# The Death of Hollywood **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 29, 2000, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-hollywood/43241 "2000-11-29T19:42:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Scupper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Scupper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scupper)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2000, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-hollywood/43241/21 "2000-12-01T19:13:39Z")
I think one of the worst features of the current Hollywood system is the remake/recycle philosophy. Only a tiny percentage of remakes, sequels, comic-book adaptations, video game adaptations, cartoon adaptations, and classic (or not so classic) television adaptations are anything but abysmal. Hollywood has always been into doing remakes, but the current mining of 60’s-80’s material is pretty sad. In addition, they don’t seem to be trying very hard to make these rehashes into good films. Examples: The Flintstones The Mod Squad Lost in Space Batman & Robin Psycho Sgt. Bilko It’s Pat A Night at the Roxbury Car 54, Where Are You? Digimon: The Movie Granted, a few, such as The Addams Family, The Fugitive, and X-Men have been decent, or at least popular. But I think we can all hear the bottom of the barrel getting scraped pretty raw when movies like McHale’s Navy get made. ---
**Author:** ![SSgtBaloo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ac91a4/32.png) [@SSgtBaloo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SSgtBaloo)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2000, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-hollywood/43241/22 "2000-12-02T05:00:36Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi \* > Few movies of any age compare well to Casablanca, but I would much rather see American Beauty again than be forced to sit through Beach Blanket Bingo or The Conqueror._\* _ **HEY!** _ I _like_ **Beach Blanket Bingo** (and the other Frankie/Annette movies)! ~~Baloo ---
**Author:** ![Dr\_Paprika](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr_paprika/32/3042_2.png) [@Dr\_Paprika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr_Paprika)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2000, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-hollywood/43241/23 "2000-12-02T05:21:10Z")
Hollywood survived television (although it did stimulate them to do _This Is Cinemascope_) and will survive the Internet. I think Ben Stein is wrong in this regard. I liked _American Beauty_ too. His argument is not religius and generally not moralistic – I don’t think it is that similar to those of Michael Medved. Hollywood has always produced fluff, in 1947 too, but these were generally recognized and released as B-fluff. This stuff did not have the same manufacturing costs as the more numerous secondary films today. Old movies often get a reputation they don’t deserve (what did people ever see in _Zero Mostel_? Don’t answer – I know some of you like him…). But most of the films of the best movies, such as those put out by the American Film Institute Top 100, were more dated films. Hollywood seems very reluctant to gamble on new ideas. This is part of my problem, of course, but I know lots of people who don’t go to the theatre any more. Even _Fantasia 2000_ was just a little disppointing. I wish they had showed more stories with shorter durations. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2000, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-hollywood/43241/24 "2000-12-02T17:18:27Z")
> [@](#): > > DVD piracy won’t hurt Hollywood any more than VHS piracy has. I don’t know if I necessarily agree with this. I think Napster demonstrates that people are extremely comfortable sharing copyrighted material in mass quantities online. Once this becomes more feasible with DVDs (increased bandwidths, expanded memories, etc.), the film studios will face a much larger threat than VHS ever did (especially since, unlike audio tapes, most people don’t have the facility to tape films for their friends). They, like the music industry, will have to come up with some sort of plan to incorporate new technologies into more traditional economic/distribution scenarios, or they will feel a financial hit (admittedly some more than others). > [@](#): > > Kinda like baseball expansion, where the pitching gets diluted. Now, it’s writing that’s diluted. I’m surprised nobody’s mentioned television re: this point. With an increasing amount of original programming on more stations, and fewer films being made (relative to, say, 60 years ago), this dilution in talent is very real–a situation the live theater has already been living with for a good decade or two. > [@](#): > > This might also go some way to explaining the immense fees guaranteed box-office draws certain actors can command. This is an important point. The phenomenon of wide-release, opening-weekend figures being the foundation of a movie’s survival did not exist even as late as the early 70s. Before, a studio could afford to risk making movies that had potential “legs”–smaller films which thrived on repeat business and word of mouth. Now, look in your listings, and you won’t find some movies that opened a month ago. This incredible pressure to succeed big and immediately was unheard of in Hollywood 50 years ago, but it is this pressure that convinces executives that they must go with reliable formulas and pander to the demographic that will go see a movie quickly and frequently. This pressure has also succeeded in persuading most of the exhibitors into making long-term financial decisions that have left many of them in Chapter 11. > [@](#): > > Hollywood survived television (although it did stimulate them to do This Is Cinemascope) That would be _This is Cinerama_; Cinemascope was dramatically different (though you’re right in that both were a response to the perceived threat of television) ---
