Monday, June 13, 2011

Bringing the Audience: Why Hollywood is Addicted to Adaptation

Heavy sigh. Another book or two bites the dust at the movies, and still Hollywood insists on adapting books, GREAT BOOKS into movies. You know what I think. I think that they are simply terrified to make original movies anymore because it rarely pays off. Why is that? Because original movies don’t have audience. Well, original movies by new artists don’t have audience. Original movies by the old guard, Spielberg, Nichols, Brooks, Scorsese and Copola still have audience, but even that is not a sure thing. Tarantino sort of kind of has audience. Rodriguez kind of sort of has audience. Uhmmm. Spike Lee anywhere to be found?

Who are the original new artists getting funding for their films anymore? If you go to the influential group “New Directors/New Films” http://newdirectors.org/ for their top 40 film presentations, you’ll see lots of familiar names at the beginning of the list starting about 1980, but as the list becomes more recent the last filmmaker who has continued making films that have audience is Christopher Nolan, 1998. Uhmmmm. So the ones that follow, besides the brilliant filmmaker Darren Aronofsky, who made “Pi,” I have never heard of since. Since 1998.  The films post 1998 are sparse. Why is that? No audience.

What happened in 1998 to take the audience away from the movie theater? Hmmmm. Well, I for one have a perfectly good excuse: I had two babies. Surely though there must have been something else going on besides all the moviegoers my age staying home from the movie theater to watch videos at home on their big television screens. Home video burst onto the scene in the 1980s in a big way with VHS surging ahead of Beta in this country. When I worked on The STAR TREK Fact Files I had an entire room with wall-to-wall shelving to accommodate every single STAR TREK episode and movie on video for quick replay. I was actually dreading the advent of shows after the third season of ST: VOYAGER because I didn’t know where I’d put the dang video tapes. Video tapes meant for me that I could work at home with my baby in her swing, but that was work. What it meant for the audience was that a person could be reasonably entertained without going out.

A friend gently pointed out to me that losing movie theaters is not like losing the banks on Wall Street. They are not too big to fail. They can be shown the door from the entertainment industry, but I will tell you that until the dust settles from their demolition, Hollywood is not funding new, untried, high-risk ventures often, if at all, because the business model does not yet exist.  The audience is shrinking from first run releases. The first run release success is how second run success is predicted. Straight-to-video films have generally not done well at finding their audience. Therefore, what we will see is films that come from someone or some creation that already has audience.

That means we’re going to see adaptations of popular, well-loved books, even when they NEVER really work.  We’ll see films based on other franchises like SNL, or any given science fiction show, ahem, and don’t be surprised if they try to figure out how to make movies about Real Life Housewives, American Idol or So You Think You Can Dance. It is not to insult the audience’s intelligence. Really it isn’t. It is trying to guarantee an audience will fill the theater. I mean they make successful first run weekend movie releases on movies based on theme park rides, and board games for shitsake just because we want to see how they try to pull it off. We are into gimmicks like 3D and IMAX. The age of the sequel is so deeply ingrained that there are now Academy Awards going for THIRD sequel releases. Thank goodness, for comic books because with their audience and from their very conception as essentially storyboards, they make pretty good movies. All of this is simply to guarantee an audience (YOU) will come into the theater, and buy licensed products like apps and games. It comes down to this fact: Audience = Money. Money equals a return on investment.