Anyone who makes and sells a product will tell you that the perfect business model is one where you don’t have to spend the money to make the product unless and until you have a customer standing by ready to purchase that product.
The "algorithms treat us like children. My children, when very small, wnated to be read the same stories over and over each night. But soon I introduced them ot newer stories that they didn't know they would like until they heard them. My now 54-year-old son says he still remembers me reading a bit of "Wind in the Willows" to them every night for weeks, because they always fell asleep while I was reading, and then I had to back up a bit each night ot "catch up" with the story. He said he could hardly wait for each new piece, and that was when he realized there were lots of new stories to be heard. His sister is a bit younger, so she remembers later stories that I read, but to the same effect.
I fear this treating movie-goers like very young children, getting the same stories over and ove instead of giving them new stories will stunt their appreciation of all the wonerful new stories waiting to be told.
One, totally agree that the algorithm cannot be applied to original storytelling. It just doesn’t work that way. Two, it only works for movies that have already been made. That’s why Netflix is successful. They can, in a way, serve you movies that are like other movies but my guess is that it’s 50/50 that the viewer has already seen them. They return to them like comfort food. But that’s not how you get original storytelling. If Netflix had to make its money pumping out original material based on their algorithm, they would look like AppleTV+. Expensive production costs, a few hits, a lot of misses.
Your Excellency, human risk is fundamental to our survival and dignity and the thing that gives our lives meaning. We all give our labor for a time before we get a return. I can't believe that we will eventually give up our humanity to an algorithm. The market is a powerful thing and we must make our choices more carefully if we care about a more colorful future. That being said, I would have passed on "Close Encounters." Good for you it's not up to me. Their must be enough room at the theater for those of us who love well made movies with a story. And who like movie stars.
yep, totally agree. There's a kind of magic that happens when dozens of creative humans get together and work on a movie for a year... little ideas, changes and strokes of genius that add up to something special, call it a spark of the devine, that can never be replicated by a machine.
But independent of that, thanks first to massive HDTVs and then streaming, Hollywood in the movie business has for a long time now leaned to the one model where they can be “pretty sure” that the audience will be there: franchises and sequels.
Seems to me you are no longer describing how Hollywood “typically” works, you are describing how the “new non superhero/franchise” ever smaller slice of the business works.
I won’t even argue with you that it’s a “problem”.
But my point is that the reality of today’s studio movie business is that MOST movie decisions no longer are made in the manner you describe. Instead most are made based on incrementalism.
So “If there is an industry which exists on the polar opposite end of the continuum on which we find the ideal commercial arrangement with which I opened this essay, it is the big studio movie business” likely indeed describes the business as of 1985 or 1995 or maybe even 2005.
But it does NOT describe the vast majority of the “big studio movie business” in 2025.
The "algorithms treat us like children. My children, when very small, wnated to be read the same stories over and over each night. But soon I introduced them ot newer stories that they didn't know they would like until they heard them. My now 54-year-old son says he still remembers me reading a bit of "Wind in the Willows" to them every night for weeks, because they always fell asleep while I was reading, and then I had to back up a bit each night ot "catch up" with the story. He said he could hardly wait for each new piece, and that was when he realized there were lots of new stories to be heard. His sister is a bit younger, so she remembers later stories that I read, but to the same effect.
I fear this treating movie-goers like very young children, getting the same stories over and ove instead of giving them new stories will stunt their appreciation of all the wonerful new stories waiting to be told.
And who thought audiences wanted Star Wars??
Yes, thank you! And what a fantastic analogy.
One, totally agree that the algorithm cannot be applied to original storytelling. It just doesn’t work that way. Two, it only works for movies that have already been made. That’s why Netflix is successful. They can, in a way, serve you movies that are like other movies but my guess is that it’s 50/50 that the viewer has already seen them. They return to them like comfort food. But that’s not how you get original storytelling. If Netflix had to make its money pumping out original material based on their algorithm, they would look like AppleTV+. Expensive production costs, a few hits, a lot of misses.
Your Excellency, human risk is fundamental to our survival and dignity and the thing that gives our lives meaning. We all give our labor for a time before we get a return. I can't believe that we will eventually give up our humanity to an algorithm. The market is a powerful thing and we must make our choices more carefully if we care about a more colorful future. That being said, I would have passed on "Close Encounters." Good for you it's not up to me. Their must be enough room at the theater for those of us who love well made movies with a story. And who like movie stars.
yep, totally agree. There's a kind of magic that happens when dozens of creative humans get together and work on a movie for a year... little ideas, changes and strokes of genius that add up to something special, call it a spark of the devine, that can never be replicated by a machine.
I’m neutral on your point about the “Tech Bros”.
But independent of that, thanks first to massive HDTVs and then streaming, Hollywood in the movie business has for a long time now leaned to the one model where they can be “pretty sure” that the audience will be there: franchises and sequels.
Seems to me you are no longer describing how Hollywood “typically” works, you are describing how the “new non superhero/franchise” ever smaller slice of the business works.
I’m describing the studio movie business
So superheroes and Fast and Furious franchises aren’t studio movies?
They are, it’s part of the problem that the studios are making a very narrow band of movies and nothing risky
I won’t even argue with you that it’s a “problem”.
But my point is that the reality of today’s studio movie business is that MOST movie decisions no longer are made in the manner you describe. Instead most are made based on incrementalism.
So “If there is an industry which exists on the polar opposite end of the continuum on which we find the ideal commercial arrangement with which I opened this essay, it is the big studio movie business” likely indeed describes the business as of 1985 or 1995 or maybe even 2005.
But it does NOT describe the vast majority of the “big studio movie business” in 2025.