Martin Scorsese on the state of the affairs / Art @ the service of box office numbers

[moreorless]

Really though I think you could argue the period in which Scorsese broke though was actually the anomaly, the New Hollywood period of the late 60's and 70's was a rare time in which mainstream Hollywood made art cinema on a large scale.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by moreorless

Really though I think you could argue the period in which Scorsese broke though was actually the anomaly, the New Hollywood period of the late 60's and 70's was a rare time in which mainstream Hollywood made art cinema on a large scale.

Damn, you won the thread as early as post #19

[klauswhereareyou]

Streaming has produced content overload. People want to do something when they leave their home other than watch a screen.

[Zivouhr]

While many financial minds at some of the biggest movie studios in Hollywood might disagree, Martin Scorsese has blasted those who judge movies on their box office performance and says that the obsession with those figures means cinema is being “devalued, demeaned” and “belittled from all sides.”

That is largely true, since the big AAA studios are mostly drawing in the big audiences into theaters these days, but there are thankfully some smaller exception films that pull people to theaters too.

The big machine corporation of Disney mostly cares about pleasing shareholders with a big opening weekend, focused heavily on the business side of it and making it very public if a film meets or disappoints their lofty expectations of the new minimum box office total of 1 billion dollars worldwide to be considered a valid film franchise.

If a film doesn't reach $1 billion world wide dollars, Disney writes it off as a major box office failure. I'm joking, but I can imagine it could get to that point soon.

Scorsese mostly saying, the heck with how much money it makes, what impact does the film have on the minds of audiences? He's more focused on the art of film understandably, not being heavily attached to the machine like a franchise under Disney or other major studios.

Even in the days of Star Wars, Fox was about to pull the plug on New Hope when Lucas was asking for more budget money to finish it. They were ready to scrap the whole thing almost, before Ladd convinced them to give this guy Lucas a chance.

But yeah, the real freedom to create fresh new ideas and stories, as in video games, is with the independent filmmakers and artists unbound by a big corporation tinkering in everything they do.

[Lee A Stewart]

During the 1980s, we didn't have the ability to break down the BO results like we do 40 years later. You want to see how much of a break down they do now? Enjoy:

https://www.motionpictures.org/wp-co...port-FINAL.pdf

Movies are a business. Like making cars or lawn chairs. There are rewards for doing a good job (bonus, stock options, increased renumeration) and there are penalties for doing a bad job (getting fired, being black listed). Movie studios are now public corporations with stock holders and a Board of Directors.

Breaking even means you lost money.

Hey Marty! Keep at it. Maybe one of these days you'll direct a blockbuster. Then we'll see how you react.

[happydood]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Hey Marty! Keep at it. Maybe one of these days you'll direct a blockbuster. Then we'll see how you react.

This. Cannot. Be. Taken. Seriously. Under. Any. Circumstances.

[prkchopexpress]

scorsese has forgotten more about movies than anyone on this board will ever know.

but there sure are lots of trolls who fetishized box office results and think they’re clever. not clever enough to realize they only always further prove his point.

but sure. the guy who loves movies and tries to educate people all the time on the classics and inspire people to check things outside of the mainstream and someone who lends his name to help with restoration and preservation… he’s a the bad guy in all this. because he said something mean (the truth) about bland superhero movies.

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by prkchopexpress

scorsese has forgotten more about movies than anyone on this board will ever know.

but there sure are lots of trolls who fetishized box office results and think they’re clever. not clever enough to realize they only always further prove his point.

but sure. the guy who loves movies and tries to educate people all the time on the classics and inspire people to check things outside of the mainstream and someone who lends his name to help with restoration and preservation… he’s a the bad guy in all this. because he said something mean (the truth) about bland superhero movies.

This is America; Americans love movies with guns, violence, superheroes, supervillains, movie stars that look like a million buck, movies with CGI that cost $200 to $400 million, movies with cars, girls, money, romance, ... Marty fits the bill like a glove, in grand style.

Hollywood is an ATM machine, a safe in the bank's vault, a multi $ billion business, a climb to the rich and famous, a Disneyland, a Marvel comic book, a DC superhero, a glamorous shiny diamond girl's best friend, Hollywood is Martin Scorsese...he's part of it like it or not. He's in good company among his friends and peers and heroes.

[happydood]

This is America, all right. Now, folks get to say whatever they want without any verifiable credibility to back it up. Whatevs, am I right?!

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by happydood

This is America, all right. Now, folks get to say whatever they want without any verifiable credibility to back it up. Whatevs, am I right?!

You're from L.A. ... you should know best. Drive the neighborhoods from the ultra mansions to the homeless streets.

In the East it's no better.

[mwynn]

Every time he has something to promote he does the yelling at clouds thing.

Scorsese sounded off on the state of moviegoing at the New York Film Festival premiere of his documentary "Personality Crisis: One Night Only."

[OnlyJapantown]

Originally Posted by mwynn

Every time he has something to promote he does the yelling at clouds thing.

Scorsese sounded off on the state of moviegoing at the New York Film Festival premiere of his documentary "Personality Crisis: One Night Only."

Nothing Scorsese said here or elsewhere could be fairly described as 'yelling at clouds'. He is offering an opinion on the state of the film industry, which he is quite entitled to do as one of its most influential and experienced figures. He's getting on in age and is obviously pensive about the past and future of an industry and art form that he has helped shape. Whether you agree or disagree with his prognosis, he is not 'yelling at clouds'.

