HOLLYWOOD IS SCREWED – But Don’t Blame the Internet, Blame the Stupidity of the Studios

Bill Mechanic is a name that most of us don’t know. But, maybe we should.

The head of FOX Filmed Entertainment from 1994-2000, he oversaw probably dozens of movies you’ve seen and loved—not to mention his name sounds like a character Jason Statham is going to play in a bad, VOD action movie.

*Russian gangster lays on the ground bleeding*

Gangster: Damn you, Mechanic. Damn you.

Bill: Hey, I don’t make the problems. I just fix them.

*shoots gangster with a bazooka*

*peels off in a Maserati*

Bill Mechanic.jpg
Two months from now, you’ll watch 15-minutes of this on an airplane.

During the six years he ran FOX film, Mechanic was ahead of his time. He talked about concepts like “shelf-life”. He believed in the idea that if a movie was good, and it actually meant something to people, it could earn more money for the studio in the long run than a movie that simply opened big and no one gave two shits about. He talked about turning FOX Films into a brand. He got super fired.

Which sucks because it wasn’t crazy talk—these were ideas rooted in previous success. Before Mechanic ran FOX, he was in charge of Disney’s home video distribution. While he was there, he created the “Disney Vault”—a concept that capitalized on the Disney name and turned their classic films into collectibles. It also revolutionized home video and made the company millions. Looking back, it seems clear Mechanic understood the value of how people felt about Disney movies. Obviously, achieving that feeling isn’t easy—it takes a consistent level of quality and an original brand of storytelling to create an emotional connection to a studio—but he wanted to create that at FOX. Ironic, when you consider that one of the movies that got Mechanic fired was Fight Club.

To be fair, Fight Club opened poorly in the states—only making $37 million by the end of its theater run. After that, it made another $63 million overseas, pushing its worldwide total to $100 million—most likely barely covering its $63 production budget (plus whatever they spent on marketing). That’s not great, but it’s also probably not worth losing your job over. Especially, when you consider that the actual movie was great (that’s kind of the point, right?), and a big return on the domestic budget wasn’t all Mechanic was after. He was after that “shelf-life” idea, remember? And he was right—Fight Club had it.

Not only did it go on to become a cultural touchstone for every frustrated male age 25-40, but it also became one the best-selling DVDs of all time. Exact numbers are hard to find, but most estimates put Fight Club‘s DVD and Blu-ray sales at around $75 million. Those same estimates also put its posters sales at over $12 billion. (Okay, I made that part up.) But I’m pretty sure that when I was in college, Fight Club wall decor came standard in any dorm room that housed more than three dudes. That fanaticism was exactly the kind of impact Mechanic was after. When you look at its resonance on DVD, combined with all the times it did (and will) play on cable, movie channels, internationally, and in special screenings—there’s no doubt that people will be watching Fight Club forever. There’s also no doubt that FOX missed out on the kind of once-in-a-lifetime film they could’ve built a brand around.

To me, the movie represents a lost opportunity—an overlooked solution to many of the problems that film studios face now. As I read through the history of these events, I couldn’t help but notice that it all sounded very familiar.

Building a storytelling brand off the back of one transcendent property? Hmmm…

Creating a library of entertainment that will be watched by viewers for years to come? Let me see…

Oh yeah, it sounds exactly like the thing that is going to put FOX out of business: Netflix.

Bill Mechanic’s concept of “shelf-life” for the studio was no different from Netflix’s concept of building a library of content that could make their streaming service money for decades to come. It sounds like he wanted to turn FOX into Netflix before Netflix was even a thing.

When Mechanic got fired in 2000, people in the industry thought it was weird that he not only admitted it, but openly discussed why the choice was made. He didn’t. He saw an industry that was short-sighted and broken, and he knew that if certain problems weren’t addressed the whole ship was going down anyway (he would know, he oversaw Titanic). He offered a vision on how to change things and they told him “no thanks”. That was 17-years ago—and just look at what has happened to movies since then.

Today, all it takes is a simple thought experiment to realize they’ve gone in the complete opposite direction. That experiment is this: I challenge you to come up with one discernible quality for a movie made by a studio other than Disney. I’ll wait.

