The American New(er) Wave

[Snicket]

We broke Hollywood.

What will replace the studio systems?


Somewhere down the line of the last 10 years cinema became a spectacle of entertainment that was celebrating "turn your brain off and enjoy" films. It apparently never occurred to the masses that you can have just as much enjoyment from turning your brain on. In this respect modern films have become a prostitute, we pay them, we demand no emotional connection or attachment, and only demand that the most primordial parts of out brain be stimulated. As long as we are satisfied, we pay the $10 and walk away.

How we got here is no big surprise. In the 1970's we saw the spectacle of what movies could do, and we wanted more. Budgets for effects grew and grew as the years went on, risks were taken more and more into consideration. The bottom line of the studios became ever so important. Even Avatar, a narrative that is so simple on paper, is wrapped in a blanket of millions of dollars in special effects. The narrative takes a back seat to the spectacle. Something that is the status quo in major studios earnings leaders. The potential for a payoff of hundreds of millions of dollars is leading this charge.

Scripts need to be boiled down to appeal to the greatest common denominator. If you spend so much money on a film, mathematically you need to reduce the risks you take, thus you are forced to appeal to every demographic in some way or another.

The international market needs to be considered as well, scripts need to be kept simple to make the translation process cleaner. Big ideas or moral ambiguity are discouraged in tent-pole movies.

We have abandoned innovation driving art, for commerce driving art. Make no mistake, there are a good handful of talented people who use the current system to do a lot of good and are not afraid of taking risks.


If the history of film has taught us anything it's that things change. This current situation cannot/will not last. Just as the system was different in 1970, 1950 and 1930, the system will change in 2020, and 2050.


The purpose of this thread, is, what comes after?


I have heard a few film critics and scholars talk about an American New Wave, a generation of filmmakers who will thrive outside of the studio system.

The precedence for this thought is that cameras, the rise of super high quality DSLRS, cheaper equipment that can be purchased by anyone who want it and more open sources for distribution.

It used to be the tools of the trade were put of public reach and the studios had major control over what was accessible. Now that simply is not the case. Anyone can make a film (for better or worse) and with things like YouTube, Vimeo, and even Amazon Studios distribution is available for the masses as well.

I think we are a long ways off from this being the new norm, but its already starting to happen. Lena Dunham (lover her or hate her) is a product from this new wave, she got her start making YouTube videos and her low budget films.

The trade off for this new wave is that:

1. Ideas will replace spectacle.
2. Films will cost much less.
3. Films will make much less.
4. Experimental films will surge.
5. Films will be more divisive than ever before.


Whether or not you embrace or reject this change is up to you.

Where will film be in 2020 in your eyes?

[Kevin Holly]

Sounds good to me. We have to reclaim cinema after being f***ed by Jaws and Star Wars.

[A Tortured Duckling]

Originally Posted by Kevin Holly

Sounds good to me. We have to reclaim cinema after being f***ed by Jaws and Star Wars.

I personally don't care for American film much, anymore. Of course, on a rare occasion, some things stand out. The only real concern i have is censorship, which has been pissing me off for years now. I imagine it'll only be getting worse as time goes by.

Where do i think film will be in 2020? I have no idea. I just hope people will somehow wake up, and stop settling for mediocre (and that's being kind) shit, for the sake of entertainment. I'd love to see American film take a drastic turn for quality productions, but we all know American audiences aren't ready for that.

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by SBC28

I personally don't care for American film much, anymore. Of course, on a rare occasion, some things stand out. The only real concern i have is censorship, which has been pissing me off for years now. I imagine it'll only be getting worse as time goes by.

The issue of censorship is interesting, besides the most overt interpretation it happens in a covert way inside the studios in a way most people don't acknowledge.

As an example here is a true story I heard from a Disney animator about the production of the first Toy Story.

When Pixar was animating the film they would constantly be getting notes from Disney about minor changes to make, or jokes to put it. This went on for months and it came to for Pixar to show a rough cut of the film for Disney. The result was an unmitigated disaster, the film was a complete train wreck and Disney was so upset they threatened to move Pixar into the studios at Disney so they could be monitored on a daily basis.

Pixar had a meeting after that to assess the situation and came to the conclusion they failed because they had listened to everything Disney had wanted them to do. Luckily, they fixed their mistake and the rest is history.


This idea of studio notes and focus groups is commonplace in the industry. So even if censorship is not about "You can't show X and Y in public" (which it frequently is) it's still covertly happening.

