Only $2.99/month

Terms in this set (76)

-COMMUNIST WITCH-HUNTS IN HOLLYWOOD (HUAC coerced prominent people from the film industry to declare their patriotism and to give up the names of colleagues suspected of having politically unfriendly tendencies --> fear that American way could be sabotaged via unpatriotic messages planted in films)

-THE END OF THE INDUSTRY'S VERTICAL INTEGRATION (government increased its scrutiny of the movie industry's aggressive business practices)

-SUBURBANIZATION (transformation from a wartime economy and a surge in consumer production had significant impact on movie going; Americans started cashing in wartime savings bonds for household goods and new cars; any income that went into buying movie tickets now went to buying consumer products and a a new house in the suburbs which were cheaper and far from downtown movie theaters; people married and had kids at younger age so fewer couples dating at the movies)

-THE ARRIVAL OF TELEVISION (movies began to focus on subject matter TV did not encourage; Hollywood had adopted the Code to restrict film depictions of violence, crime, drug use, and sexual behavior to quiet public and political concerns that the movie business was lowering the moral standards of America; initiated current ratings system which rated films for age appropriateness rather than censoring all adult content; introduced technological improvements to lure Americans away from TV sets --> technicolor vs. b&w TVs, wide-screen images, better sound, etc.)

-THE APPEARANCE OF HOME ENTERTAINMENT (people prefer watching movies at home, make money from DVD rentals and sales, Internet downloads and streaming, Blu-ray, Redbox, Blockbuster Express, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon --> home entertainment is getting bigger and keeping pace w/ movie theater experience)
-In the 1940s it was the national pastime. Approximately 67 percent, TWO-THIRDS of the American public every week on the average went to a movie. And they didnt just simply see a movie, they saw newsreels, they saw cartoons, animation, shorts, a second feature, but it was their weekly pastime. Today, LESS THAN 10 PERCENT OF PUPLIC on average GO TO THE MOVIES in a week.

-one of the differences between the movie business today and, you know, 40 or 50 years ago was that there were fewer theaters, bigger audiences and bigger screens.

-PRINTS now cost roughly, people use a number a thousand dollars a print. So its a significant cost. Not as significant as advertising

-they still CHARGE the film for what they call a DIGITAL COPY, even though the digital copy, rather than a $1,000 might cost them $50, and they then contribute the money for digital copies of the movie to help the theaters convert from analog projectors to digital projectors. charging for something that doesnt exist. it adds to the DEFICIT of the individual movies but helps all the studios together by helping the theaters to CONVERT TO DIGITAL, which will in the future reduce their cost.

-They have a library of movies of literally thousands of titles. Those TITLES THEY CAN SELL OVER AND OVER AGAIN to television stations, to cable networks, to pay television, to put them on video - now of course it's DVD - license them to games. This brings in a steady and major flow of money, which pays for their entire production

-they make their money by basically selling the same product over and over again through different platforms.

-the studios have to be - have a means of reaching the home audience as well as the audience that actually gets into a car and comes to a movie theater.

-PRODUCT PLACEMENT is more or less, you know, a nice freebie that comes on top of everything else.

-CAST INSURANCE says that if any of your major players - could be the director or the stars - are incapacitated, the insurance company will compensate you fully.

-the major difference between an independent and a studio film is a studio film has a distribution date the day it is greenlit, the day it goes into production. When an INDEPENDENT MOVIE is made, it has no distribution and NO DISTRIBUTION DATE. So it might have to go to film festivals. It might be years later before it gets distributed, or might never get distributed. For that reason, its much HARDER RAISING MONEY IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHEN THE MONEY'S EVER GOING TO BE RETURNED TO YOU

-rich people finance independent movies

-For a long time they were financed by selling the rights to the film in foreign territories - Germany, France, Japan. And by selling those rights and then borrowing money on the contract that they would be paid for those rights, they were able to finance the movies.

