Mike's Musings: 3D, IMAX and Other Money Grabs
Over the past few years, theater attendance has been dropping. It's not hard to see why. The quality of films has gone down while prices have skyrocketed, misbehaving teenagers dominate the multiplexes, and people talk and text during the movies. Those three things alone are enough to make theaters seem less appealing than they once were, but it gets even worse. Screen sizes are shrinking, theaters use lower watt bulbs in a worthless attempt to save money (brighter bulbs cost little, if anything, more than regular ones) and theaters don't eject anyone from the theaters for talking or texting (believe me, I've complained about this and the usher just sat in for a few minutes and left, completely ignoring the chatty couple who wouldn't shut up). It's kind of hard to blame the theaters, however, since the get almost all of their revenue from snacks. This comes from personal experience (I worked at one).
There are two things that Hollywood and movie theaters have done to increase theater revenue: IMAX and 3D.
IMAX started in 2002. Essentially, it's like an upgraded version of the film; it's Blu-Ray compared to DVD. Sharper and brighter, image, better sound, and so on. It's a great idea, and it works wonderfully, but theaters are charging more money for what they should offer in EVERY theater. Now, I'm not saying that every theater should be megasized, but each theater should have a bright image and excellent sound. People are paying increasingly higher prices for movies that generally aren't that good, so theaters need to give them the best experience to keep them coming back. Even worse is the theater's tendency to con the moviegoer into thinking they're getting something they're not, and charging extra. Many theaters have simply put IMAX cameras into regular screens, and the result is less than what it should be.
3D is a more recent development, although it has periodically shown up over the past half century. In 2009, Hollywood started offering it, but the results were subpar (or so I heard). Then James Cameron's "Avatar" came along and blew the door wide open. Soon, 3D was all the rage, but that only lasted a few months. The problem was that Hollywood was converting 2D movies into 3D (which looks horrible) and theaters were not brightening the bulbs (since the 3D image is divided in two, the image is only half as bright. By all accounts, the 3D version of "Clash of the Titans," which came out a few months after "Avatar," was an almighty disaster. I didn't see it, but the word of mouth was vicious. The screen was dark and the action was muddied enough to cause motion sickness. Later films weren't much better for the same reason. The 3D in the recent "Pirates of the Carribean" movie was so bad that I took the glasses off whenever there wasn't an action scene (which were the only scenes that were converted). From a business perspective, it's sound reasoning, because shooting in 3D adds another $30 million to the film's budget. But audiences are making it clear that they don't want it, and Hollywood is finally responding (most theaters leave 3D as an option nowadays, although not in peak times).
The solutions to these problems are easy, but that's not going to save the movie theaters. IMAX is the way to go, but eliminate the surcharges. People will come in droves when they think they're getting what they paid for. 3D may have been the wave of the future as was once predicted it, but Hollywood bungled it. In a rush to get as much money as possible as fast as possible, they did a piss poor job of handling the hottest new thing to hit the movies. 3D takes patience and skill, the former of which Hollywood doesn't have and the latter of which they ignore.
Even if Hollywood does these things (which they won't), movies are still in danger. The biggest problem is that movie quality is going down the drain. The movies just aren't good enough to warrant viewing them, much less spending the time and stress of going to the theater (not to mention the money). I know, I know, time has a way of changing reality, and while there were definitely some crappy movies ten years ago, there were also a lot more good ones.
