Story at L. A. Times
Spielberg is going elsewhere. DreamWorks and Paramount Vantage (the art house division) are taking a hit. They'll be doing about 4 films with budgets <$15M.
Does anyone have an idea of what happens to quality and quantity of films during financial hard times? Does it result in more or less crummy movies? (More since they'll just pick what will sell to masses as entertainment without regard to art; less because they are choosier about where they will spend $$) My guess would be to expect more rotting piles filling the multiplex, and hope that we get lots of foreign film in the art houses.
Full Version: The financial situation hits studios
This topic has been moved to the better-suited "Film Criticism and Appreciation" forum...
I don't know what happens to the number or quantity of films themselves, but I do know that in something like 5 of the last 6 recessions, movie ticket sales have increased. Presumably due to the relatively low cost compared to other forms of entertainment...
QUOTE (popechild @ Oct 17 2008, 08:56 AM) 
I don't know what happens to the number or quantity of films themselves, but I do know that in something like 5 of the last 6 recessions, movie ticket sales have increased. Presumably due to the relatively low cost compared to other forms of entertainment...
Yeah...there is a general industry attitude that movies (both theatrical and DVD purchase/rental) and books (as well as comics and magazines) are somewhat recession-proof industries, because sales often go up in hard times.
Darrel Manson wrote:
: Does anyone have an idea of what happens to quality and quantity of films during financial hard times? Does it result in more or less crummy movies?
Hard to say, since so few films from the '30s have survived.
Of course, back then, studios churned out a new movie every week -- 50 movies per year, per studio, and perhaps more if that figure doesn't include B-movies (my memory could be exaggerating, but you get the gist) -- but on the other hand, they didn't have to compete with TV.
In fact, the 1950s, which as I understand it was a time of relative affluence and consumption and economic progress etc., etc., etc., were a bit of a nightmare for the movie studios, partly because the rise of TV ate into their audiences in a big way. (The fact that two landmark Supreme Court rulings forced them to give up control of the theatres AND made it easier to show non-MPAA-approved independent and foreign films didn't help the studios, either.)
I haven't checked, but I have a strange feeling the 1980s, which are also considered a time of affluence etc., might also have been a bit of a nightmare for the movie studios, thanks to the rise of cable channels and VCRs. (The studios fought the VCR in court, over alleged copyright violation, for years; and while the VCR did facilitate the rise of video rentals, studios didn't really think about videos as items that they could SELL right-off-the-bat until, I'd say, 1989, which is when Batman hit the market at sell-through prices mere months after it played in the theatre.)
So it's quite possible that prosperity = the proliferation of competing media, whereas economic stagnation = people falling back on movies as a relatively (and reliably) cheap form of entertainment. At least if you smuggle your own food into the theatre.
: Does anyone have an idea of what happens to quality and quantity of films during financial hard times? Does it result in more or less crummy movies?
Hard to say, since so few films from the '30s have survived.
Of course, back then, studios churned out a new movie every week -- 50 movies per year, per studio, and perhaps more if that figure doesn't include B-movies (my memory could be exaggerating, but you get the gist) -- but on the other hand, they didn't have to compete with TV.
In fact, the 1950s, which as I understand it was a time of relative affluence and consumption and economic progress etc., etc., etc., were a bit of a nightmare for the movie studios, partly because the rise of TV ate into their audiences in a big way. (The fact that two landmark Supreme Court rulings forced them to give up control of the theatres AND made it easier to show non-MPAA-approved independent and foreign films didn't help the studios, either.)
I haven't checked, but I have a strange feeling the 1980s, which are also considered a time of affluence etc., might also have been a bit of a nightmare for the movie studios, thanks to the rise of cable channels and VCRs. (The studios fought the VCR in court, over alleged copyright violation, for years; and while the VCR did facilitate the rise of video rentals, studios didn't really think about videos as items that they could SELL right-off-the-bat until, I'd say, 1989, which is when Batman hit the market at sell-through prices mere months after it played in the theatre.)
So it's quite possible that prosperity = the proliferation of competing media, whereas economic stagnation = people falling back on movies as a relatively (and reliably) cheap form of entertainment. At least if you smuggle your own food into the theatre.
The story I linked in the first post spoke of Paramout thinning its releases. The Soloist has been moved to spring from a prime awards slot because it is deemed commercial enough not to need Oscar buzz. (At least in L.A. where people may have followed the story in the Times -- and is there a world outside L.A.?) story
Sequels to The Golden Compass have been put on honld, due to the budget crisis...
Full item here.
Link to The Golden Compass thread.
QUOTE (WENN)
The two planned sequels to hit movie The Golden Compass have become Hollywood's first major victims of the current economic crisis - production on the movies has been put on hold indefinitely.
...plans have stalled as a result of the present downturn in the international economy.
Eva Green, who was cast by director Chris Weitz as witch-queen Serafina, says, "At the moment it's quite dead."
...plans have stalled as a result of the present downturn in the international economy.
Eva Green, who was cast by director Chris Weitz as witch-queen Serafina, says, "At the moment it's quite dead."
Full item here.
Link to The Golden Compass thread.
So the economic crisis is...God's judgment on the movie industry!
The grapes of complacency
Some great films reflect the Depression, but for this crisis we no longer have the required talent
David Thomson, Guardian, October 20
Some great films reflect the Depression, but for this crisis we no longer have the required talent
David Thomson, Guardian, October 20
I thought these two pieces were interesting:
Hail Fredonia! Hollywood Depression Economics
(Essentially, expect a lot more escapist comedies.)
Studios rolling soon
(My husband, who works in NYC as a location scout/assistant, was out of work all summer because of the SAG stalemate, so this is the "other side" of the financial situation.)
Hail Fredonia! Hollywood Depression Economics
(Essentially, expect a lot more escapist comedies.)
Studios rolling soon
(My husband, who works in NYC as a location scout/assistant, was out of work all summer because of the SAG stalemate, so this is the "other side" of the financial situation.)
Carina Chocano looks back at the 30's and looks at what we can expect. There is more than just screwball escapism in the future.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.