Readers, the last thing I consider myself is a know-it-all.
Honestly, I've always stopped just short of calling myself a know-nothing.
Basically, I talk about movies, TV shows, and celebrity entertainment, and I've always -- always -- tried to do from the perspective of history. I think it's important that there be some online voices who aren't trying to ratchet up any controversy; and that's largely why I've tried to stay out of that arena. Others are far better informed about trends and finances and theatrical highs and lows, so I long ago decided that I'd leave those particulars to them. They're better at such analysis, so who am I to stick my nose in the middle of such a kerfuffle? I'm like you: I have my opinions, and I try to keep them as succinct as possible. When I have something to say, then I speak up.
And I think I've something to say this morning.
Now, to give you the context, what I'm about to impart I do so entirely because I think I've stirred up a little controversy on a social media platform (if my replies and whatnot are any indication). I didn't mean to do so -- I was only offering, as I said above, an observation from history -- but sometimes that's all it takes a ignite a small brush fire. It has to do with the present state of the American theatrical box office -- which is in shambles for a whole lot of reasons, not just one -- but I think what I offered might give a bit of insight into how we got to this lowly place.
A few decades back -- it was probably the late 1980's or early 1990's -- I remember reading an article that was an interview with a Hollywood studio person. I don't recall if it was a studio suit or a director or a producer or whatnot, but that really doesn't matter. The entire argument this person was making was that we -- as moviewatchers -- should feel glad that they do what they do -- make movies -- and keep them at such a bargain price. His point -- and I believe it was a male -- was that so far as they were concerned that the movies were sacrosanct. It was a place that shouldn't be tinkered with by outsiders or even by insiders. The theater was a place for communal worship of the arts ... but he also admitted that there was a desire amongst the real Hollywood heavyweights to push ticket prices to the point wherein they'd be on par with concert experiences.
Hold on to your hats, folks.
The central argument here was that if directors, actors, actresses, production people, effects staff, and the like were truly artists -- much like those that you pay $50, $100, and $200 to see live, then why shouldn't theaters be commanding the same price? In other words, if you're willing to plunk down, say, $200 for the best seats you can get to Taylor Swift, then why shouldn't you pay the same when seeing her on the silver screen? I think the obvious retort would be that there's a huge, huge, huge difference to seeing a performer live versus in the theater, but this executive was among those who felt otherwise, that it's art for the sake or art, and all should demand the same price.
Now, let me assure you this person wasn't advocating for those ticket prices specifically. The point was that -- if I remember correctly -- he was responding to the fact that box office prices were too low and were due for an increase; and -- in a somewhat reckless fashion -- he was suggesting that we should simply be happy to pay more to see what they're producing for us in the cineplexes whether we liked it or not. His suggestion was that art deserves to charge what the artist believes is an appropriate sum -- not based on what you or I can afford -- and, as such, a surge in prices is a natural response of markets as they come to terms with social requires.
If more folks want to see, say, Star Wars or Star Trek, then wouldn't those folks be willing to pay more for said films?
I think in some ways it's this mindset that has given rise to streaming, especially those both driven and pushed by major studios, because it shows that they want to cash directly for what they're willing to fund. For those up on their history, Paramount has had this in their sights for decades, first with their own channel (which ultimately failed) and now their own streaming network (which isn't exactly doing well). Given the fact that Paramount Pictures is, financially, pretty much D.O.A. one might wonder why the suits haven't woken up and smelled the morning coffee to understand that such a mindset does not and cannot work to their benefit.
But it's this pervasive arrogance -- the 'I know what you should be paying for what we're giving you -- that works contrary to the evidence of history. Audiences can always go elsewhere, and the executives are kinda/sorta spitting in your face, thinking that they're your only option. They're not -- the dirty secret is that they've never been -- and, thus, they continue to mismanage one intellectual property after another all in pursuit of the mighty dollar ... which they don't seem to be finding.
Still, I found it telling that probably thirty years ago some anonymous suit was basically expressing the same sentiment that is largely killing the entertainment industry today ... and I thought that worth sharing.
