ONTD

9:23 pm - 02/21/2011

5 Hollywood Secrets That Explain Why So Many Movies Suck

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Chances are if you're reading this, you are already mad at Hollywood. You've watched helplessly as it bastardized the franchises you loved as a child, or failed to promote -- or even release -- a project you had been excited about for years.

You can write it all off as greed and the terrible taste of the movie-going public, but there are other factors that make Hollywood the soulless blockbuster machine that it is. Some of which you'd never suspect ...



#5: Writers Don't Come Up With the Ideas
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

The Complaint:
"There are no original ideas! Look at the top-grossing 25 films of the 2000s -- 23 were remakes or adaptations! How lazy can these writers get?"

The Problem:
Even if you know nothing about how movies get made, you know that there are very specialized tasks -- the sound guy is an expert in microphones and audio but probably couldn't be trusted to do stunts. And, you assume that when it comes to thinking up the ideas for what happens in the movie, somewhere it's all just some writer hunched over a keyboard -- a professional who is an expert in story, plot and character.

Not so.

In almost all cases, the initial ideas for movie plots don't come from screenwriters at all, but from producers (basically, the people in charge of the money side of the project). So most of the movies playing in your nearest theater didn't come from some writer thinking up a story he wanted to tell -- they came from some producer saying, "There hasn't been a ThunderCats movie yet, has there?"

At that point, the producer and whoever else is involved (other producers, maybe a famous actor if they're lucky) will then hammer out a rough idea for the movie that will appeal to at least two of the four market demographics (young males, young females, older males, older females). So if it's an action movie aimed completely at young males, you throw a romance in there for the ladies. It's only then that they will give a screenwriter a call. In other words, in most Hollywood films, the writer is basically there to fill in the dialogue holes and think of clever catchphrases for Ryan Reynolds to say every time he socks a guy in the jaw.

For Example ...
The Halloween franchise wasn't cooked up by a plucky man named John Carpenter who had a dream about a man in a creepy mask. Instead, two producers approached him after they decided it would be cool to have a movie about a psycho stalking babysitters.

So what about those screenplays that your friend working at the video store is constantly writing, in hopes they will some day get made and star a naked Natalie Portman? In reality, even the great ones are treated as spec scripts (basically, a literary audition). The script is proof to the people in charge that the writer is, for the most part, not illiterate. So if you submit a powerfully emotional piece that deftly explores the facets of love and loss, you might impress someone enough to get a job co-writing Transformers 4.

On the rare occasion that an original script does get picked up for production, it's likely to get swept up by one of the big franchises. I, Robot was initially an original script called Hardwired that no one would touch until a famous Asimov title was attached to it. Die Hard 2, 3 and 4, Ocean's Twelve and Starship Troopers were all original ideas that were snapped up and rebranded as franchises. So if you're working on a passion project, maybe it's time to let the dream die and just start focusing on a gritty reboot of She-Ra.

#4: Everything Is Simplified for International Markets
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

The Complaint:
"Even the original movie ideas are just mindless explosions and CGI! Why does every other movie have to look like a video game and make me feel like a moron?"

The Problem:
If you're reading this, then those movies weren't made with you in mind. They were made for the international box office (Transformers 2 made $400 million overseas, for instance). Now, before you even have a chance to think it, we are not saying foreign audiences are stupid. The movies made in their home countries, for them, are no doubt just as deep and thoughtful as any Best Picture winner.

What we're saying is that to make a movie that appeals equally to American, Japanese, Korean, German and Mexican teenagers, you need to simplify that shit down to things they all understand equally. Anything dealing with, say, the subtle trials and hardships of everyday life in the American Midwest is going to be totally lost on someone from the other side of the planet.

But there is one thing that everyone in the world can understand and sympathize with, no matter what their culture or ethnicity: They need to run away if you are being chased by giant robots.

