Mike's Musings: The Billion Dollar Movie is Dead

Before Covid hit, Hollywood was was long overdue for a change.  Ever risk averse, it avoided doing so for as long as it could.  Studios preferred to squeeze fan boys for every dime they had and milk once beloved franchises like "Star Wars" and the MCU for all that they were worth.  That was all well and good for the die hards, but it bored everyone else.  Most viewers saw them for what they were: cash cows preying on nostalgia and giving audiences nothing in return.  One of my friends does like the MCU movies, although if I came to realize that he was one of the toxic bunch who blitzed Twitter with the hashtag "Release the Snyderverse!" I would be shocked beyond all recognition.  His defense of the MCU is, "Well, if you grew up with them..."  And that's the point.  Most people didn't and don't have the same memories of them that millennial have for, say, Harry Potter.  The magic and nostalgia aren't there.  They see them for what they are: bloated behemoths banking on in jokes, Easter eggs and the same stupid jokes.  What was once clever and fun has now become annoying with such egregious repetition.  It was fine until Thanos was defeated, but after that, no one but the die hards cared.

For a while, that was enough.  Fandom made "Star Wars," the MCU and other centers of pop culture have a reliable built in audience, and lovers of spectacle came because, well, what else was there to see?  Then Thanos was defeated, and most felt the story was over.  Marvel appears to be at a loss for how to push forward.  It's an impossible task.  How do you move forward, honor the originals, keep up the nostalgia, include all the cameos and in-jokes, and set up the sequels?  I don't know if it can be done.  Props for Marvel for trying, but if "Morbius" and "Thor: Love and Thunder" are the best they can do, they shouldn't bother.  "Star Wars" is in a similar boat.  I was relieved when Kathleen Kennedy was tapped to head LucasFilm after George Lucas sold it to Disney, but she apparently is modeling it after the MCU.  It's not pushing forward.  Merely regurgitating in what we already know.

Then Covid hit.  The pandemic threw the world for a loop and Hollywood was no exception.  Once life mercifully turned back to normal, studios felt they could deliver more of the same.  They were wrong.  Superheroes were no longer the titans they once were.  Few of them have crossed the ever important billion dollar mark.  Thanos was defeated at the worst possible time, and the MCU is unable to decide how to move forward, leaving the cinematic universe stuck in neutral.  It's not building to anything.  "Star Wars" has turned to series like "Andor" and "The Mandalorian."

More importantly, the streaming factor is at work.  Streaming services were always a threat to the old model, but the pandemic rushed the clock.  People no longer want to go to the theaters because they can get better quality entertainment at home.  They have more choices now.  The Achilles' heel of the spectacle is that the screenplays are godawful and the characters are paper thin.  Fanboys already have preexisting relationships with their favorite supers, but no one else does.  There's no one to identify with ore care about.  And that's what separates trash like Marvel from "The Dark Knight" trilogy.  Studios are watering down anything specific in their screenplays to appeal to world audiences, but that isn't cutting it anymore.  Just ask Matt Damon after starring in the crapfest "The Great Wall."  It is entirely possible to have a special effects picture with strong dialogue and good storytelling that appeals to a world audience.  Christopher Nolan did it.  James Cameron did it three times, and looks to be doing it three more times, now that the "Avatar" sequels are no longer a big question mark.

The big studios are at a crossroads.  The old way of doing things no longer works.  They have two choices: consolidate or admit that the blockbuster model is dead.  People love spectacle and action pictures, sure.  But churning out a $250 million behemoths every moth is not cost effective.  They're not profitable enough anymore.  "Avatar: The Way of Water" and "Top Gun: Maverick" both made a killing but they sold more than spectacle and fan service.  They told stories that involved the audience and made them care.  Throwing special effects at the screen in huge expensive gobs doesn't cut it.  China and Russia, two of Hollywood's biggest markets, are closed to them.  Those revenue sources are, for the time being, gone.

There is a way forward: making cheaper but riskier movies.  Sure they may suck, but with less money on the line, there's less risk.  Blumhouse and A24 are proof enough that this is profitable.  Now Disney and other big studios have more to work with, so they can make more expensive movies.  They need to make smaller movies for smaller profit margins.  Spend $50-60 million on special effects pictures with the goals of a $500 million return.  Star salaries are often a big part of that (roughly half of the $90 million budget for "The Departed" was spent on the actors), but that's not an excuse.  If you have a good script, even the biggest stars will take a pay cut.  It's when you contractually obligate them for a whole franchise with a terrible script that you have to pay the big bucks.

Where does this leave theaters?  I don't know.  I hope we aren't seeing the death knell of the move theater, but it may be that time unless Hollywood is willing to cut costs and use its creative talents rather than computer analysis to determine what movies get made.  Even a devoted theater goer like me now things its usually a pain in the ass to go to the theater.  But when a bland piece of junk like "Strange World" is what awaits me, is there any reason why?

Back in the 90s, it didn't used to be this way.  Film festivals and foreign markets were not madhouses just for their films, but for fresh talent.  That's how Christopher Nolan was discovered.  His short film "Following" allowed him to acquire funding for "Memento," which proved to be not only an enduring classic, but the calling card of the biggest filmmaker since Spielberg.  But that dried up.  As James Berardinelli put it, it was changing viewer tastes, the rise of DVD and lack of good films made many indie distributors go belly up.  But that was 20 years ago.  The fact that blockbusters are no longer as profitable as they once were shows that tastes may change again.  And streaming services will save a ton of money in distribution.  Studios need to dive back in, and snap those films up!  The subscription payment model means that advertisement isn't cost effective, but word of mouth will be their best friend.  Invest in those films, and more importantly, the talent behind them, and the money and the viewers will come back.  There's also the fact that there is a lot of top talent coming out of film schools.  Offer those grads small budgets to do big things.  Don't give record budgets to untested filmmakers (anyone remember "47 Ronin?").  Start small, and grow talent.

The bottom line is that Hollywood has to make movies that are good.  Not ones that sell on their names alone.  People are more savvy and have higher standards for what they're willing to pay for and sit through.  As well they should.  Unfortunately, it looks like corporate consolidation is what's coming.  That means less movies and less movies that are good.  Film won't die in favor of streaming series, as there are far too many artists who want to make those films.  But it looks to be a shadow of what it once was.