With technology rapidly evolving each year, the
advancements we are noticing are unprecedented.
But even so, in my opinion the film industry still continues to lack in
the creativity department especially with all the technology that is created on
a consistent basis. Despite my thinking,
the box office will still continue to hit record numbers each year with sequels
and 3-D films. But don’t you think it’s a
bit boring that only big budget films tend to be successful with tons of action
scenes or a plethora of A-list actors in a single movie? Renowned directors Steven Spielberg and
George Lucas tend to think so. Making some surprising comments on the direction
of the film industry, David Cohen of Variety reports, “They’re going for the
gold, says Lucas of the studios. “But
that isn’t going to work forever. And as a result they’re getting narrower and
narrower in their focus. People are going to get tired of it. They’re not going to know how to do anything
else” (Cohen). Cohen also reports Spielberg’s
take on the studios noting that, because so many forms of entertainment are competing
for attention, the studios would rather spend $250 million on a single film
than make several personal quirky projects.
That’s a destructive path for the film industry to rely
on big budgets to produce well. What if the majority of big budget movies were
to flop like Disney’s John Carter or The Lone Ranger, like Brent Lang and
Todd Cunningham stated in their article, 6
Box-Office Takeaways From a Record Year of Hits and Flops “All the money in
the world couldn’t save “The Lone Ranger” (Lang). So I doubt big budget films should be the
only way to go. With advancements you
are supposed to be able to achieve new heights of innovation, not shell out the
same product year after year. With the
incredible technological advancements that have been made in the world of
filmmaking over the last couple of years, it should help both young and
veteran directors sharpen their techniques.
Professional level equipment is no longer held at high professional
prices, and new distribution outlets provide a way for inexperienced, underfunded
artists to get their work seen. In an
article in The Wrap Michele Turnure
Salleo, Director of Filmmaker 360, San Francisco Film Society states “Because of
new technology the cost of filmmaking has never been lower and you don’t have
to raise astronomical amounts of money before you head into production. You can do things at micro budget and be
incredibly creative but it’s difficult to know how to do this as a sustainable
career” (Molloy). At times big movie
films lack unique stories like smaller independent films bring. The key to success for Hollywood is
diversification and originality. One of
film’s strongest attributes is its ability to work as a community organizing tool. Films force us to feel, think, and engage one
another. So if studio’s hone in on that idea it can transcend the
industry.
So what’s the possible future for the industry? Now that we’re reaching a point where the way
we interact with our entertainment and media is advancing so quickly, I think
we’ll see a rise of interactive media that will no longer make you just a
viewer but as an active contributor who can experience the story through
whichever perspective and order they want.
The traditional method of just going into a dark room and sitting
silently while a story plays out on the screen in front of you will be a thing
of the past. For example, imagine 30
years down the road your TV projects a holographic image engulfing the room you
are in of what you are watching. Then it
show’s setting takes place with you moving around it, being able to interact
with the characters.
Once interacting with the
scene whatever decision you make it can influence a version of the story you
are about to see. Now,
imagine you go to the theater, surrounded by other people, and you engage
together in this interactive version of the film, where the whole room around
you moves, where lights and sounds and smells from the story really exist in
the room with you, and where sometimes during the story you can choose to venture
off to a different part of the story with a smaller group in the audience while
others go to some other portion of the story.
That would be some kind of experience.
Even as crazy as my idea sounds like for the future of filming,
I think it really could be a possibility.
So I leave you with a question, what do you think is the future for the
film industry?
Works Cited
Cohen, David S. "George Lucas &
Steven Spielberg: Studios Will Implode; VOD Is the Future." Variety.
N.p., 12 June 2013. Web. 22 Mar. 2014
Lang, Brent, Tim Molloy, and Lucas Shaw.
"How to Improve Hollywood in 2014: 9 Experts on the Future of Film and TV
- TheWrap." TheWrap. N.p., 6 Jan. 2014. Web. 22 Mar. 2014.
Lang, Brent and Todd Cunningham. "6
Box-Office Takeaways From a Record Year of Hits and Flops." The Wrap 22 Dec. 2012. Web
The Run List Channel. "Spielberg
Predicts Collapse of Film Industry." YouTube. YouTube, 14 June 2013. Web. 22 Mar. 2014.
