13 Responses to “The Problem With Hollywood”

1. Ryan on Thursday: 30 July 2009|2052

   I noticed a key word in all this gibberish… Fear.

   Fear is controlling everything.

2. Unk on Thursday: 30 July 2009|2151

   Exactly… Several levels and LAYERS of FEAR. LOL.

   Unk

3. emily blake on Thursday: 30 July 2009|2208

   I was told there would be no math.

4. Unk on Thursday: 30 July 2009|2209

   emily,

   English teachers always complain about the math… LOL.

   Unk

5. Joshua James on Friday: 31 July 2009|0241

   Interesting … it seems to me that PIXTAR is doing quite a lot of what he suggested, aren’t they?

6. Mike on Friday: 31 July 2009|0311

   Re: Hollywood’s Last Gasp

   What is really sad? There was no mention of making movies because they (management) love movies. No mention of the craft, the art.

   Guess that’s what happens when ‘bean counters’ take over — no offense to Unk’s accountant readership ;-)

   If studio/production company honchos made movies because they loved the medium, maybe, just maybe, the quality of the films coming out of Hollyweird would improve.

   One man’s opinion – mileage may vary – batteries not included.

   Keep Writing!

7. rko on Friday: 31 July 2009|0333

   @Mike
   Because that doesn’t exist in a suit and tie environment, never has.

   After reading those articles, it ultimately reinforces the fact the Hollywood simply needs new blood, and without taking a chance and over coming the fear they will either die out as the more rigorous studio system did in the 60’s or it will become a bobbing fest — copy or grab what you can.

   Frankly, either way I’m for a complete revamp and overhaul of how films are looked at and made. But then again I’m just a ‘artsy fag’ that recognizes the longevity and meaning of good films.

8. Mike on Friday: 31 July 2009|0337

   Re: How Hollywood Really Works

   The author makes some interesting points. Points #3 and #4 sound familiar. Could the author be proposing going back to the studio system of the ‘20s, ‘30s, ‘40s?

   3) Hire 50 – 100 writers per studio at a solid wage with upside potential, to provide studios with content that has higher chance of being produced (See #2), eliminate antagonistic labor relationship by making writers partners.
   4) Assign movies to producers, not the other way around.

   The one point I whole heartedly agree with is this:

   2) Eliminate needless bureaucracy and increase productivity by removing 90% of executives. Project decisions will occur more rapidly. Decision-makers are paid well to make decisions, so they should make them.

   I work in a manufacturing environment and our main focus in lowering costs per unit produced is the elimination of waste, the streamlining of processes – in short, drive down costs. Seems this is what is needed in Hollywood. The studios need to adopt a Lean Six Sigma approach to the business.

   If – a BIG IF – the studios adopt the methods dictated by Lean Six Sigma they should take the next: adjust ticket prices accordingly. Why do all tickets cost $9 a piece without regard for the stars involved, the quality of the story, etc.? Why not undercut the competition? Sell tickets at $8 or $7 – get butts in the seats.

   When you go to purchase a car, or a stove, or a television, are all the prices from every manufacturer set at the same price? Hell no! Why should movies be any different?

   End of rant.

   Keep Writing!

9. Christian H. on Friday: 31 July 2009|0902

   Wow, does this mean I’m a great mind? Or is he? I think the same exact thing about every one of his points. The bureaucracy is drowning itself.
   It’s true that the process used currently to determine success or potential success is horribly flawed but I also feel that there are ways to “guarantee” success – but only in terms of a quick ROI.
   Every movie doesn’t have to make $300M for a studio to be successful. At the same time they shouldn’t be dependent on blockbusters for survival.
   Every other industry is diversified fully in its offerings and they do well. Innovation is the key, not reimagining or 1 good for every 10 bad.
   This system only “works” because of the oligarchy. If people can use other avenues then viewers may be more inclined to see more movies.
   He noted a drop in what is hundreds of millions since the 80s because of the flaws in the system.
   I know I would be happy making $200K with little or no back end participation.
   Hell studios pay up to 10x that for ONE SCRIPT not to mention the other costs that end up bloating budgets so that ROI is nearly impossible – especially with a fragmented, hacked up story that some executive thought would impress his boss with cleverness.
   I guess I can say i have nothing against them, hell I’d like them to pay my salary but the auto industry lets the engineer handle the technical parts they trained for.
   The software industry sometimes follows the flawed model where people ho can barely turn on the PC are determining feature sets which explains why there’s jumping in the aisles when SW is released on time.

   Someone above mentioned love of the art as a possible solution, but love does not create ROI, only quality product. SUre I would hope that a person loves what they do but you shouldn’t be doing it if you don’t have a desire to please viewers, NOT READERS, OR EXECS or MARKETERS, but VIEWERS.

