- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The Homogenization of Movies
Posted on 8/11/19 at 9:37 pm
Posted on 8/11/19 at 9:37 pm
The Federalist had a pretty good essay on this. Thank you, Disney The Federalist
quote:
This market dominance will only continue, as Disney has not only broadened its reach but cemented its formula. In recent years, the company has achieved this top status with fewer titles released than the competition, relying on established properties with assured results.
This is leading to something of a homogenized marketplace. While people have long bemoaned Hollywood’s overreliance on sequels, this summer it became a discernible issue.
By year’s end, Disney is likely to have eight of the top-grossing films of the year—and every one of those will be based upon an established property. Disney is hardly to the only studio to blame, as this is a measurable industry practice now. Among the top-15-grossing films as of this weekend, the number featuring an original storyline was exactly one: Jordan Peele’s “Us” stands as the only title that is not a sequel, reboot, or spinoff of some sort...
But there’s an indication that originality is not so much a priority for the studio. As is frequent with major corporate mergers, there are times divisions and departments get phased out while the lesser company is being absorbed. Sometimes it involves trimming costs to compensate for the merger costs, or simple redundancy, but in either case Elizabeth Gabler found herself out of a job.
Gabler was president of production at the Fox 2000 film division, a specialty label that mostly involved adapting book properties into film scripts. Book-based fare like “The Life of Pi,” “The Devil Wears Prada,” and “Marley and Me” were derived from Fox 2000. Disney concluded that it was not as necessary since the Fox Searchlight division also exists (and specializes in independent films).
Disney did not see value in maintaining a segment of its acquired studio dedicated to developing original works for the screen. The soon to be released “The Art of Racing in the Rain” (August 9) is one of Gabler’s projects, and the Amy Adams film, “The Woman In The Window,” which has been delayed until 2020, will be the very last Fox 2000 release. Gabler is setting up a new partnership at Sony, since Disney has decided against the value of original work....
7
Posted on 8/11/19 at 9:41 pm to prplhze2000
Numbers dont lie. Hard to argue with Disney's methods as long as they're bringing in billions.
When people stop showing up they'll change, but that wont happen for a long time.
When people stop showing up they'll change, but that wont happen for a long time.
Posted on 8/11/19 at 9:46 pm to tiggerthetooth
Unfortunately you are right. Why should the History Channel make shows about history when it can produce trash that generates higher ratings?
Posted on 8/11/19 at 9:52 pm to prplhze2000
I’m thankful that I enjoy Disney movies
Posted on 8/11/19 at 9:54 pm to prplhze2000
Disney’s dominance won’t last forever. There was a time when MGM had “more stars than there are in the sky”. Now, they’re a minor player on life support and barely hanging on.
Posted on 8/11/19 at 10:02 pm to prplhze2000
Tentpole action/adventure franchises of well know IPs are the only thing that do box office anymore.
Small budget horror movie also do good based on rate of return.
Dramas, comedies, whatever else, dead.
Small budget horror movie also do good based on rate of return.
Dramas, comedies, whatever else, dead.
Posted on 8/12/19 at 5:59 am to prplhze2000
quote:
Unfortunately you are right. Why should the History Channel make shows about history when it can produce trash that generates higher ratings?
Posted on 8/12/19 at 6:39 am to prplhze2000
The loss of Fox 2000 does suck. They put out good stuff.
Posted on 8/12/19 at 6:43 am to Tigris
Will this issue in a new 70s style renaissance?
Posted on 8/12/19 at 7:23 am to PEPE
quote:
Tentpole action/adventure franchises of well know IPs are the only thing that do box office anymore.
I guess folks can blame me as one of the unwashed masses that only go to franchise-type movies.
back in our late 20s, we moved to a small town to work at a military base as contractors. the only thing to really do on the weekends without driving 45 minutes was to go bowling, go to the movies, or stay home and play games and get drunk. For a couple of years, we went to probably 25 movies per year and saw a wide variety of movies and genres.
After the first kid, that number cut to maybe 5 movies a year at most.
Then we moved back to the Atlanta area, now have a 2nd kid, and still get to go to 5 movies at most in a year.
We basically had to determine which movies did we want to spend our money and time on, and realized that we'd rather see the big blockbuster-type movies in the theater and watch the others at home whenever they are released. Many of my favorite movies are the low-budget types, but at this point it just doesn't make a lot of sense for us to see those in theaters.
Posted on 8/12/19 at 7:51 am to prplhze2000
quote:
Gabler was president of production at the Fox 2000 film division, a specialty label that mostly involved adapting book properties into film scripts.
quote:
Gabler is setting up a new partnership at Sony, since Disney has decided against the value of original work....
What? Her work didn't sound all that original.
Posted on 8/12/19 at 7:56 am to VinegarStrokes
Articles like this make me chuckle because the writer thinks they're imparting some deep information while the late 80s and through the 90s, the joke was all we'd have would be sequels.
Posted on 8/12/19 at 7:59 am to Sasquatch Smash
quote:
What? Her work didn't sound all that original.
