How bad can the movies get?

Claudia Eller and Richard Verrier had a good story in today's Business section talking about how a host of big Hollywood productions could be derailed before they go into production if the studios can't negotiate a new contract with SAG by the end of the month. Even uber-producer Jerry Bruckheimer sounded pretty concerned, saying that if SAG went out on strike, "We'd have to shut it down and everybody goes home."

I'm rooting against a strike as much as anybody -- or at least I thought I was until I perused the list of films that our piece said could be affected by a work stoppage. Our chart had 17 films that were either in production or slated for production that could be shut down by a strike. As I read the descriptions of the films, which appear to be a fairly representative sampling of mainstream studio filmmaking, circa 2008, I started to cry. OK, I didn't really cry. But I did find myself in the grip of a minor depression.

Want to know why?

Of the 17 films in our chart, here's the breakdown, in terms of genres worthy of Hollywood attention:

Sequels: 4. (Including follow-ups to "The Da Vinci Code" and "The Terminator" series.)

Remakes of books or TV shows: 5. (Including movie versions of "Hannah Montana," "The Jetsons" and "The A-Team.")

Sci-fi or action thrillers: 4. (Including the video-game based "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time," but not including the "Terminator" or "Transformers" installments, which are already listed under sequels.)

Comedies: 4. (Including "A Thousand Words," from the Eddie Murphy-Brian Robbins team that is bringing you "Meet Dave" next month.)

That's it. 0-for-17 when it comes to challenging adult entertainment. No dramas. Nothing with any grand historical sweep. No provocative biopics. No quirky personal films. In short, nothing really surprising at all. I'm not saying they're all dead on arrival -- I'm curious to see if Ridley Scott can find something new to say about the Robin Hood saga, though if you've been watching the wonderfully smart 'n' sassy  "Robin Hood" series on BBC-America, it's obvious the bar has been raised pretty high when it comes to a fresh look at the ruffians afoot in Sherwood Forest. (Just watch the trailer up above.)

My point is only this: A strike would be a bad thing for the working class of Hollywood, who need a studio paycheck. But for those of us in the audience, I can't say I'd shed a tear. Most of the indie film productions have waiver deals that allow them to keep shooting, strike or not. Imagine the possibilities. Having a year where indie films could dominate the marketplace would be a year where it might be safe to go to the multiplexes again.   

photo of Steven Spielberg, Ian Bryce, and Michael Bay in 2007 via  Dreamworks/Paramount

Comments

[Mrs. Wakely]