Can you really blame them though? With how expensive they are making films they have to make sure the risks are ironed out in a way that makes the film appeal to everyone, which in effect, makes it appeal to nobody.

[Foggy]

I think the new wave has already begun. We still get the production line assembled films sure, but we're living in an age now where directors are becoming the major selling points to films and not actors, and that'll mean better more impressive film, especially when you have to consider each weekend gives us a big cgi laden blockbuster, we need to start crafting our films out and giving them something to care about. Plus with films becoming so expensive, we need to keep momentum of a film at the box office.

[A Tortured Duckling]

First of all, great post.

I actually didn't know about this Pixar thing, at all, so that was an interesting read. My main concern is the fact that film makers have been pushing the limits of "PG-13" increasingly farther, and (imo) it simply makes for bad, unbelievable film. There are so many movies which would benefit from an "R" rating over their "PG-13" rating, as well as many "PG-13" movies which (again, imo) are just plain stupid in how many ways they find to push that rating.

I mean, a movie like Transformers: RoTF for example. That shit is so full of dick jokes and "almost" F-Bombs...it just made me laugh at how ridiculously stupid it is. The first one already pushed it with the camera practically up Megan Fox's ass in some of the shots, but the 2nd one is even worse. We all know Michael Bay and his obsessions, but the whole thing would have been much more tolerable if it had an "R" rating, and wouldn't CONSTANTLY "dab around" on the other side of the fence.

This is only one of many productions which (yep, again, imo) have been ruined by censorship, and i'm just done with it. Don't get me wrong, i'm a total gore hound and i don't mind severe profanity at all, but i'd much rather watch a solid "PG-13" film that's comfortable being just that, as opposed to something trying to be a "R" rating to be more appealing to "mature" audiences.

Originally Posted by Snicket

The issue of censorship is interesting, besides the most overt interpretation it happens in a covert way inside the studios in a way most people don't acknowledge.

As an example here is a true story I heard from a Disney animator about the production of the first Toy Story.

When Pixar was animating the film they would constantly be getting notes from Disney about minor changes to make, or jokes to put it. This went on for months and it came to for Pixar to show a rough cut of the film for Disney. The result was an unmitigated disaster, the film was a complete train wreck and Disney was so upset they threatened to move Pixar into the studios at Disney so they could be monitored on a daily basis.

Pixar had a meeting after that to assess the situation and came to the conclusion they failed because they had listened to everything Disney had wanted them to do. Luckily, they fixed their mistake and the rest is history.


This idea of studio notes and focus groups is commonplace in the industry. So even if censorship is not about "You can't show X and Y in public" (which it frequently is) it's still covertly happening.

Can you really blame them though? With how expensive they are making films they have to make sure the risks are ironed out in a way that makes the film appeal to everyone, which in effect, makes it appeal to nobody.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Snicket

The precedence for this thought is that cameras, the rise of super high quality DSLRS, cheaper equipment that can be purchased by anyone who want it and more open sources for distribution.

It used to be the tools of the trade were put of public reach and the studios had major control over what was accessible. Now that simply is not the case. Anyone can make a film (for better or worse) and with things like YouTube, Vimeo, and even Amazon Studios distribution is available for the masses as well.
....
Where will film be in 2020 in your eyes?

It happened to music, it could happen to movies. With computer recording, internet distribution and promotion and all that, the traditional commerce-focused music industry business model is withering, independent music is thriving, and I am quite happy about that. Of course, making a film involves a lot more resources than recording an album in your basement, so who knows if it'll ever work out economically.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Snicket

If the history of film has taught us anything it's that things change. This current situation cannot/will not last. Just as the system was different in 1970, 1950 and 1930, the system will change in 2020, and 2050.

I don't see why not.

Right now it seems like major studios are the only game in town for huge budget spectacles while a host of (relatively) smaller production companies finance riskier, more speculative, more thoughtful films.

I know bemoaning the current state of filmmaking is a time-honored endeavor but I honestly don't see much of a downside to any of this.

The only real issue might be the extent to which huge blockbusters gobble up theater bookings but more than anything that seems to be a reflection of what audiences want to see in theaters. And it's not like it really matters whether serious, adult films are being crowded out by a comic book movie or the latest Hangover sequel.

It seems like even major films are easier to make and finance than they've ever been and there are some indirect benefits to having production spread out this way.