-- EZ
Honestly, I've always stopped just short of calling myself a know-nothing.
Basically, I talk about movies, TV shows, and celebrity entertainment, and I've always -- always -- tried to do from the perspective of history. I think it's important that there be some online voices who aren't trying to ratchet up any controversy; and that's largely why I've tried to stay out of that arena. Others are far better informed about trends and finances and theatrical highs and lows, so I long ago decided that I'd leave those particulars to them. They're better at such analysis, so who am I to stick my nose in the middle of such a kerfuffle? I'm like you: I have my opinions, and I try to keep them as succinct as possible. When I have something to say, then I speak up.
And I think I've something to say this morning.
Now, to give you the context, what I'm about to impart I do so entirely because I think I've stirred up a little controversy on a social media platform (if my replies and whatnot are any indication). I didn't mean to do so -- I was only offering, as I said above, an observation from history -- but sometimes that's all it takes a ignite a small brush fire. It has to do with the present state of the American theatrical box office -- which is in shambles for a whole lot of reasons, not just one -- but I think what I offered might give a bit of insight into how we got to this lowly place.
A few decades back -- it was probably the late 1980's or early 1990's -- I remember reading an article that was an interview with a Hollywood studio person. I don't recall if it was a studio suit or a director or a producer or whatnot, but that really doesn't matter. The entire argument this person was making was that we -- as moviewatchers -- should feel glad that they do what they do -- make movies -- and keep them at such a bargain price. His point -- and I believe it was a male -- was that so far as they were concerned that the movies were sacrosanct. It was a place that shouldn't be tinkered with by outsiders or even by insiders. The theater was a place for communal worship of the arts ... but he also admitted that there was a desire amongst the real Hollywood heavyweights to push ticket prices to the point wherein they'd be on par with concert experiences.
Hold on to your hats, folks.
The central argument here was that if directors, actors, actresses, production people, effects staff, and the like were truly artists -- much like those that you pay $50, $100, and $200 to see live, then why shouldn't theaters be commanding the same price? In other words, if you're willing to plunk down, say, $200 for the best seats you can get to Taylor Swift, then why shouldn't you pay the same when seeing her on the silver screen? I think the obvious retort would be that there's a huge, huge, huge difference to seeing a performer live versus in the theater, but this executive was among those who felt otherwise, that it's art for the sake or art, and all should demand the same price.
Now, let me assure you this person wasn't advocating for those ticket prices specifically. The point was that -- if I remember correctly -- he was responding to the fact that box office prices were too low and were due for an increase; and -- in a somewhat reckless fashion -- he was suggesting that we should simply be happy to pay more to see what they're producing for us in the cineplexes whether we liked it or not. His suggestion was that art deserves to charge what the artist believes is an appropriate sum -- not based on what you or I can afford -- and, as such, a surge in prices is a natural response of markets as they come to terms with social requires.
If more folks want to see, say, Star Wars or Star Trek, then wouldn't those folks be willing to pay more for said films?
I think in some ways it's this mindset that has given rise to streaming, especially those both driven and pushed by major studios, because it shows that they want to cash directly for what they're willing to fund. For those up on their history, Paramount has had this in their sights for decades, first with their own channel (which ultimately failed) and now their own streaming network (which isn't exactly doing well). Given the fact that Paramount Pictures is, financially, pretty much D.O.A. one might wonder why the suits haven't woken up and smelled the morning coffee to understand that such a mindset does not and cannot work to their benefit.
But it's this pervasive arrogance -- the 'I know what you should be paying for what we're giving you -- that works contrary to the evidence of history. Audiences can always go elsewhere, and the executives are kinda/sorta spitting in your face, thinking that they're your only option. They're not -- the dirty secret is that they've never been -- and, thus, they continue to mismanage one intellectual property after another all in pursuit of the mighty dollar ... which they don't seem to be finding.
Still, I found it telling that probably thirty years ago some anonymous suit was basically expressing the same sentiment that is largely killing the entertainment industry today ... and I thought that worth sharing.
-- EZ
RSS Feed