Likewise, foreign audiences also aren't as picky about good writing (a lot of it will be lost in the translation to subtitles anyway) or clever comedy (which is highly culturally specific). So if you're a studio executive who is choosing between financing a poignant coming of age film about an orphan ranch hand in East Texas or a film about a giant radioactive thunderstorm that gives people superpowers, chances are you're not going to go with the poignancy.

For Example ...
Everybody chuckled at how over-the-top stupid 2012 was. And it did a "meh" $166 million in American box office. Overseas? It made $604 million.

By the way, it was that lust for foreign currency, not a sudden loss in patriotism, that was behind the G.I. Joe movie replacing its "all-American hero" with a multinational group of soldiers with a strangely American task force name.

#3: Movie Projects Get Killed For Bad Reasons
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

The Complaint:
"Man, whatever happened to that Halo movie Peter Jackson was going to make? Or (insert any of a hundred impossibly cool movies rumored on Ain't It Cool five years ago that were never mentioned again)?

The Problem:
"Development Hell" is what happens when a movie gets indefinitely stuck at some point during the moviemaking process and gets lost. Now, sometimes it's nobody's fault -- Halo would be expensive and at this point would look like a cheap Avatar knockoff. But the kicker is that sometimes the studios banish projects to oblivion intentionally.

For Example ...
Hollywood studios generally buy 10 times as many scripts as they make into movies, which means they currently own exclusive rights to a shitload of films that will never see production. And in most cases, they won't let anyone else have them. E.T., The Matrix, Pulp Fiction and Star Wars are all films that you never would have seen because the studios that owned them were content to sit on each forever. They were saved only because someone convinced another studio to re-buy them, usually at a higher price.

Sometimes the reasons for stalling a project are even more duplicitous. According to screenwriter Howard Meibach, in the 90s Disney bought a script for a hockey-related movie that was getting attention in Hollywood simply because it had a different hockey movie in production and "[didn't] want another studio to get it." Thanks to Disney's unapologetic cock-blocking, we will never know what the actual film was about.

And finally, sometimes studios will sit on entirely completed movies. We've told you about the time a studio made an abysmal low-budget adaptation of The Fantastic Four it never intended to release, simply because it wanted to keep the rights. It turns out this sort of thing is more common than you'd expect: When legendary producer Harvey Weinstein was in charge of Miramax, he used to buy exclusive rights to foreign films and then push back their releases indefinitely as part of a scheme to get bonuses from Disney. He bought the rights to distribute Jet Li's movie Hero and then didn't, releasing it a full two years later only when Quentin Tarantino finally intervened.

OK, so you probably don't care about a crappy superhero B-movie or some foreign flick about old people falling in love or, like, rain (look, we don't see a lot of foreign movies). But how about Mike Judge's movie Idiocracy? Despite how much America loves Judge for Beavis and Butthead and Office Space, 20th Century Fox did everything it could to bury his movie. It tried to weasel out of a theatrical release for over a year and finally did the bare minimum to fulfill its contract by opening Idiocracy in seven cities, with no trailers or press kits.

#2: Gaming the Ratings System
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

The Complaint:
"Screw Black Swan -- have you seen Darren Aronofsky's Requiem for a Dream? Of course you haven't, it got buried by the MPAA, which slapped it with an NC-17 rating. That's despite the fact that I've seen way worse in bigger movies than a little double-ended dildo action."

The Problem:
Quick, when's the last time you saw a trailer for a movie rated NC-17 on TV? Have you ever seen one showing at the multiplex? We'll save you the trouble of trying to remember beyond last week and tell you that you probably haven't. Television networks refuse to promote NC-17 films, and most large theater chains won't show them. You also can't find them in most rental stores.

NC-17 is the bogeyman of Hollywood, long considered commercial death because, to date, none of the NC-17 films released has made more than $20 million at the box office. Ever. Take Showgirls off the top of the list, and you won't find one that made more than $12 million. For reference, Battlefield Earth made $30 million.

So you've got a guaranteed box office assassination card. What do you do with it? Apparently, the answer is to slap it on your competitors, the independent film industry. You see, the MPAA (the film studio lobbyist group) controls the ratings board and also pays their salaries. So when a film comes along with some edgy content, a big studio can shove it through while an independent film gets hosed.

