AMC Theatres, 7 PM (or just casual movie talk)

northerncrane4 said:I honestly think that if you want to make it outside of America, within the same language market, you really need a solid genre film. Though, making actual money there isn't exactly easy, especially when you consider how much of the box office goes straight into the pockets of distributors and theater owners.

Well, damn... yeah, I guess I’ve always been mentally splitting the revenue into two piles: the studio and the theaters. If I remember correctly, overseas they split things based on timing—like, maybe during the first week it's 80% distributor and 20% theater, and then every week after that it drifts toward a 50-50 split. But here in the States, to be honest, I have no clue how it actually works. I wonder if salaries are fixed or if there are profit percentages involved? 😕 How many viewers would an average American film with a standard budget—if we even have a standard budget, right?—actually need just to break even?

northerncrane4 said:The best part is, I actually have a script like that, but when the time came, nobody showed any interest, and by then, I had kind of lost steam on the whole idea. But I am planning something else—a radio drama called "purgatory," an audio commentary style thing.

Eh, well, next time the official cameras stop rolling, maybe just leave one running and record a few actors working through that script in parallel. Don't let the spark die out. 👍

northerncrane4 said:You know what I think the main issue is? It's that the protagonists are usually just observers. They aren't ever really active participants; they just watch stuff happen from the sidelines and end up being super disappointed.

Hey, hey, that is such a brilliant description of the typical American film. 👍 Now that I'm thinking back over our movies, it feels like the characters aren't even alive most of the time. They don't have any real dramatic agency; they're just protagonists used by the director to show off their own cleverness or to lecture the audience.

northerncrane4 said:I heard a rumor that Alfred Hitchcock is thinking about doing an adaptation of "Superman." 😬

Honestly, Superman has such incredible potential that maybe even Steven Spielberg could step in and give it a fresh spin. 😬

northerncrane4 said:Yeah, but who's actually going to teach them? And how do they learn to tear things down properly? Roger Ebert? John Williams? Jack Nicholson? Stephen King?

Chris, does everyone on that list really teach classes at the Academy? Like, are they all out there shaping the next generation? 😁

northerncrane4 said:If I remember right, there was some academic movie shown at the Day of the Film about ten years ago where a little girl gets killed too, which caused some sort of moralistic scandal or whatever, but man, I just can't recall the title or the director right now.

True, but a "girl getting killed" isn't really what sticks with me. What's actually impressive is that "fuck you" move John Carpenter pulled on the MPAA by sending them the wrong cut. 😉

quietdriver3 said:For God's sake... yeah, I’ve always mentally split the revenue into two piles: the studio and the exhibitors. If I remember correctly, out there the money is split based on the release window—like, during the first week, the distributor takes 80% and the theater gets 20%, then it eventually drifts toward a 50/50 split in the following weeks. But here in America? To be honest, I have no clue how it works. Are salaries fixed, or is there actually a percentage of the earnings involved? 😕 How many viewers does an average American indie film actually need to break even—assuming you can even define what an "average" budget looks like in this industry?

From what I can gather, the distributor—who basically acts as the gatekeeper here (whether it’s Issa or the Associated Press)—walks away with 80% of the pie most of the time. You're screwed. If you don't play by their rules, you've got nowhere to show your work.

quietdriver3 said:Chris—do all those people actually teach at the Academy? Are they really out there shaping the next generation? 😁

E. All of them—and plenty more just like them.

quietdriver3 said:Sure, but the "murder of the girl" isn't what sticks with me. What’s actually impressive is that "fuck you" move where John Carpenter sent the MPAA a completely wrong copy just to spite them. 😉

Well, there was all that chatter about the Academy blocking the screening—but if I recall correctly, the guy actually submitted it himself, which sparked some sort of controversy. 🤔 ☕

...Listen, folks, I’ve been on my feet since sunrise and I am honestly too wiped out to write much right now—and you all know I’m not the type to just skim over 🙂—so I just wanted to drop in and say hi 😍 🙂. Also, could someone please give this discussion a proper title? I’d love to tuck it away somewhere nice—mostly because it seems northerncrane4 was actually more visionary than my tiny self and saw the future of "our" little thread coming a mile away...🙂 )

Amanda Lopez50 said:—and if you could do me a favor and give this lovely little debate a title so I can archive it somewhere useful

Since we’re discussing the fate of American cinema, let's call this thread "AMC Theatres, 7 PM."

northerncrane4 said:As far as I can tell, that distributor who also happens to be the exhibitor (which is either Issa or Associated Press) takes about 80% of the cut most of the time. And you're pretty much stuck. If you don't play ball, there's nowhere else to show your stuff.