The posts end up in a circle, IATSE blaming SAG, SAG blaming AFTRA, AFTRA, SAG, IATSE blaming AMPTP. Here's where I stand: "trust, but verify." It certainly wasn't Ronald MacDonald Reagan who wrote that, some speechwriter I'd guess, but, the basic point is tried and true and has centuries of precedent: the rich and powerful will screw the weak and powerless. Every. Single. Time. In the early 20th century, the working man in America decided to put their lives and the lives of their families on the line, and they formed UNIONS. The unions ORGANIZED people, regular people, working people, into collectives, that spoke with a thousand, 10 thousand, a million voices, instead of one. They were wretched, tired people, children, working 16 hour days, 7 days a week for a few bucks a week. People DIED to organize work in this country. Many, many, people. Did corruption and graft follow? Of course it did. Did the unions price themselves out of certain businesses? Of course they did. BUT, everyone needs to understand the AMPTP is not the friend of the working actor, writer, director, or crew member. We may treat them as friends, and they us, but when push comes to shove? When they get an edict from on high to cut costs? People, regular working people, crew members, TV directors and AD's, comedy writers, focus pullers, craft service, wardrobe, become expendable. The AMPTP is OBVIOUSLY pushing hard, as we enter the digital age, to force concessions from the creative unions, because, while they CAN'T see the future, they want to hedge their bets, and just like people who hedge money? IT TAKES MONEY TO MAKE MONEY. The AMPTP has cost benefit analysis data on their computers that are telling them things like: IF SAG strikes for 4 weeks, what will it cost us? 8 weeks? 16? If we hold the line against residuals for the Internet, against a raise in the DVD residual, against the ability of SAG to collectively bargain force majeure, against a raise in minimums for the average actor, who, our data tells us, brings home around 40 thousand dollars a year, and keeps 22 - IF we hold the line on these items, and SAG, worst case scenario, strikes? WHAT WILL IT COST US VS. WHAT WE WILL MAKE OFF THESE NEGOTIATION WINS DOWN THE LINE? And when Tom Hanks, making 25 million on "Angels and Demons" staying in a 5 star hotel in Italy, looking forward to 10 percent of first dollar gross, says, "VOTE YES ON THE AFTRA DEAL" he's saying: "GET OUT OF MY WAY - I HAVE A MOVIE TO SHOOT." Now, how do the rest of the 120,000 members of SAG react to that act of force? Do we, in the tradition of our predecessors, use the POWER OF OUR VOTE in a democratically elected and run UNION to overrule the rich and powerful who NO LONGER NEED THE UNION THAT MADE THEIR CAREER POSSIBLE? Or, do we think, "Well, Tom Hanks seems like a nice, smart guy, he certainly plays them in the movies, why would he steer us wrong?" But somewhere, James Cagney, one of the earliest supporters of SAG, who lived through the depression and started working as an actor in films when they paid you peanuts and worked you 16 hours, 7 days a week, somewhere, James Cagney is snarling, "Shame on you Hanks - you dirty rat."

[CD]

Finally! Someone who sees through the Emperor's clothes!

[Acushla]

Hi Patrick. Dirty Harry said to say hey! Looks like a great blog. I'll be bookmarking. Best of luck.

[Kevin Van Meter]

Creativity in Hollywood has gone by the wayside for many reasons.

1. The expense of making films. In some cases, two or three studios now combine in the production of features. Paying talent, technical people, publicity and hundreds of needs per production, you have to be a hit, or else.

2. Like politics, movies are now governed by surveys and polls. What will audiences see? In most instances, the group that the major studios crave is the 'young audience.' Those who have approched or gone over 40 years old have virtually been discarded as far as content of subject matter. Look at the coming attractions, The majority are speed chases and expolsions or 'comedies' with middle school mentalities, cursing and most times, toilet humor. Those who have lived life, experienced everyday trials and been rewarded by being told...'you go sit over there...but we appeciate you!'
Hollywood to have a bomb could seriously destroy a studio company. So...they don't take ANY chances. The days of Frank Capra, sorry to say, are gone forever.

3. Speaking of politics, most Hollywood types are too politically active. They tend to be liberal (in some cases like Brabra Streisand and George Clooney - ULTRA-liberal) and the major broadcast organs tend to cater to them to push their agenda. Example: David Letterman ALWAYS smacks George Bush. Do you imagine if he EVER gave the president a break? The "Hollywood Elite" would never come on his show. Conservative Hollywood tends to keep it VERY quiet.
They keep fooling themselves and the media by thinking that this is what the mainstream of America feels. And I can assure you, this certainly is not the case. That is why fewer and fewer people are going to the movies. They rather rent. And what do they rent? Classics. Classics that reflected what the human condition used to be.

The golden age of Hollywood is really over.

[Craig]

The studios and all who sail in them do not realise that the game is up. People want stories not CGI and/or remakes. When the "stars"(yeah, right!) make more news than the movies in which they "act" then Hollywood better grip on tight to the sides of the handcart 'cos it's gonna be a bumpy ride to Hell.