  • UNIVERSAL? I know more about their theme park than what a “Universal movie” is.
  • WARNER BROTHERS? Uh, Batman kinda?
  • FOX? I bet they’d fire everyone tomorrow if they could have one-tenth of the brand identity their news division has.
  • SONY? Lololol.

No. They’re all just a blurry mess. Messes that are going to find themselves with fewer and fewer options as the landscape of film and television continues to change. Most of their digital competitors—Netflix, Amazon, Hulu—are already starting to produce massive amounts of their own movies and television. And it’s kind of the studios’ fault. A lot of them made a killing over the last few years selling their content to these digital distributors, but the chickens that produced those profits are coming home to roost. A writer’s strike will put a dent in those profits. So will the realization that they’ve been sleeping with the enemy—filling the coffers of their competitors so they could use those assets to destroy them. It won’t be long before the digitals have everything they need to cut out the middleman. And guess who the middleman is in this situation?

As the studios move closer to killing theaters, they might have left themselves in a position where they’re forced to launch their own content channels to stay afloat. But I ask you, who’s going to pay for those? You think I care enough about Sony movies to pay them a subscription fee every month? Think again. All they’ve done the last ten years are trash reboots and Adam Sandler movies. You think I’m going to give them $15 dollars every 15th of the month when they haven’t given a shit about me in 15 years?

No, the only studio that will make it is the same one that actually listened to Mechanic way back when—Disney. If Disney survives, it will be their smart (branded) acquisitions of Marvel and Star Wars, and the classicism of the Disney brand that keeps them afloat. That, and that alone, may allow them to stay alive during the scorched earth, ass kicking that the digitals are about to rain down upon everyone in the business. In 15 years, a Disney movie might still mean something. Those other studios? Well, let’s just say if that’s where you work—you might wanna start updating that resume, bro.

The harsh truth is that the tech companies you’re now battling are smarter, better, and faster than you at almost everything. They sharpened their teeth in the dog eat dog world of tech, and you’ve been chewing on your ass for the last 20 years.  The one advantage you might’ve had was in the world of storytelling—building off your decades of experience and your relationships in order to make a better product than your competitors—but it seems pretty obvious you have no interest in doing that. You continue to jettison quality professionals to the world of television, cable, and streaming. And in the process, the thing that’s become most obvious is that the studio system—and the executives who constitute it—now represent a net-negative for filmmaking. The proof is in the numbers:

1) It’s become clear that studios have virtually zero ability to shepherd and facilitate an artist’s vision for a unique project. Certainly, no better than an experienced producer can while working through the channels of independent financing.

2) It’s become clear that the studios are unimaginative and uninformed about the very product they are making. The industry’s obsession with how they market films (instead of with the making of good ones) means more influence from the marketing industry—guys and gals who have never written script, or made a film, and thus lack a fundamental understanding of what it is they’re even doing.

3) It’s become clear that the one thing they should be good at—selling movies—they can’t do. By consistently opting to rehash old (and already proven) ideas, or continuing to make an endless number of sequels, the studios have essentially admitted that they have no clue how to promote anything unless the bulk of the work has already been done for them. “You had one job to do!”

And I don’t say this as some movie purist or from a position of snobbery either. I don’t think that everything should be an “important film”, and I’m not against sequels or franchises in any way. In fact, I love many of them. I get that movies are a business, and I’m not here to argue on behalf of Terrence Malick getting $100 million so he can make a movie about birds.

Days of Birds
This runtime for this film is 657 minutes.

But I also don’t see how it would take more than ten seconds of thought to realize that you can’t just make sequels and reboots. The ideas for these spin-offs have to come from somewhere—otherwise you’re going to be left with nothing to reboot or sequel. Maybe that sounds obvious, but it obviously bears mentioning because studios are doing nothing to alleviate the problem. Instead, they’ve slated 117 films for remakes, while their original projects continue to hit all-time lows. It’s like they are completely unaware that the majority of movies they’re remaking came from a middle class of films that they’re simply not making anymore.