**Author:** ![Dr\_Paprika](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr_paprika/32/3042_2.png) [@Dr\_Paprika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr_Paprika)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2000, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-hollywood/43241/25 "2000-12-02T18:47:38Z")
Whoops. I meant _This is Cinerama_. Only saw it once, a long time ago. 😮 ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2000, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-hollywood/43241/26 "2000-12-04T00:41:44Z")
Wow, some great responses, anticipating what I was thinking as I read the OP. The Hollywood pattern has always been to release a vast amount of material, which our memories have filtered out to leave us only the good ones. Look at Clark Gable’s filmography sometime; for every memorable film, like _Gone with the Wind_ or _It Happened One Night_, he made a couple of decent-but-forgotten flicks (e.g. _Boom Town_ or _Idiot’s Delight_) and half a dozen by-the-numbers duds (_Lone Star_, _Adventure_, _Sporting Blood_, _Never Let Me Go_, ad nauseum). Even his notorious work (_Red Dust_, for one) is long forgotten. We remember _Run Silent Run Deep_, _Mutiny on the Bounty_, and a handful of others, and that’s about it. One small point to address that nobody else has commented on: > [@](#): > > All the best movies I have seen recently seem to be foreign. India, France, Spain, Hong Kong, Canada, etc. make hundreds and hundreds of movies each year. Of these, only a tiny fraction receive exhibition in the United States (or, indeed, anywhere but their home country), because only the very best films are picked for export. If you saw every single British or Italian flick, I guarantee your opinion of “foreign films” would be radically revised. Doesn’t change the basic tenet that the very best foreign films tend to be somewhat better, on average, than the very best Hollywood films, but it does put it into perspective. Another point: > [@](#): > > **Dr\_Paprika:** Of course people enjoy predicting the death of successful things There’s a lot to this, I think, and it shouldn’t be glossed over. There’s a very natural psychological phenomenon, a basic element of human nature, in which each individual believes, at least subconsciously, that the universe revolves around him or her. I’m not suggesting that we think we’re literally the most important person on the planet, and we have all the answers, but I’m pointing to a far more subtle effect. Notice how, at any given time in history, you can always find lots of people prophesying important developments, usually tragic (up to and including the end of the world), always “within our lifetimes.” These disasters hardly ever come to pass, but because we humans are so self-involved, we subconsciously believe and expect that because we’re here now, it’s time for something important to happen. I’m not explaining it very well, but I hope that my description of what I call, with tongue partly in cheek, the “strong anthropic predictive principle” triggers some recognition in people. At any rate, a highly self-absorbed person like Ben Stein, who has an exaggerated sense of his own self-importance, will naturally be more strongly affected by this phenomenon, and will raise a hue and cry over something or other. And upon careful examination, it usually turns out that the prediction has no real rational basis, and is more closely related to the individual’s need to subtly bolster his opinion of himself by inventing a mantle of social-upheaval expert which he can throw about himself. For example: If you assert that the star system is more powerful now than ever, and point back to the mid-70’s as a high point of American filmmaking (_Taxi Driver_, _The Sting_, _The Godfather_, _Network_, _One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest_, _Dog Day Afternoon_, _Marathon Man_, etc etc etc) in which the film in totality was more important than casting Jim Carrey or whomever, you must also remember that very few of what we remember as “the great movies of the era” were particularly successful at the box office. Instead, you had fluffy romantic comedies, The Computer In Tennis Shoes, Sheriff Buford Pusser, and all sorts of other crap paying the bills. When up-and-coming auteur David Cronenberg was casting _Rabid_ in 1975, he wanted then-unknown Sissy Spacek in the lead, but the producers, citing box-office considerations, twisted his arm to cast porn superstar Marilyn Chambers. This stuff isn’t new, folks. Hollywood has been here for a while, and is very, very good at what it does. Although individual failures like _Waterworld_ or _Pay It Forward_ or _Blair Witch 2_ or _Bonfire of the Vanities_ or _Heaven’s Gate_ or _Godzilla_ or _Three to Tango_ may be invoked as evidence that Hollywood doesn’t know what it’s doing, there will always be a larger number of bloop singles like _10 Things I Hate About You_ or _Final Destination_ (and, yes, the very profitable _Road Trip_) that keep the paychecks stable and allow Hollywood to give us _The Iron Giant_, _Being John Malkovich_, _The Insider_, and any number of quality flicks. Read Dunne’s _The Studio_, and McDougal’s _The Last Mogul_, to see that Hollywood’s historical practices, taken in aggregate, aren’t a whole heck of a lot different from the modern reality. On this topic, I say Ben Stein is a bag of hot air. ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2000, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-hollywood/43241/27 "2000-12-04T04:09:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scupper \* > \*\*…Hollywood has always been into doing remakes, but the current mining of 60’s-80’s material is pretty sad. In addition, they don’t seem to be trying very hard to make these rehashes into good films. > > Examples: > > The Flintstones > The Mod Squad > Lost in Space > Batman & Robin > Psycho > Sgt. Bilko > It’s Pat > A Night at the Roxbury > Car 54, Where Are You? > Digimon: The Movie > Granted, a few, such as The Addams Family, The Fugitive, and X-Men have been decent, or at least popular. But I think we can all hear the bottom of the barrel getting scraped pretty raw when movies like McHale’s Navy get made. > > \*\* I agree completely. Feel free to add; Charlies Angels Superman The Green Hornet The Flash I have read book after book that could be turned into really superb movies. Given their resources, the creative bankruptcy of Hollywood is inexcusable. While the once great Disney studio churns out gentically identical boiler plate, people like Nick Park raise the bar for the rest of the world. The lack of content in 90% of modern movies is an insult to art and sensibility. Sadly, those faculties are precisely what is lacking in the average film goer. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2000, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-hollywood/43241/28 "2000-12-04T07:13:18Z")
Please. Any thesis that starts by perceiving “utter emptiness” in _American Beauty_ has failed before it begins. American Beauty was rich with meaning, spilling over with truth and beauty, a perfect example of film as art. Ben Stein is a shmo. stoid ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2000, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-hollywood/43241/29 "2000-12-04T14:42:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*_Originally posted by Zenster_ > > The lack of content in 90% of modern movies is an insult to art and sensibility. Sadly, those faculties are precisely what is lacking in the average film goer. \*\* Ah, yes, the old “most movies suck because most people are philistines and don’t have the taste I do” argument. I wondered how long it would take someone to pull this one out. People are not as tasteless as you claim. Most movies are mindless and stupid because A) It’s hard to make really good movies, and B) Mindless, stupid entertainment is sometimes fun, even if you understand the artistry behind fine filmmaking. I know more about movies than anybody I’ve ever personally met, but I liked “Dumb and Dumber,” for the same reason I like playing “Everquest” and watching “Friends” - not everything you do, 24 hours a day, has to be the height of human achievement in art. Most people are reasonably smart and tasteful, and know that “Charlie’s Angels” is dumb. The reason they go is to see pretty girls doing martial arts, not because they think Drew Barrymore’s latest opus is the greatest cinematic masterpeice since “8 1/2”. Just for the hell of it, for whatever it might be worth, I looked up the Top 250 films on the IMDB as rated by the denizens of the Internet. The top 25 are 1. The Godfather 2. The Shawshank Redemption 3. Schindler’s List 4. Citizen Kane 5. Casablanca 6. American Beauty 7. The Godfather, Part II 8. Star Wars 9. The Seven Samurai 10. Dr. Strangelove 11. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest 12. Rear Window 13. Raiders of the Lost Ark 14. The Usual Suspects 15. Psycho 16. The Empire Strikes Back 17. Pulp Fiction 18. North by Northwest 19. The Silence of the Lambs 20. Saving Private Ryan Now, I don’t agree with the list as it stands now; The Usual Suspects was a good movie and all, but it’s not one of the 100 best movies ever made. The list has an obvious bias towards American films and films involving killing. But these are not 20 bad films, and most of them are certainly great, great works of art. You don’t see “Major League III: Back to the Minors” on this list. In fact, you have to go down the list a long way to find a certifiably bad film. ---
**Author:** ![Chas.E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e99b99/32.png) [@Chas.E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chas.E)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2000, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-hollywood/43241/30 "2000-12-04T16:04:30Z")
Hollywood is already dead. It was killed when the multinational conglomerates took over the major studios, a process that took place throughout the '70s and '80s. The best sign of a moribund industry is that they have to protect their turf with protectionist actions. So today, the most powerful forces in Hollywood are people like the RIAA. Its hard to make a profit when people pirate your product. But it’s even HARDER to make a profit when people pirate your product AND it sucks too. Thus the protectionism. But filmmaking will be around for a long time. Even if Hollywood does everything it can to keep its central position of power, it will lose. But the urge to tell stories is fundamental. A friend of mine (an Academy Award winner for Best Screenplay) once told me, “people have been gathering around a fire to tell stories since the time of the caveman, and they’ll be telling stories for centuries to come.” ---
**Author:** ![SSgtBaloo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ac91a4/32.png) [@SSgtBaloo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SSgtBaloo)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2000, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-hollywood/43241/31 "2000-12-04T18:07:06Z")
_Inexpert opinion follows…_ [/quote] Let’s face it, folks. Movie-making is a business. It’s a business where you have to make product without really being sure there’s a market for it. The temptation to make something that resembles anything else that did particularly well must be irresistable. Even when you get a good story, it has to be turned into a script. The script might not be as good as the story for a variety of reasons. The scriptwriter doesn’t have a good feel for the story, the producer could have the script rewritten to reflect his own ideas, losing elements of the original story, etc. Casting is another consideration. The perfect actor for any particular part might not even be in Hollywood. The best actor for any part might be passed over because the studio wants someone with garaunteed