Disney Buying Fox (most of)

[KGeo777]

The point I am making is that there is a big space between the tentpole aimed at Asia, and the slice of life aimed at Oscars, and the bottom of the mass media pyramid--the Asylum (the owners of which admit they deliberately make bad genre movies). There is certainly room for another independent producer like DeLaurentiis, James Carreras or James Nicholson or Charles Band. Or directors like Mario Bava or Amando de Ossorio. Just because it is not the 70s anymore doesn't mean that an audience-friendly film culture cannot exist again.

In other words not every audience friendly genre film needs to have 700 plus shots of FX being done in India or Vancouver.

The big studio mentality has dominated for so long and squeezed out all other voices that people forget there has been alternatives to the monopoly before. How a viable business model develops is the question. I think it will have to be stable enough to allow those with merit to have some kind of professional support mechanism and market access. It's too fluid right now with technological developments to speculate beyond that observation.

 

[EJDeBrun]

I see TV as the defacto media for a smaller budget franchise these days. All popular TV franchises cost $10+ Million to produce per season. Disney's streaming service is going to be a powerhouse because of all the properties they can play with and stretch out. They already announced a live action Star Wars TV series that will definitely tie into the movies.

I would say the most popular movie studio doing something with smaller budget (though it's hit or miss) is Universal. I'm not too particularly thrilled with the Monster Universe and Warcraft did OK, but it's a smaller production budget than some of the super hero movies. Jurassic Park is obv as you already mentioned. They also make Despicable Me, Fast & Furious, Bourne, and to a lesser extent The Purge.

Universal has been interesting. The Despicable Me stuff was done on a super budget through Illuminations and was farmed out across the world to be so cost effective. It really changed the game in animation (for random facts, Frozen was made the same way for Disney. So much for all that money spent in Emeryville)

Jurassic World wasn't cheap, wasn't expensive. Warcraft movie was primarily funded by Vivendi and specific for the Chinese market.

And yes, the consensus in general is that TV is where it's out for trying out new and interesting stuff. Having said that there's a whole band of directors headed by Christopher Nolan who are specifically trying to make films specifically for theaters that isn't the usual super hero fodder. I think we're just on a cusp of changes and new stuff will be coming out soon.

 

[Cli-Fi]

Essentially it's about how many branches of industry they control. Time Warner owns large shares of content as well as how it's provided through AT&T cable/broadband. That is one industry too many (content production, and both parts of distribution), though why Comcast has been allowed to do the same thing previously is beyond me. Perhaps the block has to do with lessons they're learning from allowing Comcast to pretty much do what they want.

Disney, while it has a lot of branches, is still essentially an entertainment company. They own 0% share in boardband/cable distribution despite owning a large number of cable content. Earlier in the Disney Co.'s history, they did try to make a bid to start owning the actual theaters for their films but were blocked from making any purchases. Since then they've pretty much limited their business to producing content and distributing it. They don't deal with the actual cables that transmit the content and are therefore "safer" in terms of anti-trust.

Ah I always thought that Netflix should have done something like that. Invest in or create their own broadband/cable network to set their content up on, instead of whining about fair treatment to politicians. Like Facebook and Google did. Disney has to make people aware of their service. CBS did it on a small scale with Star Trek, and that was only one franchise. It's going to be really exciting to see what they come up with. In the next couple of years Netflix could be doomed, or owned by the Mouse too!

 

[Cli-Fi]

And yes, the consensus in general is that TV is where it's out for trying out new and interesting stuff. Having said that there's a whole band of directors headed by Christopher Nolan who are specifically trying to make films specifically for theaters that isn't the usual super hero fodder. I think we're just on a cusp of changes and new stuff will be coming out soon.

Hopefully, I am a huge Nolan fan. I'll watch anything with his name on it, and his films tend to do well against whatever big budget movie comes out that he is competing against. I just see a lot more diversity in TV these days, some of the TV shows I watch would never make it as a movie. Although some movies like Limitless can make for good TV shows too!

 

[EJDeBrun]

KGeo777: There is definitely room for more variety. My point is that there are purely economic reasons for why the industry is the way it is right now and those can't be ignored, but that doesn't mean I like the current state of things anymore than you do. It's a big reason why I left the industry in the first place. But I also don't think it's practical to pretend that companies can forgo profits for creativity, especially when it hasn't been paying. (EMOJI movie? REALLY?) Also audiences are obviously not ignoring the slew of other types of stories or all those eclectic TV shows wouldn't be finding their markets. Still, films are more costly and so studio heads are being more conservative. It'll change, but it will take time.