Somebody brought up censorship...the companies that can afford to spend 300M making a movie have to be a lot more wary of stepping on toes because they also sell music and tv shows and lip-gloss and whatever the hell else major corporations have their fingers in.

That means they're a lot more sensitive to public moods and whims.

Case in point: I think Warner's reluctance to release Gangster Squad with the theater shootout intact was entirely reasonable. They have a lot at stake and can't simply say 'well, no, sorry, art is art and we're not going to tinker with it'.

Having an entirely separate financing tier that doesn't have to worry about having their breakfast cereals boycotted isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[42041]

Originally Posted by octagon

Somebody brought up censorship...the companies that can afford to spend 300M making a movie have to be a lot more wary of stepping on toes because they also sell music and tv shows and lip-gloss and whatever the hell else major corporations have their fingers in.

That means they're a lot more sensitive to public moods and whims.

Curiously, these days they are also very sensitive to the whims of Chinese government censors, since China is becoming a huge market

[Talzin78]

<<<START RANT>>>
This thread reeks of sophomore college philosophy. The idea that movies have sacraficed stoey for spectacle since the 70's is ludicrous. There has always been awful films, and awful paintings, awful books, and awful music. They just fade away with time while the great ones stay in the public consciousness. Every year there are a handful of provocative and well written movies released, some even with blockbuster budgets.

What people are mistaking for sacrafice is saturation. The 70's did not just introduce the Summer Blockbuster but it was also a changing of distribution. Even in the early to mid 70's theatres had very few screens and the Hollywood films would be distributed to regions and passed to different theatres so a film would be playing in the next county and not in yours until a couple of weeks later. It was also a big event to go to the theatre, If you wanted to see a movie you couldn't buy it rent it or watch it on cable, you had to go to the theatre.

Now we have mass distribution, 15 screens in one theatre, and people wanting new movies every week.
You can see it in theatre, rent it, download it, watch it on cable, or buy it.

So yes there is alot of crap being distributed every year, but they don't have to fight for screens as much. We have 1 to 2 new films every week in theatres, not to mention DTV and STC. There is alot more than a handful of great films released each year and it will always be that way.

<<<END RANT>>>

[NoFro]

I think we've got to the other side of the "spectacle only" blockbuster. I think it was a big thing in the first half of the 2000s because of the advancements in technology and the fact that only a few films a year would deliver such spectacle. However, since such spectacle has become more common and a feature in every major blockbuster, of which there are far more than ever before, more effort seems to have been put into the other elements in the last few years. I have to admit to being disappointed with several of last years major blockbusters, but it certainly wasn't because they were all spectacle with little focus on character. I mean look at Captain America from 2011. It had the characterisation down and the first half, which was basically all character stuff, was great and it was the unexciting action sequences of the second half that let down that film.

Animation is another area which has seen some real advancements in storytelling. I love some classic Disney films but their storytelling is still amateurish compared to most of Pixar's catalogue, and now other studios are rising to the challenge set by Pixar and giving us great films such as How to Train Your Dragon and Rango.

Brainless blockbusters still exist, and some of them still make a lot of money, but when there's competition from films that deliver a good story and good character work as well, well Green Lantern didn't do too well did it?

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by Talzin78

<<<START RANT>>>
This thread reeks of sophomore college philosophy. The idea that movies have sacraficed stoey for spectacle since the 70's is ludicrous. There has always been awful films, and awful paintings, awful books, and awful music. They just fade away with time while the great ones stay in the public consciousness. Every year there are a handful of provocative and well written movies released, some even with blockbuster budgets.

What people are mistaking for sacrafice is saturation. The 70's did not just introduce the Summer Blockbuster but it was also a changing of distribution. Even in the early to mid 70's theatres had very few screens and the Hollywood films would be distributed to regions and passed to different theatres so a film would be playing in the next county and not in yours until a couple of weeks later. It was also a big event to go to the theatre, If you wanted to see a movie you couldn't buy it rent it or watch it on cable, you had to go to the theatre.

Now we have mass distribution, 15 screens in one theatre, and people wanting new movies every week.
You can see it in theatre, rent it, download it, watch it on cable, or buy it.

So yes there is alot of crap being distributed every year, but they don't have to fight for screens as much. We have 1 to 2 new films every week in theatres, not to mention DTV and STC. There is alot more than a handful of great films released each year and it will always be that way.

<<<END RANT>>>

I don't think that OP is arguing that complete rubbish hasn't always been released, but that it's becoming more and more commonplace because studios aren't prepared to try anything more dynamic or new. Sure, in the '70s, there was lots of crap released, but there was also things like Jaws and Star Wars that studios had never peddled before and were worried about; films that changed the landscape of cinema because of how different they were.

