The first article talks of how the audience is tiring of sequels.
This is not surprising, and I think I've said before that Hollywood is getting unimaginative and so boring.
The second talks about the remake of "The Karate Kid"
?url? http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film-reviews/the-karate-kid-film-review-1004095487.story?/url?
The review is not unkind, but it seems to say that there's nothing special about the story, not because it's a remake, but because the movie is bland. I haven't seen the movie, but it makes sense. For example, in the original, Pat Morita, the sensei, did not come across as a martial arts master until the fight scene; in this one, everyone KNOWS who Jackie Chan is.
I think this goes with the giant corporate structure - as film companies get bigger, they become more conservative, as they should be, because they are trustees of the shareholders' money. And, very often, this money is the shareholders' retirement savings, so these must be protected. But this also means that big companies cannot be bold and imaginative, the way, say, Walt Disney was with Snow White, the first full-length animated feature.
So if big companies can't be innovative, the indies will have to take the slack, but, unfortunately, I don't see anything original coming from them either.
It's a common complaint in town (LA). Movie studios are run by accountants now, not by filmmakers.
I always find it amusing around Oscar's time, when the inevitable INDIE film takes all the awards and the studio that merely bought and distributed it takes credit... when that same indie is something that a major studio would NEVER touch because it's too risky.
That said, sequels and franchises STILL make MILLIONS in profits. If they didn't, studios wouldn't make them. As much as people may complain, they still go to see those kinds of movies more than they go to the local "art house" for "something different." The key demographic is teen and young males in their twenties. If a studio can put movies for those guys in the theaters, they KNOW they'll see profits. Chick flicks are popular, but theaters usually only get one ticket sale out of a movie like that. But a movie aimed at young males can get at least two tickets as the young male can convince his girlfriend to go too.
Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com
Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com
quote:
I always find it amusing around Oscar's time, when the inevitable INDIE film takes all the awards and the studio that merely bought and distributed it takes credit... when that same indie is something that a major studio would NEVER touch because it's too risky.
True, but should major studios take major risks? Look at Lehman Brothers - they took huge risks on a fanciful idea, and they went down, taking other people's money with them. Today, CNN, Walt Disney Studios, and the other majors are responsible for pension funds and the life savings of many individuals, and they have to play it safe.
If anyone wants to take risks, they have to go to the indies, which are smaller.
BTW, if you think indies are so much better, think again. Everyone here, I'm sure, knows of a bunch of youngsters who think they have a great idea, start their business ... and wink out in a week because they didn't think things through.
So what am I getting at? In the long run, there will always be a tradeoff between security and rewards; just as there will always be a balance between major companies and indies.
True, but any creative endeavor means mitigating risk. Even the biggest and loudest "sure fire hit!" lands with a resounding THUD! from time to time leaving those in charge on Monday to wonder what happened.
So it's always nice to see a major Corporate controlled studio having an active "indie" arm where the tent-pole blockbusters can help finance the smaller "riskier" fare. Certainly "art house" flicks are a big risk, but they are generally smaller risks as the budgets aren't allowed to grow to mega-size. Still, even a small budget in movie-world is still quite a bit of money so the risks are still there.
But a studio can't survive on one creative model alone. No studio has the resources to finance ONLY blockbusters with budgets to match and no studio can survive only making small indie-types. As with everything else in life, balance is key. But one thing IS certain... the young male demographic does sell more tickets than the other three in the "quad" so we'll continue to see more movies that cater to those gents than any other.
Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com
Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com