Cli-Fi: For such a big name director Nolan has been very active to try to bring the theater and IMAX format back to life and his thing is catching on. There's a whole band of them now and I think so long as people are willing to support them, I think things will turn around. I do like TV as a format though, especially the mini-series. I think part of the reason why film is falling flat is that you can only go so far in depth with the full breadth of a story with 90minutes to 3 hours. With TV, we as an audience have really gotten used to huge epics and that's simply not that easy to do with film. So I think there will be a lot more experimentation as the mediums evolve.

 

[EJDeBrun]

Cli-Fi: I forgot to respond to your note about Netflix. I don't think they're big enough yet to do anything besides distribute their materials through their streaming service. There's no way they could break into the broadband market now.

And I guess Netflix would be the reason anyone would cite anti-trust laws in the first place. They're tiny compared to everyone else, but are making noteworthy content. This could also be why the courts are stopping the Time-Warner merger. Netflix wasn't nearly as competitive during the Comcast merger and with online streaming being such a new thing and not considered a distribution contender, it was much easier to ignore it. Lack of foresight.

 

[KGeo777]

KGeo777: There is definitely room for more variety. My point is that there are purely economic reasons for why the industry is the way it is right now and those can't be ignored, but that doesn't mean I like the current state of things anymore than you do. It's a big reason why I left the industry in the first place. But I also don't think it's practical to pretend that companies can forgo profits for creativity, especially when it hasn't been paying. (EMOJI movie? REALLY?) Also audiences are obviously not ignoring the slew of other types of stories or all those eclectic TV shows wouldn't be finding their markets. Still, films are more costly and so studio heads are being more conservative. It'll change, but it will take time.

I think it will change when the management branches back out to include people from the same background as the audiences (like it used to be).

I don't foresee this happening with the current big 6 because they appear to be as myopic as Lovecraft said about New York publishing.

Recently a so-called "British" company released a film called the Limehouse Golem--experimental art house--with little audience appeal. It is described as British even though the director is from Florida.
I am sure there are lots of qualified British directors and writers, but they simply do not get the chance because of the current elitism.
I am sure if another Hammer or AIP or Amicus in the old style comes along, people with talent will appear.
It just needs to get out from under the current monopoly.
Perhaps it will sooner than we know.

 

[BAYLOR]

Ah I always thought that Netflix should have done something like that. Invest in or create their own broadband/cable network to set their content up on, instead of whining about fair treatment to politicians. Like Facebook and Google did. Disney has to make people aware of their service. CBS did it on a small scale with Star Trek, and that was only one franchise. It's going to be really exciting to see what they come up with. In the next couple of years Netflix could be doomed, or owned by the Mouse too!

Id like to see Christopher Nolan do a Star Wars film.

 

[Cli-Fi]

Id like to see Christopher Nolan do a Star Wars film.

I think Nolan has expressed his distaste for franchises. Well, at the very least Marvel, but he hasn't done a franchise since Batman, and I think that left a bad taste in his mouth. He comes across as a very creative guy who doesn't want to be tied down to one specific property, (it took him years to get away from Batman) which is why his name is now synonymous with Spielberg probably even greater than Abrams in some circles.

 

[EJDeBrun]

Abrams is no way near as good as his reputation makes him out to be. Spielberg still makes good films but he's getting older and you can see it in his style.

Nolan has proven he doesn't need franchises so I don't think he will be doing anymore. This is a good thing.

As far as more "creative/independent" films coming to screens, well there are more companies branching out with money (I'm looking at you Amazon) and I think we're going to start getting more of those types of films (Last Flag Flying has big name actors and funded by Amazon). All it takes is one person with money funding the right project to prove generic (for argument's sake, let's just say films connected to long-standing franchises) movies can make money and then the whole industry will shift again.

 

[Cli-Fi]

Abrams is no way near as good as his reputation makes him out to be. Spielberg still makes good films but he's getting older and you can see it in his style.

Nolan has proven he doesn't need franchises so I don't think he will be doing anymore. This is a good thing.

As far as more "creative/independent" films coming to screens, well there are more companies branching out with money (I'm looking at you Amazon) and I think we're going to start getting more of those types of films (Last Flag Flying has big name actors and funded by Amazon). All it takes is one person with money funding the right project to prove generic (for argument's sake, let's just say films connected to long-standing franchises) movies can make money and then the whole industry will shift again.

