JBonLemmy

joined 1 year ago
[–] JBonLemmy@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You are incorrect that the future of entertainment is an endless, perpetual feed of on-demand home video. It is completely unsustainable. The streaming model peaked during the global quarantine and is now in freefall. You will never have as many people watching TV at the same time again. There was literally almost nothing else to do. The reason why David Zaslav is butchering the MAX catalog, Netflix is cracking down on password sharing, Disney+ and Hulu are set to merge, Paramount is on the verge of a total shutdown, Apple and Prime are canceling shows left and right, and Peacock is seeking a lifeline is because these services existed to thrive during a pandemic. The shutdowns are over and people are going outside again.

You are correct that the studios' major theatrical releases are flopping this summer and that multiplexes are suffering: The failure of Indiana Jones and The Flash are a testament to Hollywood's greed, bloat, and hubris. But spend some time in New York, LA, Portland, Chicago, and more and you will find dozens of repertory and revival theaters selling out classic movies every single night with enthusiastic crowds. People want affordability and quality. And they want to leave their homes and enjoy entertainment with their communities.

[–] JBonLemmy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

That's too expensive. I don't blame you. Things will need to change.

[–] JBonLemmy@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (12 children)

Crowdfunding has been great for small indie video games and products and historically awful for film. Remember the Veronica Mars movie on Kickstarter? They raised a shitload of money from fans and then sold it to WB. We haven't seen a high profile film crowdfunded since. WeFundr exists, but isn't particularly killing it.

To make a real movie with wide theatrical potential, you need people willing to put six and seven figures in. Investors in movies want equity and access. They want a piece of the potential profit, they want to visit sets, meet movie stars and directors, and come to premieres and festivals. They want to have a cameo in the movie or give their kid a job on set. They want to see their names on a screen. They want to give notes. They want to tell their friends they made a movie. They want to be a part of the show. It's my job to facilitate these investments while protecting my filmmakers from interference.

[–] JBonLemmy@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I agree with you that this summer of 300 million dollar studio flops is well deserved and that the unholy fusion of Big Tech and Hollywood has destroyed our industry. Unfortunately for TV buffs, the era of big budget streaming is now also coming to a close due to a mixture of labor actions, rising interest rates, and the simple fact that there are too many apps and none of them make money.

The reason I prefer watching movies in theaters is because I enjoy communal experiences and feel good movies are enhanced by leaving home and joining a crowd. It's the same reason I go to concerts, sporting events, and plays and comedy shows. Plus I am required to turn off my phone.

[–] JBonLemmy@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (21 children)

As a producer who aims to make 2-10 million dollar genre flicks, I don't see why ticket prices shouldn't be scaled to budgets. Don't want to pay 25 bucks to see Avengers 16? Pay 10 to see a low to mid budget crime or horror flick instead.

To keep profits up, theaters should bring back double features, intermissions, and sell popcorn with THC butter. Snack sales will explode.

 

As the guilded age came to a close in the 1900s, railroad barons, industrialists and banking kingpins put money into the arts in order to launder their image and legacies. We see no such thing today. Why is that?

I'm an independent film producer in NYC who has previously acted in Hollywood studio films and sold screenplays. I'm also extremely online. I have found that wealthy techies, in general, have little to zero interest in investing in culture. This has been a source of frustration considering the large percentage of new money that comes from the sector.

I'm not alone in feeling this way: I have a friend who raises money for a non-profit theater in Boston, another who owns an art gallery in Manhattan, and another who recently retired at the LA Opera. All have said not to bother with anyone in tech. This has always bummed me out given that I genuinely believed with all of my heart and soul that the internet was going to usher in a new golden age of art, culture, and entertainment. (Yes, I was naive as a kid in the 00s.)

Art and culture can truly only thrive on patronage, especially in times of deep income inequality. Yet there are no Medicis in 2023. So what's missing here? Where is the disconnect?