The reason for this is that Hollywood is emphasizing visual quality over plot and character in an attempt to appeal to foreign audiences, which make up the majority of their intake. Again, it makes sense from a business perspective. The world is diverse, and people from different cultures respond to different plots and characters. Take humor for instance. Humor is the most subjective emotion; what one person finds funny, the guy next to him might find unbelievably dull. I'm not a Monty Python fan, but I know people who are. The same thing applies to plots and characters. Not everyone identifies with every character or finds every plot interesting. To get the most people into the theater, they tone them down so that no one will be turned away. Unfortunately, that makes them less appealing for everyone, foreign and US. Apparently, people in, say, Russia find new movies just as dull as we do. Hollywood wants their movies to be a jack of all trades, but for the most part, they aren't. Not every music video director (who are among the most visual directors) is a good storyteller, and that's what counts. "Avatar" and "Titanic" (the two most successful movies in film history) work because James Cameron knows how to tell a good story with universally identifiable characters. We get caught up in his stories and want to see them through to the end. People like Marcus Nispel, who directed the absolutely awful "Pathfinder" and the little better "Conan the Barbarian" remake, are a different story. They know how to make movies look good, but that effect wears off quickly, and there's not much left over. Who wants to revisit the characters or the story if you don't care about them?
Another issue is the endless amounts of sequels, remakes and reboots. Sequels are fine if they are warranted. If people actually like the movies and there is somewhere to take the characters, then another installment is warranted. Unfortunately, that's not why sequels are being made. They make big money, and franchises are planned from the beginning. Movies make profits because they are well-marketed; people "have" to see them since all their friends have. But people's opinions of what they have seen are a different story. Reviews on iMDb and word of mouth show that the public just doesn't care about them one way or the other. This is especially the case when the sequels/remakes are carbon copies of the originals, like "The Hangover: Part II." There were plenty of directions to take the characters, but the filmmakers were unwilling to take any chances, so they just repeated everything. Ditto for the remakes and "reboots," which are often the same thing. If the director has his own vision of the same story, that's one thing, but if it's just telling the same story with different actors or rehashing a foreign film in English, it's a waste.
Thirdly, Hollywood is only paying attention to fringe markets: comic book fans, "Twilight" fans, and hipsters. Movies based on comic books are in like never before. The reason why they are successful is that they have a built-in fan base, and they provide a lot of action for non-comic lovers. But people are getting bored with them, and really only fans are attending (or at least anticipating them). Hollywood would stop making them except that they are so cross-marketed and heavily advertised that they make profits, and that's the bottom line. The same thing goes for "Twilight," despite them being reviled by everyone who's not a fan. "Twilight" fans adore the movies, but everyone else despises them. It's not hard to see why; they appeal to tween girls who find the leads attractive and are romantics, but for those who don't fit into that category, all that's left is actors who can't act, dialogue that borders on embarrassing, and shoddy storytelling. The final group is the smallest, but in some ways the most vocal. From what I've seen, movies like "Juno," "The Royal Tenenbaums" and "Napoleon Dynamite" (a film that is popular, but after seeing the trailer, I have resolved to never ever see it), rely on characters who are depressed, antisocial misfits who reject anything that is mainstream and obsess about being different. That appeals to a small group of people (which is why they're budgets are small), but not many. They're also quite vocal; I remember complaining on iMDb when I found out that hipster king Wes Anderson was making a kids movie based on a Roald Dahl book. I was torn apart limb from limb. I haven't seen the film (and have no real desire to), but you see my point. An unfortunate side effect of this is that these films have created a stereotype. Not everyone who considers themself a hipster acts like Napoleon Dynamite or Enid from "Ghost World" (who, by the way, I found so obnoxious and irritating that I wished that she would get hit by a train). There are many people who enjoy these types of films and dressing like the characters who are very nice people and do enjoy mainstream things. I know some of them, but it's hard to remember that after watching "The Royal Tenenbaums."
I get Hollywood's desire to target these types of filmgoers. They are easy to identify and supply, and they are large enough to guarantee a return. But Hollywood is ignoring the majority of filmgoers. The masses are hard to target because they're so diverse, but Hollywood doesn't seem to be trying. Take adults for example. In the early ninties, every action movie was given an R-rating. Now, a big budget action movie aimed at adults is a rare occurrence. The last $100 million dollar R rated action movie was "Constantine" (based on a comic book," and that was in 2005. Teenagers are the lifeblood of the film industry, and they can't get into an R-rated movie without a parent, but there are adults (such as myself) who want to see an action movie with intense violence, lots of profanity, blood and gore, and copious sex and nudity. But that's apparently not a sizable enough market (despite the fact that the big budget R-rated movies make hefty profits..."Troy" made nearly $500 million against a $175 million budget, and "Constantine" made over $230 million against a $100 million budget).
