
I spent Oscar week in Los Angeles, and after lengthy chats with film executives and agents, I detail below the long-term issues concerning Hollywood. But first, to sum up: I’m convinced they’ve never seen their business in a greater state of disarray than it is right now. Vets who’ve done this for decades admit they feel less confident than ever about the formula to create hits, and are perplexed why it has become next to impossible to create movie stars anymore (Channing Tatum was on all their lips after The Vow, Chris Pine and Tom Hardy less so after This Means War, but beyond Brad Pitt, Johnny Depp, Tom Cruise, Denzel Washington, Adam Sandler and Will Smith, do any actors draw reliably at the box office?). And there was a palpable lack of excitement for the Oscars, which is clearly hamstrung not by the imagination of its producers, but rather the Academy’s unwillingness to get off its high horse and start showing audiences around the world what they really want to see.
We are in a period where major studios have been burned enough by tentpole bets that nearly all have become infatuated with making films that cost under $10 million. One exec held his arms wide to express the divide that has become the priority for studios. One side represented films that cost nothing and had no stars, while the other represented $100 million-$200 million bets that are concept- and not star-dependent. “They’ve almost completely vacated that middle space where star-driven movie were a staple of the slate,” the executive told me. These “found footage” movies may bring opening weekends, but good reviews are hard to find.
The current uncertainty is the result of a business in transition that will eventually evolve into new consumer-friendly distribution models, but that process needs to speed up. The recent box office momentum provided by films like Safe House and The Lorax figures to screech to a halt this weekend with the opening of A Thousand Words and John Carter. The Eddie Murphy comedy shot four years ago harkens to a pre-financial crisis time before studios stopped paying prime sums to stars who don’t ensure opening-weekend grosses. Murphy once had a quote of $12 million-$15 million against gross, but who’d pay that now after his string of flops? A Thousand Words had to come out some time, and found its way on the calendar when Murphy was set as Oscar host. He bailed on that gig and now Paramount distributes a $70 million legacy from its days owning DreamWorks, which produced it. I’ve heard each studio is quietly pointing the finger at one another. The same kind of thing is going on with Disney’s softly tracking film John Carter, which cost $250 million or maybe more, depending on whom you believe.
Current management has credited this one to Dick Cook, even though he hasn’t been on the lot since being fired in September, 2009. My colleague Nikki Finke has predicted John Carter might be the biggest write down in film history based on soft early tracking, and it will likely be far short of the $70 million opening weekend needed to turn such a pricey film into a hit. Cook supporters say current management should have put politics aside and not allowed Andrew Stanton to be given more rope than perhaps any first time live-action director since Orson Welles. This was a political minefield, because Stanton is a gold mine for Disney-owned Pixar — writing or directing such cash cows as WALL-E and Toy Story – but $250 million or more for a movie with no discernible audience awareness for the material, and a marketing campaign that didn’t help matters? Cook supporters also point out that nobody at the Mouse House tossed Cook the bouquets when Alice In Wonderland grossed over $1 billion.
Here are some of the long-term issues that executives were most concerned about, starting with the reason I was out there, the Academy Awards:
Why can’t the Academy face the fact that its stuffiness and stubbornness has turned movie’s most important night into the Super Bowl for dress designers? The red carpet pre-show has become a more anticipated event than an awards show that focuses too much on a Hollywood past the masses don’t care about, technical awards the masses don’t care about, and movies from last year that audiences either saw or decided not to see a long time ago. By comparison, the recent Grammy Awards handed out awards for last year’s tunes, but the show started with Bruce Springsteen singing a song off his new album, and a parade of talent kept tickling its audience with what’s next. Why can’t the movie business do the same thing?
Instead of Cirque du Soleil, what if Oscar promised an exclusive clip of Tom Cruise singing an ’80s rock number in his decadent hair band rock icon character from Rock Of Ages? A clip showing the giant dragon Smaug or a battle scene from Middle Earth from The Hobbit? A killer scene from The Hunger Games? One from Prometheus, Ridley Scott’s revisit to Alien terrain? The Dark Knight Rises? An action scene marking the return of James Bond in Skyfall? You get the idea. All of these scenes would be exclusive, and this could become a tradition which could be promoted and would give a global movie-loving audience more to embrace than dresses that actresses are wearing.
