Skip to content
Cinemaphile
Posted on by Anonymous
>Around the halfway mark of their heated conversation, the presenter, Sean Evans, asks Damon to explain how the production of movies has changed since the ‘90s, explaining that many viewers think to themselves, “They’re not making movies for me anymore”.
>Damon’s response is remarkably candid, revealing some fascinating truths about how the industry has changed since the turn of the new millennium. “So what happened was the DVD was a huge part of our business, of our revenue stream,” Damon stated, adding, “Technology has just made that obsolete, and so the movies that we used to make you could afford to not make all of your money when it played in the theatre because you knew you had the DVD coming behind the release”.
>In effect, the loss of DVD sales has therefore dramatically reduced the maximum amount of profit any given film can make, making box-office profits the be-all and end-all of a movie’s success. As Damon further explained, “It would be like reopening the movie almost, and when that went away, that changed the type of movies that we could make”.
sources
>https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/matt-damon-explains-why-dont-make-movies-like-they-used-to/
>https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/technology/future-of-the-movie-industry.html
Beware Cat Shirt $21.68 | POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68 |
Beware Cat Shirt $21.68
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
that doesn't explain why movies with a budget around $100 million sucks ass
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
More money piled on won’t make a bad script good. If anything, spending too much money makes the studio more likely to micromanage and cater to the lowest common denominator. Why take risks with that amount of money?
But the end result is this incredibly bland homogenization of the film industry as they won’t take risks and let the people with real creative vision make anything new or interesting or good.- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
You always sacrifice somewhere to get wide appeal
-
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
Inflation and living expenses of caligaynians
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
It actually does when you consider they’re made for women, who actually prefer things that suck ass
-
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
Not my problem
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
this is stupid. DVDs started to be a hit in the late '90s when some of the worst movies on earth were being made.
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
fight club would have been a flop if not for dvd's
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
Before DVD it was VHS. He meant physical distribution was profitable. In part because Netflix and Blockbuster would be buying them in high volume. With digital it is a single distribution channel that puts digital files on all the services.
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
VHS was pricy, and the biggest selling point of the DVD was its cheap price. the industry at the time was trying to pivot very hard into a rental model ('member Divx?), and wanted to convince consumers that they did not want to own movies but merely borrow them. it was a huge boon when they realized that customers would be happy to pay just a few dollars above the rental price to actually own it forever. that's where all the revenue came from. vhs was a multi-million dollar profit for studios whereas DVD raked in billions upon billions.
-
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
>DVDs started to be a hit in the late '90s
video rental shops are from the early 80s, anyhow the last good decade was the 70s. - Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
In 1999 alone
>fight club
>the matrix
>office space
>toy story 2
>being john malkovitch
>blair witch project- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
more than half of these are blockbusters and not intended for certain demographic.
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
if you mean in the 90s they made lowest common denominator box office shlop I'd agree, but there was still a lot of kino in there with mass appeal.
-
-
-
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
Who the frick still watches movies on linear television with commercial breaks every 20 minutes?
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
Boomers and gen X.
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
I watch the Andy Griffith Show on Pluto TV
Haven't figured out how to block ads yet 🙁
-
-
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
b-but I was told streaming was bigger and the savior of the industry.why is it declining?
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
Streaming just replaced dvds so it's just crap. The reality is that old production houses got replaced by Netflix who cannot make good shows too save their lives because of diversity hires
streaming is part of video/dvd in the pic.
-
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
Why is he such a fricking racist?
This is not okay. - Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
Streaming just replaced dvds so it's just crap. The reality is that old production houses got replaced by Netflix who cannot make good shows too save their lives because of diversity hires
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
>Streaming just replaced dvds
Streaming is not a valid replacement for dvds/physical media. When a normie buys a DVD, that's more money in the studio's pocket for each individual movie that gets bought. When a normie subscribes to a streaming network, they now have access to all the movies for one lower sum of money, and they can quit anytime. That's a loss of money for the studio right there. So the streamer needs more and more subscribers all the time in order to make money, which is not happening the way they want it to. It's not a sustainable business model.- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
Checked and wanting to add my own two cents but DVD/physical media meant more cult classics, or movies designed with a specific audience in mind would have more success rather than aiming for lowest common denominator.