Anyway, those are my thoughts on the film industry. Hollywood needs to change radically if they want to survive. They may make a lot of money out of the gate, but their product will be quickly forgotten.
There are two things that Hollywood and movie theaters have done to increase theater revenue: IMAX and 3D.
IMAX started in 2002. Essentially, it's like an upgraded version of the film; it's Blu-Ray compared to DVD. Sharper and brighter, image, better sound, and so on. It's a great idea, and it works wonderfully, but theaters are charging more money for what they should offer in EVERY theater. Now, I'm not saying that every theater should be megasized, but each theater should have a bright image and excellent sound. People are paying increasingly higher prices for movies that generally aren't that good, so theaters need to give them the best experience to keep them coming back. Even worse is the theater's tendency to con the moviegoer into thinking they're getting something they're not, and charging extra. Many theaters have simply put IMAX cameras into regular screens, and the result is less than what it should be.
3D is a more recent development, although it has periodically shown up over the past half century. In 2009, Hollywood started offering it, but the results were subpar (or so I heard). Then James Cameron's "Avatar" came along and blew the door wide open. Soon, 3D was all the rage, but that only lasted a few months. The problem was that Hollywood was converting 2D movies into 3D (which looks horrible) and theaters were not brightening the bulbs (since the 3D image is divided in two, the image is only half as bright. By all accounts, the 3D version of "Clash of the Titans," which came out a few months after "Avatar," was an almighty disaster. I didn't see it, but the word of mouth was vicious. The screen was dark and the action was muddied enough to cause motion sickness. Later films weren't much better for the same reason. The 3D in the recent "Pirates of the Carribean" movie was so bad that I took the glasses off whenever there wasn't an action scene (which were the only scenes that were converted). From a business perspective, it's sound reasoning, because shooting in 3D adds another $30 million to the film's budget. But audiences are making it clear that they don't want it, and Hollywood is finally responding (most theaters leave 3D as an option nowadays, although not in peak times).
The solutions to these problems are easy, but that's not going to save the movie theaters. IMAX is the way to go, but eliminate the surcharges. People will come in droves when they think they're getting what they paid for. 3D may have been the wave of the future as was once predicted it, but Hollywood bungled it. In a rush to get as much money as possible as fast as possible, they did a piss poor job of handling the hottest new thing to hit the movies. 3D takes patience and skill, the former of which Hollywood doesn't have and the latter of which they ignore.
Even if Hollywood does these things (which they won't), movies are still in danger. The biggest problem is that movie quality is going down the drain. The movies just aren't good enough to warrant viewing them, much less spending the time and stress of going to the theater (not to mention the money). I know, I know, time has a way of changing reality, and while there were definitely some crappy movies ten years ago, there were also a lot more good ones.
The reason for this is that Hollywood is emphasizing visual quality over plot and character in an attempt to appeal to foreign audiences, which make up the majority of their intake. Again, it makes sense from a business perspective. The world is diverse, and people from different cultures respond to different plots and characters. Take humor for instance. Humor is the most subjective emotion; what one person finds funny, the guy next to him might find unbelievably dull. I'm not a Monty Python fan, but I know people who are. The same thing applies to plots and characters. Not everyone identifies with every character or finds every plot interesting. To get the most people into the theater, they tone them down so that no one will be turned away. Unfortunately, that makes them less appealing for everyone, foreign and US. Apparently, people in, say, Russia find new movies just as dull as we do. Hollywood wants their movies to be a jack of all trades, but for the most part, they aren't. Not every music video director (who are among the most visual directors) is a good storyteller, and that's what counts. "Avatar" and "Titanic" (the two most successful movies in film history) work because James Cameron knows how to tell a good story with universally identifiable characters. We get caught up in his stories and want to see them through to the end. People like Marcus Nispel, who directed the absolutely awful "Pathfinder" and the little better "Conan the Barbarian" remake, are a different story. They know how to make movies look good, but that effect wears off quickly, and there's not much left over. Who wants to revisit the characters or the story if you don't care about them?