Insiders say this hasn’t happened because the Academy is intransigent in its fear that the integrity of the awards would be compromised. After all, they only just started allowing movie ads during the telecast. Hey, Academy: join the 21st century. And while we’re at it, doubling the number of Best Picture nominees has mostly added a few more films most people didn’t see. Why not create some other awards that honor the best comedy or best ensemble, which might give the unwashed masses something to root for? And when you have a year where Harry Potter was again ignored for Best Picture after an eighth installment that marked the end of an unprecedented achievement of an engrossing serial that grossed $8 billion, why not INVENT AN AWARD that gives the cast and filmmakers the chance to take a final bow in front of a grateful global TV audience? One exec suggested if the Academy can’t get it together, perhaps the best move is to return to the old days when the awards were bestowed during a dinner party at the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel.
This dovetails into the other prevailing gripe among film executives and agents: the need for studios and exhibitors to wake up to the fact that audiences want what they want when they want it, on the delivery system they want it on. The snail’s pace revenue run of a movie from opening weekend to DVD and VOD takes too long and is too expensive to support, particularly when most movies do the bulk of their box office the first three weekends. One agent wondered why the industry, after having its sell-through business crushed by kiosks charging $1 for rentals, doesn’t go back to the old system of high-priced DVDs, until VOD matures to the point where DVDs become obsolete.
The prospect of movies coming out in ancillary form months after a movie has played out seems as ridiculous as the old style Hollywood journalism I practiced most of my career at Variety, where I would polish stories all day and turn them in at day’s end so I could tell you tomorrow what I knew today. Isn’t it better to let Hollywood know Chris Nolan’s agent Dan Aloni was leaving CAA while he was being escorted out of the building? With continued advancements in home viewing systems, studios are probably going to have to change terms with exhibitors and cut them in on the proceeds so that films can be released day and date or weeks later for premium prices on VOD. But it isn’t happening nearly fast enough.
Until that happens, the current climate of contraction — the Summit-Lionsgate mash-up eliminated a buyer and left good execs on the street, and DreamWorks is stalled waiting to reup with Reliance — has film agents proactively pushing talent into television. HBO, Showtime and the cable nets made series work a viable option for feature stars, but did you ever imagine Dennis Quaid, Sigourney Weaver and so many other movie stars would be doing pilots? Agents tell me that until the movie industry is righted, the money is better on TV over elusive feature roles at take it or leave it prices. More feature directors and writers are also jumping into TV, crowding out established small screen talent.


Well said Mike!
It’s tragic and sad how Hollywood can’t get with the times due to the velvet rope illusion the movie business has. Velvet rope on content distribution, and the velvet rope at the Academy Awards.
I have a hard time find where great cinema is coming from these days, but often find it overseas or the lucky chance ONE or TWO films from the independent scene are awesome.
My point is, we won’t be looking back on these tentpole films and playing them over and over again because they are not classic.
You are also right re: academies. Start show casing MOVIE MAKING MAGIC while we watch that show and create multiple best film, actor, and director categories. The one size fits all is SO yesterday and it’s so obvious how boring the show is due to this philosophy.
LA and show biz lives a bubble where they think the consumer lives in the same shell they do. But they don’t because the consumer actually knows how to use email, knows what social networking is, and knows how to download “illegal” content. Therefore, they just don’t give a shit about the way things are – and they are more concerned with the way things should be.
Yes, the AA show sucks bad. Just compare it to The Grammys and it’s obvious. (And why do Actors humiliate themselves by being walking ads for designers? Weird and boring.) But the real problem is the pool of films they have to choose from. There’s only maybe 15 movies form 2011 that were AA type movies. 9 of those got nominated. To get an A in school you have to be in the top 10 percent. But the way it works for movies you have to really fail badly if you’re going for the AA type movie and you don’t get nominated.
I wish there were a 100 films to choose from and we could pick the best 10. But since there’s not, it’s obvious they have to start looking at more popular genre movies like LIMITLESS, and SOURCE CODE, and HARRY POTTER to keep the show from turning into The Tony Awards where anyone who gets an original play produced on Broadway is nominated because everything else is revivals.