If you understand that your movie may only be popular with a certain group, and DVD purchases by said group would be what you were counting on that profit avenue is gone. Combine that with media consolidation and it shows how more targeted films have really disappeared in the past decade. Theyre still there but much harder to find. - Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
It's also worth noting that the studios usually aren't licensing out their movies on an individual basis to the streaming services. A lot of the times, those deals are also made before the movie's even released. So you get situations where streaming services might overpay for some titles, but vastly underpay for others.
I like to use the first Narnia movie as an example of this. It grossed $370 million on DVD just in the U.S. It did more on DVD than at the U.S. box-office. No streaming service would pay $300 million for the second window rights for a single movie in just one market.
https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Chronicles-of-Narnia-The-Lion-the-Witch-and-the-Wardrobe-The#tab=summary
-
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
Netflix not only makes no money but the companies putting their movies there don't make much money either. And is not just Netflix, Microsoft's Gamepass only loses money too and games put there cannibalize overall game sales, so at the end everyone's losing money.
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
the whole thing is pretty fricking stupid
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
I think Netflix is the only streaming service currently at the stage where they actually do make money. Largely just due to how long they've been in the game compared to others. Everyone else is still at the stage where they're dumping all their money into making content to try to attract enough subscribers to eventually make money when they start cutting production costs. This is why they've started trying to crackdown on account sharing. They're at the point where they're making profit but everyone who's interested already has it and making content or aggressively trying to license more content will cost more than the potential subscribers it will generate. The only way to grow or to even maintain their current profit is to try to force the people interested but not paying to pay.
-
-
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
Can we PLEASE cancel Matt Damon?
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
Marky Mark too.
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
marky mark is awesome, think about how many asians fear the man
-
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
I heard he got drunk and called one of his friends a b***h in 1995. It's fricking OVER for him, and the world is HEALING
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
go back to twitter ya homo
-
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
If movies can no longer expect the same returns as the 90s, then the budgets have to be cut back, starting with actor salaries.
It's that simple Matty- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
Damon is mostly producing now, he doesn't give a shit about his acting salary
-
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
Because they give away the streaming rights for free, right?
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
see
[...]
streaming is part of video/dvd in the pic.streaming money isn't big to offset dvd and tv loss. and big studios don't sell the rights as they have their own streaming service.
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
Movie studios used to
That's fricking moronic. How does he explain the fact that good movies were made before DVD and VHS? And that stupid chart doesn't account for streaming services. What, do studios just give the streaming rights away for free, forever? I would call him a moron, but he knows that's not the issue, he just doesn't want to say the obvious:
"Money grubbing studios are taking as little risk as possible and casting the widest net to bring in the biggest potential profits".
When you try to appeal to everybody, and sand away every edge in the hopes of being marketable to all people in all countries, you remove anything interesting from your film.>What, do studios just give the streaming rights away for free, forever?
Studios get paid by Netflix for hosting their movies, but what does Peawiener get for hosting the shit they already own? Nothing.- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
They get subscription fees, nobody is giving anything away for free, they're just not getting as much money as they'd like
-
-
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
>it's harder for me to recoup the money I spend on the films I make....... I should increase the money I spend on the movies to 9 digits
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
>we used to able to bilk the public by getting them to spend $30 on a DVD that cost 14c to make, we can't do that any more and that's why films are shit now
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
>YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND
>YOU NEED TO HAVE A 200 MILLION DOLLERS BUDGET TO MAKE A 50 MILLION DOLLERS MOVIE AND THEN IT HAS TO MAKE 500 MILLIONS DOLLERS AT THE BOX OFFICE JUST TO BREAK EVEN
>THAT'S JUST HOW THINGS WORK- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
>JUST TO BREAK EVEN
on just their production budget. if they just break even and the run ends they have to make back the marketing budget on dvd/tv/streaming. Which is easier than box office tbh (since no theaters to take 50-75% cut) but still hard.
-
-
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
That's fricking moronic. How does he explain the fact that good movies were made before DVD and VHS? And that stupid chart doesn't account for streaming services. What, do studios just give the streaming rights away for free, forever? I would call him a moron, but he knows that's not the issue, he just doesn't want to say the obvious:
"Money grubbing studios are taking as little risk as possible and casting the widest net to bring in the biggest potential profits".
When you try to appeal to everybody, and sand away every edge in the hopes of being marketable to all people in all countries, you remove anything interesting from your film.- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
>And that stupid chart doesn't account for streaming service
see[...]
streaming is part of video/dvd in the pic. - Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
He's speaking from his own experience when his career started in the 90s. But either way his point is that media has not only become oversaturated but essentially free because of pirating and streaming services. In the 50s you were forced to see movies in theaters because you only had theee channels. When Star Wars came out in '78 it ran in the theaters for like a year.