For Example ...
South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone got to see both sides of the process when their independently made film Orgazmo was given an NC-17 for lewd jokes and brief nudity in the form of breasts and asses (which doomed it to obscurity until Parker and Stone became household names), while South Park: Bigger, Longer, & Uncut received an R for some pretty explicit cartoon sex and violence. The film even included a real picture of an erect penis disguised as a sex toy.

When asked why they thought they got a more lenient rating for South Park, Parker said, "The reason we got the NC-17 on Orgazmo was that it was released by October Films, which had no clout, and we didn't have the money to re-edit the film and continue to resubmit it. [On South Park] we got an R because Paramount was behind it, but the independent filmmaker gets screwed."

#1: Merchandising Supremacy
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

The Complaint:
"Wait, Pixar is making freaking Cars 2? Of all the original films they could be working on or, hell, of all the sequels they could be making, they're making a goddamned Cars 2? Why?"

The Problem:
Five billion dollars. That's how much money Disney has made off of Cars merchandise (and that article is two years old -- hell, it could be 7 billion by now).

That's why Up, despite being wildly critically acclaimed from the get-go, actually caused Pixar's stock to go down before its release; investors thought the lack of merchandise would make it bomb and wondered what the point of the movie was without the toys.

You can't overstate how huge merchandising looms in the process of getting a blockbuster made. Film merchandising is a $132 billion industry worldwide, and it's also a pretty sweet deal for filmmakers -- they don't have to actually manufacture or sell anything; they just charge a licensing fee and use that money to help fund their movie. So if the toys don't sell, the merchandiser has to take the loss, not the studio. Awesome, right?

Well, no. The more expensive films get (and they're getting pretty expensive), the more the industry becomes dependent on merchandising. So parents concerned about Hollywood's influence on their children will be happy to know that today it's nigh impossible to get a kids movie greenlit if your characters don't look like something you can put inside a Happy Meal.

For Example ...
Take a look at what will probably be next year's biggest blockbuster:
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Seriously. Someone is making a $200 million movie based on some pieces of plastic and a bunch of holes, some of which will be played by Liam Neeson and Rihanna. There's also a remake of Clue and a movie adaptation of motherfucking Monopoly directed by Ridley Scott.

And don't get us started on the product placement. Today, branding experts read drafts, meet with the writers and even write new dialogue. That's why you have scenes in which John Connor drives a 2003 Chrysler in the post-apocalyptic future of Terminator Salvation, even though there are about 67 solid reasons why that doesn't make any sense. You can look forward to seeing a hell of a lot more of that in the future.


(sauce)

brand new information!

but feel free to use as a general 'bitch about what you don't like about the film industry/movies/life post
Page 1 of 6
<<[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] >>
[info]anne_elli0t 22nd-Feb-2011 03:34 am (UTC)
FUCK THE MPAA
[info]givethesignal 22nd-Feb-2011 03:39 am (UTC)
COMIN' STRAIGHT FROM THE UNDERGROUND
[info]superhyphy 22nd-Feb-2011 03:53 am (UTC)
LOL PERFECT
[info]tree_pretty 22nd-Feb-2011 05:33 am (UTC)
IKR? Have you seen "This Film Has Not Yet Been Rated"??
[info]iamglory 22nd-Feb-2011 01:45 pm (UTC)
THIS!
[info]so_chic_doll 22nd-Feb-2011 03:34 am (UTC)
[info]parisdiorchanel 22nd-Feb-2011 03:47 am (UTC)
Adorable gif.
[info]houseofjunk 22nd-Feb-2011 06:48 am (UTC)
where is this adorable gif from????
[info]jasmina12345 22nd-Feb-2011 03:34 am (UTC)
They forgot the most important part. That studios rely so much on booking a big name that they completely neglect everything else. This is why The Tourist bombed.
[info]affliction 22nd-Feb-2011 03:38 am (UTC)
This.
[info]megalixer 22nd-Feb-2011 03:40 am (UTC)
IA

