Bend in the river

The Calgary Sun's Kevin Williamson spoke to yours truly a few days ago about the sudden trap-door trend of studio execs just saying 'no' to humungous big-star deals. "There is definitely a sea change [happening] in Hollywood," said Hollywood Reporter int'l general manager John Burman. "Not just in L.A., but in the world." And one my quotes was, "Is it definitely a bend in the river? Is it analogous to the 1989 [anti-socialist] revolution in Eastern Europe? I don't know, but I love that idea ."

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on September 26, 2006 at 10:48 AM

comment #1

le corbeau Author Profile Page says ...

I have yet to see anyone comment on the fact that this happened once before in living memory. Late 60s, all those giant roadshow movies bombed-- Tora! Tora! Tora!, Star, Goodbye Mr. Chips, etc.-- and meanwhile Easy Rider and things like that made tons of money off the youth audience. (Never mind that Airport and Patton made tons of money, too.) MGM collapsed and sold off its lot and history, other studios faced trouble, and so Hollywood imposed a $10 million cap on production. (Tora... for instance had cost $22 million; and Cleopatra a few years earlier had cost a truly insane $40 mil.) The Godfather just squeaked in under the limit; two studios had to go in together to make The Towering Inferno over it. Even Star Wars managed to come in under it at $9.5 million.

For a few years the limits held; then things like Jaws and Star Wars showed how much money you could actually make off a hit. Nobody was going to make Lucas make his sequel to Star Wars for under $10 million, and the caps quickly gave way across the board-- especially as home video cash flowed through the industry, providing an alternate stream so that no studio would again be at risk of being killed by a single runaway production, as United Artists nearly was by Heaven's Gate.

Posted by le corbeau Author Profile Page at September 26, 2006 11:53 AM

comment #2

Pelham123 Author Profile Page says ...

As Mgmax wrote this is very similar to what occurred in the late '60's & early '70's when Hollywood's bloated productions sunk almost everything, but then the youth market was, ultimately, its saving grace. Then, the youth market was searching for something new and alive. It seems to be the reverse now, the daring films that do manage to make it onscreen seem to repel the youth market and attract, with limited numbers, the over 40 crowd. I don't know what the answer is, but "Hollywood" has no one to blame but themselves.

Posted by Pelham123 Author Profile Page at September 26, 2006 1:06 PM

comment #3

ArchiveGuy Author Profile Page says ...

"was going to make Lucas make his sequel to Star Wars for under $10 million, and the caps quickly gave way across the board..."

Actually, "Empire" was completely self-financed by Lucas, so he wasn't beholden to any external studio pressure or restrictions. For the 5 SW sequels, Fox has solely acted as distributor, and has not contributed one red cent to their production.

Posted by ArchiveGuy Author Profile Page at September 26, 2006 1:25 PM

comment #4

Edward Author Profile Page says ...

It's about time, Now we have to hope that the quality of films improve, but I won't hold my breath.

Posted by Edward Author Profile Page at September 26, 2006 1:29 PM

Leave a comment