Here are just a few of the original budgets for films that studios either rebooted, sequeled, or put back into development in the last five years:

  • The Terminator – Budget: $6.4 Million
  • The Fast and the Furious – Budget: $40 Million
  • Raiders of the Lost Ark – Budget: $18 Million
  • Ghostbusters – Budget: $30 Million
  • Star Wars – Budget: $11 Million

These franchises didn’t start as giant blockbusters. They were middle-range movies that struck a chord with audiences. And yet, the class of films that produced the studios’ most cherished (and tired) properties have been dwindling since the late 1990’s. (Go back further and look at the 1980’s—not a single year’s highest grossing film was a big-budget “blockbuster”.)

The point is original films have to be made. Both for the quality of movies in general and for the quality of the movie business. I get that you studios now believe that only big-budget can mean big-success, but if that’s all you make it doesn’t prove anything. It just becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Your “it’s a business” argument for dismissing original properties gets pretty hard to accept when your analysis of that situation is dead wrong and you’re ignoring the films that earned you those big-budgets in the first place. It’s no wonder you’re having trouble finding financing for new movies when everything you do seems to say, “We have no clue what we’re doing.”

For about two decades now (maybe longer), film executives have increasingly become a sector of the industry built on naysaying; a part of the business that focuses more on why new things can’t be done, rather than doing the hard work it takes to figure out how those things can be done. Too many of them are in the business to make money—financial forecasters whose primary focus is on discovering some “proven formula” for manufacturing hits. Almost 100 years of movie making tells us that such a formula is impossible; a fact they might know if they actually loved movies. But a lot of them don’t, so here they are in 2017, still chasing their ill-advised dreams like a backlot full of Don Quixotes.

For real, Hollywood never ceases to amaze me in its ability to make the most surface level reading of any original success they have. And they never cease to disappoint me when it comes to turning that surface level reading into a bunch of derivative trash.

Avatar made a billion dollars?! Everything has to be a sci-fi movie with weird aliens in it now!”

You don’t get it, you stupid ass potato. Please, go away. You’re making me type things like “ass potato”.

I mean, really, if you want to do something that makes a billion dollars go move to Houston and work for ExxonMobil. I don’t want you near the thing I care about. The movie business is an industry better suited for dreamers, not for people who dream of being rich. It’s for people with imagination, and your head is in the wrong set of clouds.

I’m sorry if this sounds harsh, but I think I’m echoing a frustration felt by a lot of moviegoers. Over the last two decades, they’ve taken something that was incredibly special to all of us—the movie-going experience—and taken a giant shit in our theater seats. It’s really sad actually. And I don’t know if you can feel it every time you go to movies, but I can—it’s the feeling that films don’t matter anymore.

Theater Turds
Rows and rows of turds. (Brought to you by The Emoji Movie.)

I understand that our culture has changed a lot over the last two decades, but frankly, I’m tired of hearing excuses. Be a professional. Try harder. Do better. Quit acting like you’re doing a “heckuva job, Brownie,” when the whole movie industry is underwater. For real, if you ran a sports team this bad, you’d be fucking fired.

Too many of the studio heads, their executives, and their parent companies have given themselves a free pass because of “the internet”—blaming its monolithic and evil presence for something that is actually their fault. Movie attendance is down? Well, two decades of dumping crap on people will do that to you. I mean, it’s gotten so bad that we’re all sitting around trying to convince ourselves that the new Star Wars movie is good, when in reality, it’s like 5% better than Scientology. All this because we’re so desperate for anything that might make us feel like the original Star Wars did. Talk about a Jedi Mind Trick.

The studios seem hellbent on the idea that they can build audiences that simply don’t exist. Like getting people to go to a movie is something that can be manufactured. And watching this approach is like watching someone bang their head against the wall to get rid of a headache. They continue to double down on transforming filmmaking into something that more closely resembles an assembly line. They continue to focus on new marketing strategies without having something good to market. You can come up with whatever innovative strategy you want that involves securing release dates, and your Snapchat digital integration that will engage four quadrants—none of that will matter if your movie fucking sucks. And most of them do.