To respond to your question, personally I think Social Media has begun and will continue to shape the film industry in profound ways in the future. A lot will depend on the ability to “sell” a movie or create a “buzz” that will affect mass audiences, even before the movie is set to roll out. I know that for me these days the buzz on social media about certain films has helped pique my interest and made me want to go see a movie and so I think this will be the case for a lot of people. You get instant reviews about a movie before it even gets shown in theatres and this will help ticket sales tremendously. Also Netflix and Hulu will affect the way we access movies and could potentially affect box office sales. People’s ability to access movies on the go and from different platforms will also affect the movie industry. Gone are the days when people indulged only in traditional ways of viewing like gathering together in front of TV screens at home or going to theatres. Those days will disappear before we know it due to people’s individual needs to view content in different ways.
ReplyDeleteLike you said, film viewing will become much more interactive with viewers being the ones to determine their individual choices and experiences, thanks to technology which has already started and continues to play a huge role in our ability to create unique film viewing experiences. It’s funny but some days I could be streaming a movie on Netflix and then find myself scrolling through my channels on HBO and then end up watching two movies at the same time! Sounds funny but it has happened before. Not the best viewing experience but a reinforcement of our recent ability to experience film viewing on different platforms and in ways that reflect our individual needs and preferences. How this will ultimately impact the film industry as a whole, we are yet to see. Some could say that in terms of actual box office sales (due to less people depending on movie theatres to view films) there could be a significant impact down the line.
That being said, one thing’s for sure and that is the fact that movie viewing as a form of entertainment is not going away in a hurry due to its appeal to the mass audience comprising of different age groups. According to the article, 6 Box-Office Takeaways From a Record Year of Hits and Flops by Brent Lang and Todd Cunningham, it was nice to note how older people drove the sales of movies in 2013. One would imagine that film viewing has become a dying fad for these baby-boomers but not according to this article. Also, the 2013 Domestic Grosses article shows Lee Daniel’s The Butler grossing about 116 million dollars. I guess this means that the future of films really depends on what is determined as relevant to different demographics. If older people want to see films that help shed more light to past historic events that have helped shape America, then by all means let more of those types of movies be featured.
Work Cited
Lang, Brent and Todd Cunningham. "6 Box-Office Takeaways From a Record Year of Hits and Flops." The Wrap 22 Dec. 2012. Web 24 Mar. 2014.
"2013 DOMESTIC GROSSES." 2013 Yearly Box Office Results. Box Office Mojo, n.d. Web. 24 Mar. 2014. .
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf you think about it, the way in which films have been presented to the general public have changed very little since the birth of film. Sure, we have the movie theater, and color film, and then 3-D, but apart from those differences, film has changed relatively little in terms of its presentation. Where the film industry has made great strides is in its growth of special effects. It seems that the film industry can’t keep up with the viewer’s special effects expectations! Have you ever watched a movie that hit the box office say, only 2-3 years ago, and been surprised by the lack of sophistication in the film’s special effects? The special effects industry barely has time to come up with new technologies before the viewers are “over it”. So how can they make up for these shortcomings?
ReplyDeleteIt is not the film industry’s fault per se, our rising expectations as viewers simply make us a product of our generation. We know our technologies can do it, so we expect grand things. As discussed in the article by Brent Lang and Todd Cunningham “6- Box-Office Takeaways From a Record Year of Hits and Flops”, IMAX and large format screens brought in $223 million dollars this year, which is more than enough to suggest that viewer like big. To bring this point home, I attended the Quinnipiac’s showing of “Frozen” this past Friday night, which turned out to be a full house. As we waited for the film to begin and as the previews played, I heard a girl a few seats away from me say, “This screen is so small”. Mind you, the screen we were watching at the front of the room had to be at least ten feet wide. Ten feet and people are still complaining? No wonder people love IMAX.
In addition to large screens, am I the only one who has noticed a growth in seemingly “no-name” actors and actresses popping out of the woodwork? It seems that that people don’t require big name celebrities in their films anymore in order for it to be a success (This statement doesn’t apply to any film that Taylor Lautner or Taylor Swift have ever been in- anyone remember Valentine’s Day?- Good movie, horrible acting on their part). According to an article in Advertising Age entitled “Hollywood Eyes Record 2013 With ‘Star Trek,’ ‘Hobbit’, and ‘Hunger Games’ Sequels…”, [Studios]… are focused on characters with global appeal that attract broad audiences.” It seems that viewers this day in age are more likely to head to the box office to see a film simply based on its content rather than the A-List actors and celebrities in the films. This statement is made even more clear based on the recent flops of films starring Johnny Deep (Lone Ranger) and Channing Tatum (White House Down).