   They determine how much you don’t make. And viewers are easy. They don’t care about arcs or act breaks. No one discusses how the protag “changed” or whether something happened at 1 hour in. They want a fun time with people who respond extraordinarily to every situation.

   I also feel that studios should be milking the Internet for all it’s worth. You can pay a flat fee to say MySpace for a 1 in 1000 click ads – meaning every 100th serve of a given page features your ad. Hell, you twitter a log line or even film a scene or two and conduct focus groups that way.

   All of these Social network sites have the key to four quadrants. Don’t reinvent the wheel, use the existing one. I tend to notice subway and bus signs but I spend enough time o the Internet that if more ads were there I’d be more inclined to learn more about the project.

   I rarely look for a movie online based on a subway poster. There’s no interaction, and not enough room to do anything but the “tear-sheet.”

   A Facebook section that involves people would work wonders as was evidenced by the Dark Knight’s viral campaign.

   I won’t say that execs need to be moved out but they do need to remove the levels of bureaucracy so that more demo-directed quality content can have a chance.

   It’s better to have a 20 movie slate where 15 of them score around $60M with the remaining 5 clearing the $200M mark rather than the same 20 movie slate where 10 barely make any money, 5 make $40-50M and 5 do boffo.

10. Script Doctor Eric on Friday: 31 July 2009|1040

    Another great post.

    I must admit though, as of this writing I am only 1/3rd of the way through the articles. Y’all finished them all? Sheesh.

11. Shane S. on Friday: 31 July 2009|1319

    I’m just delighted to see that the audience has finally started to rinse the bitter taste of bullshit from its mouth. How many failed Eddie Murphy movies were going to be greenlit before Hollywood realized nobody was paying for it.

    Long live the indies. Hooray for making good film. And fuck I Love You Beth Cooper.

    With the advent of affordable consumer cams, I hope to see a rise in good taste transferring into the Hollywood circle. Hopefully some of these unknown indies will amass a following large enough to attract the attention of the power buyers. It’s time for a revolution in Hollywood and it needs to begin now.

12. Sarah N on Saturday: 1 August 2009|2317

    I think the key problem still boils down to the strangle-hold of distribution.

    I’m ignorant about digital-projection quality but it surely must be increasing. And DVDs are obviously cheaper to duplicate than 35mm.

    With increasing digital quality and cheaper duplication could I’d do this: build multiplexes containing a mix of theater sizes: 30 x 100-seat theaters and 20 x 50-seat theaters. Show fifteen or twenty different movies at once or a different damned movie in each theater. (It seems there’d be enough content if only there was some model for financial return.)

    Cinemas could be more flexible, and tailor the screening offerings daily depending on demand. The dogs are cut off early, the hits go wide and stay around. And, with theater sizes coming down, there’s less need to rely on tentpoles, amortizing the studios’ risk over a broader number of titles that will actually get an airing.

    I’d also build 6 or 12-seat neighborhood theaterettes or ‘booths’ so we could enjoy movies on demand out in the real world instead of just online.

    Of course this all depends on the digital quality being there and I don’t know anything about that.

13. sjs on Sunday: 2 August 2009|1924

    Great series of articles Unk. Hollywood is a place controlled by fear and greed, so that’s nothing new. But today’s execs are so afraid of risk that they it’s not only shrinking the number of films that are being made, but the profits from them.

    As the budgets for films get bigger the proportion of costs in ratio the profits made from them have shrunk to the point where there’s no profit margin. Twenty years ago an average movie cost $15-20 million to make and made $30-45 million domestic; that same movie today costs $65 million and makes $45-60 million domestically and has to rely on foreign audiences and DVD sales to break even or pull a profit. Costs are bloated.

    Like US government bureaucracy, Hollywood has expanded from a lean business machine that churned out hits at a rapid pace into a slow steam engine fueled by the inefficent work of middle managers and bean counters that hinder the actual business of making films. The dream factory is stalling due to bottlenecks, red tape and paperwork that slow down the greenlighting process to a crawl. Jobs are safe and comfortable in Hollywood but nothing is getting done creatively. Seriously, something is wrong with the entertainment industry when some people on TV productions have jobs longer than GM workers.

    Right now the studios go for the “safe” movies proven franchises from the past and not the riskier original concepts that could attract new viewers. Sad.

    Unfortunately I don’t see things changing in Hollywood on the management level unless audiences revolt against the blockbuster book adaptations, superhero movies and franchise movies the way they did in the late 60s early 70s when studios blindly churned out musicals and historical epics until a series of big-budget bombs forced them to explore new film concepts and change their business models.

    I’d love to see a more streamlined process

Leave a Reply