# What's Happened to the Hollywood Movie Industry? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [April 22, 2012, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-happened-to-the-hollywood-movie-industry/619626 "2012-04-22T20:50:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Moonchild](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@Moonchild](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moonchild)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-happened-to-the-hollywood-movie-industry/619626/21 "2012-04-23T01:03:48Z")
> [@Invisible\_Chimp](#): > > My theory is that movies have become so expensive to make that they take less risks in order to recoup costs and choose projects with already built in audiences. This is one of the major reasons. It’s a safety issue; William Goldman lamented, probably 15 years ago, that the bean counters rule Hollywood, not the creative people (the key, of course, is to strike a balance). Another cause was mentioned earlier, also: foreign box office now eclipses domestic box office and worldwide audience, on the whole, leans more toward action movies. All that said, I can name a lot of quality original movies in recent years – thank you, Equipoise, for providing that excellent list – but they don’t seem to get much Publicity and Advertising, so may have fallen off your radar. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-happened-to-the-hollywood-movie-industry/619626/22 "2012-04-23T01:53:23Z")
> [@A Monkey With a Gun](#): > > I was all set to defend Hollywood and say that they produce more new ideas than people think. Then I looked at the [2011 box office results](http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2011). You have to go all the way down to number 13 before you find a wholly new property\* (_The Help_). That’s much worse than I thought. _The Help_ was an adaptation of a book by the same name. If Thor doesn’t count as a whole new property than neither should _The Help._ So we have to go down to _Bridesmaids_ at #14 before we get a wholly new property. ---
**Author:** ![obfusciatrist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4af34b/32.png) [@obfusciatrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/obfusciatrist)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-happened-to-the-hollywood-movie-industry/619626/23 "2012-04-23T02:20:37Z")
In complaining about the lack of originality in Hollywood there does often seem to be a bit of a source bias of not considering adaptations of books and plays to be a bad thing but comic books and TV shows are intellectually corrupt somehow. I wish I could find it because I once did a spreadsheet of the top 50 movies for each year as far back as Box Office Mojo goes and looked at the perecentage of the movies that were original scripts and the percentage of the total box office for those top 50 that went to original scripts. The interesting thing was that the gross number of non-original movies didn’t increase hugely (it did go up over time but fluctuated wildly) but the box office percentage that went to non-original movies increased dramatically. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-happened-to-the-hollywood-movie-industry/619626/24 "2012-04-23T02:46:13Z")
I dunno that Hollywood’s gotten worse recently, but I think much of the rest of the film world has gotten MUCH better in the past 20 years. Maybe there’s a talent drain. Or, of not exactly a drain, talented filmmakers are finding they don’t have to go to Hollywood to realize their ambitions. But, because I can, I blame George Lucas. He represents the Hollywood movie as the ultimate adolescent thrill ride with every cheap stereotype in the book thrown in, and the utter death of even a pretense of intellect in developing story lines and scripts. For all other ills in society, I blame Nixon. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-happened-to-the-hollywood-movie-industry/619626/25 "2012-04-23T18:09:42Z")
“No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” H.L. Mencken. This is how you make money. Make the stupidest, least original crap you can. The dollars will roll in. _Jack and Jill_ was blasted by the critics. 3% at Rotten Tomatoes. Made $74 domestic box office. Throw in overseas, DVD and TV and this is a significant money maker. Sweeping the Razzies will probably make it more money down the line. It qualifies for a sequel if Sandler did that sort of thing. (Oops, just checked. _Grown Ups 2_ is in production. Oh, noooooo.) This is not a decline, this is what success looks like. ---
**Author:** ![hogarth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hogarth/32/1773_2.png) [@hogarth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hogarth)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-happened-to-the-hollywood-movie-industry/619626/26 "2012-04-23T20:35:54Z")
> [@A Monkey With a Gun](#): > > Also, I did count _Thor_ for 2011 in the list. But not Sherlock Holmes, I guess (the other non-sequel movie on the 2011 list). Are you counting every adapted screenplay as unoriginal? ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-happened-to-the-hollywood-movie-industry/619626/27 "2012-04-23T20:51:33Z")
Depends on what you mean by “Hollywood”. There are plenty of new ideas. There are plenty of smaller movies. But large numbers of people do not go out to see them. All of the big companies have their hands in smaller companies which put out independent films. If anything, there are more outlets than ever for smaller movies to get seen. Using box office as a measure does not reflect badly on Hollywood. It reflects badly on the viewers who vote with their wallet. That is if you find something wrong with enjoying a special effects blockbuster. I do not. ---