will smith is pretty much the only person that can pull audiences on name alone anymore and idk how long even he will be able to do it.
[info]devil_details 22nd-Feb-2011 03:45 am (UTC)
Will's prime has lasted longer than most of the big "names" did in their prime (Cruise, Hanks, Ford, even Roberts I'd say).
[info]andres01234 22nd-Feb-2011 03:42 am (UTC)
I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I really liked The tourist.... and I hate Angelina
[info]lightbird777 22nd-Feb-2011 03:42 am (UTC)
Exactly. Perfect example.
[info]ljubavirakija 22nd-Feb-2011 03:43 am (UTC)
Agreed.
[info]promisemewings 22nd-Feb-2011 03:46 am (UTC)
THIS

Like whenever that Wonder Woman film ever gets made....quite frankly, I want a virtual unknown as Wonder Woman. I don't want someone like Megan Fox playing her. (Nothing against Megan Fox; she just seems too obvious casting.)
[info]howlcosmiclove 22nd-Feb-2011 03:54 am (UTC)
Seriously, it's like they think we'll be too dumb to even focus on the plot if it's a big name holding the lead
[info]bubble_monkey9 22nd-Feb-2011 03:57 am (UTC)
didn't the tourist make like 200mil worldwide or smth. I mean it got bad reviews but I think it still made a lot of money
[info]luxis_lil 22nd-Feb-2011 04:13 am (UTC)
THIS.
[info]hollywoodgods 22nd-Feb-2011 05:06 am (UTC)
The Tourist has made over $245 million worldwide and still counting. It bombed in the US but is definitely not bombing in the rest of the world.
[info]fruitariyum 22nd-Feb-2011 03:34 am (UTC)
real reason #1: the general lack of JEFF GOLDBLUM in most hollywood movies tbh
[info]anne_elli0t 22nd-Feb-2011 03:35 am (UTC)
lol IA TBH
[info]dwightk_schrute 22nd-Feb-2011 03:42 am (UTC)
[info]_______chaos_xx 22nd-Feb-2011 09:09 am (UTC)
a+
[info]love_alice 22nd-Feb-2011 03:42 am (UTC)
correct
[info]sensualcoco 22nd-Feb-2011 03:43 am (UTC)
lol, true.
[info]daijouboo 22nd-Feb-2011 03:45 am (UTC)
Jeff Goldblum you say?
[info]fulla_kharisma 22nd-Feb-2011 03:46 am (UTC)
Man, I miss the 90s when Jeff was in everything. My first crush tbh.
[info]gbeastly 22nd-Feb-2011 03:47 am (UTC)
Yeah man.
[info]roxi9 22nd-Feb-2011 03:48 am (UTC)
LMAOOOOOO IA
[info]muzicnem 22nd-Feb-2011 03:51 am (UTC)
GOD, YOU FUCKING SAID IT.
[info]howlcosmiclove 22nd-Feb-2011 03:56 am (UTC)
Aw hell, this comment is bringing back memories of The Fly DDDD:
[info]londonsquare 22nd-Feb-2011 04:00 am (UTC)
watching Independence Day right now. I will always have time for this film. If only because of Goldblum and his uncanny chemistry with Will Smith.

I demand a sequel.
[info]muzicnem 22nd-Feb-2011 04:01 am (UTC)
Btw, I just came across this story and it's pretty funny: http://hipstercrite.blogspot.com/2008/09/irrepressible-dr-ian-malcolm.html