It’s because they have the same pool of 10 or screenwriters turning out the same S*** over and over! SOLUTION = BRING IN NEW TALENTED WRITERS, and stop going to the same tired old writers that may have had a hit but are gassed out of creativity.
Agents need to READ MORE SPECS, FIND NEW TALENT (yeah I said it, specs)
Studio Execs stop recycling old crap ideas into new crap. You can polish a turd, it’s still a turd.
Ah, but they can roll that turd in lots of glitter!
People going to a theater and seeing an image projected of a movie that hasn’t come out, but will make them want to return to the theater to see it at a later date. Hmmmmmm. You just might have stumbled onto a marketing treasure.
What’s the point of making cinema important when your show seems to push live theater?
They could do the technical awards at a faster pace. How about having a seating section up front and to the side where they could have the nominees and a loved one sit so the show doesn’t have to wait three minutes for the winner to make it down from the cheap seats? After each break, they can swap out the On Deck Circle.
This is an extremely well written and thought-provoking article. The one point I’d add is that for writers and directors, this new climate is actually much better than it was in the boom-boom days of DVD. From personal recent experience, as studios question their own ability to read a market, it’s becoming an environment where they have to turn to trusted filmmakers and creators to help pave the way with auds – and ironically, as budgets get cut, there’s more opportunities for new creator talent to break through simply because the older more established hands are too expensive, building their quotes on a business model that required DVD money to be viable. This ‘downsizing’ is actually very good for the industry, and almost Darwinian, much like the break from the 1960s Cleopatra debacle to Easy Rider and 70s cinema.
Cinema doesn’t die, not even Hollywood, it just evolves.
It amazes me how wrong the “big wigs” get it. How do they not know that “this means war” or ” a thousand words” are going to BOMB or that Tower Heist wld be better w Precious, mathew Broderick & a slew of random ppl, versus the original “black oceans 11″ concept w the who’s who of comedy including the anticipated return of dave chappelle? Come on ppl. Wake up.
I’m an actress & avid lover of film, I used to go to the movies every wk, now? Not so much. U wld have to pay me to go to most movies bc I know they aren’t worth it.
Sometimes I think, despite the outwardly complaints, that “they” are secretly trying to single handedly destroy the film biz. Why? I have no clue, but the onset of horrendous movie after horrendous movie makes me wonder especially when they act surprised when it bombed. (how about that Amanda seyfried snoozer)
They will throw ryan Reynolds in a million flops over & over again. Why???? And don’t count safe house bc we all know Denzel is the draw. Jennifer aniston and her million flops anyone??
Also, they have tried to destroy the “movie star” which was dumb. Meaning, for example, Denzel always does well bc audiences know that whatever he’s in is going to be above average at its worst. Denzel has proven to be an actor of integrity , carefully choosing his projects & protecting his brand. Just like Will & even Tom for the most part.
But w studios not wanting to cultivate movie stars anymore they are forcing actors to take “anything” even if it’s bad, even if it’s tv, bc they have bills to pay, lives to maintain, do the audience stops trusting the person’s brand & start questioning the integrity of their projects, & rightfully so. It’s a huge mess & it starts w the idiots at the too & then the actors who create a lifestyle they can’t maintain forcing them to take horrible jobs for a check which hurts them w the audience in the long run. (Eddie Murphy anyone?)
Agree with the most part with your argument, but would like to offer a suggestion. You are not writing a text, you are using a full sized keyboard so there is no reason to shorthand words like you, week, or with using U, wk, and w. Please!!!!!!
Hey smart ass, I was writing on my iphone. So shut the hell up, drink down that truth I served up IN SHORT HAND…and enjoy. You internet spelling nazi’s kill me with your b.s.
There’s no apostrophe in ‘nazis’.
The problem, dumb ass, is that no one will bother reading what you write when you come off as being so illiterate — as well as cantankerous that anyone would DARE to criticize you. So any good points you might have made are lost because you don’t have a clue as to how to present them.
Good point. I didn’t read past the first line.
While ‘audiences want what they want when they want it’, if they want to see movies like HUNGER GAMES, they have to go to theaters… And they will. Box office is way up b/c the quality of films in theaters is much better than a typical 1st Q. Day-and-date VOD would be suicidal without reliable copyright enforcement, and exhibitors have earned a very strong position in any conversation… They won’t roll over easy, that’s for sure.
