4 ms·
The funding landscape for movies is radically different, that’s for sure. We’ve somehow squeezed everything out of the middle. What’s left is the blockbusters
by klodolph 4y ago
The funding landscape for movies is radically different, that’s for sure.
We’ve somehow squeezed everything out of the middle. What’s left is the blockbusters at the top (Avatar, Marvel, Star Wars, Jurassic World), the low-budget indie movies at the bottom (within reach for funding by individuals, rather than studios) and in the middle, as far as I can tell, there’s just A24.
A24 is doing really well, but I think we’re missing the pipelines and economic incentives that brought us a bunch of our favorite movies from the 2000s and earlier.
- thebooktocome 4y agoA24 is great, but we’d be in a far healthier place, culturally, if there were ten A24’s funding and developing the next generation of writers, directors, and cinematographers. A little like Hollywood in the pre-war era, for example. These days to do something original you have to be one of the ten established directors whose movies are proven ROI (e.g., Cameron, Villeneuve) or develop a subculture following (e.g, Peele, GDT). Being randomly struck by lightning works as well, of course (The Daniels).
- klodolph 4y agoYes, exactly. A24 is successful but everyone else has been squeezed out, and there’s a lot less diversity in the middle between blockbusters and independent filmmakers.