-
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
it's crazy how Hollywood told everyone that marketing a movie costs as much as making it and everyone just said "yeah, that seems true"
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
Marketing is more important than having a quality product. There is more good content to consume than there is time to watch it. If no new movies or tv shows came out, you could watch things you'd never seen before between now and the day you die and still not run out of things to watch. When you make a movie, you're competing against a century of other movies for views' attention, and all that past content has the added convenience of being already setup in their living room. If you aren't going above and beyond to not only show people your movie exists, but convince them to come pay you to see it, they won't watch it in theaters.
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
More like making a movie. You expect me to believe Amazon spent ONE BILLION dollars to make a TV show? How and why would budget numbers be real? Why would a studio ever tell us that? Does Ford tell you how much it costs to make their truck? The only person they tell is the IRS, the rest is just bullshit to get you to see it. This stems from the blockbuster craze that started in the 70s.
-
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
Does Damon explain why the gay/slavery movie market seems unphased by the loss of dvd's?
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
Every year ww2 nonsense. Hmmm I wonder why we keep getting the same ww2 movies now for the last 60 years.
-
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
Streaming services are fine for TV, but they’re crippling the movie market. Why don’t movies just make a digital release date with a QR code link where you can buy the digital copy for $5? They’d make a shit ton more money compared to flat streaming rates and $5 would be cheap enough to dissuade torrenting as well. The same model Louis CK used for his standup specials.
-
Anonymous >they’re crippling the movie market.
Good its nothing but shit for the last decade- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
Streaming "replacing" DVDs is a big reason why the financiers won't greenlight riskier original material. There's no back end profit for a movie that becomes a cult classic, so they might as well only make reboots and franchises that have established fanbases who will turn out to the theater.
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
no shit buddy, that's literally what he's saying. movies have become total slop ever since streaming took over.
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
Streaming "replacing" DVDs is a big reason why the financiers won't greenlight riskier original material. There's no back end profit for a movie that becomes a cult classic, so they might as well only make reboots and franchises that have established fanbases who will turn out to the theater.
This is bs the guy who produced fight club was fired because it made no money. This is the reality the consumers don't want independent movies that are risky. S craig zahler is regulated to comic books because his movies make 0 money. The reason the 70s had such great film was because they were made for an all white audience for americans. They were not global releases for browns and blacks. Everything has to be dumbed down for these people. Only white people care about independent cinema.
This is a demographics issue. More movies are being made for the low iq hordes. You will never get a blockbuster as good jaws again because its culturally american for americans. The remake of jaws will have hispanics and blacks and a white villain.
Also Blaxploitation was made specifically for a black american audience. Black panther is made for every black person on black earth, you see the difference,
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
>This is bs the guy who produced fight club was fired because it made no money.
What does this even mean? You can't fire a producer after the movie is already released, and Fight Club made a killing on the DVD market. Your demographic argument is also a problem, but the financial incentives of back-end profits are a legitimate issue.- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
>but the financial incentives of back-end profits are a legitimate issue.
We went from french connection, to fast & the furious and you think this is a money problem? All the money in the world is not going to bring back those great films. We're in a decline, those filmmakers no longer exist or cannot exist. The general audience is also too dumb and dumber each passing decade. French connection was billed as an action movie, yes that slow boring piece of shit was an action movie back then. People had the patience to sit through a slow paced movie with talking. You think Jaws can be recreated today? Do you think the audience would even want that?Streaming services are fine, you can find your niche series or films and enjoy them. The reason you can't find any good shit is the people today are too inept to make anything good or worthwhile. Its why straight to vhs 80s trash is better than anything made today. Boomers. White/israeli/Italian Boomers.
Also they're millions of independent movies being made each year. And yes most of them are fricking trash. You see the other problem is that too many movies are being made thanks to digital. Every moron thinks they're the next tarantino not realising his movies could only be made in a very specific time in American Culture. The culture we have now is female, so the next big director will be a woman. The next big cultural icon will be a woman.
- Anonymous
1 year ago
>Every moron thinks they're the next tarantino
is it because they're unoriginal and think by mixing up old classic movies they can be as successful despite lacking any hint of originality? - Anonymous
1 year ago
you become what you study
at least of 'the internet' is Youtube
pulling a number out of my ass, I'd bed at least 5 percent of youtube is videos that reference Tarantino. It's fricking dumb.So that's who they steam from.