It amazes me how wrong the “big wigs” get it. How do they not know that “this means war” or ” a thousand words” are going to BOMB or that Tower Heist wld be better w Precious, mathew Broderick & a slew of random ppl, versus the original “black oceans 11″ concept w the who’s who of comedy including the anticipated return of dave chappelle? Come on ppl. Wake up.
I’m an actress & avid lover of film, I used to go to the movies every wk, now? Not so much. U wld have to pay me to go to most movies bc I know they aren’t worth it.
Sometimes I think, despite the outwardly complaints, that “they” are secretly trying to single handedly destroy the film biz. Why? I have no clue, but the onset of horrendous movie after horrendous movie makes me wonder especially when they act surprised when it bombed. (how about that Amanda seyfried snoozer)
They will throw ryan Reynolds in a million flops over & over again. Why???? And don’t count safe house bc we all know Denzel is the draw. Jennifer aniston and her million flops anyone??
Also, they have tried to destroy the “movie star” which was dumb. Meaning, for example, Denzel always does well bc audiences know that whatever he’s in is going to be above average at its worst. Denzel has proven to be an actor of integrity , carefully choosing his projects & protecting his brand. Just like Will & even Tom for the most part.
But w studios not wanting to cultivate movie stars anymore they are forcing actors to take “anything” even if it’s bad, even if it’s tv, bc they have bills to pay, lives to maintain, do the audience stops trusting the person’s brand & start questioning the integrity of their projects, & rightfully so. It’s a huge mess & it starts w the idiots at the too & then the actors who create a lifestyle they can’t maintain forcing them to take horrible jobs for a check which hurts them w the audience in the long run. (Eddie Murphy anyone?)
There are two movies coming out this year that will probably lead to an increase in box office sold,The Avengers and Dark Knight Rises. Why? Because both filmmakers have track records with good material and loyal fan bases in Joss Whedon with The Avengers and Christopher Nolan with the Dark Knight Rises. Both directors have an eye for great storytelling.
Same exact post, except my two films for the year will be The Dark Knight Rises and The Hobbit
i would add prometheus
The biggest problem with your post is that the numbers don’t reflect your sentiment. The ratings are up from last year and almost equal to the Grammys even with the bump from interest in Whitney Houston. It’s hard to convincingly advocate change when the public is saying they still like things the way they are — and they stayed for the whole show, not just the red carpet.
Excellent post.
I would add that the MPAA ratings system needs to either be abolished or retooled. The “Director’s Cut” and “Unrated” versions of movies is one reason why so many of my friends and I do not go to see most movies: We wait until they are UNCENSORED.
Also, the lag time in format releases after a movie has been in the theaters causes a lot of the “internet piracy” that the MPAA is always moaning about. Give the people what they want at a reasonable price when they want it & the revenues will rise as “piracy” dwindles.
Fantastic article. Glad someone is saying what everyone else has been thinking for awhile.
‘Insiders say this hasn’t happened because the Academy is intransigent in its fear that the integrity of the awards would be compromised.’
The problem with the Academy Awards is that they have become very commercial…
LOL
Great piece, but wonder why no execs aren’t seriously discussing the importance of a SLIDING SCALE for ticket prices?
Is there any reason a great film like 50/50 made for a modest budget should cost as much as 200M 3D tent pole?
If studios insisted the theater chains accept graduated pricing I think a lot more people would go to the movies and the theaters would actually get more of their popcorn and soda dollars instead of NEVER getting that revenue because people refuse to pay skyrocketing ticket prices.
Price point, price point, price point.
Yes there is a reason why films like 50/50 are not cheaper than 200m films, it’s because they don’t have a huge marketing budget and more people go to see an action film than a good drama or comedy or a character-driven film, so how are such films supposed to make a profit if they charge less and fewer people see them?
Can’t do sliding scale pricing when studios are taking an average of 55% on their films.
One reason why it’s become harder to create movie stars is because the industry is too focused on looks, build, and general “attractiveness.” Take Ryan Reynolds or Taylor Lautner for example. Both have all the superficial tangibles to be huge stars… they just don’t have the acting chops.
