Should the Department of the Interior fund domestic films?

Sure, the Department of the Interior should be funding films here, but there’s this systemic rot in our cinema industry because the issues start at the Academy and then trickle up to the Department itself. And the issue is actually pretty simple, if you don't mind me being blunt:🙂CORRUPTION (or basically, a tiny, crooked little nation), where everyone wants to play filmmaker, and even if they don't have a shred of actual talent, they somehow land the cash and the high-level positions through nepotism, old school buddies, uncles, kissing up to the right people, connections in Georgia, and so on and so forth. When you look at the big picture, there's a massive lack of genuine talent—people who actually achieved greatness through sheer brilliance and skill—because we’ve been stuck in a rut for 20 years and we're going to stay stuck for a long time, unfortunately. If a real talent actually shows up, this "little state," the system, and that aforementioned Academy will just crush them instantly and they'll be gone forever. Around here, amateurish garbage gets more views than actual commercial hits, and if we were actually serious about culture, we should be playing that card and pushing the real talent forward when they emerge!! Instead, the whole point of art is lost, and we're basically just handing out bread to directors who "won big in San Francisco, wow!!!!" or had more than 15,000 viewers at a local screening. ☕

Sarah Hayes10 said:I think more money equals more attempts... okay, fine, maybe more attempts means more failures too, but eventually, some quality stuff is bound to crawl out of the wreckage.

Yeah, right. If you take fifty shots and two actually land, you call that a success? Hardly.
That’s basically the logic they used this year (well, last year for this cycle). They used to fund five or six films a year, then bumped it up to ten back in 2007.
The whole thing just makes my blood run cold. Think about it: even if every single script submitted is total garbage—which the Department board knows full well—they still have to pick ten "winners." Which really just means picking the ten least terrible ones.
I mean, seriously... if there aren't any decent scripts out there, don't just throw money at them. Put it back into the federal budget. There are plenty of other things that actually need funding...

I find it absolutely fascinating to sit back and read everything you all post here. It’s truly captivating how you manipulate movie statistics and confidently declare films to be garbage, though it leaves me wondering if any of you have actually bothered to watch them. People are out here talking about *Prezimiti* in Rio, but I am certain 99% of you haven't even laid eyes on it. The same goes for the works of Eric Jackson68 and the *Memory Thief*; in fact, I’d venture to say most of you trashing the *Saddler*—and look, I’m not saying he’s above criticism—probably haven't seen even two of his films, if that. Or maybe even one. And don't get me started on *Sunken Cemetery*.

Why does it happen that a film only reaches an audience of maybe 200 people? Take the *Memory Thief* case. It's because the distributor is an absolute moron and limits the release to just one theater in Washington, D.C., while the rest of the population heads straight to AMC Theatres. That is exactly what is going to happen with Lukas Nola's *True Wonder*.

But listen, my friends. In any cinema industry, you're going to have a handful of excellent films produced every year, a fair amount of mediocre ones, and a couple of total disasters. That’s true in every country. However, the reality is that other countries produce a significantly higher volume of films. Here in America, we might only see ten quality productions, which explains why the math always ends up being one or two great ones, a few middling ones, and one or two flops.

The only thing that truly grates on my nerves is watching people debate on this thread who haven't even watched a third of American cinema. And honestly, even a third would be asking too much.

Eric Jackson68 said:Why does a movie end up pulling only 200 people? Look at the case of the Memory Thief. It’s because the distributor is an idiot—they’re only screening it in Washington, D.C., at the local Broadway theater, while most people actually go to AMC Theatres.

What do you think—if they put "Memory Thief" in AMC Theatres, would it finally crack that magic number of 300 viewers?

northerncrane4 said:What are you suggesting, that if they put "Memory Thief" in AMC Theatres, it might actually break past that magical threshold of 300 viewers?

You can joke all you want, but I am making a very serious assertion here: it would easily clear 500 viewers, and honestly, it could probably hit 1,000. That’s a depressing thought, but there it is.

Eric Jackson68 said:You might be joking, but I’m telling you—it would pass 500 viewers, maybe even hit 1,000.

