Post by Prime etc. on Aug 3, 2021 18:40:14 GMT
It started before the 2000s.
Hollywood originally was dozens of companies--poverty row, American-started ones.
Then internationals came along and got into the business and completely took over very quickly--just as we saw with the internet-- because they started with a lot of money and advertising connections which other companies did not have.
And they never had to worry about going out of business.
They always had more money than anyone else.
The companies that hurt were the ones that actually operated from a supply/demand, merit, specific audience business model.
They could not survive because the big companies had built-in advantages.
There were those who managed to bypass this--Walt Disney did, and United Artists --which was the legacy of Pickford and Fairbanks--that was to bypass the big studios which were so limited in output theme.
The Society of Independent Motion Picture Producers also came about because artists and directors and producers felt the big studios were too controlling.
Eventually these big companies merged with like-minded corporations and reduced their output.
The common thread with them is to increasingly shun European story sensibility.
The white male is bad, white women are enslaved, and replacing white characters with non-white--(they made Velma of Scooby Doo asian).
The Olympics is telling--they promoted political operatives in that-and they lost--because they are more focused on fake political concerns than merit-based activity.
But Hollywood was like this for a long time--it is just that the merit-based work ethic was still there--but in the 2000s after the last round of mergers--they replaced all the people that had been working there for decades--so the new faculty in the "school" were not so skilled or professional--they don't even care about movies. To them it is like selling shoes or printing a political leaflet.
But it started long before that. In the 70s after years of throwing money at negative-themed movies that few people watched--they put lots of money into fewer films that were technologically focused--Jaws, Star Wars etc...but story elements were being eroded.
That was the start of downsizing and reducing variety.
Nowadays they don't even want to hire an American director or star.
Charles B Pierce made films about rural Southern American--Bootleggers was one the biggest hits of the 70s--and yet, because it only cost under $200 000 or something, it made $4 million.
And there's zero diversity in that movie. It was made or a very specific audience and they went to see it.
If you open a restaurant that mixes menus of Italian, French, Japanese etc..you probably will not satisfy customers as much as having separate restaurants for all those different patrons.
Hollywood is like a restaurant chain that drives all the individual ones out of business, and then discards most of its menu, and alienates its customer because it wants to appeal to the customers in an country half-way around the globe.
The only way a restaurant could stay in business is if they have unlimited money and no competition.
And that's how western media is.
That's why CNN is not out of business.
We don't have a merit or talent-based culture now--the big companies have money but not talent--they removed it due to their narrow political agenda.
Hollywood originally was dozens of companies--poverty row, American-started ones.
Then internationals came along and got into the business and completely took over very quickly--just as we saw with the internet-- because they started with a lot of money and advertising connections which other companies did not have.
And they never had to worry about going out of business.
They always had more money than anyone else.
The companies that hurt were the ones that actually operated from a supply/demand, merit, specific audience business model.
They could not survive because the big companies had built-in advantages.
There were those who managed to bypass this--Walt Disney did, and United Artists --which was the legacy of Pickford and Fairbanks--that was to bypass the big studios which were so limited in output theme.
The Society of Independent Motion Picture Producers also came about because artists and directors and producers felt the big studios were too controlling.
Eventually these big companies merged with like-minded corporations and reduced their output.
The common thread with them is to increasingly shun European story sensibility.
The white male is bad, white women are enslaved, and replacing white characters with non-white--(they made Velma of Scooby Doo asian).
The Olympics is telling--they promoted political operatives in that-and they lost--because they are more focused on fake political concerns than merit-based activity.
But Hollywood was like this for a long time--it is just that the merit-based work ethic was still there--but in the 2000s after the last round of mergers--they replaced all the people that had been working there for decades--so the new faculty in the "school" were not so skilled or professional--they don't even care about movies. To them it is like selling shoes or printing a political leaflet.
But it started long before that. In the 70s after years of throwing money at negative-themed movies that few people watched--they put lots of money into fewer films that were technologically focused--Jaws, Star Wars etc...but story elements were being eroded.
That was the start of downsizing and reducing variety.
Nowadays they don't even want to hire an American director or star.
Charles B Pierce made films about rural Southern American--Bootleggers was one the biggest hits of the 70s--and yet, because it only cost under $200 000 or something, it made $4 million.
And there's zero diversity in that movie. It was made or a very specific audience and they went to see it.
If you open a restaurant that mixes menus of Italian, French, Japanese etc..you probably will not satisfy customers as much as having separate restaurants for all those different patrons.
Hollywood is like a restaurant chain that drives all the individual ones out of business, and then discards most of its menu, and alienates its customer because it wants to appeal to the customers in an country half-way around the globe.
The only way a restaurant could stay in business is if they have unlimited money and no competition.
And that's how western media is.
That's why CNN is not out of business.
We don't have a merit or talent-based culture now--the big companies have money but not talent--they removed it due to their narrow political agenda.