Also the idea that Martin Scorsese needs to make provocative remarks to sell his movies is risible.

[50strat54]

Movies are to entertain us. Sometimes it even becomes art.

Art is in the eye of the beholder which is why Silence is neither entertaining nor art but Avengers Endgame is entertaining and is art…in my OPINION.

[moreorless]

To be honest though I think part of the problem is that when serious money is put into non entertainment blockbuster cinema it tends to be studios sticking with the same old names like Marty. They focus on long established names rather than new ones the same way they focus on long established franchises.

If your an up and coming director these days your basically either making arthouse films for a few million at most or your making franchise blockbusters for $200 million, not much in-between.

[50strat54]

Pearl cost one million and has so far brought in 9 million

Amsterdam cost 80 million and has so far brought in 12 million.

If you’re going to make a film like Amsterdam you need to look at the budget of Pearl and you can also do with less A List actors.

[moreorless]

Originally Posted by 50strat54

Pearl cost one million and has so far brought in 9 million

Amsterdam cost 80 million and has so far brought in 12 million.

If you’re going to make a film like Amsterdam you need to look at the budget of Pearl and you can also do with less A List actors.

That is a pretty major weakness of Hollywood these days I'd say, theres a tendency for budgets to inflate beyond what a film is likely to recoup.

I'd like to see more stuff in the kind of Jojo Rabbit, The Favourite, The Green Knight, etc range of $10-20 million thats big enough for a film to be expansive when it needs to be but not so large that its never likely to be made back and hurt the directors career.

The arthouse scene does have reasonably dependable budgets but then are normally limited to a few million at most which does limit the kind of films that can be made.

[Hindustani]

Why 99% Of Movies Today Are Garbage - Chris Gore - YouTube

[50strat54]

Bros is going to lose money but given it's budget [it should have actually been smaller 10 million given there's really no stars or CGI and the ending with the cameos should have been cut or just used one actor.] this is a blip to Universal. Bros was made at nearly the right budget for its theme and what it was trying to accomplish.

Halloween Ends will cover Bros losses.

[scififan73]

So, in a nutshell, Martin is saying that the bean counters have taken over Hollywood and the ONLY consideration for greenlighting a new film is, "how much is this film likely to make and how fast"?
He would be correct in this assumption in my view and yes, it is a damn shame that American films are now viewed only as commodities and if they happen to achieve the status of art as well then it is through fortunate coincidence.

There's a reason 1970's films are thought of as the last risk taking decade, where directors where more free to go where their passions took them so to speak, and studios would be willing to bankroll films without insisting on a set return like the stock market first. Some people today might say hey, these studios were fools to not think like that but to my mind there's no question-- American films are definitely poorer as a result.

1970's films weren't afraid to be bleak or even outright depressing, themes that today's studios are reluctant to embrace because hey, you might lose a portion of your paying audience and we can't have that.
Also a big factor in today's scripts that are greenlighted is the crushing weight of political correctness, for the same reason that we musn't alienate a segment of the public-- water down everything so as to appeal to the broadest base. This may make business sense, but let's not kid ourselves that this is the best mindset for art.

One of Scorsese's best films, Taxi Driver, probably wouldn't be greenlit today, a depressing loner with mental problems who goes on a killing spree and is still larely unredeemed by films end and is still walking(driving) the streets. Likewise for other controversial films like Falling Down, Fight Club or Basic Instinct.
So yeah, today's successful films may be busting box office records but they are largely sticking to a cookie cutter formula. They appeal to a broad base so as not to offend, but they also miss opportunities to creatively shock and enthrall the viewer. We HAVE lost something.

[Batmon77]

Originally Posted by scififan73

So, in a nutshell, Martin is saying that the bean counters have taken over Hollywood and the ONLY consideration for greenlighting a new film is, "how much is this film likely to make and how fast"?
He would be correct in this assumption in my view and yes, it is a damn shame that American films are now viewed only as commodities and if they happen to achieve the status of art as well then it is through fortunate coincidence.

There's a reason 1970's films are thought of as the last risk taking decade, where directors where more free to go where their passions took them so to speak, and studios would be willing to bankroll films without insisting on a set return like the stock market first. Some people today might say hey, these studios were fools to not think like that but to my mind there's no question-- American films are definitely poorer as a result.

1970's films weren't afraid to be bleak or even outright depressing, themes that today's studios are reluctant to embrace because hey, you might lose a portion of your paying audience and we can't have that.
Also a big factor in today's scripts that are greenlighted is the crushing weight of political correctness, for the same reason that we musn't alienate a segment of the public-- water down everything so as to appeal to the broadest base. This may make business sense, but let's not kid ourselves that this is the best mindset for art.

One of Scorsese's best films, Taxi Driver, probably wouldn't be greenlit today, a depressing loner with mental problems who goes on a killing spree and is still larely unredeemed by films end and is still walking(driving) the streets. Likewise for other controversial films like Falling Down, Fight Club or Basic Instinct.
So yeah, today's successful films may be busting box office records but they are largely sticking to a cookie cutter formula. They appeal to a broad base so as not to offend, but they also miss opportunities to creatively shock and enthrall the viewer. We HAVE lost something.