But everyone steams these days is the bigger truth and it goes beyond remakes and reboots. It's too easy to make movies and look competent but say nothing worthwhile.
Basically, the vast majority of new releases are essentially student films. Netflix adaptations. They look great, but they all look the same, tell the same types of stories the same way.
- Anonymous
1 year ago
you become what you study
at least of 'the internet' is Youtube
pulling a number out of my ass, I'd bed at least 5 percent of youtube is videos that reference Tarantino. It's fricking dumb.So that's who they steam from.
But everyone steams these days is the bigger truth and it goes beyond remakes and reboots. It's too easy to make movies and look competent but say nothing worthwhile.
Basically, the vast majority of new releases are essentially student films. Netflix adaptations. They look great, but they all look the same, tell the same types of stories the same way.
tarantino is an unoriginal hack himself tho. he just got by the niche of ultra violence and witty dialogue. He isn't great as actual great directors.
The only ones that are good and are sitll making movies nowadays are scorsese, nolan,Spielberg, And these all started their careers more than two decades ago. There's no modern great director (2010+). - Anonymous
1 year ago
>We went from french connection, to fast & the furious and you think this is a money problem?
In part, yes. Because financial incentives attract competent writers, directors and actors. The only real money being made now comes from franchise IP projects or sleeper hit horror movies, because it all has to come from the box office. There aren't any movie stars under 50 who can put asses in seats, because IP/genre has become the star. To incentivize classic movie making, you have to lure talent in with the possibility of a big pay day if the movie is exceptionally well made, and that has a lot to do with word-of-mouth and back end profits. Otherwise the most talented people who could've been writer-directors or movie stars end up just creating content for social media where they can actually get paid on an individual basis by their consumers. - Anonymous
1 year ago
You dont think movies have gotten worse because of changing demographics and a mass moron audience? We all see what is being consumed what makes money. The dumb action movies from the 80s are miles apart from the dumb action movies of today. Why? You would assume with all our knowledge we would improve but it's the opposite.
This dolph lundgren movie bombed and bombed hard trashing his career and everyone in it. Yet if this came out now it would be considered a modern classic. Thats how low we have fallen. I remember thinking die hard 4 was the worse of the franchise then they made 5. Things just keep getting worse each decade. People will look back and say "Ant Man and The Wasp was a classic miss those days, movies are shit now".
Also we went from Crouching tiger hidden dragon, Hero, to Everything all at once. Even the asians are getting shafted.
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Both things can be true, buddy. It's not either or. But a big reason the studios are chasing international money is to make up for what's been lost in the transition from DVD > Streaming. Everything they make has to come from box office, so it makes sense that movies are increasingly dumbed down spectacle slop trying to appeal to bug people.
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Yeah the studios are greedy, they rely on the overseas money and china. They cannot and will not make movies for an american audience it has to be global. Has to be asian friendly, which is silly since these movies are filled with woke leftist propaganda. So you have woke directors but you have the money hungry producers who only care about profit, just an awful mix of people creating shit. But this is only a problem for the blockbusters. The indy scene is the same as it ever was. Mediocre to decent.
We need blockbusters to be great again, remember the classics we all love were not niche indy projects but studio backed and funded.
- Anonymous
1 year ago
>We need blockbusters to be great again
They never were. - Anonymous
1 year ago
We have great female directors already?
Tarantino worked because he was pre internet.
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Name some
-
-
-
-
-
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
Because streaming’s bad business design has given everyone the impression movies should be basically free. Disney tried something like this with Mulan and people lost their minds
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
because mulan was 20 bucks on top of a service you were already paying for
that's different than paying to see it in theatres and getting a voucher in theatre for the same movie for 5 bucks
it's not the same thing at all, especially for a live action remake of one of your properties that no one asked for
-
-
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
Is streaming the new DVD? As in it can make good bold movies keep their heads above water? Seems like a possibility, but only if they get some sort of royalty per exhibition/watch. The movie that manages to grab an audience "later" could encourage a few filmmakers to try more stuff.
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
The people today are incapable of making good classic movies. Has nothing to do with streaming. They're too many independent filmmakers making crap no-one cares about. We need the blockbusters to regress back to the 70s-80s. Indy movies have always been niche.