[jim]

How bad can movies be? The list of movies in this story contains HANNA MONTANA, THE JETSONS AND THE A TEAM. And Hollywood wonders why theater numbers are down.
It used to be that you went to the movies because your favorite actor was in them. Eastwood, Willis, Cary Grant, John Wayne, and a dozen more. The trailers for those movies spotlighted the actor that was in the movie. No longer is this the case. What is spotlighted now is computer generated images and horrible camera work and the overuse of the editing machnes. The actor and plot are just fillers.

[Mary Street]

Dear Mr. Goldstein,

Are you sure you want to keep writing about Hollywood?

If you dislike all other film and genres but adult dramas, enough that you'd like to see all those other kinds of films that Hollywood makes shut down -- and enough that you don't mind people suffering for those shut downs mid-course -- why don't you restrict your comments to the narrow slice of pop culture you respect and enjoy?

Given your own prejudices, finally revealed, won't the rest of your writing, about films you detest, always be inherently bitter?

Please explain.

MB

[Furious D]

I have to say that I can understand your feelings.

What I call Hollywood's self-fulfilling idiocy has made movies too expensive to make and market, so they've retreated into what they think is the safe territory of sequels, retreads, rehashes, and rip-offs.

Audiences feel cheated because of the constantly rising ticket price for so little entertainment, and they stay at home and wait for the movies to come on TV or NetFlix. Personally, I think the whole industry needs a reboot, right down to the core of how it does business.

[THE OBENSON REPORT]

"Imagine the possibilities. Having a year where indie films could dominate the marketplace would be a year where it might be safe to go to the multiplexes again."

Too bad ThinkFilm may not be able to join in the celebration, given their financial woes. Still, I'm optimistic!

[HulaGirl]

Wow. What a depressing line-up. My kids won't even watch that stuff.

SAG should strike over being cast in that dreck.

Film fans should strike with their wallets and big screen TVs.

Don't.Buy.Tickets.

Join Netflix and rent everything in the Criterion Collection.

[Manda]

Brilliant Robin Hood trailer. BBC, are you listening? Hire that editor!

[Patty]

Great post, Patrick.

And thank you for posting HeathRA's trailer. It is so much better than those made by the BBC.

[John Eldrin]

Strike or not to strike. If you are like me -- an actor who is being paid half of what you were paid five years ago -- and your residuals are down about 40%, thus for the same amount of work you are making half the money. Meanwhile stars and executives are making millions -- more and more every yeat.. At the end of the day if you care about your career and your family, you can not afford to worry about what a strike will do the industry. If you accept what they are offering, you are hastening your own demise.

[Rachel]

Patrick can root for a strike, as he has a cushy gig at the LAT (of course, how much longer that lasts is anyone's guess). But for the home-town paper to suggest that throwing ordinary people out of work is a good thing is just another reason to wonder exactly who's the audience for the Spring Street crowd?

[Kathy SF]

Wow, with trailers like that from devoted fans such as "Heather" on Youtube, who needs American programming?

Hear that BBC....how bout offering that girl a deserved job, hmmmmm??;-)

[L. Martin]

Problem with Hollywood is it's a "closed shop" - if you're after an entry level job as an unpaid undergraduate intern or an assistant that will be asked to read Ron Bass's latest script and give notes (lol) then chances are you managed to get your hands on the secret joblist that is distributed by agency UTA (any unauthorized distribution WILL be prosecuted, they warn). Doesn't this break labor laws with respect to fair and equal access to employment opportunites? Likewise any new writer has absolutely zero access to Hollywood unless they are repped by the major agencies - and getting an agent is about as easy as winning the lottery. So the DNA pool of new executives and new writers is basically coming from Beverly Hills High, UCLA, and USC, because they have access through relationships. And you wonder why most Hollywood movies suck?

[Captain Nolan]

I wasn't there - at least I can't remember - the 60's but I do remember all those big budget musicals toward the end of the decade and how everything changed when EASY RIDER came along. Seems to me that's what we need now - another film that changes the rules about what is possible (and what it means by changing those rules) and what it means to re-connect with a real audience out there wanting some meaning from films that reflect the world we live in.