-You just sign an agreement that if the film is finished and if it plays - sometimes as a contract it has to play in American theaters - you will put up so much money for the rights to that territory. Let's say Germany. So you agree to pay $10 million for the German rights to the movie if it's delivered. Then the movie producer has to go to a bank and say, I would like to borrow $10 million on this note. The bank will say, well, how do we know it'll be finished? Then you have to get a completion bond from essentially an insurance company which says that we guarantee that the movie will be finished, and that bond might cost you another million dollars

-I do think that the quality of movies have been juvenilized, if not degraded, have brought down in their age level and their intelligence, by the requisites and the realities of what a studio needs to do to keep money flowing in

-they need an audience to come to the theaters that they can find, and that audience tends to be teenage and high school students and people that basically want action in movies. So more and more they PRODUCE THE MOVIES THAT WILL PRODUCE THE AUDIENCE THEY NEED AND SOMEHOW THEY HOPE THAT A LITTLE MONEY WILL BE AVAILABLE TO MAKE THE OTHER MOVIES THAT THEY WOULD PREFER TO MAKE if they had their way about it, if they had the ability to do what they wanted to do.
-potentially problematic idea of linking something fantastical/other worldly/action-based with something intense/emotional/grounded
-"We live in a COMMERCIAL WORLD, where you've gotta come up with 'trailer moments' and make the thing feel big and impressive and satisfying, especially in that summer-movie-theater construct,"
-industry watchers reexamining Steven Spielberg's prediction, in June, that Hollywood is headed for an "implosion": An industry that makes only megamovies, prophesied the father of the megamovie, will die of its own gigantism
-But Hollywood's gigantism, Lindelof points out, is practically algorithmic—and the effect tendrils all the way down to the storytelling level. When ever-larger sums are spent to make and market ever-fewer, ever-bigger movies, and those movies are aimed at Imax screens, then world-¬shattering comic-book I.P. and gigantic special effects are expected, with larger-than-life characters wielding those effects.
-It's almost impossible to, for example, not have a final set piece where the fate of the free world is at stake.
-You still kind of want to GROUND [the fantasy].
-This arranged marriage between something intense and emotional and grounded to something fantastical and otherworldly and action-based could potentially be ... problematic?
-stories and consequences bigger, harder to produce smaller movies, appeals to the masses


" a movie is something you see, cinema is something that's made"

SIGNIFICANCE: saturated with movies,LESS OF AN APPRECIATION FOR ART, not as interested in cinema, cinema is losing relevance in society because of studios and our buying into the movie industry rather than cinema

-you can take a perfectly solid, successful and acclaimed movie and it may not qualify as cinema. It also means you can take a piece of cinema and it may not qualify as a movie

-cinema is never going to disappear completely. Because it's not about money, it's about good ideas followed up by a well-developed aesthetic.

-the problem is that cinema as I define it, and as something that inspired me, is under assault by the studios and, from what I can tell, with the full support of the audience. The reasons for this, in my opinion, are more economic than philosophical

-You've got PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW MOVIES, don't watch movies for pleasure, DECIDING WHAT MOVIE YOU'RE GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO MAKE. That's one reason studio movies aren't better than they are, and that's one reason that CINEMA, as I'm defining it, IS SHRINKING.

-Well, how does a studio decide what movies get made? One thing they take into consideration is the foreign market, obviously. It's become very big. So that means, you know, things that travel best are going to be action-adventure, science fiction, fantasy, spectacle, some animation thrown in there.

-So then there's the EXPENSE of putting a movie out, which is a big problem. Point of entry for a mainstream, wide-release movie: 30 million dollars.

-nobody has figured out how to reduce the cost of putting a movie out.

-you would think, in terms of spending, if you have one of these big franchise sequels, that you would say oh we don't have to spend as much money, because is there anyone in the galaxy that doesn't know Iron Man's opening on Friday? So you would think, oh, we can stop carpet-bombing with TV commercials. It's exactly the opposite—they spend more. They spend more. Their attitude is: "you know it's a sequel, and it's the third one, and we really want to make sure people really want to go." We want to make sure that opening night number is big so there's the perception of the movie is that it's a huge success. There's that, and if you've ever wondered why every poster and every trailer and every TV spot looks exactly the same, it's because of testing. It's because anything interesting scores poorly and gets kicked out.

-You've got fewer studio movies now taking up a bigger piece of the pie and you've got twice as many independent films scrambling for a smaller piece of the pie.