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
>Is streaming the new DVD? As in it can make good bold movies keep their heads above water?
Absolutely not. Streaming is a battle of attrition. In order to make money, streamers have to increase the amount of subscribers, or increase their subscription fees. Increasing fees encourages people to UN-subscribe, and there isn't much they can do to increase subscribers without a familiar franchise to bring morons in. So just like movie theaters, streamers keep rebooting shit but make it woke in order to farm for outrage publicity.
-
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
The spicy truth is that actors dont need to make as much as they do, craft services dont need to exist, production crews need to be halved, marketing budgets need to be used intelligently, and more money and attention needs to go to writers and editors. On top of this, more chances need to be taken on the big screen, we arent out of ideas, its simply that these dinosaurs are afraid of taking a breakout risk and would rather make a safe profit on time tested formulas than make a 100k movie and pull in 10 million in profit
-
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
frick boomers
frick blockbuster and their piss carpet.long live Netflix.
-
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
Every time The French Connection had a VHS, DVD rental or buy, every time it aired on cable TV, all the filmmakers and actors got residual checks for it. There was a major incentive for making an enduring piece of cinema that people would return to. Nowadays it would just be tossed on a streaming service, the filmmakers would get a flat small payment and then nothing else. So we get quickly shat out pieces of slop like The Gray Man instead, because there's no reason to give a shit what anyone thinks about the movie, even a week after its release.
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
I kinda agree, but we've had kino slow burn crime thrillers but noone cares, we have so much shit is the problem. Every week some new thriller is release on apple tv or amazon. Every week some new action schlock. We have a quality problem, too many movies and series are being made. We need some quality control.
Also the gray man was bad because the russo are tv directors and have 0 idea what makes good action also Goslin is not an action star. Now if you gave that budget to someone like Isaac florentine, sheldon lettich, you would get something decent. Even then I wouldn't hold my breath. Also its not just budget its time, 20-30 days is not enough to shoot an action flick or a thriller even. Apocalypse now for instance was around 16 months, thats how kino the 70s were.
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
Filmmakers have to make a stand against the streamers. Everything gets lumped into one commodified forgettable mess on these platforms.
I still think this ideaStreaming services are fine for TV, but they’re crippling the movie market. Why don’t movies just make a digital release date with a QR code link where you can buy the digital copy for $5? They’d make a shit ton more money compared to flat streaming rates and $5 would be cheap enough to dissuade torrenting as well. The same model Louis CK used for his standup specials.
has some merit. Let the movie play its theatrical run, then at some point between 3-9 months after that, announce a digital release date. Not on any streaming platform, just a link to buy the digital copy for $5. Everyone gets a piece of those buys for residuals, you undercut the streamers and make it affordable enough for people who would've otherwise pirated it. We need a new model, because streaming fricking blows. I love movies and am subscribed to zero (0) streaming platforms.
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
>just a link to buy the digital copy for $5
$1, at mostand it has to be completely unencumbered
just a plain mkv file, or better yet a selection of several at 1080p/4k, x264 or x265, and various bitrates
most important of all, it needs to be playable on any device without restrictions, no specific player required, no drm, no geolocking, no nothing
and especially no fricking ads anywheregaben said that piracy is not a pricing problem, its a service problem
i disagree, its both
piracy currently offers any movie/show released in digital format (and many that weren't, but were encoded from vhs), in mkv form, various formats/bitrates, unencumbered, available 24/7, without regard to geographic location, for $0.
i'll accept $0 becoming $1 to support the movies/shows i like
nothing more
add any more cost or any restrictions, deal's off.- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
>and especially no fricking ads anywhere
Yeah I always hated this back in the dvd days. I just paid for this why are you forcing me to watch adds. These fricks always want to bleed you for every fricking penny.- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
yes.
and as i result, i haven't paid for media since i first got adsl
and i won't be paying for media ever again, until they get their act right
-
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
gayben was right that I'll pay $15-30 for something I've already pirated just to get automatic updates instead of having to bother downloading and installing every time it's patched.
