Perhaps they have; you're just thinking of the wrong films. I keep wondering if this is a The Producers situation, with the caveat that I can't imagine this being as wildly successful as Springtime for Hitler. Frankly, they are running service so badly that I can't think of any reason other than purposeful sabotage.
Sadly the article doesn't really answer the question as to why, but it's probably because they keep making bad movies that they don't think will perform well.
To be extra clear, IMO this is not the fault of the creatives -- but the fault of the execs who ordered things to production.
They won best picture at the Academy award two years ago, and seem to have been focusing on TV content. And, for what it's worth, Killers of the Flower Moon was a terrific feature film in its own right, was nominated for many categories, but certainly did not merit the best picture not. I'd argue this is a bit of a harsh criticism for a studio that, for all intents and purposes, seems to be doing quite well!
So the creatives delivered, but Marketing botched it? This point negates the theme OP is running with in most of the letter, implying rank and file office plebs are doing a great job, but the filmmakers are letting them down.
I just don't see any evidence for the idea that studios are intentionally placing message before financial success. I see bad movies and progressive movies as two unrelated categories that sometimes overlap, but just as often don't.
The fact that the _Downfall_ producers didn't buy Youtube ads to pop up when the parodies were played just shows how stupid they are. I mean really! How else is a movie about Hitler, in German (!), going to get worldwide mindshare? Just goes to show all the luddite media knuckleheads aren't in Hollywood...
"Studios are lagging behind for the very simple reason that they are relying on retreads and reboots, and most of those aren’t being well received."
I hear how badly the movie industry is doing, while they keep breaking sales records. I don't believe it at all. It is, and always has been, a hits-oriented business. This means profitability analysis is total nonsense.
Right; given the "collapse of theatrical windows", you'd think that the actors would see this and try to somehow wriggle out of compensation clauses linked to box office targets?
I wouldn't want to discount them entirely, but their recent foray into TCM has left me less than entirely on-side. On average I'm sure they do a great job, but they're not perfect and should be pushing back against damaging woo like this.
It's quite weird for Steven Spielberg. I thought he isn't one of those backwards thinking legacy execs. I guess he is.
All of this has nothing to do with evaluating art, but it's simply a jerk reaction of legacy distribution business to innovative disruption. Film directors should know better.
reply