Hollywood Artistically Bankrupt

[Boomhauer]

2011 is turning out to be one of the worst years for box office attendance since the 80's. While the period from 1998 to 2004 holds the top seven spots in attendance and 2005 to 2010 rank between #8 and #15 (1997 is in this group), 2011 has dropped down to 20th all-time.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/?sort=totaltickets&order=DESC&p=.htm

Year- Sales(millions)
2002- 1,575.7
2003- 1,532.3
2004- 1,510.5
2001- 1,487.3
1998- 1,480.7

1999- 1,465.2
2000- 1,420.8
2009- 1,412.7
2006- 1,406.0
2007- 1,404.6
1997- 1,387.7
2005- 1,379.2
2008- 1,341.3
2010- 1,339.1
1996- 1,338.6

1994- 1,291.7
1989- 1,262.8
1995- 1,262.6
1993- 1,244.0
2011- 1,220.0

1984- 1,199.0
1983- 1,197.0
1990- 1,188.6
1982 -1,175.0
1992 -1,173.2

This precipitous decline in both the quality of movies, their plots, ability of actors and the clear, increasingly disconnected state of Hollywood writers and producers. Even though crap movies have the potential to draw a crowd, the ability of directors and advertisers has also also hit a low.

When was the last time anyone here saw a movie advertised that they had to go see? When was the last time anyone here saw a movie and told others they had to go see it? With Hollywood pinning hopes on movies like Ms. Dragon Tattoo, is there any chance they won't fail?

[OrangeSe7en]

2011 is turning out to be one of the worst years for box office attendance since the 80's. While the period from 1998 to 2004 holds the top seven spots in attendance and 2005 to 2010 rank between #8 and #15 (1997 is in this group), 2011 has dropped down to 20th all-time.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/?sort=totaltickets&order=DESC&p=.htm

Year- Sales(millions)
2002- 1,575.7
2003- 1,532.3
2004- 1,510.5
2001- 1,487.3
1998- 1,480.7

1999- 1,465.2
2000- 1,420.8
2009- 1,412.7
2006- 1,406.0
2007- 1,404.6
1997- 1,387.7
2005- 1,379.2
2008- 1,341.3
2010- 1,339.1
1996- 1,338.6

1994- 1,291.7
1989- 1,262.8
1995- 1,262.6
1993- 1,244.0
2011- 1,220.0

1984- 1,199.0
1983- 1,197.0
1990- 1,188.6
1982 -1,175.0
1992 -1,173.2

This precipitous decline in both the quality of movies, their plots, ability of actors and the clear, increasingly disconnected state of Hollywood writers and producers. Even though crap movies have the potential to draw a crowd, the ability of directors and advertisers has also also hit a low.

When was the last time anyone here saw a movie advertised that they had to go see? When was the last time anyone here saw a movie and told others they had to go see it? With Hollywood pinning hopes on movies like Ms. Dragon Tattoo, is there any chance they won't fail?

Regarding Dragon Tattoo, I think it will do well but it was also something that the pillaged from another country. Fincher did a great job with it. I'm not sure any other director would have done well with it.

But in general, you're right. One of the biggest problems with movies is that they're too expensive. Movies are now priced in such a way that you're paying to see a HR. What you pay makes doubles and singles huge disappointments. And, like you've also said, there are far too many strike outs coming out of Hollywood too.

The problem is that the people managing Hollywood have become slaves to risk aversion. They put out formulaic movies so to avoid risk. They let independents and foreign films be a filtering system. And then they try to swoop in and lift someone else's idea if they think it will work.

Another thing is that, movies have become too tailored to specific demographics. This probably falls under the formulaic issue I mentioned above.

[Boomhauer]

Orange7 - "...
The problem is that the people managing Hollywood have become slaves to risk aversion. They put out formulaic movies so to avoid risk. They let independents and foreign films be a filtering system. And then they try to swoop in and lift someone else's idea if they think it will work.
Another thing is that, movies have become too tailored to specific demographics. This probably falls under the formulaic issue I mentioned above."

Re; Great post 7. I think you nailed the producer aspect (who funds what movies), but I think an even bigger problem is the absence of the art of storytelling. This starts with poor writing, moves to artistic laziness by the directors and is emphasized by lack of acting talent where going through motions (often with type-casting) instead of selling the specific character is now common.

[Miss I.]

Maybe they need less boob mojo? ;D

[Boomhauer]

Miss I. - "Maybe they need less boob mojo?"

Re; While sarcasm is hard to convey in print, that comment has to be. I'd guess the standard cup size in Hollywood is 'A', with a few 'trainers' and 'Bs' - ie; well below the threshold of boob mojo. Moreover, almost every female figure (if you can call them that) on screen have boy-butts, also called 'Juniors' in women jean sizing and refers to prepubescent hips. While almost everyone - men, women, lesbians - love a fine rack and rockin' curves, gays don't.