The worst part is that it doesn’t have to be this way. Every once in a while, we get to see what happens when something good and original actually gets made. We already saw it this year with the release of Get Out (made by one of the few production companies that actually knows what they’re doing, Blumhouse). I absolutely loved Get Out, but that love quickly turned into frustration. Leaving the theater, I was thinking, “Why aren’t there ten or twenty movies like this a year? Why has it become so hard to make a film that takes the audience to a place that it’s never been—that is fun, and suspenseful, and surprising?” Sitting there and listening to the audience delight in every moment, it’s so obvious it’s something we all want. How has it become a lost art?

Studios don’t seem to realize that the internet is winning, not because it’s “the internet” (like saying that even means something). It’s winning because it’s doing what movies used to do. When I was growing up (I hate typing that sentence, but it’s true), films were the thing you sought to broaden your horizons and experience new things. Now they’re not. Now the internet is where you go to hear new voices, to engage with thought-provoking ideas, and to experience the truth. The internet is doing the job that studios should have been doing all along—building audiences for people with something unique and engaging to say.

If studios want to keep blaming the changes in the business model on technology, be my guest. But we the moviegoers should never forget that they’re the ones who let this thing slip away because of nothing other than laziness, a lack of passion, and a lack of ingenuity. They opted for short-sighted cash grabs instead; and now they’re going to be left without a new generation of fans alongside a disengaged generation of older ones because of it. The truth is that the studios haven’t cared enough about movies to take a step back and understand why they even matter in the first place. And it only took two decades for them to crater film’s once valued place in the culture.

My greatest fear is that it’s too late. Seriously, it might be (and it absolutely pains me to write that). One of my greatest joys in life is going to the theater, and it would be a devastating development to have that joy taken away. So my god, I hope the studios prove me wrong on this one. I hope they start making the kind of original films people love. I hope they quit chasing trends and start creating them. I hope they shove this whole article right in my goddamn face. I really do.

But I don’t see it happening. Because in order to do that, you have to fail. And the large, greedy, grubby-ass corporations that own them don’t care much for failure. Especially for the sake of art.

Therein lies the problem. When it comes to trying to make good movies, failure is an inherent reality. Not only is it guaranteed, but it is critical to creative success. Read that again—it is critical to creative success. A crucial part of their business that won’t happen if studios continue to insist on “safe” creative choices—like those exist and aren’t always the absolute worst kinds.

The studios still don’t realize that nothing will ever be “safe”, so they might as well live a little and get more adventurous in their decision-making. They don’t realize that in doing so, they’re more likely to make something that’s so original, and so moving, it resonates with people on a profound level. They don’t realize that risky decisions make it far more likely they’ll discover something great they never intended to find. They don’t realize this is the nature of filmmaking.

Never forget: The Fast and Furious is a multi-billion dollar franchise. Multi-billion. With a “b”. Do you, for one second, believe the studio ever thought that a $40 million dollar movie about the subculture of street-racing would become an international sensation? No. They did not. Yet they made the movie anyway, and in the process, stumbled onto something wonderful (and wonderfully profitable). Take a page from one of your most successful franchises—take risks, do something new—you never know where the road might lead you. And if you don’t, well, let’s just say people will continue to flee the theaters faster than Ludacris being chased by a submarine

Movies shouldn’t be dying. That’s ludicrous.

29 comments

  1. Television seems to be filling the storytelling void these days–though it doesn’t quite replace the magic of going to see a movie in a theater (in my humble and old opinion).

    Liked by 1 person

  2. This is tough. It’s always been ready to Target “the studios” but they’re is no such person, and stereotypes, even about an easy target like Hollywood, seems silly. Culturallly, the movie business can’t except content as a niche. To meet the demand of the giant theater audience: they try broadest common denominator films. This approach killed broadcast TV. Niche cable saved it, niche programming is the only savior for the theaters, but that’s too to pull off for a consolidated amalgamated industry. To go back to programming like a local stage theater.

    But that’ll work, tentpoles, not so much!

