![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Old Men Mismanaging the Majors
Feb. 20th, 2009 12:23 pmWe want to like Joaquin Phoenix, and so we make excuses for him. After we make fun of his music, we talk at length about what a fine actor he is, forgetting that he was only passable in Walk the Line and was downright terrible in Gladiator. There are certain characters in movies that in other times would have been played by Oliver Reed, Marlon Brando, John Wayne - possibly Michael Caine or Michael Hogan after they reached a certain age. Currently, we have no one, because working class toughs do not become actors, and acting classes never teach you to plausibly play vacantly brutal characters. Russell Crowe will do for some things, but we want a Russell Crowe crossed with Peter Lorrie. We try to convince ourselves that Joaquin Phoenix is good because we miss his brother, and because we want someone masterful playing these roles. We need these characters. We need to believe they are well executed. It is probably too late for Coldplay to come along and replace Joaquin Phoenix's Travis.
*
Last year, the only profitable movie made by News Corp was Marley and Me. (News Corp owns all the Fox subsidiaries.) If the studios are smart, they will see three things in this: one, that the current development cycle takes too long, so that films hit theaters two years after they were greenlit, which can lead to timing disasters like a bunch of downer pictures in theaters right as a recession hits. Two, that Oscar baiting by the classics divisions has gotten out of hand, so that limited-interest films are being made with budgets they can't possibly recoup, and are all released in December so they directly compete for that limited audience, which goes untended to the rest of the year. Three, that there will always be a market for simple movies that let us spend time with actors who we like, even if there are no special effects and not much happens. Hangout movies cost very little and have a broad audience; they are as resilient as horror. They are the bread and butter that lets the studio take risks on higher concepts. They are the bank. During the days of easy credit, we forgot we needed them. We do. If the studios notice this in time, they will be able to save themselves.
At the moment, their main strategy is to put spectacle back in the theater experience by putting us in 3D glasses. They are fooling themselves. There is no reason to think audiences want 3D across the board; we're pretty comfortable with flat screens, and have never had trouble believing they are immersive. 3D will never be more than a gimmick - and an expensive one. It drives off audiences with vision problems, or with heads the wrong size or shape to wear 3D glasses comfortably, and there is nothing sexy or classy about having to put on a plastic headset when you're out on a date. More to the point, the fact that a 3D movie is different from your home television is precisely the problem - any 3D movie which relies on its dimensionality will not translate well to DVD release, and any 3D movie which is just as good flat renders 3D pointless. Movie releases exist to create buzz for tie-ins and DVDs down the line; they are an ad campaign. Movie theaters exist to drive up business at nearby restaurants. Any movie release that can't be sold as a DVD and can't be part of an evening out (theater upgrades mean expensive tickets that make me forgo dinner or attend a non-mealtime matinee) has fatally misunderstood revenue streams.
*
Last year, the only profitable movie made by News Corp was Marley and Me. (News Corp owns all the Fox subsidiaries.) If the studios are smart, they will see three things in this: one, that the current development cycle takes too long, so that films hit theaters two years after they were greenlit, which can lead to timing disasters like a bunch of downer pictures in theaters right as a recession hits. Two, that Oscar baiting by the classics divisions has gotten out of hand, so that limited-interest films are being made with budgets they can't possibly recoup, and are all released in December so they directly compete for that limited audience, which goes untended to the rest of the year. Three, that there will always be a market for simple movies that let us spend time with actors who we like, even if there are no special effects and not much happens. Hangout movies cost very little and have a broad audience; they are as resilient as horror. They are the bread and butter that lets the studio take risks on higher concepts. They are the bank. During the days of easy credit, we forgot we needed them. We do. If the studios notice this in time, they will be able to save themselves.
At the moment, their main strategy is to put spectacle back in the theater experience by putting us in 3D glasses. They are fooling themselves. There is no reason to think audiences want 3D across the board; we're pretty comfortable with flat screens, and have never had trouble believing they are immersive. 3D will never be more than a gimmick - and an expensive one. It drives off audiences with vision problems, or with heads the wrong size or shape to wear 3D glasses comfortably, and there is nothing sexy or classy about having to put on a plastic headset when you're out on a date. More to the point, the fact that a 3D movie is different from your home television is precisely the problem - any 3D movie which relies on its dimensionality will not translate well to DVD release, and any 3D movie which is just as good flat renders 3D pointless. Movie releases exist to create buzz for tie-ins and DVDs down the line; they are an ad campaign. Movie theaters exist to drive up business at nearby restaurants. Any movie release that can't be sold as a DVD and can't be part of an evening out (theater upgrades mean expensive tickets that make me forgo dinner or attend a non-mealtime matinee) has fatally misunderstood revenue streams.
