How to revitalize the movie industry? Make 100 movies a year that audiences want to see
The movie industry is going through a crisis of faith in itself — like a person who has long needed therapy but still can't make up their mind to take active steps. According to Variety film critic Owen Gleiberman, what the industry needs is not so much pity as a clear goal: to release 100 movies a year that truly hook the viewer. Nothing more, nothing less.
The reasons for stagnation are known to everyone: pandemic has changed the habits of going to the movies, streaming has defeated theaters, price gouging and endless trailers interfere with the enjoyment of the movie, and young people prefer TikTok. But, according to the author, all this is no reason for capitulation. Movies still have an audience, and blockbusters still collect box office. The problem is a missed balance.
It's not about making more movies, it's about making the "right" movies. In the 80s and 90s, there were about 100 movies a year, and many of them became hits — not only blockbusters, but also dramas, comedies, melodramas. Today, Gleiberman estimates that there are only about 50-60 such movies. The rest are passing by. At the same time, successful projects like "Anyone But You", "Challengers", "A Complete Unknown" confirm that the audience still wants to watch a "live" movie, not mixed up only on franchises and superheroes.
Classic Cinemas chain CEO Chris Johnson also emphasizes the importance of the "middle segment". According to him, "six movies are doing reasonable business over a giant movie that creates a vacuum". This is a direct hint at a return to the strategies of the 90s — with moderate budgets, a focus on adult audiences and a bet on diversity.
Today, the industry is obsessed with gigantomania: if a movie can't make millions, it just doesn't get made. But as a result, the projects that could form the backbone of a stable and healthy movie system are disappearing.
According to Gleiberman, the industry should think as a single organism, not as a set of competitors tearing each other apart. Instead of a war over streaming services, it's about regaining trust in movie theaters. After all, many worthy movies have not received wide distribution, although they could have done well in the audience. "Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery", "Hit Man", "Flora and Son" — all could have been hits at the box office, but they remained content for subscribers.
Do we need "Oscar" movies? Sure. But there shouldn't be more of them than "just good" movies. Hollywood was once able to make both — without shame or complexes. And they can again. The problem isn't that movies are dying. The problem is that it has forgotten how to live. And it's time to remember that.
What do you think about this thoughts?
Discuss this news
22Many film companies do not want to take risks and instead of creating original scripts, they prefer to recycle old ones. That's the problem.
Secondly, there used to be a lot of franchises, too, sequels were very often shot, but there were either not so many remakes, or they were well disguised (or there was no such gifted Internet that immediately reported borrowing the ideas of the golden age).
In any case, before we started making a profit from VHS rentals, we had to drag people to the movies for Hotheads, Capture 2, and Lethal Weapon 3.
Thirdly, the problem is not so much in the quality of the content, but rather in its diversification, in the viewer's viewing experience and the criteria by which people choose films. Someone is watching directors and screenwriters, someone is watching studios, someone is watching actors, someone is watching a genre, and someone is watching a picture and a budget. There are too many trailers. There are too many movie opportunities. Movies get to streaming too quickly, so you can safely refuse to go to the cinema when there is a big TV at home.
Fourthly, the time that a potential viewer could spend on a movie theater can be occupied by anything, up to pointless flipping through YouTube. Therefore, cinemas will have to fight for consumers with literally all types of leisure activities.
I suddenly wondered, do women go to the movies alone, or with their friends? Because it seems to me that the main audience of modern cinema is women.
I'll tell you what kind of politics, that kind of movie. It's always been that way. And there's no need to write anything about the box office here.
And this article is complete nonsense. You've been making movies for decades and you've forgotten how to do it? No, they didn't forget how, but they were simply forbidden to make a normal movie. They only take pictures of girls and about girls now. With rare exceptions, you can pick up something worthwhile, which is exactly what I'm doing here, and then more often with rewinds.
PS: by the way, I used to go to the earliest session and take a ticket to the very last row. I was sitting alone in the cinema. romance.You should have seen the look on my face when the security guards let me through.And I was sitting from and to.They probably hated me.
I don't believe that people have forgotten how to write good stories, they just don't miss them.
A woman wrote a book, the book immediately becomes a bestseller, and after a year or two, a TV series is being made based on this book, and am I supposed to believe it?
That is, it doesn't just happen in the movies.. but also in literature. Publishing houses are for women only, literature is for women only.. paintings by great artists are doused with paint and destroyed, art is only for women. Yes, the women are on the podium, the women are rejoicing.
Okay, here you might think that everything related to women is always something bad. Although this is not the case.. but modern films make me think that this is exactly the case.
Although I can agree that a lot of things have become for women. The woman rushes forward. And I think the women are great. Because, finally, the woman stopped bending down in front of the man and constantly giving in. She says she deserves to do something too. I also deserve to be on the podium. But that doesn't mean that men should step aside. What prevents a man from writing bestsellers? Tell me they won't take his job? Well, maybe so. But women have lived like this for hundreds of years, can you imagine!? But they didn't give up. Women's rights have always been belittled, but women have moved on.
Have a safe journey, https://myshows.me/JimNuman . Smack💋
I partly agree with the commentators above that there is too much of a straightforward agenda in films. We need to talk about racism, homophobia and other issues. But not head-on, as at rallies, but masterfully, as in "Green Book", "No" (a brilliant film) or "Carol".
The task of any art is to artistically present this or that idea, this or that principle. For some reason, filmmakers (and writers, by the way) began to successfully forget about this. The artistic part has been lost in art. There was a bare agenda, which no one is able to artistically process.
Well, the second point is that the film industry (like the world of literature) has relied on a young audience. Yes, she (the audience under 25) is more mobile, responds faster to ads, buys fan merchandise, and so on. But the industry lost millions, forgetting about the audience of 35+ or God forbid 50+. Well, neither I nor my parents will go to Marvel and sequels. Not because Marvel is bad, but because I want to see movies like Manchester by the Sea, Fallen Leaves, and The Little Things of Life (well, thank God, this one is coming out, even if it's six months late). Family films, good comedies, adventure films by ala "Indiana Jones". It's just a good movie. It may not be great, but it's just good, which you relax watching.
I went to the cinema almost every week before the crown. I've been to the cinema 3 or 4 times in the last 5 years. I'm 36.
I get a lot more pleasure from watching at home :)
There are many examples of good films that have collected impressive box office, and these are not blockbusters (for example, Forest Gump, or Pulp Fiction), people go to the cinema not only for the sake of special effects or heroes in tights. Give it originality, give it an interesting story.
Why are streaming services still popular? Yes, because there are interesting projects. It's even elementary to take the top series of this year (Outsourcing, Transition age, Black Mirror (orig project, even though it's already the 7th season) They're not packed with special effects, but they have an interesting script, an original approach, and some innovations, current issues, and that's the recipe for good movies.
Gliberman is right to suggest shifting the focus from giantomania to the "healthy" middle segment. However, success requires systemic changes: partnerships between studios and cinemas, investments in new talent and a rethink of the attitude towards the audience. Without this, even 100 films will remain just a number, not a solution.