In recent weeks, several articles have surfaced with overtones of how "out of touch" the big 6 Hollywood Studios have become. The box office is flat and DVD sales aren't much better. Hollywood seems to be turning its head the other way, blaming the public and new mediums for the problem. I believe, the big 6 are "buying into" their own PR. In a report published by Standard & Poors on April 7, 2006, it clearly cautions investors about the major issues facing the studios. With disappointing box office declines of 6% and other problems facing our industry. Its time for someone to throw cold water on these studio big guys.

Average to poor movies being released could contribute to the problem (wouldn't you say..?). Hands down, the industry has become so complex these decision makers need to step back and look at the real picture...not the pictures they create. From my own experience, the studios don't look for good storylines, they look at trend setting issues as a vehicle for making "great" films. Obviously, that concept isn't working very well!
When MPC submits a script, it costs a considerable amount of money. We have to make tons of copies of the script, put the investment proposal together, document everything, pay everyone involved, find some "warm blood" that's willing to look at the project, contact the attorney to present the formal submittal, then hope we have a friend in high places that can understand what the concept is all about. Its like creating a new business every time we submit a new story. That's just the process to submit, we haven't even gotten close to a deal. The deal process is a whole other story. Then if we get a deal, we have to come through with our promises (which we always do anyway).

Other concerns are about high mega-budgets. "Bean counters" think this is a great way to entice investors (Hello!). During my decades of experience, I've been on sets and seen some of Hollywood's top Director throw money away by the minute. OK, I know some of the best laid out plans sometime don't work...but the waste of budgets are mind boggling. Fortunately for us, smaller budgeted films, independents and family motion pictures seem to do very well. They can make the investment back, provided its a decent story, good distribution, shot properly and have the right team, all this together, makes for a nice profit overall. I hope investors don't put us in the same "boat" as a studio!

Ronald Grover, entertainment columnist for Business Week wrote a very interesting article on April 4, 2006, "Tinseltowns Tin Ear for Quality" questioning the thinking of recent re-makes and high budgeted flops. I was so impressed with his unorthodox comments, I was compelled to send him my opinion (who would have thought). I've included the note in the following:

Mr. Grover,
You hit the nail on the head. Today, studios don't care about the science of making movies. Directors depend on computer effects to make magic. The old phrase of “we'll fix in post” seems to run wild in this town. Whatever happened to the days of making a film that audiences would “buy” into every scene, make you squirm or stayed in your mind for coming weeks? Now, once the credits roll the movie is really over.

The new geniuses at studios have about 15 minutes of experience in true moviemaking, while dazzled by the talent, the psychology of filmmaking has been replaced by marketability. True audiences (everyone outside of LA) gets it, box office sales have been soft and it not because people are purchasing new formatted TV’s! Our film schools are also at fault. Every University has developed a “film school” as another great source of revenue, pumping out students who don't have a clue how the industry works. Thus, the market is flooded with poor or abstract scripts with mediocre plots and storylines. Unless you're a buddy of a studio executive or aggressive agent, your chance to pitch a project is slim. If the talent or Director is marketable on nightly TV entertainment shows or media tours, then they get the gigs.

Brands are buzz words, not great films. Ongoing, Hollywood management is so dazzled by actors and a “named” director because of some deal they've cooked up with agents or buddies, they've forgotten the moviegoer. Studios who bet on re-makes are scrapping the bottom, unwilling to negotiate new deals with creative filmmakers of tomorrow. Once a studio has the rights to a storyline, they sadly beat it to death...and historically, death is what happens.

As far as budgets go in a studio landscape, each time a script passes someone's desk the budget is increased by 5%. Since, everyone has a TV or goes to movies, that makes them a “director”, giving them some notion to express their “creative” opinion. Lets face it, a camera rental is based on a 3 or 4 day week, costs for grips and other behind the camera crews will always remain what the unions dictate, so the costs aren't that far out. But when directors waste time in the name of “creative judgment”, rent a bunch of “cool” gear they never use, compounded by costly talent, together creates elements that pump up production costs. Studios must to stop playing to stockholders and start playing once again to audiences or stockholders will begin to look in other places, possibly audiences already have.

The industry is becoming very tough. Good projects are out there ready to be made. Maybe its time the big guys remember that they too were little fish. May be it time they start looking outside of friends and family and give a gander to fresh new projects to boost stockholder interest that could bring the audiences back the big screen...and that's the REEL STORY!

Historically, our industry is the first to create new ways of improving techniques to deliver a better product. In the early days of Hollywood, a guy named Cunningham invented a device to mount a camera and camera operator on a long lattice beam to freely move or float the camera...thus we have the camera crane. In the 1930's, a grip got his hands on a bomb loader that would hoist a bomb to the belly of an aircraft, modified it with a camera head and wha-la, we have the camera dolly.

We've moved light years ahead of the old days with analog fading away, film images being re-defined, Hi-Def bringing us a look of the 35mm or 65mm clear resolutions and standards on aspect ratios. Although, cranes are still large and most often awkward, our insurance agents would rather us "fly" cameras than people. In the last twenty years, remote heads, telescoping cranes and cameras on cables have replaced the truck arms. We've gone from tape to file, from biking shows to streaming, TV sets to a hand held devices. Is the cinema the next to fall? Well, I don't think so...but when studios want to introduce a film in a theater and the very same day release it on DVD and broadcast, I stop and wonder.

The FCC has introduced new requirements that broadcast stations and networks must meet this year and through 2009. All this change to an industry in a short amount of time is interesting. Some sources, have reported huge issues over simple things like, closed-captioning recently. It seems stations can't find line 21 and when they do they don't know how to deal with it or each show must be captioned in real time.

Few of us knew where we were going when we started in this "exciting" industry. As for me, I just wanted to make movies and direct great performances. The business of the business has been overwhelming, with 6 companies owning all the major broadcast space and studios, the stock market has now become our new ADI and sloppy production doesn't seem to bother anyone but me. Because of shoddy research from some high paid law firms, we can no longer pick the phone up and pitch a show without it costing a minor fortune.

OK, maybe this is all for the better...I'm not convinced yet, but, we'll deal with it! In the meantime, I'm going back to do what I set out to do, create and capture stunning performances to share with audiences across our tiny globe...we'll see what this new year brings...and that's my REEL STORY!

Visit my other blog entries at http://www.motionpicturecompany.com/reelstory.html