As for growths in the film industry in the coming years, I would have to predict that bigger is only getting better, and that we might see a drop of A-list actors in major films, as big-name actors are not the only factor that draw viewers to the box office.
Works Cited
Lang, Brent and Todd Cunningham. "6 Box-Office Takeaways From a Record Year of Hits and Flops." The Wrap 22 Dec. 2012. Web.
"Hollywood Eyes Record 2013 With 'Star Trek,' 'Hobbit,' 'Hunger Games' Sequels Record 2012 Comes Despite Continued Improvements in Home Viewing."Advertising Age. N.p., 12 Dec. 2012. Web.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCullen, this blog instantly intrigued me, as I believe it touches on many problems the film industry faces today. First off, I believe the industry has used technology as a scapegoat for the lack of creativity in many films today. As you mentioned, there is a reliance on tons of action as a way of ensuring the success of the respective film. The combination of action and 3-D technology has begun to be portrayed as the recipe for success. However, this is the case for only a small number of films. The superhero movies seem to be the one exception as they have much higher success rates than the average action film. This can be attributed to their international appeal and the fact that children idolize the characters. And remember, every time a child goes to see one of these action packed movies, an adult must also be in attendance. This correlates to a guaranteed two tickets purchased even if only one of those individuals is an actual fan. Brett Lang and Todd Cunningham expertly touch upon the problem here, "Not every film can be a blockbuster, even if its budgeted like one." Action and 3-D does not by any means result in huge blockbuster numbers. In fact, those major hits are becoming fewer and fewer as the years go on. Instead, expensive films that have been major flops have plagued the film industry. With regards to "Lone Ranger," the studio spent over $100 million but ended up with a $190 million write-down. That is anything but successful if you ask me.
ReplyDeleteYour solution to the problem is interesting, as the engagement of fans has steadily increased recently. The film industry no longer waits for TV commercials or movie theatre previews to spark interest for potential fans, "This year, Hollywood truly figured out how to feed our new addiction to movies we haven't seen yet. The film is now just one event in a much longer, social-media-assisted experience" (Franich). Trailers are regularly leaked over the Internet as Hollywood attempts to create a viral hit. There are social media campaigns crafted to release information bit by bit, keeping fans on the edge of their seat until the film hits theaters. I believe that this will be the interactive media we see in this industry for some years to come.
I do not entirely agree with the rest of your ideas near the end of your blog post. I think the holographic aspect seems very cool on the surface, but I do not know how plausible it actually is. 3-D televisions were hyped to be the new way of viewing TV but that was not the case, as they never caught on. While holographs would be different, they are along the same lines. When people are watching TV or a movie, they are generally doing so to relax and escape society. Forcing them to interact with characters or the plot may take away from the intended experience. I would bet that as a society, we will not see many holographs in media unless it is of Tupac performing at Coachella. Nevertheless, I could be entirely wrong and you do place a 30-year time limit of the idea. If that is the case, you will look like a genius and the Steven Spielberg of our time. With that in mind, I hope you prove me wrong so I can say that I had class with you when you had the idea.
Works Cited
Franrich, Darren “This Was The Year That….We Got Psyched for 2014. And 2015…” Entertainment Weekly. December 20, 2013. Print.
Lang, Brent and Todd Cunningham. "6 Box-Office Takeaways From a Record Year of Hits and Flops." The Wrap 22 Dec. 2012. Web.
To answer Cullen’s question, I think that the film industry needs to change and evolve in the coming years in order to stay alive. Social media and new technology such as Netflix and other streaming service has made a huge impact on the industry, both on filmmakers and their consumers. More often than not I find myself turning to social media to decide whether I will spend the money to go see a movie or not because if my friends like then I will most likely enjoy it. In addition to social media advice I will consider whether I will just wait for the movie to become available on Netflix. I do not think I am alone because watching a movie on Netflix versus in the theatre is basically the same thing, except with Netflix I don’t take the risk of sitting behind a talker for the whole two hours.
ReplyDeleteSocial media buzz surrounding different films has such a big impact on the audience, and is also setting a new standard for movies. Today, for a blockbuster to make a killing the film has to be huge hit on social media. For example, this past weekend I saw multiple posts about the new movie “Divergent.” Some of my Facebook “friends” were posting saying that it was a disappointment compared to the book series, now it’s not at the top of my list to see. According to Box Office Mojo “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire” and “Iron Man 2” are the top two films in domestic grosses for 2013 (“Box Office Mojo). This is not a surprise to me because of the buzz surrounding the two films. Success in the box office no longer is about reviews and advertising. Today, it’s all about social media.