    Liked by 1 person

    • There’s nothing wrong with a “tentpole” movie, mostly because of the money it makes COULD and also SHOULD be returned to fund other projects, rather than padding profits and pockets. Appealing to the masses is possible, even with niche programs. Look at Black Sails, Game of Thrones, Westworld, even the Walking Dead. The powers that be just don’t believe in taking chances.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. One of Hollywood’s biggest problems is that they are still stuck in the 20th Century. They care about their stupid prestige & these movies are a definite product of that. Brand Names & “Expected Escapism” rule the Hollywood Landscape. We can’t expect them to take any risks unless risk taking becomes profitable. But don’t worry, their Bubble will burst. And Visionary Talent will become the norm once again.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. You’re so correct. This article needs to be reprinted by Daily Variety, or Deadline, or The Hollywood Reporter. Very cool observations.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. There’s one thing that should be addressed as well – studio shills. How many times have you seen forum/comment thread discussions about terrible movies and bunch of people irrationally defending bad decisions by the studio/director? Of course, not all such people are shills, there are some genuine useful idiots out there – however – there are clear ring leaders who show up only during the times a bad movie is in the making. Once it hits the theaters and generates profit – POOF! The ring leaders vanish. Their role was done. They suffocated criticism (using phrases like “You’re just a hater”, “You’re blinded by the nostalgia”, “It’s for the new fans/modern audience”, “You’re wearing rose-tinted glasses”) and suckered in bunch of people to pay for a very, very shitty movie.

    At times even article writers of major pop-culture websites (see Ghostbusters reboot fiasco) and reviewers can be commissioned by the studios to be shills (dare I say, Red Letter media may be example of this. Look at their review of Michael Bay produced Ninja Turtles 1. Their review boils down to “It’s a stupid premise, therefore it’s Ok to make a shitty movie as that’s fun”).

    Like

  6. Just saying, does anyone ever proof read their work any more? Most of the content is fairly accurate. As a person working in Film/TV for 28 years, I have seen the shift in providers and content. There is a shift and if the Name Brand old world studios don’t change the way they do business, and if California keeps going down the road to the most business unfriendly state in the Union, then both are doomed to fail in content and profits. I could use a bit less of the profanity and a bit more of the insightful commentary. Over all a good read. I’ll leave the evaluation of Fast and Furious Franchise to other minds.

    Like

  7. Such a cogent argument, artfully stated and with passioned experience. Blows me away.

    I’m on the other side, a guy with an original sci-fi feature with a real human story. Really, sci-fi that’s not about the special effects, alien bazooka wars and explosions ad nauseam? Who would have ever thought? I live in the real world and only write about real life struggles. Tough to make a connection with the right person.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Great read. This kind of reminds me a bit of the Steve Albini keynote on the music industry – similar problems addressed with tiring excuses. On the talking point of Disney, their acquisition of Marvel kind of feels like a reboot to comic readers before it translated to the movie screen. There’s a degree of originality in the way it’s packaged and presented, but it’s really an acquisition of memories, familiar characters, and storytelling targeting an age group that read about them in comics as kids, at the fortuitous moment when those kids have grown up and can reintroduce them to their kids. Rebooting Star Wars is the best, most extreme example of how to cash in on this model. With the added benefit of box office multiples, and fans known to watch a Star Wars movie at least 20 times, Disney used its smart money to cover the $4 billion it cost to buy.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. do you know how photographers make a living? They get paid for the use of their photographs after being asked permission by a party. Did the writer of this article ask or pay the person who took the cover photo for this article (the Hollywood hills on fire), nope. Cause I know the person who took it and they are baffled that it’s being used without permission and in credited as the artist. You may think you are sly but your aren’t and just got called out. Next time take some photos yourself instead of going through flicker and stealing shit.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. I think back to my childhood in the 80s, and the movies that captivated me…and I was seriously afraid that I was just gonna be called old for saying, “They just don’t make ’em like that anymore”. I remember my parents’ generation and older saying that “it’s all special effects now”…which is kind of my complaint: movies are all FX and action, with no real storytelling at all.