It's about this girl who was an assistant/extra in Mini's First Time and how she felt Goldblum's boner when he hugged her lol.
[info]youbeboy 22nd-Feb-2011 04:03 am (UTC)
This.
[info]leomentlines 22nd-Feb-2011 05:04 am (UTC)
lol every time i think of goldblum i think of this skit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNhmI4lhTF0
[info]trixielollipop How do I feel about the lack of Goldblum in the 2000's?22nd-Feb-2011 07:52 am (UTC)
[info]forrealyo 22nd-Feb-2011 03:34 am (UTC)
So this entire post is basically a bunch of shit everyone already knows?
[info]bcain1992 22nd-Feb-2011 03:43 am (UTC)
pretty much. thisisbrandnewinformation.gif
[info]theantipoet 22nd-Feb-2011 03:47 am (UTC)
it never occurred to me that studios would buy (and bury) scripts just so other studios couldn't buy them first.
[info]mrgrta_shootrs 22nd-Feb-2011 03:50 am (UTC)
ia. i like this post, tbh.
[info]starbucks_patch 22nd-Feb-2011 06:37 pm (UTC)
me too.

sounds so childish.
[info]missing_nin15 22nd-Feb-2011 04:07 am (UTC)
*shrug* well, I liked it. I knew money was always the top factor, but to see it being broken down into the specific reasons gave me new insight to the industry.
[info]topwithens 22nd-Feb-2011 06:35 am (UTC)
Maybe I live under a rock but this really helps me to understand why all these shitty films keep getting made. I always just assumed "good" should naturally equal "profitable" as long as marketing was done right. I never thought too much about some of these other factors.
[info]shantayustay 22nd-Feb-2011 03:35 am (UTC)
HERE FOR JARVIS!

[info]megalixer 22nd-Feb-2011 03:36 am (UTC)
<3

unfortunately this article is not awesome enough to have anything to do with the jarv
[info]shantayustay 22nd-Feb-2011 04:05 am (UTC)
:(

It does have a Michael Jackson doll.
[info]heythatsmybike 22nd-Feb-2011 03:35 am (UTC)
i finally saw black swan tonight
[info]rafz20 22nd-Feb-2011 03:40 am (UTC)
What is this comment? Did you think you were posting this to your Twitter?
[info]awkwardmumbles 22nd-Feb-2011 03:43 am (UTC)
rood
[info]awkwardmumbles 22nd-Feb-2011 03:43 am (UTC)
the article is about movies ...
[info]heythatsmybike 22nd-Feb-2011 03:44 am (UTC)
dumbass

they mentioned black swan in the post
[info]ohsookie 22nd-Feb-2011 03:41 am (UTC)
What did you think of it?
[info]astronof 22nd-Feb-2011 03:35 am (UTC)
"Wait, Pixar is making freaking Cars 2? Of all the original films they could be working on or, hell, of all the sequels they could be making, they're making a goddamned Cars 2? Why?"

But they are also making Monsters, Inc. 2 so it cancels out basically.
[info]affliction 22nd-Feb-2011 03:37 am (UTC)
THEY ARE? :o I loved the 1st one.
[info]_amateur 22nd-Feb-2011 03:44 am (UTC)
Who didn't?!
[info]formal_affair 22nd-Feb-2011 03:42 am (UTC)
Oooh. I wonder how if they'll age Boo that much.
[info]listenlouder 22nd-Feb-2011 03:45 am (UTC)
omg when did they say they were making Monsters Inc 2?!
[info]sugarrushes 22nd-Feb-2011 03:48 am (UTC)
i'm so excited about monsters inc 2.
[info]adri278 22nd-Feb-2011 03:54 am (UTC)
I love Pixar, but Cars is their only movie I haven't seen countless times and Cars 2 just gives me the feeling of "they're only trying to make money" as opposed to their other movies that have so much effort and love put into them.
[info]chilibreath 22nd-Feb-2011 01:18 pm (UTC)
If they could have The Incredibles 2...
[info]sirsalutation 22nd-Feb-2011 03:36 am (UTC)
Not a secret, 3D!!!! Stop with it!
[info]lil_silverheart 22nd-Feb-2011 03:50 am (UTC)
This!
[info]so_chic_doll 22nd-Feb-2011 03:37 am (UTC)
[info]guadalcanal 22nd-Feb-2011 03:37 am (UTC)
SO WHAT, I'M STILL GOING TO COMPLAIN BECAUSE OUR MOVIES DO SUCK.