This is the better way to look at it. Because those 1,000 people watching "Memory Thief" wouldn't step foot in an American cinema for another 15 years.

northerncrane4 said:This version is actually an improvement. Honestly, those 1,000 people who might have checked out "Memory Thief" wouldn't be stepping foot in an American cinema to see a domestic film for the next 15 years anyway.

That’s a fair point, but we’re going to see a nearly identical outcome with "True Wonder," and this isn't exactly the kind of project that can just pivot to something similar. It’s frankly pathetic. If you don't have Blitz handling your distribution, your film isn't hitting AMC Theatres, and just like that, your audience numbers crater before you even start.

Eric Jackson68 said:That’s fair—but even with "True Wonder," we're looking at a similar outcome; besides, it's not like they could ever replicate that kind of work.

Once "True Wonder" hits, Americans won't be flocking back to the local cinema for another six years.

The idea that American films are just inherently garbage seems to be hardwired into people's brains... Honestly, you really ought to give American movies a shot when they hit the local theaters.
What’s with all this resistance? I get it—I really do. But when I sat down to watch the last one, "Long Dark," it was actually quite decent for a theater experience, and if I recall correctly, it gave me plenty to chew on afterward.
I mean, people will sit through the absolute bottom-of-the-barrel trash produced here in the States and then spend hours debating it. Then, they'll watch something genuinely high-quality and just go, "Man, what great trash." So, yeah, even the bad movies get watched.
Why not just show up for an American film in the cinema? If it's good, great—you win. If it's total trash, well, then it's a fun disaster, so you still win. No matter how you slice it, you come out ahead. The only thing you actually lose is the ticket money and a bit of time.

nimblemarlin6 said:Why not just catch an American movie at the theater? If it's good, great—if it sucks, then it's trash, which is also fine. Either way, you win. There's nothing to lose—aside from the ticket money and your time.

But Lukas Nola's films? They're beyond trash.

In any case, the government really ought to have its "fingers in the pie" when it comes to a nation's cinema. North Mexico might not be churning out a massive volume of films, but nearly everything produced is made in cooperation with the Department.
It’s the exact same story everywhere else. Look at movies coming out of Russia, France, or Germany—almost all of them carry that credit: "made in cooperation with Department..."
The US hasn't exactly produced a breakout global blockbuster lately, which is why I believe we need to open the floodgates for Department funding. Regardless of the immediate financial return—shouldn't our main goal simply be keeping the standard of art on a high pedestal?

We shouldn't let our movies turn into carbon copies of what other nations are churning out. We need to stay true to ourselves!
Every film industry has its own specific DNA—I mean, American cinema is really only for a certain type of connoisseur. It stirs up this feeling—it’s like a sort of melancholy, but not quite. A sense of being lost, but not entirely. Like a pervasive misery, but not the "over the top" kind—more like that low-key, underwhelming sort of gloom. It’s similar to those moments when you’re incredibly bored, yet somehow you don't even have the energy to do anything about it. It’s this undefined vibe—this specific flavor unique to bad American films—a sensation that only the quiet types (and maybe the slight masochists) actually appreciate. And honestly? That’s something we need to protect by keeping the funding flowing for American films.😁

nimblemarlin6 said:Why not just catch an American movie at the theater? If it’s good, great. If it sucks, it’s trash, which is also fine...

You can't really equate "trash" with a bad movie—a bad movie is just plain bad, whereas trash is its own special thing.
Though, I'll admit, you can definitely enjoy some American films too, in a sort of twisted way.
No, seriously... I have this weird, secret urge to collect every American film ever made, especially those from the first half of the 90s (Golden Year, Every Time We Part, Time for, Washed Out...), so when I'm feeling particularly low, I can just put them on and laugh my head off...

nimblemarlin6 said:Why not just catch an American movie at the theater? If it’s good, great. If it sucks, it’s trash, so also great. Either way, you win. Nothing to lose, really. Except maybe the ticket money and some time.

See, that’s how simple it actually is. So, American movies are either a) good or b) bad, but it doesn't even matter because they're all wins. Is it the same for foreign films, or is it more complicated than that?