box office appeal. The director’s vision of the part might be incompatible with the actor’s working style and the best possible performance will not be seen. Budgetary constraints can limit movies as well. I’ve seen a few movies that were quite enjoyable despite the small budget used to produce it. Still, the money goes where the producers think it will do the most good. A movie with spectacular special effects may have a pedestrian script because all the money (and effort) went to the effects, to the detriment of casting, scripting, etc. Even if everything comes together, “Classic” movies rarely make money for the studio that produces them. Why? Well, for one thing, a movie doesn’t always achieve “classic” status while the copyright’s still good. If you’ve got a lot of old movies in your vault, it costs a lot of money to keep them there. Why renew copyright on something that never made money for the studio? It’s throwing good money after bad. Movie making is a difficult business. It’s like being a restaurant that can never have the same menu twice. You can only repeat past success by imitating what worked for a limited time. Eventually the audience wants to see something new, but not everything the audience hasn’t seen before is a garaunteed money-maker. Making movies is sort of a crap shoot. You make a bunch of films that make little or no money in the hope that one of them will make a big enough wad of cash so you can afford to keep paying film crews, actors, etc. Really, Hollywood isn’t dead. What we’re seeing is the continuing struggle to stay alive. It’s been going on since cameras were cranked by hand. It will still be going on years from now. ~~Baloo ---
**Author:** ![Amok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f17d59/32.png) [@Amok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amok)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2000, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-hollywood/43241/32 "2000-12-04T18:53:10Z")
> [@](#): > > He gives specific references to low points in the movies “Mall Rats” and “Road Trip”. What could Ben Stein possibly dislike about _Mallrats_? It was a comedy classic. ---
**Author:** ![beakerxf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bc79bd/32.png) [@beakerxf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beakerxf)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2000, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-hollywood/43241/33 "2000-12-04T19:02:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dr\_Paprika \* > He mentions how rare it is to see an entire family at the movie theatre these days, whereas entire families went to see “High Noon” and “Star Wars”. I feel sorry for those families that saw High Noon together. It’s too slow and plodding to keep a child’s mind engaged and the message would go over the heads of anyone under 15. > [@](#): > > How many people think Hollywood these days would be **unable** to produce a classic like Casablanca? I believe today’s filmmakers can do it. The OP mentions Schindler’s Film which is in many way a great film. Those filmmakers are still alive and making films. I wouldn’t be so presumtuous as to declare anything made this generation as a “classic”. I mean, that will be decided by people who haven’t been born yet. I may think Saving Private Ryan will be a classic to them, but for all I know they’ll be raving about Titanic. Also, how can Ben Stein honestly believe the movie makers of today have less to say? Look at WC Fields. The guy may be a pop culture figure, but I don’t think his movies had any deep meaning to them. They were made to make money. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Zenster_ > I have read book after book that could be turned into really superb movies. Given their resources, the creative bankruptcy of Hollywood is inexcusable. Well, the film industry is hardly ignoring books. I can think three novels to film adaptations from last year…Angela’s Ashes, Green Mile, and Cider House Rule’s. ---
**Author:** ![Dr\_Paprika](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr_paprika/32/3042_2.png) [@Dr\_Paprika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr_Paprika)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2000, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-hollywood/43241/34 "2000-12-04T20:12:55Z")
Ben Stein summarized _Mallrats_ as a film whose comedy high point was wiping hand with rectum and touching strangers. I personally like this film immensely. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2000, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-hollywood/43241/35 "2000-12-04T22:47:08Z")
_Mallrats_ is an excellent cure for insomnia. Two hours of experience unblemished by mirth, excitement, or human drama. [sub]hi valerie[/sub] 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2000, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-hollywood/43241/36 "2000-12-04T23:01:56Z")
Ya know, I’ve never understood why people think this film is the ultimate example of film as art. I think it is a good film, lots of fun, but more than a little overdone. Hyperstylized, unrealisitic, melodramatic… and I think the only part anyone really cares about is the last 5 minutes anyway. But I have a number of contrary opinions when it comes to film. I think “the Deer Hunter” and “Raging Bull” are both totally overrated films. Not BAD films, but certainly overrated. stoid ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2000, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-hollywood/43241/37 "2000-12-04T23:07:12Z")
> [@](#): > > I think “the Deer Hunter” and “Raging Bull” are both totally overrated films. Not BAD films, but certainly overrated. _The Deer Hunter_, yes. _Raging Bull_, no. The explanation would send this thread spiraling off in a whole different direction, so… [/tiny hijack] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-death-of-hollywood/43241.md?page=1)