and I should be studying for my midterm :( boo
[info]ahzuri 22nd-Feb-2011 06:50 am (UTC)
I feel your pain as I should be studying for my math test.
[info]sky365 22nd-Feb-2011 03:37 am (UTC)
I think Requiem for a Dream deserved it's rating...
[info]megalixer 22nd-Feb-2011 03:38 am (UTC)
requiem for a dream might have but the MPAA is still shady as hale

won't let me embed, but this film is interesting watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIncrMYRUJ0
[info]verdhandi 22nd-Feb-2011 03:50 pm (UTC)
I so wish I could watch that documentary because I watched the first bits of it and it was super interesting but then it showed all these directors' names and I switched it off when I saw Friedkin. Can't see anything from The Exorcist because I'm still so scared of it.
[info]luannab 22nd-Feb-2011 03:40 am (UTC)
ia.
[info]awkwardmumbles 22nd-Feb-2011 03:46 am (UTC)
yea the double ended dildo group sex prostitution whatever scene at the end definitely warrants that rating
[info]tiarlynn 22nd-Feb-2011 08:30 am (UTC)
that movie was pretty tame IMO, r-rated fodder but no more. I mean it's a movie about drug addiction wtf do people expect?
[info]affliction 22nd-Feb-2011 03:37 am (UTC)
"There are no original ideas! Look at the top-grossing 25 films of the 2000s -- 23 were remakes or adaptations! How lazy can these writers get?"

:/ This made me feel bad about thinking that at least twice a week~.
[info]aawler 22nd-Feb-2011 03:37 am (UTC)
2011 has been really sucking in films so far
[info]mv75 22nd-Feb-2011 03:39 am (UTC)
iawtc
[info]larrylurker 22nd-Feb-2011 03:43 am (UTC)
the mainstream summer movies don't look any better either
[info]ohsookie 22nd-Feb-2011 03:45 am (UTC)
That's because January and February are movie graveyards.
[info]bcain1992 22nd-Feb-2011 03:45 am (UTC)
It won't start getting good until the summer.
[info]coocoocthulhu 22nd-Feb-2011 03:53 am (UTC)
We are still in the ass-end of the year, though. The only festival so far has been, what, Sundance? And Sundance shows some good stuff but the focus is always the newest/cheapest/hippest indie they can find. A couple of good smaller films will maybe get a limited release in April, with bigger/not as shitty films starting for the summer season. Then fall is awards season, so you get the prestige films.

To look at a hollywood calendar, January-March is marked off with a "Here Be Shitty Movies". No man's land. The bastard redheaded stepchildren that the studios are obligated to provide the basic care for (but secretly just want to lock them under the stairs, regardless of the actual quality of the movie).

And this time next year we will forget that this is shitty movie season, because all we'll remember about this time of year is awards ceremonies, and in our mid-winter food-coma/drunken stupor/hibernation have absolutely no recollection of the time that all there was to offer was The Green Hornet or The Roommate or some awful romantic comedy.
[info]howlcosmiclove 22nd-Feb-2011 03:58 am (UTC)
Agreed
[info]shontay07108 22nd-Feb-2011 04:50 am (UTC)
The beginning of the year always sucks. I don't even start going to the movies until the end of Summer.
[info]wesaucereyes 22nd-Feb-2011 07:04 am (UTC)
Won't lie, from all the titles I've seen so far, the only thing I have any remote interest in seeing is Red State and Harry Potter.
[info]artsyfartsy01 22nd-Feb-2011 02:31 pm (UTC)
IA. Going to the theatre is one of my favourite things to do but I don't go nearly as much as I used to :(
[info]chrisgold 22nd-Feb-2011 11:23 am (UTC)
The Spring looks good. First in April there's Source Code and Water for Elephants and then in May there's Tree of Life.
[info]envyisbaggage 22nd-Feb-2011 03:37 am (UTC)
so many articles from cracked lately, is there some kind of deal with them?
Page 1 of 6
<<[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] >>
This page was loaded Jun 1st 2012, 7:15 pm GMT.