Does Hollywood Suck Because They Keep Hiring Their Family and Friends To Run The Industry?
Is that the problem?
No, it sucks because they keep hiring people who don't give a shit about movies and know nothing about film history or quality. Many people who are family and friends of people in the movies, though by no means all, know a great deal about movies, understand what's required to make good ones, and do give a shit about making them.
R1 has it. When it was run by family, it was film families. These are now business people who don't know shit about making movies.
Most of the people running the joint are offspring to the people who had talent. Film families are part of the problem. It's all nepotism.
[quote]Is that the problem?
Nepotism is [italic]a[/italic] problem. The core problem with Hollywood is the lack of a studio system.
Another Hollywood problem: lack of diversity (racial, gendered, age-wise) both in front of and behind the camera.
Yes R6. Sometimes when I look at the real world and I see movies - what is the connexion, one wonders???
It's a lot of things causing the problems. The studio system had its flaws but, since its demise, things have veered SO far away from any kind of consistent quality filmmaking. There have been periods (i.e. the 70's) when risks would be taken in the name of art, when the PRODUCT mattered and $$$ (although always a factor) was not the ONLY concern. Independent geniuses like Coppola and Kubrick and Scorcese could get a film greenlit based upon concept and some producers willing to gamble. Now, you might get a Paper Moon or a 2001, A Space Odyssey made but it would be an indie film, not a mainstream studio production.
[quote]The core problem with Hollywood is the lack of a studio system.
Oh, shut up, you old fart!
You're the one who complained about oil companies owning the studios, Bette.
They depend on hack popcorn merchants like AMC and Regal to distribute their product.
If they could own their own theater chains like they did until the Feds went after them for antitrust and made them sell their theaters back in the late 40s/early 50s, then they would have more leeway.
Nepotism is a symptom, not necessarily the problem. The problem is that Hollywood turned into a huge business and is driven almost exclusively by business decisions rather than artistic or creative risks. To whit, do we really need a movie based on another cartoon character, or a another remake of The Great Gatsby, another car chase? You'd think there were no writers, producers, directors or actors with an original thought in their heads. Greed and fear drive Hollywood just as much as Wall Street.
No, it is because the popcorn is too expensive.
I heard that the younger generations running Hollywood don't have a clue what they are doing,and they are ruining Hollywood.
I'm young who adores old films ,and who has read a lot about Hollywood history. I agree with R8, the studio system had flaws but it basically worked. I once watched a documentary ,which they said if you did not do a film for some months, you still had a paycheck coming in,and in the studio system, there was work available for everyone. You were considered an employee of the studio regardless.Verses today you are totally out on your own ,and you get payed if you are working on a film at the moment.If you are working on a film at the moment,you don't receive a paycheck.
The studio system started to brake down in the 60s.
There is no talent anymore and imagination is down the drain.Today they produce trash and these Jerry Springer idiots today don't notice the difference because they like crap.
R14 you are not wrong but your spelling is dreadful. Is this common among youth today?
Yes, R14. Your message is right, but in future - proofread.
The same thing is happening in the Music Industry.
As long as people want familiarity over quality, it will continue.
Actually OP nepotism has resulted in the hiring of people Alan Ladd Jr. and Richard Zanuck, who have produced many film classics.
I will second R5 and cite the breakdown of the studio system as the reason the quality of major motion pictures has gone down. The nature of modern corporate by-committee decision making has resulted in a "too many chefs in the kitchen" kind of environment and makes if difficult to advocate creative risk. It's easy to hate Harvey Weinstein and Scott Rudin, who are legitimately monsters, but they are in fact the heirs apparent to the moguls of old days (who were also monsters). Taste needs to be dictated from the top down in order for genuinely above-average product to be produced. I remember when they brought Rich Ross in to run Disney and he said, "I want to make movies like [italic]The Pacifier[/italic]," a largely forgotten Vin Diesel comedy, and I was like, out of all the people in Hollywood who are going to be granted the power to make movies, they gave the job to someone SAID THAT OUT LOUD.
No it sucks because they are gearing films to a much lower common denominator. For example a few years ago I was looking at box office hits from the 1960s and one of them was a movie which I saw on youtube called A Patch of Blue.
It was part human condition story about a mistreated blind girl and was also about racism. It was well acted & written.
It obviously made what would have been a lot of $$ for the studio. And the lead actress was not glamorous be any means.
That kind of thing would be almost be considered an indie now.
Nepotism is more of a problem with actors than the entire business itself.
It's not the blockbusters, either per se. It's the corporate culture that is risk averse.
As I've said before, big movies used to subsidize the little, quality projects within the studio system.
In the corporate shareholder model, execs are too worried about losing their own statuses/jobs by doing anything that doesn't look like a hit on paper.
[quote]Nepotism is more of a problem with actors than the entire business itself.
Good post, R21.
Every major film released today has the "Soap Opera" component inserted in the script for the cliche female viewer. If that is not proof of a formula....