This new crop of “talent” simply doesn’t have very much talent; it’s like an entire generation of McConaugheys; actors who can’t act, they just play themselves in everything.
Once Hollywood gets back to the business of discovering ACTORS things will turn around.
Wrong. The top slate of EVERY era contained mostly stars with limited acting chops, but incredible beauty and charisma. True “Actors’ actors” were always a niche sub-set of the star pool. It could even be argued that a modern obsession with character actors is what is stiffing the creation of a new generation of stars. Nobody thinks Channing Tatum will ever win any Oscars. Beauty, charisma, and a little bit of acting technique has always been the formula for major stars.
Right, actually.
One of (many) reason why box office numbers continue to fall is b/c nobody wants to watch a runway model go up in flames when he/she has to remember a bunch of lines. Characters we love, can identify with, or root for will ALWAYS be the foundation of any movie. Needless to say, the newest crop of “actors” haven’t proven that any of them can do that yet.
Wrong. You did not dispute the fact that the top slate of EVERY era contained stars with limited acting chops, but great beauty and charisma. You did not dispute it, because you can not dispute it, without everyone calling you a liar. All you are doing is crying about losing life’s DNA lottery. Too bad for you. The “models” have ALWAYS been the audience pleasers. They grow into decent enough actors with experience, but the stars start from day one with the looks.
The biggest reason it’s near impossible to create true Movie Stars – which I assume means people who can “open” a movie on their name alone – is that every young actor/actress is so overexposed now from the minute they arrive in hollywood. From the ubiqutous talk shows and ET type shows, to youtube and other internet sources, to twitter, to previous projects being readily available for viewing – these people are EVERYWHERE. Once upon a time, if you wanted to see Gable or Redford or Marilyn Monroe you had to go to their new movie. Now you can skip their new movie and still watch them all day long.
AMEN
i’m going to list a bunch of random actors. carey grant, james cagney, marilyn monroe, rudolph valentino, arnold schwarzenegger, tom cruise –shall i go on? and no, i don’t work for cruise.
now we’ve got an endless stream of whitebread blandness. and scripts to go with them. who wants to be jennifer aniston or ryan gosling?
there’s a reason why charlie sheen resonates. He’s a fuck up but he’s a guy’s guy. since the 00s audiences have been forced fed these weho metrosexuals and they’re not interested. if audiences were then we wouldn’t be discussing this now. no straight man wants to be robert pattinson or taylor lautner. and they’re on-screen personaes aren’t strong enough to sustain an entire film to keep women interested.
i would highly recommend reading ‘the fame factory’ if you want to figure out how to create movie stars (again). but they’ve been MIA since about 1999.
Oh,please–Charlie Sheen may be a so-called “man’s man”, but when’s the last time you actually saw his just got-out-of-rehab crazy self SAW him in any movies? Which is a shame, because he can actually act, but let’s be real—nobody’s exactly beating down his door to star in anyone’s vehicle as of yet, not even for the notoriety. As someone’s who’s way past the teenage stage, I tend to find male characters in films who don’t always fit the typical predictable macho paradigm more intrieging,interesting,challenging,and fun to watch (a la Ryan Gosling,who’s been doing interesting,challenging work outside the mainstream for years now). He-man archetypes are a dime-a-dozen—we’re seen them all before. That’s just my IMHO, though–take it or leave it.
Mike Fleming needs to run a studio.
Couldn’t be more right on this one Mike. Not only are you a Gentleman but also right on the money. If you asked any exec, agent, manager, etc. which they read first thing in the morning (Deadline, Variety, Hollywood Reporter, etc.), the overwhelming response would be Deadline, because you give the real story with no advertiser influence. You, Nikki, and Nellie consistently get it right and before anyone else. Been meaning to post this for a while but haven’t had the time.
What is the saying in Chinese/Japanese/Korean?
“Crisis = Danger + Opportunity” ???
The business is bad right now. Start letting some of these indies get a wider release than shoving shitty 3D movies that suck down our throats.
ABC Family twitter accounts are plugging John Carter every few seconds that it’s not even funny anymore.
1. I’m glad Channing Tatum was on all their lips after The Vow. He is a movie star and with the right vehicle, it works. Case in point, 21 Jump Street he nails that too.