What's this decade's Jaws? Is there a film released in Hollywood that has significantly changed the way film-making is seen? I'd argue a firm no, because everything is pretty safe now (even the more "out-there" and unconventional films, such as Inception, aren't more than a stone throw away from usual releases).

As for the "New American Wave", it sounds good on paper, but can it really work? The technology is there, but there always needs to be a pushing force behind whatever's being made -- and that's usually in terms of money. Do independent film-makers or companies have enough money to market every independent film made in this "era" well enough to make their money back and continue the cycle? Only time will tell.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by SBC28

I actually didn't know about this Pixar thing, at all, so that was an interesting read. My main concern is the fact that film makers have been pushing the limits of "PG-13" increasingly farther, and (imo) it simply makes for bad, unbelievable film. There are so many movies which would benefit from an "R" rating over their "PG-13" rating, as well as many "PG-13" movies which (again, imo) are just plain stupid in how many ways they find to push that rating.

The cost of film production (and more than that, marketing & PR) has gone through the roof, so an expensive film needs to be PG-13 to sell as many tickets as possible to recoup the budget and create a profit. It's plain and simple business. So, technically, the films benefit FROM being PG-13, if it means selling more tickets.

The way of the theater is slowly dying... just as it did in the 50s with the advent of TV. Why do you think there's a 3-D Push (just like in the 50s) and the IMAX push (just like the invention of widescreen in the 50s as well)? As more and more films get direct-to-TV releases, the cost of marketing will come down, and more indie films will flourish.

[Talzin78]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

I don't think that OP is arguing that complete rubbish hasn't always been released, but that it's becoming more and more commonplace because studios aren't prepared to try anything more dynamic or new. Sure, in the '70s, there was lots of crap released, but there was also things like Jaws and Star Wars that studios had never peddled before and were worried about; films that changed the landscape of cinema because of how different they were.

What's this decade's Jaws? Is there a film released in Hollywood that has significantly changed the way film-making is seen? I'd argue a firm no, because everything is pretty safe now (even the more "out-there" and unconventional films, such as Inception, aren't more than a stone throw away from usual releases).

As for the "New American Wave", it sounds good on paper, but can it really work? The technology is there, but there always needs to be a pushing force behind whatever's being made -- and that's usually in terms of money. Do independent film-makers or companies have enough money to market every independent film made in this "era" well enough to make their money back and continue the cycle? Only time will tell.

So you don't think Films like the Matrix, Fight Club, Usual Suspects, Reservoir Dogs, Avatar, In Bruges, T2, Lord of the Rings have changed the cinematic landscape time after time. Jaws was great Its one of my favorite films of all time but how do you think it changed the cinematic landscape that sets it apart?

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by Talzin78

So you don't think Films like the Matrix, Fight Club, Usual Suspects, Reservoir Dogs, Avatar, In Bruges, T2, Lord of the Rings have changed the cinematic landscape time after time. Jaws was great Its one of my favorite films of all time but how do you think it changed the cinematic landscape that sets it apart?

It undeniably changed the whole mindset of Hollywood - until that point, blockbusters weren't even a thing. It completely changed how films ran in theatres, and how much money Hollywood would invest into ideas that, until that point, had seemed too extravagant.

The ones of your list to have the most impact in the last decade are The Matrix and Lord of the Rings (and that's disputable because, although they're superb films, they didn't actually do anything different, just on a much grander scale). Tarantino's early films did start a new trend, but it didn't permeate throughout all of Hollywood like the success from Jaws (and Star Wars) did, and began a more contemporary and individual approach to film-making.

Jaws is one of the best entertainment films of all time, but it was through that period that Hollywood re-defined both itself and its releases.

[Abdrewes]

Skimmed some of the thread Snicket, I'll certainly return after I complete something. Concise and to the point, I wonder if these thoughts have been partially inspired by Steven Soderbergh's quick, digital & cheap method as of recent?

[A Tortured Duckling]

Originally Posted by retablo

So, technically, the films benefit FROM being PG-13, if it means selling more tickets.

Lol. I didn't say a word about the financial aspect of film production. Frankly, i don't care about all the obscene amounts of money spent and made. I was talking about the quality of said "movies", nothing else.