Maybe the only real way for American movies to survive is to just skip the theaters entirely. Maybe go through TV? At least there isn't such a massive monopoly over there, I guess.

northerncrane4 said:Since we're all talking about the future of American cinema, I was thinking maybe we could just call this thread "AMC Theatres, 7 PM." Or something like that, I guess.

I'm down. I guess.

Kyle Watson8 said:😁 So, where’s all the cynicism gone? I guess I was expecting a bit more bite, maybe. Maybe I just misread the room. 👍

I feel like I've just been running on empty lately... honestly, I think I've worn myself out a bit too much recently. I probably need to take some time to recharge my batteries, just so I can get back to being my old self again, I guess. 😁

...well, that’s all I’ve got for now—you guys picked the title, I provided the structure, and now we just have to keep this thing breathing 🙂 I promise to bring some actual creativity to the table tomorrow (quietdriver3 is already calling me 🙂), but don't let the momentum die out just yet 🙂

quietdriver3 said:Maybe the only way to save American cinema is to bypass theaters entirely. Perhaps through TV? At least there isn't a monopoly there.

No monopoly? The only network actually capable of financing a full-length feature—not that the other two would even care, they couldn't care less—is CBS, and even then, we’re talking maybe two films a year, and both are very-very-low-budget.

Networks could be producing great series (which is the global trend anyway—TV networks churning out much higher quality content than movie studios)—it's not like the opportunities aren't there, it's just that nobody offers them. CBS is terrified of any public backlash against anything outside their usual templates; the current editors in the Drama Program are constantly walking on eggshells, so they never dare to make a move. For FOX, the peak is "Our Little Clinic" and a hundred different versions of "Zora"; meanwhile, FOX is too cheap to try, because it's far more profitable for them to just churn out a few more seasons of Big Brother and Forbidden Love to hit those ratings that keep them satisfied.

northerncrane4 said:TV networks actually have the potential to produce great series—which, let's be honest, is the global trend anyway, with TV outperforming movies in terms of pure quality—but the opportunity just isn't being taken. It’s not for lack of trying; it’s because they won't. CBS is far too sensitive to any public backlash that deviates from their established patterns, leaving them constantly tripping over themselves; meanwhile, the current editors in the Drama Program shouldn't even dare to breathe a word of dissent. FOX thinks the absolute peak of television is "Our Little Clinic" and some endless loop of Zora. As for FOX, they're just stingy—it's much more profitable for them to churn out a few more seasons of Big Brother or Forbidden Love and call it a day once they hit those comfortable ratings numbers.

Everything you said is spot on😢 , though I suspect with the latter group, it isn't just about being cheap. You could technically make some pretty solid stuff within those budget constraints, but from what I've heard, they simply don't have the talent pool for high-end production. Plus, the audience isn't exactly demanding, so why bother? It's a shame, really. If they actually teamed up to produce higher-quality content—movies, series, especially commercials—they might actually educate the public. But as long as they keep feeding people garbage, all they'll ever produce is garbage. It sells better, and frankly, it's cheaper.

northerncrane4 said:So there’s no monopoly? I mean, the only network actually capable of funding a full-length feature film—assuming the other two even care, which they don't seem to—is CBS, and even then, we’re talking maybe two movies a year, and those are very, very low-budget.

Anyway, just for reference, how much does a very, very low-budget feature film cost here in the States? Wouldn't the fact that you don't have to develop 35mm film enough to really slash the price down a bit?

northerncrane4 said:Networks could totally be making great series—which is kind of the global trend anyway, where TV networks produce way higher quality stuff than movie studios—it's not like they aren't being offered the chance, but they just won't take it. CBS is too scared of public backlash if they stray from the usual formulas, and they're always in some kind of internal shuffle, so the current Drama Program editors can never really step out of line. For FOX, the peak is stuff like "Our Little Clinic" or a hundred different versions of Zora; meanwhile, the FOXers are just stingy because it's more profitable for them to just pump out a few more seasons of Big Brother or Forbidden Love to hit the ratings they need to stay happy.

I guess I always imagined the folks at FOX might be a bit more open to experimenting. Like, maybe they could pull off something new; I don't know, maybe a domestic series that dives into territory we've never seen around here—like sci-fi or horror. Something like that old Twilight Zone vibe; a cheap production driven by a cool trick or a clever idea.