**Author:** ![armedmonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@armedmonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/armedmonkey)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-happened-to-the-hollywood-movie-industry/619626/28 "2012-04-23T21:00:18Z")
> [@hogarth](#): > > But not Sherlock Holmes, I guess (the other non-sequel movie on the 2011 list). Are you counting every adapted screenplay as unoriginal? _Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows_ (2011) is a sequel to _Sherlock Holmes_ (2009). ---
**Author:** ![KneadToKnow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kneadtoknow/32/3999_2.png) [@KneadToKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KneadToKnow)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-happened-to-the-hollywood-movie-industry/619626/29 "2012-04-23T21:13:56Z")
Just going to take this little quiz here: > [@Equipoise](#): > > Did you see **The Guard** No > [@](#): > > **Beginners**? Not yet, but I have it on hold at the library. > [@](#): > > **Moneyball**? Yes, on video. > [@](#): > > **Barney’s Version**? No > [@](#): > > **Did you see Win Win**? No > [@](#): > > **Midnight In Paris**? Yes, bleh. > [@](#): > > Did you see **The Company Men**? No > [@](#): > > **A Separation**? Yes, loved it. > [@](#): > > **The Artist**? Yes, loved it. > [@](#): > > **Limitless**? Yes. > [@](#): > > **Did you see Martha Marcy May Marlene**? No > [@](#): > > **Hugo**? Sorta. Fell asleep the first time, going to try again before I have to return it. > [@](#): > > **We Need to Talk About Kevin**? No > [@](#): > > **Beautiful Boy**? No > [@](#): > > **Bill Cunningham New York**? No > [@](#): > > **Attack The Block**? No > [@](#): > > **The Descendants**? Yes, in the theater, _loved it_. Best new movie I’ve seen in years. > [@](#): > > **Potice**? No > [@](#): > > **The Devil’s Double**? No > [@](#): > > **Cedar Rapids**? No > [@](#): > > **The Trip**? No > [@](#): > > **From Prada to Nada**? No > [@](#): > > **Melancholia**? No > [@](#): > > **Super 8**? Not yet. > [@](#): > > **The Tree of Life**? Yes, kind of. Slept off and on through it on ShonemaxBO. Will try again. > [@](#): > > **Everything Must Go**? No > [@](#): > > T **inker Tailor Soldier Spy**? (ok, that’s a remake, but still…), Yes, in the theater. Loved it. > [@](#): > > **My Week With Marilyn**? Not yet, on hold. > [@](#): > > **The Lincoln Lawyer**? Yes. On video. > [@](#): > > **Contagion**? No > [@](#): > > **Source Code**? Yes, on video. > [@](#): > > **Arthur Christmas**? No, not likely to. > [@](#): > > **50/50**? No > [@](#): > > **13 Assassins**? No That was fun! And FWIW, I agree with your premise 100%. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2012, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-happened-to-the-hollywood-movie-industry/619626/30 "2012-04-24T22:08:35Z")
In terms of the question “what is an original idea”, I would argue that if the _property_ itself isn’t original, even though the _story_ is (e.g., Sherlock Holmes or Thor) then the film doesn’t truly count as an “original idea.” Others may not be so strict, but after all, the entire point of filming a Sherlock Holmes movie was that the character is a familiar quantity, and therefore pre-sold. I also think **Opus 1** had some good insights as well. ---
**Author:** ![shy\_guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a6a055/32.png) [@shy\_guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shy_guy)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2012, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-happened-to-the-hollywood-movie-industry/619626/31 "2012-04-24T22:18:56Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > I dunno that Hollywood’s gotten worse recently, but I think much of the rest of the film world has gotten MUCH better in the past 20 years. This is my impression. As far as I can perceive, there is no dearth of good movies (and I go to the movies pretty frequently, and seek out movies that don’t make it to the theater), but a lot of the good ones don’t come out of Hollywood. It’s kind of like how people always complain about the music on top 40 radio stations being bad. That’s because top 40 radio is completely irrelevant as a source for good music; it’s just not necessary anymore with the internet. There’s still tons of good new music. ---
**Author:** ![phxjcc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8491ac/32.png) [@phxjcc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phxjcc)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-happened-to-the-hollywood-movie-industry/619626/32 "2012-04-25T10:42:55Z")
First you have to realize that this is a BUSINESS, not an art charity. To get a movie made you have to have funding from investors that are looking for the greatest possible return on their money. So a successful film gets made and then is copied or a sequel, prequel, etc is done. That answers your points A & B. The investors are more likely to back a proven success story. As to point C, yes–the lowest common denominator, which means it will appeal to the largest audience and therefore yield the highest possible return. There are plenty of original ideas, however getting funding to bring an original idea to the market is really a tough sell–you have to have either marketable directors, stars, or both to get the funding for not just the making, but the marketing of the project. In the end, it is many projects chasing few funding opportunities, so the ones that get made are because the investors think that the proven formulas (A&B) or banal/base comedies © are the ones that will yield the greatest return. It’s just that simple. And, yes, that is the way it has always been–the difference is that the shrinking movie attendance by the American public has made the funding situation more precarious. In the 1940’s, Americans were going to the movies twice a week. Now if a movie has a big opening weekend of $50 million people are pleased. But do the math…$50 million/$10 per ticket = 5 million people…or a whopping 1.5% of the population saw it. That is a laughable success. ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Hartwick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7feea3/32.png) [@Dave\_Hartwick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Hartwick)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-happened-to-the-hollywood-movie-industry/619626/33 "2012-04-25T10:56:19Z")