2. You already have great movie stars like James Franco, Ryan Gosling, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Michael Fassbender and more, who will take over from Brad Pitt, Johnny Depp, Tom Cruise, Denzel Washington and Will Smith.
Yes, some don’t draw a large amount of box office numbers at times but as actors they are all well respected in terms of acting (even their bad is better than the average) and have least made some future classics and will make more.
3. Regarding, A Thousand Words and John Carter maybe, if websites like these didn’t hate on them too much, especially John Carter they might actually have a chance to succeed. The studios are to blame in certain parts like marketing and budgets but I repeat boy the hate on John Carter has been intense.
4, Oscars – stops blaming the hosts and going after them for the whole year by being selective James Franco with a hate campaign including other websites, then finally deciding there are major problem with the whole system after this year. I could have told you that years ago. The world has changed but Oscars still stays in the dark.
It might also help if the Oscars catered for people, who have actually seen the movies and not just pick favourites or back track on actors/actresses, who should have won for the previous year/years. What’s also wrong in issuing two Oscars for each category, we might actually have more fairness and does it really require a long coverage. Seriously, just tell me who has won, I don’t really want long jokes in between.
In general, if you are going to give the audiences watered-down versions of movie stars and movies what do you expect? Time Hollywood woke up, from time to time, I like to watch actors who can actually act.
I love your suggestion of using the Oscars to hype upcoming movies. Make it like a televised Comic-Con with awards interspersed between the exclusive clips and trailers and I would definitely watch. Make me want to go see these films and then maybe the following year I can see films I actually heard of win awards.
Good point about the Oscars.A few years ago at the end of the program,they showed scenes from upcoming movies,mostly blockbusters .I thought it was exciting .it should become a regular feature.
There’s a lot of meat here, but the screeching (and old-hat) criticisms of the Academy Awards is ridiculous.
Their entire POINT is to recognize excellence in film-films that have been MADE. Academy members are working film people, not just studio heads or producers; they’re actors, writers,those oh-so-boring “technical” people, animation artists, makeup, musicians and set decorators. They put the awards on for their peers, TV show or no TV show. And the great value of TV show is for the Academy-it pays for some of the best film programming and one of the greatest film research libraries in the world. It’s not done to be a publicity horn for this or that studio’s forthcoming product. You’d really like the ceremony to become a sort of big-budgeted Sneak Previews? Well, if audiences don’t care about “a bunch of films they didn’t see” last year getting a gold statue, they sure as hell aren’t going to tune in to watch promo musical numbers and clip reels of stuff they aren’t going to go see this year either. Really dumb.
It is truly sad that JOHN CARTER, a fun, imaginative, intelligent film that was mad with care, is going to be the poster child for Hollywood gone wrong. It is so much better than crap like Pirates 2 & 3 or any number of Transformers movies. But of course those were sequels.
JOHN CARTER is an empty mess of bad pacing, nonsensical writing, and terrible acting. Horrendous directing from someone who apparently got a swelled head over the whole experience.
Recently had a flea infestation from the family dog… That’s what’s happened to Hollywood. It’s become infested with executives and their lightweight minions with nothing but nonsense whirling around in their empty heads. It’s time to clean house from top to bottom if the industry is to survive. Unless, the object of the “industry” is not so much the making of films, but is more in the business of “moving money”…
It’s the age of the anti-anxiety drug masking all the risk. All of these films (except for Nolan, Singer, Tarantino, Cameron) are produced by legal, prescribed pharmaceutical addicts.
I haven’t read this whole piece yet, but is Sandler still a box-office draw?
His last hit film was an ensemble piece, and everything else he’s been in the last few years hasn’t done too well to my recollection.
And his upcoming film with Andy Samberg doesn’t look like it’s going to change that.
The problem with Sandler is Sony doesn’t have the balls to tell him no. He keeps making the same crap with lackeys like Covert, Dennis Dugan and Frank Coraci instead of actually trying to find some better people to work with. I know that the guy is loyal but it is the same film over and over and over with the same character. A rich schlub with a too hot wife or girlfriend for him. Seriously, is anyone else in Hollywood hiring Dennis Dugan to direct films? Sandler films have become the kind of crap he parodied in FUNNY PEOPLE. He is a stone’s throw away from Eddie Murphyland.