The Data-Driven Tech Engine at the Heart of Hollywood's Content Factories (wsj.com) 44
America's studios, creators and marketers are relying, more than ever, on digital platforms that allow them to gauge what audiences like-- and would like to see more of. From a report: They're not just looking for test screenings, either. They're looking to check in with potential audiences at every stage of production, from before a script is written until the moment their new TV show, film or music video debuts. Ever since George Lucas ushered in the era of endless sequels (and prequels), Hollywood executives have tried to capitalize on the success of the Last Big Thing by churning out more of it. But content budgets are increasing far faster than established franchises can keep up. Netflix is projected to spend more on new and acquired content in 2020 -- $17 billion -- than Apple spent on research and development in 2019. With stakes that high, minimizing risk when creating new content "at scale" means treating it like any other mass-market product. Executives, producers, writers, directors and marketers need to be able to consistently craft programs that are more likely than not to find their target audiences. Critical approval and industry awards -- even box-office blowouts -- while nice, aren't the endgame for most.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Gems stood out of the mud all the time. But in hindsight, all you remember is the gems. That's why the fraction of gems seems to be higher in the past.
But I agree that while the number of gems may have stayed somewhat constant, the amount of mud has increased.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There was plenty of trash back in the past. How many 80s movies do you know of today? Other than a few popular ones (say, Top Gun, Back to the Future, Alien, Terminator, Robocop, etc) there was a ton of junk as well. And the 80s is far enough away to feel "old" (30-40 years ago, after all). And the 80s is the era of the modern blockbuster too, and was pretty full of crap.
They're making just as much trash back then with huge budgets. And probably plenty of movies back then earned lots of money today but are
Re: (Score:2)
Churned out music, $200 million movies, Myspace (Score:3)
It seems to be the reality that before spending millions of dollars, people want some assurance they'll get that money back.
Last year, in a rather significant IT "oops", Myspace lost 50 million songs by 14 million artists. That's a lot of creativity, 14 million artists. (They still have a few million they didn't lose). Yet few people go listen, for free, to the millions of independent and small-label artists. Those who buy music, including streaming, choose what Universal and Warner promote. I think part
Re: (Score:3)
Odd you should bring up PoC [jimhillmedia.com]
At one point during pre-production, Michael Eisner himself canceled the first "Pirates" film. Saying that the movie -- as Gore & Jerry envisioned it -- was going to be far too expensive (I.E. A then-whopping $120 million). Plus what with all of those undead pirate skeletons walking around and all the throat slashing, stabbing and shooting, this motion picture was going to automatically wind up getting a PG-13 rating. And Walt Disney Pictures -- as a rule -- never released anything racier than a PG.
Re: (Score:2)
do you want vanilla, vanilla or just vanilla?
Re: (Score:3)
>> computer says 'fail'
$ boxofficeAI "YoutubeKittens, THE MOVIE"
>> computer says '$$$'
Re: (Score:2)
yep, pretty much this.
This line of thinking results in 'safe' movies being made at the exclusion of just about anything that would be a potential risk at the box office. Think of it as paint-by-numbers film making. It is in all genres the antithesis of creativity, and people can smell it from a mile away. Hopefully the muzzled creativity and forced 'woke' narratives cause Hollywood to start circling the drain (more so than it already is).
Luckily the cost of making a movie will continue to drop for the in
You don't follow the audience (Score:3)
You lead them, that's what creating culture is.
Re: (Score:2)
You can still do new things, and detect early on that the audience will appreciate it. So not seeing the problem here.
Yes lots of studios will churn the same hash, but you don't need focus group input to see whether the stuff that worked last time still works.
Re: (Score:2)
You can still do new things, and detect early on that the audience will appreciate it. So not seeing the problem here.
The problem comes when you cancel a new thing because the studio won't achieve maximum profit. Achieving maximum profit almost always includes watering down the work to make it more universally palpable. It leads to studios selling people more of what they already like. No risk is taken on things the public might like. So with this scheme there is less room for new stuff and thus for the introduction of new culture. It's the same problem as we're having with information bubbles on social media.
Culture (Score:2)
You lead them, that's what creating culture is.
Culture is not about consumption, it is about participation.
And it is a bit hard to participate when everything is locked down for life+70.
Re: You don't follow the audience (Score:3)
Hollywood types are the last people I want creating my culture.
Re: (Score:2)
Hollywood types are the last people I want creating my culture.
Precisely.
International markets ruin a movie (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Computer-generated stuff can be good. You can't possibly say Matrix was bad (the original one, not the rehashes).
I've noticed something with action movies: the shittier they are, the shorter the scene cuts are. For example, try to watch a fighting scene in John Wick or Jason Bourne: none of the scenes lasts for more than a fraction of a second. It cuts and cuts and cuts at high speed in a pathetic effort to stitch together a convincing fight, but all it does is give me a headache, and my epileptic neighbor
Re: (Score:2)
"Gemini Man" was the worst example of this i've ever seen. Those old school kung fu movies with the sped-up fight choreography were also more entertaining.