Do TV shows count as Hollywood or just movies? Because TV seems to have gotten better. Well, maybe the correct way to put it is that the best recent TV shows are IMO better than the best of previous decades. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-happened-to-the-hollywood-movie-industry/619626/34 "2012-04-25T13:56:15Z")
A lot of Hollywood is driven by demographics and economics. First, demographics. Movies were originally designed for an audience of adults. The Production Code in the 1930s made sure that they were family friendly, but most the assumption was the the main audience for films were people 20 and above. There were children’s films, certainly, but most of those were Saturday matinee material – cheaply made. And the teenage market didn’t exist. In the 50s, drive-ins created a teen market, but it was always minor. Again, the films for that market were cheaply made and sensationalistic, and often made by small independent filmmakers. Science fiction was a mainstay, enough so the studios dabbled in it, but studio SF always tried to be “scientific” and deal with themes other than straight adventure. The turning point was **Star Wars**. Though **Jaws** created the summer blockbuster, it did deal with realistic adult characters. **Star Wars** was really a 1930s Flash Gordon serial with better special effects (the lightsaber battles were the type of thing you saw in the first Flash Gordon serial, though Flash used metal swords). But studios noticed two things: people were seeing **Star Wars** multiple times, increasing the box office, and the major portion of the audience were teenage boys. They had a lot of disposable income (as ticket prices went up and there was more competition from TV) and were willing to see the same movie over and over again in a short period of time. The obvious conclusion was that if you appealed to this demographic, you’d have a hit on your hands. And this demographic had similar tastes to teenagers in the 50s – action/adventure, science fiction, and horror. Teenage girls were original not considered part of the demographics, but **Titanic** changed that – it got the same reaction from them that **Star Wars** did for teenage boys. And now you have blockbusters for that demographic like **Twilight.** Now, for finances. As the cost of making movies increased, studios became careful what they made. The more money you risk, the more conservative you are with your choices. So, since studios knew that these summer blockbusters made money, they made more summer blockbusters. It also made sense to go with a familiar property. If people recognized the title or characters, it made it that much easier to promote. In addition, action/adventure and the like do very well outside the US, since the language barrier isn’t a factor – dialog takes a back seat to the action sequences. The blockbuster syndrome fed on itself. Older audiences were not as impressed by the teenage-oriented films, and that, coupled with the expense of theater tickets, meant they stayed away from theaters and became a smaller percentage of the audience, so it made financial sense to ignore them. Ultimately, the studios make these blockbusters because the movie audience wants them. They use familiar properties because it makes it easier to create buzz. They use sequels because sequels can be counted upon to have a certain minimum box office (the percentage used to be pretty stable, too – and if you knew any sequel will do at least 50% of the box office as the original, then you can budget the film accurately). The finances and the demographics give action films a big advantage in getting a green light. And films without action – not as expensive, but still pricey – don’t have a pre-sold audience from the outset. ---
**Author:** ![Christopher\_Robin\_Davies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8dc957/32.png) [@Christopher\_Robin\_Davies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Christopher_Robin_Davies)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-happened-to-the-hollywood-movie-industry/619626/35 "2012-04-25T19:45:43Z")
> [@A Monkey With a Gun](#): > > I was all set to defend Hollywood and say that they produce more new ideas than people think. Then I looked at the [2011 box office results](http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2011). You have to go all the way down to number 13 before you find a wholly new property\* (_The Help_). That’s much worse than I thought. > > \*I suppose you could make a case for _Thor_ at number 10 being a new property, but it’s based on a previously existing comic book character. If Thor is not a new property because it is adapted from a comic book, how is The Help not the same since it is based on a book? ---