So you don't think Kubrick is an original filmmaker? All of his films were adaptations from previously written literary work.
Posted on 8/12/19 at 8:09 am to VinegarStrokes
quote:
We basically had to determine which movies did we want to spend our money and time on, and realized that we'd rather see the big blockbuster-type movies in the theater and watch the others at home whenever they are released.
The price of going to the movies has gotten to the point where if you are going to go, it has to be a special treat... an extravaganza so to speak.
Plus if you have kids then you need a bright, colorful, and fast paced movie to keep them occupied. So you pick a big franchise movie knowing that it should have something in it to entertain you as well.
When you add the fact that the home viewing experience has gotten much better in the last decade or so... it is hard to justify seeing a ton of movies at the theater.
Posted on 8/12/19 at 8:17 am to VinegarStrokes
Once Upon A Time In Hollywood was awesome on the big screen. You are missing out.
Posted on 8/12/19 at 8:24 am to rebelrouser
quote:
Once Upon A Time In Hollywood was awesome on the big screen. You are missing out.
seeing it this weekend. inlaws are taking the kids for the weekend so we'll likely see Hollywood and The Good Boys
Posted on 8/12/19 at 8:53 am to prplhze2000
It is all a cycle.
My guess is that a lot of what is being cast off by Disney ends up being made by someone else, either as theatrical releases or, more likely, to be used as original material for basic cable, pay cable, and/or streaming services.
Hell, they probably become more profitable by doing this since you are no longer having to put in the level of production or advertising expenses on these films than on a traditional theatrical release
My guess is that a lot of what is being cast off by Disney ends up being made by someone else, either as theatrical releases or, more likely, to be used as original material for basic cable, pay cable, and/or streaming services.
Hell, they probably become more profitable by doing this since you are no longer having to put in the level of production or advertising expenses on these films than on a traditional theatrical release
Posted on 8/12/19 at 9:00 am to Bench McElroy
The difference is that Kubrick’s work, with the exceptions of Lolita and The Shining, pretty much came from obscure works rather than bestsellers.
Most people today are still pretty unfamiliar with The Short-Timers and Traumnovelle, which were the source of his final two pictures.
Most people today are still pretty unfamiliar with The Short-Timers and Traumnovelle, which were the source of his final two pictures.
Posted on 8/12/19 at 9:18 am to prplhze2000
I don't like that they cancelled a studio, but let's not act like Fox 2000 was doing any interesting work recently. The list of films being Life of Pi and Devil Wears Prada shows how long it has been a non-entity. Those films are over a decade old. (To be fair, it did release Hidden Figures and Bridge of Spies). but that's a studio that's been treading water for a long time, and they did preserve the far more productive Searchlight imprint.
And yeah, the top ten movies are boring blockbusters. So what? That should allow studios the freedom (READ: money) to make interesting films without the pressure of finding a huge audience. There's plenty of cool films getting wide release, they just don't make a ton of money. But those huge windfalls of the MCU allow them to make movies like that.
In the last 18 months, Fox Searchlight has made Three Billboards, The Shape of Water, Isle of Dogs, Skin, Can You Ever Forgive Me?, The Favourite, Tolkien, and Super Troopers 2 (among others). They also have Jojo Rabbit on the schedule for release, a movie about a lonely German boy during WWII who plays with his imaginary friend, Adolf Hitler, while his family hides a Jewish family in their house. Which sounds f'n awesome. But that movie doesn't get to your local multiplex without Star Wars bankrolling it. There's no way it makes $100 million, but these billion dollar films allow Disney to take a loss on it, and allows audiences to see it.
And yeah, the top ten movies are boring blockbusters. So what? That should allow studios the freedom (READ: money) to make interesting films without the pressure of finding a huge audience. There's plenty of cool films getting wide release, they just don't make a ton of money. But those huge windfalls of the MCU allow them to make movies like that.
In the last 18 months, Fox Searchlight has made Three Billboards, The Shape of Water, Isle of Dogs, Skin, Can You Ever Forgive Me?, The Favourite, Tolkien, and Super Troopers 2 (among others). They also have Jojo Rabbit on the schedule for release, a movie about a lonely German boy during WWII who plays with his imaginary friend, Adolf Hitler, while his family hides a Jewish family in their house. Which sounds f'n awesome. But that movie doesn't get to your local multiplex without Star Wars bankrolling it. There's no way it makes $100 million, but these billion dollar films allow Disney to take a loss on it, and allows audiences to see it.
Posted on 8/12/19 at 9:48 am to Bench McElroy
quote:
So you don't think Kubrick is an original filmmaker? All of his films were adaptations from previously written literary work.
Maybe I'm just not understanding the stance of the article. Seems as though it's bemoaning things that have been adapted from something else or are sequels and reboots, when saying that "Us" was the only original film that grossed a large amount of money.
Then praises this woman and Fox 2000 as being original filmmakers when they largely adapted novels.
I didn't read the full article and only based that on the quotes in the OP, so maybe those quotes are out of context.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News