But that aside, at least the Matrix started out with a pretty interesting and fresh philosophical take. It was very easy to turn that into a compelling story. It seems a lot of movies nowadays take the opposite approach:
Exec one: "hey we have all of this CGI hardware and software at our disposal, let's use it to print some money brah"
Exec two: (snorts
Re: (Score:2)
Besides the PRC won't like it unless China is made to look good and we all know Hollywood likes to suck them small penises for hard currency.
Remakes and reboots (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And it's not just the remakes or the endless milking of franchises and universes, even original productions aren't all that good. I'm not even looking for an epic masterpiece, just a solid action flick, horror movie, or SF. Not much that's worth my attention, and reviewers
Re: (Score:3)
They were trying to make another Ghostbusters movie for years, just couldn't find anyone to do it or a good script.
In the end they ruined that movie with their algorithmic bullshit. The director's cut is much better but the theatrical release was nerfed.
I think if anything studios are getting a bit better at trusting creators now. Big franchises like Game of Thrones, Westworld, Breaking Bad etc. have encouraged them to let people with a creative vision try it. It seems to work too, it's anecdotal but I'd sa
Re: Remakes and reboots (Score:2)
Ghostbusters: original, hilarious, fun, didn't take itself at all seriously, encouraged audience to kick back and have fun
Remake: unoriginal, 4 ugly, unfunny, boring, stereotyped wymyn, wasting 110 minutes of everyone's life
Ghostbusters: made a fuck ton of money and became a part of our culture.
Remake: appropriately trashed for being what it is.
No director's cut could save it. When you start with rotten meat, cutting it differently it's still rotten.
Re: (Score:2)
The original was an adult film but then it became a kids thing. No one can save it now.
Re: Remakes and reboots (Score:2)
True, the original GB was for adults and older teens.
Hollywood is always looking for a way to make toys now which kills every movie. I didn't even bother watching the last few Star Wars films after they turned into advertising for new toy sales.
When Solo came on cable, I tried watching it several times but kept drifting and never got through it. I assume the others were equally unwatchable.
Re: (Score:2)
Solo was terrible. The Force Awakens and Last Jedi are good. Rogue 1 was great.
Re: Remakes and reboots (Score:2)
Rogue 1 was the lady one I saw. It was ok I guess. I've seen worse. I've certainly seen better. After that I was done.
I really liked the idea behind Solo but wow... it kind of hurt to watch it.
Re: (Score:2)
Solo is easily the worst Star Wars movie ever made.
As Henry Ford already said (Score:4, Insightful)
And that's why we get faster horses instead of cars.
Of course people without imagination will ask for more of the same instead of something new.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a great quote - thanks.
I have to wonder if the model can also be used to rate things for "innovation", audience emotional response etc. ie. produce some index that indicates how original and impactful a new idea is
Presumably sugary/salty/fatty is not the only axis along which the data can be sliced
Plus Side (Score:1)
Creators? Where? (Score:3)
America's studios, creators and marketers
There are studios and marketers for sure. But I ain't seen much creation coming out of them in a long time. It's all about milking the same old franchises dry - think Rambo 34, Fart and Furious 57 or Hulk vs Predator vs Skywalker in Narnia - or making movies out of successful franchises that had nothing to do with movies to begin with (a movie with *Lego* characters - whodathunk it eh?)
The only really new and creative productions I've seen lately came out of Netflix, Amazon and the likes.
Re: Creators? Where? (Score:2)
You didn't like Rambo 34, The Resurrection??
I thought it was brilliant! When he came out of the grave after 3 days firing the rocket launcher and said, "I'm baaaaack!"
Oh wait....
Someone doesn't know their film history (Score:2)
Ever since George Lucas ushered in the era of endless sequels
Really? Albert Broccoli and James Bond say hello.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
A *brand* "Original Series" (Score:2)
"Art" ... "creativity" ... (Score:2)
... "making you see the world with different eyes"... and "fairly compensated artists".
All things, that don't exist because of copyright and those companies, as they always state, ... but /despite/ them.
Every time you pay a media industry company, or censor a video, ... an artist is forced to create another generic /product/ or stay an artist and die in poverty.
Re: "Art" ... "creativity" ... (Score:2)
Like how Michael Jackson died poor and his whole family are starving?
Artists who produce stuff people like can make a living at it. Artists who produce stuff people don't like can refill my coffee. I always tip high, so there's that for them.
Re: "Art" ... "creativity" ... (Score:2)
MJ is off the charts crazy popular. Even as a dead drug addicted child molester.
If a LOT of people didn't like his music he'd be alive today driving for Uber for extra cash between small bar gigs.
And this is how we got... (Score:1)
M. Night Shyamalan's "The Last Airbender."
Agile - Hollywood Edition (Score:2)
Also known as... (Score:3)
... the MBA/accountant approach to creativity.