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
for games, maybe
updates/patches/dlcs are worth some money, as is centralized multiplayer with proper matchmakingmovies have none of that
there's no updates or dlc for the godfather
maybe i'd be inclined to drop another dollar on a 4k scan of a movie previously only available in 1080p or dvd
but that's it- Anonymous
1 year ago
>maybe i'd be inclined to drop another dollar on a 4k scan of a movie previously only available in 1080p or dvd
>but that's it
Give me a "white actors only" dlc and I'll pay it
-
-
-
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
I agree I just don't think we have those filmmakers. Those based boomers would go as far as almost kill their crews to get a shot. Now if you so much as raise your tone you're labeled toxic and thrown out of hollywood. Its the people behind the scenes. They're remaking wages of fear again. Imagine that. Friedkin almost killed his crew for his masterpiece and went over budget and they plan to make another one. You see the problem we're facing.
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
Tbf alec baldwin still does that
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
I'm an aspiring writer-director who has written 15+ spec scripts and still trying to break in. If I ever get my shot I'm going to propose the direct-download model and fight to keep my stuff away from streaming platforms. An issue I can see arising though, let's say WB bought my script and lets me make my movie... they're going to want it on their shitty Max streaming service. It's going to be tough to convince them of the direct download model, because so many resources have already been poured into streaming. But someone has to buck this shitty trend.
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
Time to give up. If you really cared you would have self-financed by now.
- Anonymous
1 year ago
>just self finance $5m and hire an entire cast/crew with no connections bro
It's everything I can do just to keep paying my rent in LA. I don't come from money.There's no need to buck the trend. just agree for a % share of streaming revenue. though that's hard to actually agree upon. You can't wrestle with big studios as a first time writer/director. you need clout.
The quality of the writing should afford me a certain amount of first-timer clout, but haven't gotten the lucky break of the right eyes landing on my pages yet. Need the Harvey Keitel reading Reservoir Dogs kind of moment. Just doesn't seem to be many independent producers like Lawrence Bender or Weinstein anymore who will take a shot on something new and unproven.
- Anonymous
1 year ago
> It's everything I can do just to keep paying my rent in LA. I don't come from money.
>too stupid to manage his own finances
>too stupid to write any of his 15 scripts for a small budget
>expects someone to give him multi-millions in a gamble
Give up. Focus on getting really good at flipping those burgers/washing cars/whatever it is you do to feed yourself.
-
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
There's no need to buck the trend. just agree for a % share of streaming revenue. though that's hard to actually agree upon. You can't wrestle with big studios as a first time writer/director. you need clout.
-
-
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
I agree I just don't think we have those filmmakers. Those based boomers would go as far as almost kill their crews to get a shot. Now if you so much as raise your tone you're labeled toxic and thrown out of hollywood. Its the people behind the scenes. They're remaking wages of fear again. Imagine that. Friedkin almost killed his crew for his masterpiece and went over budget and they plan to make another one. You see the problem we're facing.
why would they? everyone who's interested on martin or nolan movies will seek it. the only ones that get forgotten are already forgettable. 99% of directors are forgettable.
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
>99% of directors are forgettable.
Who cares as long as they deliver kino. Quality vs Quantity. Too many movies being created and not enough kino. Half the 80s movies were made by nobody people remember. Like my Black person who made first blood,The Karate Kid, Stand by Me, Ghostbusters? Bunch of nobodies people care about.- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
>Quality vs Quantity. Too many movies being created and not enough kino
this
im fricking tired of opening rargb and seeing tons of new 4-5/10 rating movies
-
-
-
-
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
explain?
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
Nta but you seem to think apocalypse now was an action film or a thriller.
-
-
-
-
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
Here's why Hollywood sucks now
1. Inflation
2. Hollywood's unionized nature
3. Throwing gays and blacks in everything
4. Nepotism
5. Writers trying to be edgy rather than actually entertaining an audience
6. Most stories that would be popular are against Hollywood's politics, so they aren't filmed
7. The movie theater experience is absolute shit now - Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
I think $5 is reasonable. Still a lot cheaper than a theater ticket, streaming subscription or a DVD buy. I would definitely pay $5 to support quality original filmmaking and help collapse the streaming monopoly.
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
Movies are boring boomer shit. I'd rather just watch twitch and youtube if I want long videos
- Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
codswallop all of it, just like craig bond's insisting they can't make comfy campy action anymore because austin powers ridiculed the genre.
The reason is that there is just way more creative will at the top that wants to extract the guaranteed "bored & stupid" money from lowest common denominator "crypto"-political stuff. - Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
>ignoring streaming rights revenue
Sure thing pal - Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply
The real answer is that all modern media is made for middle aged women, and they have no standards.
Except for asian media which is all aimed at teenage women, who have even less standards.