Excellent post, mate; Cheers! I too am cautiously optimistic that we are actually seeing the beginning of a new trend.
I wrote (or perhaps more accurately: ranted) at length about corporate filmmaking in an essay (in case you're interested you can find it here:
www.the-fanboy-perspective.com/a-rant-against-modern-tentpole-film-making.html ), and now all of a sudden it feels as if my hopes might come true: I'm very happy how the last quarter of 2016 and the first months of 2017 have played out and I hope this trend continues.
Wow! I didn't think that was a 'rant' at all, that was a great read. You made so many excellent points, I don't even know where to start (and you provided links to sources, which I appreciate so friggin' much on blog posts).
I can't agree with you enough on your observations about superhero movies these days. I immediately thought of a quote from the actor Jacob Pitts (Tim Gutterson on "Justified") when he was doing an interview for a Podcast ("Drinks & Discourse") and they asked him what he thought of "Captain America - Civil War". He said:
"Two hours of shit blowing up, and I didn't feel a thing"
He pretty much summed up how I've felt about the superhero movies for a really long time. I've never been a huge fan of comic books, I just never got into them, hence I was surprised at how much I completely f***ing enjoyed myself when Raimi's 'Spiderman' first came out. I had a great time, and I remember the studios did seem rather shocked when that, and the first 'X-Men' movie came out. Like you mentioned in your piece, they discovered this absolute goldmine in terms of franchise
and merchandising. They've been rolling them out regularly ever since, but they've slowly been losing the core aspects which made those first forays into the comic book universes so great to begin with: an understanding of the source material, and an understanding of the people who love it (Raimi was one big fan boy, which means he was making that movie for
himself just as much as he was making it for audiences).
You broke it down so expertly, you totally hit the nail on the head with so many of those points. It does feel like these studio heads, who have never put elbow-grease into making a movie, have completely underestimated the audience they're playing to, and they've been condescending assholes in terms of what they
believe audiences come back for.
Explosions! Fights! Whizz-Bangs and huge special effects! Hot women in tight clothing! Hot dudes with ripped bods! Patriotic-flavored badassery!
Yeah, those elements are definitely a big part of the fun and always will be, but they're just mastering their own downward spiral if they keep underestimating people and convincing themselves there doesn't need to be anything more than that. Another thing Pitts talked about in that interview, which rang really true for me, was (and I'm paraphrasing because I can't remember it all off the top of my head) how superheroes used to have a lot more inner struggle going on, they had flaws which gave them a certain humanity, and they did use more brains to figure out how to defeat enemies. He was talking about how they also felt more conflicted about killing and which methods they would use to fight, and how sometimes they were heroic because they sacrificed and suffered (and not just saying a line like "I've suffered a lot in my life", expecting that to do the job of backstory, but really taking the time to depict the suffering so the audience might identify with it, so they might really feel it).
Pitts talked about how, nowadays, it's all about "I can punch harder than you. I have a bigger gun than you. My ship beats your ship. I can kill better than you can". These studio executives think comic book fans are basic and simple (and I know our culture propagates that myth with stereotypes of 'fanboys' or 'action movie fans', but it's trope-ish bullshit, not real life). They mine their data from all these weird sources, and they have those 'numbers guys' you mentioned sitting there feeding them all sorts of statistics based on skewed polling and questionable intake methods. Put that all together with all the elements you so expertly pointed out: merchandising, fast-food tie-ins, theme park rides, video games, 'freemium' app games, and all the rest, and it's no wonder they keep blowing wads of cash on these things, and it's no wonder they demand each film adhere to that wonky formula they've created. I think you're absolutely right that it's going to blow up in their faces sooner rather than later with an enormously expensive flop.
The corporate influence is ruining practically everything these days, including Hollywood (excellent breakdown of who owns what, by the way). Again, I think you hit the nail on the head in terms of how this dogmatic obsession with tentpole projects, allowing the MPAA to have way too much influence, and trying to obtain 'blockbuster numbers' all the time does explain why the studios are so lacking when it comes to diversifying the rest of their yearly releases. They still have these trophy 'indie' production companies that were shining examples of risk-taking cinema in the 90s, but now they're just token window-dressing for more 'safe' films, even though they keep trying to market them as the same thing they used to be back then. People aren't stupid, they know a bait & switch when they see it (those audience members just aren't talking to data collectors, and even if they are, their feedback is being ignored).
"Guardians of The Galaxy" has been the only comic book movie I've truly loved in years, and what a surprise, the studios completely underestimated the hell out of that release. It made me laugh how quickly they jumped all over that property in order to capitalize on that success. I think that movie did so well because the executive branch didn't give enough of a crap to meddle too much, hence the filmmakers got away with making a project people actually responded to on a very human level. I'm nervous about the sequel just because the executives have obviously taken interest in it now. I keep thinking "Oh man, please don't stick your noses in and f*** this up".
Man, I'm going on and on here, I better wrap it up (but I could talk for ages on the subject). Suffice it to say, I think your suggestions on how to improve the studio system and their output were extremely concise, and rational, and utterly sensible, which almost guarantees these studios wouldn't touch those ideas with a ten foot pole, haha. Seriously, they always think they know better (because they have their 'data guys' with the 'insider info' we lowly proletariat folk don't have access to). They just never listen to reason, and they're shocked when it ends up biting them in the ass.
To end off, I really did enjoy your article, really well done. Thanks for the share.
Oh, and as an aside, was it you who mentioned CSI in the comment section? That's another example of hubris destroying something really good. I think CSI seems to be a joke among the younger crowd, and I completely understand why it is, but I remember when that show first hit the air. It really was different than anything else on television at the time, and I still defend the first few seasons because it really did look f***ing fantastic. It was, in large part, due to the direction work of Danny Cannon (and Kenneth Fink, probably the second best director they ever had). He gave the show that signature look and pace, he was the MVP even if he didn't get the credit he deserved for it.
I blame a writer named Dustin Lee Abraham for the downturn CSI eventually took. His approach to CSI reminds me a lot of the big studios and where they always go wrong. Abraham gave an interview once, where he flat out said (again, paraphrasing) he 'understood' why people tuned in to see CSI every week, and that was to see gory, crazy murders and buckets of blood, so that's what he intended to deliver. That is, of course, exactly the path that show took, and that's when it became a parody of itself. It really sucks, because (even though the science was exaggerated and not entirely accurate) people loved the exploration of forensics, the complex plots, and the cinematic quality of the direction by guys like Cannon and Fink. Abraham completely underestimated the audience, played to the lowest common denominator, stretched it way too thin through too much franchising of the flagship name, and through the power he was given (in my personal opinion) completely destroyed what was once a great show.
They do it over and over, but they don't care much when their bank accounts runneth over, I suppose.