Another issue is the endless amounts of sequels, remakes and reboots. Sequels are fine if they are warranted. If people actually like the movies and there is somewhere to take the characters, then another installment is warranted. Unfortunately, that's not why sequels are being made. They make big money, and franchises are planned from the beginning. Movies make profits because they are well-marketed; people "have" to see them since all their friends have. But people's opinions of what they have seen are a different story. Reviews on iMDb and word of mouth show that the public just doesn't care about them one way or the other. This is especially the case when the sequels/remakes are carbon copies of the originals, like "The Hangover: Part II." There were plenty of directions to take the characters, but the filmmakers were unwilling to take any chances, so they just repeated everything. Ditto for the remakes and "reboots," which are often the same thing. If the director has his own vision of the same story, that's one thing, but if it's just telling the same story with different actors or rehashing a foreign film in English, it's a waste.
Thirdly, Hollywood is only paying attention to fringe markets: comic book fans, "Twilight" fans, and hipsters. Movies based on comic books are in like never before. The reason why they are successful is that they have a built-in fan base, and they provide a lot of action for non-comic lovers. But people are getting bored with them, and really only fans are attending (or at least anticipating them). Hollywood would stop making them except that they are so cross-marketed and heavily advertised that they make profits, and that's the bottom line. The same thing goes for "Twilight," despite them being reviled by everyone who's not a fan. "Twilight" fans adore the movies, but everyone else despises them. It's not hard to see why; they appeal to tween girls who find the leads attractive and are romantics, but for those who don't fit into that category, all that's left is actors who can't act, dialogue that borders on embarrassing, and shoddy storytelling. The final group is the smallest, but in some ways the most vocal. From what I've seen, movies like "Juno," "The Royal Tenenbaums" and "Napoleon Dynamite" (a film that is popular, but after seeing the trailer, I have resolved to never ever see it), rely on characters who are depressed, antisocial misfits who reject anything that is mainstream and obsess about being different. That appeals to a small group of people (which is why they're budgets are small), but not many. They're also quite vocal; I remember complaining on iMDb when I found out that hipster king Wes Anderson was making a kids movie based on a Roald Dahl book. I was torn apart limb from limb. I haven't seen the film (and have no real desire to), but you see my point. An unfortunate side effect of this is that these films have created a stereotype. Not everyone who considers themself a hipster acts like Napoleon Dynamite or Enid from "Ghost World" (who, by the way, I found so obnoxious and irritating that I wished that she would get hit by a train). There are many people who enjoy these types of films and dressing like the characters who are very nice people and do enjoy mainstream things. I know some of them, but it's hard to remember that after watching "The Royal Tenenbaums."
I get Hollywood's desire to target these types of filmgoers. They are easy to identify and supply, and they are large enough to guarantee a return. But Hollywood is ignoring the majority of filmgoers. The masses are hard to target because they're so diverse, but Hollywood doesn't seem to be trying. Take adults for example. In the early ninties, every action movie was given an R-rating. Now, a big budget action movie aimed at adults is a rare occurrence. The last $100 million dollar R rated action movie was "Constantine" (based on a comic book," and that was in 2005. Teenagers are the lifeblood of the film industry, and they can't get into an R-rated movie without a parent, but there are adults (such as myself) who want to see an action movie with intense violence, lots of profanity, blood and gore, and copious sex and nudity. But that's apparently not a sizable enough market (despite the fact that the big budget R-rated movies make hefty profits..."Troy" made nearly $500 million against a $175 million budget, and "Constantine" made over $230 million against a $100 million budget).
Anyway, those are my thoughts on the film industry. Hollywood needs to change radically if they want to survive. They may make a lot of money out of the gate, but their product will be quickly forgotten.