The absence of female lines in Hollywood, like the abundance of metrosexual males and leading losers, is from excessive 'gaying-up' by Hollywood's elitist, creating a disconnect with any customer not taking it in the tailpipe or with an eye for beauty. One prime example is the female lead in the Twilight saga (marketed at gays, adolescent girls and tools) is close to the ugliest actress in Hollywood - selected either to make the male lead more attractive or because that's the subconscious view gays have of women. Likewise, fashion designers flaunt their anorexic, marionette view of the idealized woman while the sight of such makes most people gasp in horror.
---------------------------------------------------------

No, if there is something Hollywood definitely needs more of, it's Boob mojo and ladies with female figures. But that's still a far second to what Hollywood is lacking most among actresses - the ability to act. I did a quick check of the top-grossing and top-researched actresses in 2011, and only two are good at acting.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FW86_jO7k_A/TH-fuxMbMZI/AAAAAAAB-g0/lbnxSbsj8m0/s1600/Natalie%2BPortman%2BBlack%2BSwan%2BPremiere%2B3.jp ghttp://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Sandra+Bullock+2011+Vanity+Fair+Oscar+Party+AmWyYJ tEFQZl.jpg
All the rest of the actresses are type-cast filler, extras or eye candy that Hollywood 'makes do' with instead of trying to produce quality products. But when it does come to quality; While neither the above is 'hot' - attractive is a better term - and have zero boob mojo going for them, in the same way Christina Aguilera makes up for lacking looks with awesome pipes, these two dominate scenes with overwhelming ability rather than outstanding appearance. Unfortunately, there are currently no hot actresses that can act, and so no surefire female leads to pack box-offices.

[OrangeSe7en]

Miss I. - "Maybe they need less boob mojo?"

Re; While sarcasm is hard to convey in print, that comment has to be. I'd guess the standard cup size in Hollywood is 'A', with a few 'trainers' and 'Bs' - ie; well below the threshold of boob mojo. Moreover, almost every female figure (if you can call them that) on screen have boy-butts, also called 'Juniors' in women jean sizing and refers to prepubescent hips. While almost everyone - men, women, lesbians - love a fine rack and rockin' curves, gays don't.

The absence of female lines in Hollywood, like the abundance of metrosexual males and leading losers, is from excessive 'gaying-up' by Hollywood's elitist, creating a disconnect with any customer not taking it in the tailpipe or with an eye for beauty. One prime example is the female lead in the Twilight saga (marketed at gays, adolescent girls and tools) is close to the ugliest actress in Hollywood - selected either to make the male lead more attractive or because that's the subconscious view gays have of women. Likewise, fashion designers flaunt their anorexic, marionette view of the idealized woman while the sight of such makes most people gasp in horror.
---------------------------------------------------------

No, if there is something Hollywood definitely needs more of, it's Boob mojo and ladies with female figures. But that's still a far second to what Hollywood is lacking most among actresses - the ability to act. I did a quick check of the top-grossing and top-researched actresses in 2011, and only two are good at acting.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FW86_jO7k_A/TH-fuxMbMZI/AAAAAAAB-g0/lbnxSbsj8m0/s1600/Natalie%2BPortman%2BBlack%2BSwan%2BPremiere%2B3.jp ghttp://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Sandra+Bullock+2011+Vanity+Fair+Oscar+Party+AmWyYJ tEFQZl.jpg
All the rest of the actresses are type-cast filler, extras or eye candy that Hollywood 'makes do' with instead of trying to produce quality products. But when it does come to quality; While neither the above is 'hot' - attractive is a better term - and have zero boob mojo going for them, in the same way Christina Aguilera makes up for lacking looks with awesome pipes, these two dominate scenes with overwhelming ability rather than outstanding appearance. Unfortunately, there are currently no hot actresses that can act, and so no surefire female leads to pack box-offices.

When you defer to formulaic movies, you have a lot of "lets put this person and that person in a movie and see what happens". These movies often suck but these movies are made because of the star power of the actors. However, when you have a movie that is stronger in content/substance, it's not as necessary to "put X and Y in a movie and see what happens". You can get away with casting actors who are more unknown. In fact, its usually better to cast less known actors. Likewise, the overreliance on the stars also kind of represents a dearth of quality out there.

[Boomhauer]

Orange7 -
"When you defer to formulaic movies, you have a lot of "lets put this person and that person in a movie and see what happens"..."

Re; You seem a bit caught up with this 'formulaic' approach, but I guess so are America's artistic producers. The primary problem with this approach is art cannot be, and never has been, quantified. A similar approach is often taken in the automotive sector, where sample groups and surveys are taken to decide how to style a car. The result; incredibly bland, uninspired vehicles nearly indistinguishable from past vehicles, current competitors and sales flops if the bones can't sell the car.

