7 ms·

Look, the rpoblem is this, hollywood isn't about art, ideas or socialism. Its all about hard cash. The problem here is that the movies that people watch in any

Look, the rpoblem is this, hollywood isn't about art, ideas or socialism. Its all about hard cash. The problem here is that the movies that people watch in any great number are sequels. This means that they generate cash. As alluded to above, that's all that hollywood cares about. There are people that are prepared to take risks, like the wienstien company. However, a failure like the grindhouse (which is a terrible film) meant that they almost disappeared. Why is that so? think about it in bandwidth terms. Studios release 5 or 6 movies every three months. Each one of those costs up to $100 million each. When a movie is released you have to pay for advertising, promotion, tedious talking head stuff. Then the movie is in theaters for 4-10 weeks. Then later on its punted to rental, and then DVD/blueray. If a movie doesn't do well in that time, its sunk. gone along with 1/5th of the studios earnings for that quarter. most movies barely break even. Which means a studios business model has to build in a lot of loss. A TV channel has subscribers. This means that they can take a risk. Even if a show is shit it wont hurt earnings immediately. Plus they have 3-5 blockbusters shows on a week. which means a much faster turn around. However the shit/hit ratio in TV is ironically much higher. (American TV is horrifically bad.) But because its all based on subscribers risks can be taken as one show is such a tiny fraction of the total output.

rodgerd 12y ago
> Its all about hard cash. Quite. Studios have minimaxed their money making capabilities, and (generally) no longer take 70s style gambles on films like "The Godfather". This is only exacerbated by the fact that it seems people are prepared to pay for the likes of "Transformers" but the people who claim to want more interesting/niche films aren't prepared to shell out for them, whether because they keep their money in their pockets, torrent them, or whatever.
- Retra 12y ago
  All the people who like good movies stopped going to see movies because they know they aren't good. Related: http://lesswrong.com/lw/lr/evaporative_cooling_of_group_beliefs/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/lr/evaporative_cooling_of_group_beli... A cult gets more extremist over time because moderates will leave. Then the definition of 'moderate' changes relative to who is still there, and the cult slides into an ever-more-narrow circle of ever-more-extreme followers. It's a feedback loop. Except in case of movies, it is a feedback loop that promotes maximum reliability and profits. It doesn't promote "good movies" or "what the audience wants" in any way: it promotes what the _remaining_ audience is unwilling to sacrifice.
  - lmm 12y ago
    But that could work either way; movies could equally become more and more artsy over time and the audience that dislikes that would leave. Why didn't it happen that way?
    - Retra 12y ago
      'Artsy' is unreliable by nature. You can't maintain a feedback loop on unreliable input or output.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
sosborn 12y ago
>The problem here is that the movies that people watch in any great number are sequels. It sounds like you are saying it is a problem that Hollywood is making movies people want to watch.
- Kalium 12y ago
  That is the problem. Hollywood is producing the products that the broad audience wants. Instead, the author desires for large financial risks to be taken on what he wants instead, because art.
  - sosborn 12y ago
    There are plenty of outlets for independent films outside of Hollywood.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

rodgerd 12y ago

> Its all about hard cash. Quite. Studios have minimaxed their money making capabilities, and (generally) no longer take 70s style gambles on films like "The Godfather". This is only exacerbated by the fact that it seems people are prepared to pay for the likes of "Transformers" but the people who claim to want more interesting/niche films aren't prepared to shell out for them, whether because they keep their money in their pockets, torrent them, or whatever.

Retra 12y ago
All the people who like good movies stopped going to see movies because they know they aren't good. Related: http://lesswrong.com/lw/lr/evaporative_cooling_of_group_beliefs/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/lr/evaporative_cooling_of_group_beli... A cult gets more extremist over time because moderates will leave. Then the definition of 'moderate' changes relative to who is still there, and the cult slides into an ever-more-narrow circle of ever-more-extreme followers. It's a feedback loop. Except in case of movies, it is a feedback loop that promotes maximum reliability and profits. It doesn't promote "good movies" or "what the audience wants" in any way: it promotes what the _remaining_ audience is unwilling to sacrifice.
- lmm 12y ago
  But that could work either way; movies could equally become more and more artsy over time and the audience that dislikes that would leave. Why didn't it happen that way?
  - Retra 12y ago
    'Artsy' is unreliable by nature. You can't maintain a feedback loop on unreliable input or output.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

sosborn 12y ago

>The problem here is that the movies that people watch in any great number are sequels. It sounds like you are saying it is a problem that Hollywood is making movies people want to watch.

Kalium 12y ago
That is the problem. Hollywood is producing the products that the broad audience wants. Instead, the author desires for large financial risks to be taken on what he wants instead, because art.
- sosborn 12y ago
  There are plenty of outlets for independent films outside of Hollywood.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]