of profit from the funders (they only get a ticket/copy of the movie for their backing dollar). This is a pipe dream. A few amateur movies managed to get funding this way, but that's about as far as you can go. Movies cost a lot. And even if the cast agrees to work for no money, there's still equipment, and sets, and all the people responsible for those, and editing, and music, and about a million other things. > I don't like a state-sponsored funding model, mainly due to the ability for the state then to manipulate the movie against the artistic vision. There's also corruption and lack of transparency. France and Russia both subsidise movies heavily, and the results are ... mixed. In Russia award-winning directors and producers are still looking for sponsors to fund their movies because state money goes to some truly awful shit.
JKCalhoun 5y ago
> Franchises have sucked all the air out of the room Ahh, to remember the 1970's when a whole new crop of young American filmmakers were given the reigns to create some of the more original but still engaging content.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  These days everyone is immediately drafted into <Franchise X Phase Y Spin Off Z Origin Story> :) IIRC Marvel had trouble finding directors for their latest phase (or the one before that) because everyone was tied up doing franchise movies (or series).

chii 5y ago

> movies are given money on the premise that they will make money so what would be an alternative funding model? A patreon or kickstarter like model where directors and stars are pre-paid via crowd funding? A state sponsored funding model? Non-profit model?

dmitriid 5y ago
The original model where 1 big movie would pay for 6 break-even and 4 non-profitable movies :) Too bad we may never return to that.
- chii 5y ago
  If you could make 1 big movie that pays out a lot (enough to cover the "duds"), then why not just drop the "duds" and keep making those big movies? the current status quo is a natural evolution of the prior status quo. That's why i think you have to have a new status quo by finding an alternative funding model. I think potential crowd funding is possible - a movie is crowd funded with no expectation of profit from the funders (they only get a ticket/copy of the movie for their backing dollar). I don't like a state-sponsored funding model, mainly due to the ability for the state then to manipulate the movie against the artistic vision. This can't happen with a crowd funding model, since the crowd cannot directly manipulate the director (after all, the money is already paid, the director would not need to acquiesce to anyone but his own artistic direction!). Whether these funding models can out-compete a studio big budget funding model remains to be seen. I'm not holding my breath tho.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > the current status quo is a natural evolution of the prior status quo. Indeed, unfortunately. > I think potential crowd funding is possible - a movie is crowd funded with no expectation of profit from the funders (they only get a ticket/copy of the movie for their backing dollar). This is a pipe dream. A few amateur movies managed to get funding this way, but that's about as far as you can go. Movies cost a lot. And even if the cast agrees to work for no money, there's still equipment, and sets, and all the people responsible for those, and editing, and music, and about a million other things. > I don't like a state-sponsored funding model, mainly due to the ability for the state then to manipulate the movie against the artistic vision. There's also corruption and lack of transparency. France and Russia both subsidise movies heavily, and the results are ... mixed. In Russia award-winning directors and producers are still looking for sponsors to fund their movies because state money goes to some truly awful shit.

JKCalhoun 5y ago

> Franchises have sucked all the air out of the room Ahh, to remember the 1970's when a whole new crop of young American filmmakers were given the reigns to create some of the more original but still engaging content.

dmitriid 5y ago
These days everyone is immediately drafted into <Franchise X Phase Y Spin Off Z Origin Story> :) IIRC Marvel had trouble finding directors for their latest phase (or the one before that) because everyone was tied up doing franchise movies (or series).