Another factor to consider is the rise of new technology such as Netflix. Many people are turning to Netflix and are able to enjoy films in the comfort of their own home, rather than go out to a movie theatre. I found it surprising that Steven Spielberg is predicting a rise in the cost of movie theatre tickets according to the YouTube clip posted. Even in the last few years it seems that ticket prices have been on the rise and if they make their way up to $50 people will not even think twice about turning away from theaters. In order for consumers to justify a rise in the price the theaters have to provide more than just screening the film. The audience wants to be involved and engaged. This has proven to be true from the rise in IMAX ticket sales. According to an article in The Wrap (Yahoo! Movies) IMAX’s grosses will be up by 55 percent and it recently cut a deal with Chinese exhibition giant Wanda that could add 120 more screens (Cunningham).
In conclusion, I feel that movie theaters overall need to add more to the experience of seeing a movie. The experience of seeing a film needs to be more engaging and incorporate social media. Today, we as consumers have many different options for movie viewing such as on-demand, Netflix, or other online sites. In order to keep the industry alive movie theaters need to provide something exclusive. IMAX theaters have started going in this direction and it seems to be working well.
Works Cited:
Lang, Brent and Todd Cunningham. "6 Box-Office Takeaways From a Record Year of Hits and Flops." The Wrap 22 Dec. 2012. Web.
"2013 DOMESTIC GROSSES." 2013 Yearly Box Office Results. Box Office Mojo, n.d. Web. 24 Mar. 2014. .
Cullen, I agree with you that film should be more divers and original. There have been so many movies produced that they all reflect one another. The plot structure is usually the same. In a script writing class I took here my professor said that a movie would not be sold if it cannot be marketed. So maybe the point of movies now are to just sell and the creativity takes a toll. You mentioned The Lone Ranger before and I do not think that remakes like that will hurt the film because for one it has already been done and two it does not appeal to the majority of moviegoers.
ReplyDeleteDiversity can definitely change the film industry. I think the best way to break out into this is movies that have predominately black casts should market to those of all races. For example, The Best Man Holiday could have had commercials with moviegoers’ positive reactions to seeing the film. The moviegoers presented in the commercial should not only be black, but white and Asian to show just how broad of an audience this movie can appeal to. In, “This Was the Year That…Hollywood Got Race Right,” by Ray Rahman, stated, “What really made 2013 notable, though, was that studios and networks finally learned that "diversity" isn't limited to stories about historical injustices and civil rights struggles — that it's okay to show minorities doing other things, too” (Rahman). The Best Man Holiday displayed that because they did well in the box office. However, 12 Years a Slave did win major awards and came out on top as one of the best movies of the year. While Jeff Jenson of “This Was The Year That… Hollywood Got Race Wrong” said movies like 12 Years a Slave and The Butler, based on historic events helped the black race become better known. However, is this the only positive way we can see black actors in? While hopefully movies like these represent the hardships blacks faced, black actors should not be limited to these types of roles.
Your take on the future of cinema is really interested and I also believe that the future of film relies on heavy interaction with the audience. I cannot recall the name of what television show or movie it was but some viewers could vote to determine the ending. Social media also plays a major role in gaining the popularity of the specific film. Initial excitement is common when someone interested in a movie waits for it to play in theaters, but now the film industry figured out how to get fans to share their excitement. In, “This Was the Year That… We got Pscyhed for 2014. And 2015…” by Darren Franich, states, This year, Hollywood truly figured out how to feed our new addiction to movies we haven't seen yet. The film is now just one event in a much longer, social-media-assisted experience” (Franich). Film has expanded advertisement to various media platforms. This means they can reach out to more people, send teasers to social media sites and hype up the film. Despite if the film is well made or not, moviegoers are still going to see it. I mentioned before that remakes might not be the best option for the film industry, but when it has to do with something classics like Franich mentions, then the hype of it will get people to go see the movies. However, I still stand by that remakes are not necessarily the way to go when trying to stand out from the rest of the film industries.
Marissa Himbele
Franrich, Darren “This Was The Year That….We Got Psyched for 2014. And 2015…”Entertainment Weekly. December 20, 2013. Web.
Rahman, Ray. "This Was The Year That... Hollywood Got Race Right." Entertainment Weekly 20 Dec. 2013: Web.
Jenson, Jeff. “This Was The Year That… Hollywood Got Race Wrong.” Entertainment Weekly 20 Dec. 2013: Web.