**Author:** ![Reno\_Nevada](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Reno\_Nevada](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reno_Nevada)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-happened-to-the-hollywood-movie-industry/619626/36 "2012-04-25T19:53:37Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > Depends on what you mean by “Hollywood”. There are plenty of new ideas. There are plenty of smaller movies. But large numbers of people do not go out to see them. All of the big companies have their hands in smaller companies which put out independent films. If anything, there are more outlets than ever for smaller movies to get seen. Using box office as a measure does not reflect badly on Hollywood. It reflects badly on the viewers who vote with their wallet. > > That is if you find something wrong with enjoying a special effects blockbuster. I do not. This post made me think of something–I personally go out to see special effects blockbusters, but not so much “small” films, because the special effects blockbusters are negatively impacted by viewing on a small home screen, while a more thoughtful movie is negatively impacted by viewing in a locale where my feet stick to the floor. So, I tend to increase the \*box office \*of big movies but not small ones. Just one data point. ---
**Author:** ![Lust4Life](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecc23a/32.png) [@Lust4Life](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lust4Life)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-happened-to-the-hollywood-movie-industry/619626/37 "2012-04-25T22:10:45Z")
I don’t think that theres a lack of imaginative writers around. (except perhaps in the science fiction field all over, which is just about dead and buried as far as innovative or creative writing is concerned , and no, space opera isn’t SF ) But I do think that Hollywood is afraid to take risks anymore and goes for the safe option. The cult of each blockbuster hoping to have record box office figures is exacerbated by the incredible amount of money that is spent needlessly on the production itself IMO. I honestly think that many of the takes that end up on the cutting room floor would seem no worse or better then the same scene shown in the actual film to just about every member of the viewing public. The American audience does tend to be usually rather parochial in its tastes which also doesn’t encourage film makers to try something different. I and many other, people are tending to veer to watching foreign productions, even though it means having to put up with sub titles, just because it means that we won’t be able to predict the the path of, let alone the outcome of the plot, nor know instinctively all about the characters personas and reactions in the film within minutes of their appearing on screen. As far as Hollywoods concerned I can see no light at the end of the tunnel at the moment, unless its a train coming from the other direction. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2012, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-happened-to-the-hollywood-movie-industry/619626/38 "2012-04-26T12:00:22Z")
> [@Reno\_Nevada](#): > > This post made me think of something–I personally go out to see special effects blockbusters, but not so much “small” films, because the special effects blockbusters are negatively impacted by viewing on a small home screen, while a more thoughtful movie is negatively impacted by viewing in a locale where my feet stick to the floor. > > So, I tend to increase the \*box office \*of big movies but not small ones. Just one data point. I’m the same way. There are plenty of movies I want to see. But with my limited time I make sure I see the big budget action/FX movies in the theater. It just isn’t the same on TV. All movies benefit from being seen in a dark theater but some more than others. I loved _Hugo_ but I’m very glad I saw it in the theater. I’m sure it is not nearly as good on TV. ---
**Author:** ![Lynn\_Bodoni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2012, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-happened-to-the-hollywood-movie-industry/619626/39 "2012-04-26T17:21:13Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > In the long run wouldn’t that harm Hollywood more than help it? Wouldn’t it damage it’s reputation as a place where quality films are produced? Hollywood doesn’t care about the long run, it’s far more concerned about the short run. And it’s been this way for decades. I heard the joke “It’s not ‘what have you done for me?’ but ‘what have you done for me lately?’ that counts” when I was in my teens or twenties. Hollywood isn’t interested in creating a deathless classic that has a small but steady audience, it wants a HUGE blockbuster THIS WEEK. And another one next week, and next week. And the theaters are really designed to show action/blockbuster films, not the little thoughtful films, and it’s not like the ushers will hush anyone. If there’s people yakking on a phone or kids running up and down the aisles while you’re watching something with lots of explosions, you don’t miss much. However, if the same interruptions occur when you’re watching a tense drama, you might miss that critical scene which will pull the whole story together…and you can’t replay that bit in a theater without sitting through the whole film, even if you’re not scooted out the door at the end of the movie. ---
**Author:** ![Moonlitherial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4bbf92/32.png) [@Moonlitherial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moonlitherial)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2012, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-happened-to-the-hollywood-movie-industry/619626/40 "2012-04-26T17:28:12Z")
You guys are using box office results as though that shows Hollywood is driving the decisions on sequels. I would argue that box office results prove that we are driving the sequels. No matter what else they made the sequels did better so would be a terrible business decision to stop making sequels. From the evidence you’re presenting it’s not what Hollywood is doing to us that’s the issue, it’s what we’re doing to Hollywood. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-happened-to-the-hollywood-movie-industry/619626.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-happened-to-the-hollywood-movie-industry/619626.md?page=3)