Christian Sanchez44 said:It's a shame, really, because if everyone started working together to produce better quality stuff—movies, series, and especially commercials—it would probably help educate the public.

Commercials have improved lately, I suppose, but from what I gather, most good ads and jingles are made overseas on commission. And what about music videos? There was a time when you’d see decent domestic music videos on TV—like those Pips clips—but I'm not sure what the situation is these days, since I don't really get many chances to see them anymore.

quietdriver3 said:Just for context—what does a bottom-of-the-barrel, ultra-low-budget feature cost here in the States? Wouldn't the fact that you don't have to develop 35mm film cut the price down significantly?

Maybe a few thousand bucks. And what do you mean by "not having to develop 35mm film"?

quietdriver3 said:I somehow imagined FOXers would be more open to experimentation. That they might actually greenlight something fresh—like an American series venturing into territory we haven't seen much of around here, say, sci-fi or horror.

Only if it’s a licensed show. They aren't looking for originality. They just buy the license and dub it into English. That's how they handle "Ugly Betty".

Amy Gomez36 said:It’s a shame—if we actually committed to producing high-quality content together (movies, series, especially commercials), the public would actually learn something. But as long as they keep peddling garbage, why bother making anything else? Junk sells better—and it's cheaper.

Call it paranoia if you want, but educating the masses serves no one's interest here. No one wants to produce a decent series because then the audience might actually start demanding quality. That creates "problems"—specifically, the need to actually pay talented people what they're worth.

northerncrane4 said:Maybe it's just my paranoia talking, but honestly, nobody actually benefits from educating the public. There’s zero incentive to produce a single decent series because once you raise the bar, the audience starts demanding quality—and that creates massive headaches. You have people out there who actually know what they're doing, but if you want them, you have to pay them fairly.

It isn't paranoia—I think we can just call it Capitalism in the US and our reality. 😁 As for the whole "fair pay" debate, even those who actually possess talent (and frankly, even some who don't) are pulling in disproportionate amounts compared to other industries right now. So maybe the money itself isn't the core issue; instead, given what they're already getting, they should be working twice as hard for the same paycheck. But, of course, nobody is willing to put in that kind of effort.

northerncrane4 said:Man, that's a lot of money. What does he mean by "you don't have to develop 35mm film"?

I guess I thought he meant it’s cheaper because you aren't shooting on actual 35mm film stock... like, the processing would be less expensive. Since, you know, I assume TV productions here in the States don't really use film anymore—actually, now that I think about it, I'm not even sure what they actually use. 😕

northerncrane4 said:Only if it's a licensed show. They don't want anything original. They just buy the license and then dub it for American audiences. That's how they're doing "Ugly Betty" right now.

So, I guess we can pretty much write off television entirely.

I'm slowly running out of ideas... 😬

quietdriver3 said:I’ve somehow managed to burn myself out lately; I really need to recharge my batteries if I want to get back to my old self. 😁

Don't forget that your opponent is always standing by, ready for you. 😲

Amy Gomez36 said:And regarding fair pay—people who actually know what they're doing (and even those who don't really know much) are currently making disproportionately more money than everyone else. So maybe that isn't the issue; instead of asking for more, they should be working three times harder for what they already earn. But nobody is allowed to do that.

Oh, really? Got any actual examples? Because let me tell you right now—on a film set, you're looking at 12-hour days, six days a week. How exactly is that supposed to be "three times more" work?

Also, that little addition "(and even those who don't really know much)" is bizarre. That’s precisely my point—the total lack of standards.

quietdriver3 said:I figured skipping the 35mm film stock would be cheaper—processing is less of a headache, too. I assume local TV productions don't even touch film anymore; honestly, when I think about it, I’m not even sure what they actually use these days. 😕

It depends on the production. Most TV movies are shot on Super 16mm, then bumped up to 35mm if they decide on a theatrical release—usually with disastrous results (just look at the cinema cut of "Forgive for Kung Fu").

northerncrane4 said:Maybe I'm just being paranoid here, but honestly, nobody actually wants to educate the public. There’s zero incentive to produce even one decent series because if you do, people might actually start demanding higher quality across the board. And that creates a massive headache for the suits, since there are talented creators out there who actually know what they're doing, but you'd have to pay them a fair wage to get them on board.

The real kicker is that even in America, those folks who don't have a clue are getting paid "fairly" for the exact same reasons you just laid out.