    But I have evidence of it: Stephen Sommers. Writer and director of Deep Rising, The Mummy, The Mummy Returns, Van Helsing, etc.
    Deep Rising was a very well-told cross between Aliens and The Abyss: sea monsters attack a cruise liner and a group of hijackers who were going to loot the ship end up having to defend themselves. It had engaging characters, witty dialogue, and plenty of action and FX; it was a well-rounded movie, it found that necessary balance.
    The Mummy was very similar in writing and direction…but then Sommers seemed to let the FX go to his head with The Mummry Returns. The characters were getting more cookie-cutter, and taking a back seat to the pretty pictures.
    And then came the cinematic abortion that was Ven Helsing, which was pure action, pure special effects. The characters were cookie-cutter archetypes with nothing original about them, and everything seemed to be centered around the medieval/victorian gadgetry–turning ordinary weapons into something that would have made Rube Goldberg salivate–use to kill monsters and baddies. The movie was like watching someone else play a video game. (And I wish I was kidding, but at the end, when the dead heroine’s glowing face was receding upward into the clouds to show she was going to heaven, someone in the theater literally shouted out, “STUUUUUPID!!!”…and the whole audience laughed and clapped.)

    Stephen Sommers is what’s wrong with Hollywood…they found ILM and Pixar on the toy shelf and they’re played with nothing else ever since.

    But, as I said, I look back on the movies that I loved as a kid…they HAD to have good characters and writing, because the FX couldn’t carry the movie all by themselves. I think of movies like The Last Starfighter, Explorers, Laybrinth, The Neverending Story, Flight of the Navigator, Tron, E.T., etc, etc, and of course, two Star Wars flicks (including the one I love best)…these were seriously FX-heavy movies, most with lots of action, but they still managed to grab me for life.

    I keep wanting Hollywood to make new movies that manage the same thing…but it’s like they’ve looked at everything I loved about movies and said, “Let’s do everything EXCEPT that.”

    There are a few exceptions…but not many.
    When I saw the snarky, goofball opening credits to “Deadpool”, I knew we were in very good hands…and I was right. But that movie knew it was making fun, not merely of itself, but of what similar properties have been doing lately, what they’ve become. (“Superhero landing! She’s going to do a superhero landing!” Yeah…they knew EXACTLY what they were doing.That’s WHY it was so good.)

    …I’m having a very hard time thinking of any other time I’ve left a movie thinking, “That. was. AWESOME!” in the last five or six years. A very hard time.
    It’s mostly ranged from that-was-okay to meh to I-want-my-money-back since. Or it’s yet ANOTHER re-make, re-boot, re-imagining, or LONG over-due sequel that’s going to take a monster crap over yet another childhood memory, because they never respect the original material and what made it great.

    But it’s all that’s out there. I just don’t go, anymore. Not really. Who cares.

    Hmph.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. As a screenwriter, this has been my struggle. Almost every pitch or reading results in notes ending with statements about how it is too high budget for non-established IP, or how somewhere within the last ten years there have been two successful movies made in that genre (Without sequels) and that was probably enough even though there haven’t been a new one with this level of creativity and originality brought to the genre pretty much ever. The VISION in HOLLYWOOD is lost to all but a few. I am looking for those few. I have a formula, and it is amazing. It does everything this article describes as being lost or abandoned. And it will yield profits along with giving audiences a reason to get back into theaters.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. You wrote an outstanding article. I’m pretty frustrated with Hollywood’s endless supply of uninspired crap. Not that U.C. doesn’t have its place — I didn’t entirely hate the latest Resident Evil movie — but today’s parade of prequels, sequels and remakes has completely overshadowed creative storytelling. I’d rather pay $10 to see a hit and miss with guts than some tired “reimagining” of the same old thing. Why bother? Anyway, thanks for articulating all this and great job!

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Even the trailers have been by the numbers and generate no excitement. Has anyone else noticed how back in the day , the trailers were more thrilling and longer (ones on TV) and then when a movie was out for a while, they got shorter and more matter of fact. All trailers on tv today look like the quick matter of fact ones, no excitement and acting like the movie is already on the way out.

    As a producer pitching in Hollywood, I can safely say that for a creative industry, they have the most uncreative people in charge for the most part. Sycophants, people you wonder who they slept with to get their jobs…I thought it was a cliche until I saw it.

    Meanwhile love or hate his stuff, Tyler Perry is doing it right for his audience. Total control, branding etc.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s