If you want to talk movie budgets, take a look at some of South Korea's biggest productions. Look at their budget, their box office success, and the actual quality of the films. Not only do they accomplish more with less, they also manage to make films which far surpass most of the garbage coming out of Hollywood, in terms of every technical aspect of a film.

Just face it...American "moviegoers" have been trained to be entertained by dumb films. As long as there's a "hot chick", some explosions and a few fast cars...it's all good. No one gives a damn about quality film, anymore...and it shows. I remember checking IMDB for something, and seeing the latest "Twilight" disaster doing better at the box office than "Lincoln". Honestly...that's some sad, sad shit.

[Talzin78]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

It undeniably changed the whole mindset of Hollywood - until that point, blockbusters weren't even a thing. It completely changed how films ran in theatres, and how much money Hollywood would invest into ideas that, until that point, had seemed too extravagant.

The ones of your list to have the most impact in the last decade are The Matrix and Lord of the Rings (and that's disputable because, although they're superb films, they didn't actually do anything different, just on a much grander scale). Tarantino's early films did start a new trend, but it didn't permeate throughout all of Hollywood like the success from Jaws (and Star Wars) did, and began a more contemporary and individual approach to film-making.

Jaws is one of the best entertainment films of all time, but it was through that period that Hollywood re-defined both itself and its releases.

I agree with that. What the OP said that I'm arguing is the belief of style over substance is a new thing and that Hollywood is a soulless entity in it just for the money. Which they are, but they've always been. It was a struggle to get both Jaws and Star Wars made. Jaws created the summer blockbuster and began the distribution saturation because EVERYONE wanted to see it. As far as film making what was it that makes it a pioneering film in cinematic history. It was beautifully and meticulously shot with passion that we still get today and hopefully always will.

The original post read to me more like slamming main stream films and saying that they don't make movies with the same passion as we did in the past, and that cinematic innovation has been crippled.

[Snicket]

There are a lot of points I wanted to respond to but I have been away most of the day doing grown up stuff.

For one, my main contention with the way Hollywood is doing business now is that commerce is driving the art, when that was not always the case. Looking back on the French New Wave you had a bunch of filmmakers who were in it to shake up the status quo and change what film could be, many of them were deemed "film terrorists".

That is not to say there was not money being made and lost during this time because there certainly was, but it was not driving the movement, true radical innovation was leading the charge.

That's really the nature of art, it changes. Film is still relatively a young medium that is always going to expand and change the definition of what it is or is not. This is very hard to do inside an environment that rewards the safe bet and the lowest possible amount of risks while aiming for the highest levels of mass appeal.


If you want to argue the current state of Hollywood you are fully welcome to, as I realize the hip thing to do nowadays is to complain how Hollywood is killing the art. However I am not basing my opinions on pure observation as I have talked with several industry professionals and that is what lead me to my conclusions. All of this is backseat to...

...How the change will happen and what Hollywood will be like in 2020. We can debate on how we got here, but thats only one side of the coin and I wouldn't want us to not see the forest through the trees. Regardless of how we got here or if things really are that bad, change is happening anyways. The way we made films yesterday will not be the same way we make them tomorrow (figuratively).


I would also like to open up for discussion that film (celluloid) had to die in order for this new wave and digital to emerge. I think there is something oddly romantic about this thought as it invokes a particular feeling of catharsis.

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by Talzin78

I agree with that. What the OP said that I'm arguing is the belief of style over substance is a new thing and that Hollywood is a soulless entity in it just for the money. Which they are, but they've always been. It was a struggle to get both Jaws and Star Wars made. Jaws created the summer blockbuster and began the distribution saturation because EVERYONE wanted to see it. As far as film making what was it that makes it a pioneering film in cinematic history. It was beautifully and meticulously shot with passion that we still get today and hopefully always will.

The original post read to me more like slamming main stream films and saying that they don't make movies with the same passion as we did in the past, and that cinematic innovation has been crippled.

I totally agree that there are some filmmakers today who are innovating in really unique ways and pulling the medium up to new heights. I don't think there are enough, and it's not a quality I see being rewarded/encouraged enough.

James Cameron will be rewarded so much more than Steven Soderbergh will ever be (I don't mean to incite debate over the quality of said filmmaker's films, I paid to see Avatar and Side Effects).

Real innovation, is not invested in enough. Even though it certainly is present.

I opened up my first post with the title "We broke Hollywood", I share in the blame for the saturation of spectacle just as much as Hollywood because I buy tickets to spectacles, as I imagine we all do.