Some of the trailer I see advertised on social media can break through like Get Out, Split, The Shallows Etc... those roughly had $5-20 million budget but they made back 10+X their money. It's all about reaching out and sending the right message though. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

 

[KGeo777]

Get Out was much like the Blair Witch Project in that it probably spent far more on marketing than the film cost to make (it came out later that Artisan spent a lot on fake user comments to create buzz). It also advertised itself as "ideologically important" which is not usually how low budget horror movies advertise themselves.While Night of the Living Dead also claimed a sociological message, this was not the main selling point for the film in 1968. And its reputation took time to develop--Get Out was "an instant classic" at least according to the paid marketing.

This is why Blumhouse doesn't seem like a revitalization of the low budget horror film to me. Not enough audience involvement in deciding what is popular. Dog Soldiers was an example of a film that drew a lot of attention but mostly after it was released which is normally the way these things go when its popularity is decided by audiences, not marketers. And wouldnt you know it, made entirely outside the Hollywood system unlike Get Out, the Shallows etc.

 

[EJDeBrun]

Just to clarify, I don't think getting 100% out of the studio system is going to automatically lead to success. Yes, you might be able to try new things, but your means will be limited. Sure that can foster a certain amount of creativity, but then you run into issues of distribution, marketing etc etc.

The reality is that creatives have to prove that their work is better than the slog that the big studios are churning out. If they can do that, then they can shift the trends and open doors for others.

And just to be clear, I don't think just because someone is an "independent" means that their work is automatically good. If anything, more often than not, I find the movies boring. That's not to say great ones can't come about (as previously cited already) just, they are usually pretty dull.

The issue right now is more about what's trending than anything else. There's just a glut in the market for "superhero movies" and a bunch of other things. But no one's found that "right" property to shift the trend either.

 

[KGeo777]

I think we can say there is a healthy western film industry again when the middle reappears. Films that are much cheaper than $200 million but not as badly made as something by the Asylum or Sy-Fy.

The technology is there, its not a tech problem. It seems to be entirely due to a lack of investor money -distribution and market access (the reasons for that is up for some debate--monopoly, technological change, public apathy, other..). I have seen a movie studio described as "a pimple on the ass of a giant corporation" so the assumption is that they have so much money, they can subsidize film based on their other holdings (and despite that-they get governments to give them tax money to film in their locations).

The current focus on superheroes, remakes, zombies, sharks, it feels like a phase of thematic cannibalization. I don't see it as an audience-defined process. The studios are deciding what to make, then the audiences either watch them or not. If it is true that the film studios are a pimple, then how can they lose money or be affected by public response? Art is one of those things that works best when it is more "grassroots," and not being decided in a board room on Wall Street like it seems to be at present.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Something I've seen a lot of comment on is that Disney will now have rights to the X-Men, Fantastic Four, and Deadpool for the Marvel Cinematic Universe ...

 

[Judderman]

In Canada which has had feeble media forever, there are a few soda companies of Canadian origin. How on earth can they stay in business? One would think that the big companies like Coca-Cola would drive them out of business but no--they have market access. Either Coca-Cola management doesn't care, or the Canadian government offers some protection to these Canadian start-ups. The question then has to be asked, why is media treated differently?
This can be asked of Canada, the US, England, etc.

That may be that people are quite patriotic about certain products if they can get that initial foothold and known for quality or something distincitve. Also with local bands/musicians. Doesn't seem to apply to technology. While with movies it is often more about what gets you more excited via trailers and chat, and/or what has the big budget. Hollywood's forte.

 

[BAYLOR]

I think we can say there is a healthy western film industry again when the middle reappears. Films that are much cheaper than $200 million but not as badly made as something by the Asylum or Sy-Fy.

The technology is there, its not a tech problem. It seems to be entirely due to a lack of investor money -distribution and market access (the reasons for that is up for some debate--monopoly, technological change, public apathy, other..). I have seen a movie studio described as "a pimple on the ass of a giant corporation" so the assumption is that they have so much money, they can subsidize film based on their other holdings (and despite that-they get governments to give them tax money to film in their locations).

The current focus on superheroes, remakes, zombies, sharks, it feels like a phase of thematic cannibalization. I don't see it as an audience-defined process. The studios are deciding what to make, then the audiences either watch them or not. If it is true that the film studios are a pimple, then how can they lose money or be affected by public response? Art is one of those things that works best when it is more "grassroots," and not being decided in a board room on Wall Street like it seems to be at present.

With so many entertainment venue choices , the studios might want to change their approach or they may find their cinema business is going to start to fade. Why pay 10 bucks or more to see a mediocre cinema reboot /remake/sequel ? All you have to do is wait for it to come on television.

 

[KGeo777]

Also with local bands/musicians. Doesn't seem to apply to technology.

Yeah books and film are technologically portable. Music and other live performance is different, especially if the bands or persons are locally known.