Hollywood, using a formulaic approach as you suggest, may be caught in this same cycle of unoriginality that churns out uninspired and unartistic rehashes indistinguishable, unremarkable and unable to sell in the absence of 'good bones'. For movies, these bones are story, acting and directing - three traits nearly absent in Hollywood today.

A similar move away from making quality art, and instead looking at formulaic approaches began after the music boom of the 90's. Attempts were made to mix rock, hiphop, country and electronica into a formula appealing to the largest focus groups. The result; music now sucks and the dramatic decline in global sales is proof. If not for the boom in digital sales that allows buyers to pick that one-hit from a crap artist worth listening to, sales would be even lower.
http://crenk.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/ifpi-global-music-industry.png

Using a formulaic approach to art, regardless of the median, has always and repeatedly been a failure. The only reason it continues to exist is as the only means for the unartistic to attempt to imitate the artistic, but the outcome is always unartistic crap. In the same way sports statistics are used by those that didn't watch, or don't know what to look for, to try and quantify what 'good' is, but if teams/players are selected as 'good' based on stats it will usually be wrong.
That's the difference between theory (formulaic) and reality - the proof in the pudding.

[OrangeSe7en]

Orange7 -
"When you defer to formulaic movies, you have a lot of "lets put this person and that person in a movie and see what happens"..."

Re; You seem a bit caught up with this 'formulaic' approach, but I guess so are America's artistic producers. The primary problem with this approach is art cannot be, and never has been, quantified. A similar approach is often taken in the automotive sector, where sample groups and surveys are taken to decide how to style a car. The result; incredibly bland, uninspired vehicles nearly indistinguishable from past vehicles, current competitors and sales flops if the bones can't sell the car.

Hollywood, using a formulaic approach as you suggest, may be caught in this same cycle of unoriginality that churns out uninspired and unartistic rehashes indistinguishable, unremarkable and unable to sell in the absence of 'good bones'. For movies, these bones are story, acting and directing - three traits nearly absent in Hollywood today.

A similar move away from making quality art, and instead looking at formulaic approaches began after the music boom of the 90's. Attempts were made to mix rock, hiphop, country and electronica into a formula appealing to the largest focus groups. The result; music now sucks and the dramatic decline in global sales is proof. If not for the boom in digital sales that allows buyers to pick that one-hit from a crap artist worth listening to, sales would be even lower.
http://crenk.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/ifpi-global-music-industry.png

Using a formulaic approach to art, regardless of the median, has always and repeatedly been a failure. The only reason it continues to exist is as the only means for the unartistic to attempt to imitate the artistic, but the outcome is always unartistic crap. In the same way sports statistics are used by those that didn't watch, or don't know what to look for, to try and quantify what 'good' is, but if teams/players are selected as 'good' based on stats it will usually be wrong.
That's the difference between theory (formulaic) and reality - the proof in the pudding.

A formulaic approach doesnt always mean "something for everyone" (ie the homogenized blandness you seem to be describing).

In some cases the movies are fairly narrow in their target audience. When movies are made with mostly white characters and white actors, white people don't see these as "white movies" and don't automatically go because most of the characters and actors are white. This is not the case with minority demographics. Hollywood has determined that by making movies aimed at minority groups, they're more assured to get that demographic to go to the movie on the basis of tailoring movies to race...at least where minorities (namely blacks) are concerned. It's a formulaic approach but it's not "something for everyone".

But you're right. The formulaic approach seems to rub out an artistic rendering, which requires a certain fearlessness and purity of vision. And a formulaic approach does kind of derive its vision in a way where it works from the audience to the film, whereas, the more artistic approach focuses on the product and let's it stand on its own merit and lets the audience appreciate what is hopefully a well made movie done with some artistry and not somethng that is paint by numbers. You get better movies with the latter but it also involves tolerating more risk. And, as I said from the top, the formulaic movies are a risk averse approach. And so you get a tapestry of movies that lack originality/artistry.

[Miss I.]

Yes, I was kidding. Most women in film nowadays are not exactly representative, but Hollywood has always presented an idealized female picture, not reality. It is just that now the female ideal as define by media is different than in earlier eras of film making and there was more margin for other types as stars. Now if a female is outside the ideal they largely fall into character roles and side kicks if at all. At any rate, I would agree there are fewer truly good actresses and most are picked for aesthetic appeal rather than great acting skills. But not all early actresses were great either, we just remember the classic films and history does paint a story different than what may have been prominent during the era of the film. Plus, under the studio system, actors and actresses skill sets were matched to the films in some degree, but of course their star power draw also played into it. With actors now, they have more independence but often make choices that don't suit them. I also think the lack of theater training and death of vaudeville has placed emphasis not the abilities of actors but on their appearance. They don't do the training previous generations had or cultivate discipline in the same way. In some ways this is good because it broke away from very strict molds and allowed for development of new schools of acting, but now it's almost too impulse driven, too free form with no discipline. The same could be said for the writers and other mediums driving the film industry.