...let me try to breathe a little more life into this thread, because I’m actually enjoying it...🙂 don't take it personally—I've been picking and choosing which quotes to reply to since I've been away for a bit, and I can't exactly respond to everything (plus, I don't always have anything particularly brilliant to say 😬 )...

northerncrane4 said:Look, here's where the snag happens—you have to write the script exactly that way, solving everything through dialogue, just so the current readers over at the Department will even understand it or approve it. And that's the trap; once they pass it, directors usually decide to strip out all those gritty details, thinking they're doing everyone a favor because, hey, if they hadn't, it wouldn't have passed in the first place. Or they go to the complete opposite extreme, tossing the script entirely and letting the actors improvise for an hour and a half. Honestly, I don't know which is worse.

...this is all pretty fascinating, but what really "triggered" me was that last point—why do you think a movie can't be the result of high-quality, inspired improvisation? Like quietdriver3 mentioned earlier, film is a jazzy medium; in many ways, the final version is just an improvisation based on the core idea. So why shouldn't the actual creation process follow that same logic? Of course, it doesn't have to be the rule—there are people who work with incredibly detailed storyboards, knowing exactly what they want, where, and how, which is great and highly professional (take Ogresta, for example—he's definitely that kind of director)—but abroad, there are phenomenal directors who make movies through improvisation, and we have amazing examples of it. For instance, Leigh's Naked is, if you recall, more or less the result of Thewlis's brilliant improvisational dialogue, and despite that, it’s a masterpiece. And I can't help but mention Julian here 🙂—there's plenty of evidence that giving actors some freedom in certain (or even most) scenes can only improve the quality of a film. Now, the real question is: how good are our actors, and how willing are our directors to actually work with them and prep those scenes? As for the actors, I'm sure there are enough talented people to pull that off—I'm not saying Veljaca should be improvising every scene, obviously, but I seriously doubt Mikic, Kvrgic, or Matula couldn't do it. On the other hand, the issue of how directors interact with their cast is a whole different problem, but we've touched on that before, so I won't reopen the wound unless anyone's interested. Still, the idea of improvisation in film is genuinely appealing to me, and maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to include more of it in the curriculum, alongside the "unscripted" study quietdriver3 and I already added 🙂

northerncrane4 said:Maybe it's just my paranoia, but nobody actually benefits from educating the public. Nobody has an interest in making one good series, because then there's a risk the audience might start demanding higher production values. And that creates massive problems, because while there are people who actually know how to do it, they demand to be paid fairly.

...who's talking about what? Me again, diving back into politics 😁. But honestly, the whole issue of public education has its roots right there—in politics. And I don't mean the "campaigning" kind, but rather the policy side—cultural policy. Specifically, here, it boils down to a total lack of vision for public broadcasting. If they actually made a clear decision—say, designating one channel (CBS would be the most logical choice)—to be dedicated solely to cultural and educational content rather than just mindless entertainment, then the quality of the programming would have to rise accordingly. You'd be forced to invest in better production. But as things stand now? The main channel is just a messy soup of mediocre "quasi-cultural" junk and domestic shows that wouldn't even pass muster on a low-budget cable network. There’s really nothing to discuss until we fix that. It's high time we looked at how our neighbors handle this and stopped sweeping any attempt at quality cultural products under the rug. And you're absolutely right—part of the problem is that nobody wants to sink big money into it, but even with less funding, if there were actual ideas, we could produce something significantly better than this current mess. Besides, I highly doubt those overpriced luxury spas are actually cheap, yet they manage to be mind-numbingly dull beyond belief 👎
. ...and as for the public? Unfortunately, people aren't exactly going to start demanding higher production values out of thin air. It seems like the more we consume, the lower the bar for quality gets set. Which isn't even surprising, really—considering how constantly bombarded we are by visual media every single day that we end up watching more and more, yet thinking about it (or actually enjoying it) less and less 👎
.

...enough for now, I keep getting tangled up in these generalities...🙂

Look, Leigh, that’s just his whole vibe. I don't think he ever actually filmed anything by the book—at least not among the heavy hitters. As far as I recall, the standard advice was always to have a rough blueprint and then just roll with whatever happens. Besides, if you look at almost any other field, hardly anyone is actually qualified to improvise (even when it makes sense). It's like they say: learn the rules so you actually know how to break them. :-)
At the end of the day, though, the results are all that matter.
...As for ABC, the issue is they've started mimicking Fox instead of the other way around.