June 29, 2015

What drives Hollywood? Hint: It's not the desire to make films you want to see

Furious DRebel Blogger

How many times have you seen a movie or TV show and wondered: Why the hell did they make that? It's a common question, I know I've asked that myself many times. Driven by curiosity, I did a little thinking, and I came to realize that there are two basic drives behind Hollywood decision making: The Money Drive, and The Ego Drive.

Now I know that a bunch of you readers are sitting there going: "Hey, this yahoo left out the artistic drive!" True, and I must say that I'm insulted by being called a 'yahoo,' but, to explain myself, it takes ego to make art and consider it worthy of public consumption. Besides, this is Hollywood we're talking about, and art is not going to get a film made unless it appeals to someone's desire to either swell their wallet or their head.

THE MONEY DRIVE: It's often condemned by self-styled artists as akin to prostitution, but it is the backbone of the entertainment industry. It is essentially the desire to make money by making movies and TV shows that will appeal to the widest possible audience. A lot of the time it creates crap, diving for the lowest common denominator, and once they’ve found the bottom they usually start digging, but since 90% of all human creative endeavour produces crap, it's well within norms.

However, it is not a complete artistic wasteland. Perennially popular films – the ones that get hailed as classics, enjoy long lives at the box office and home re-watchings - do not aim for success via appealing to fads and the basest vulgar tastes, but instead aim for making an all important emotional connection with the audience through telling an entertaining story that the audience can understand and relate to. This can even include intelligent dramas that offer challenging ideas on controversial subjects, because people can accept controversy, and having their beliefs challenged, as long as they can relate to the story, find it entertaining, and not insulting.

THE EGO DRIVE: This can also be called The Ego/Snob Drive. It's basically where a film's makers don't aim for popular success, but the sort of praise bestowed by critics, festival audiences, and Academy voters. In fact, when it's all about the Ego Drive they actually want the film to fail at the box office. Because box-office failure allows them to play the martyr, slaughtered unjustly by the crude, vulgar, and base Philistines of the general public, because they had the "courage" to "speak truth to power."

Usually such talk is code for making a film that people didn't find entertaining, or challenging, just dull and preachy. However, Hollywood is all about spin and image, and if you spin your failure just right, you'll get invited to all the right parties, get unlimited critical praise (whether deserved or not) and use that image as the "courageous artiste" to get more deals to make more films that fewer and fewer people want to see. Because a lot of the folks who control the money; usually control other people's money, want to be called courageous, and artistic as well, and be one of the cool kids.

Studio executives used to work with a mixture of the money drive and the ego drive, but sans the snob element. Their ego was based mostly on commercial success of their pictures. It wasn't always in balance, with certain studios more interested in churning out as much product as possible, as cheaply as possible, putting out the occasional "A Picture" to appease the critics and win awards, while others insisted on a certain level of quality. They wanted to make movies to make money, but they wanted them to be well made movies that made money.

However things have changed.

Hollywood has become more isolated from the average moviegoer than ever before, and that isolation has spread into the executive suite. Glamour is blinding, and when the desire for acceptance by the glamorous replaces the desire for acceptance by the audience, the industry is screwed.

Sure executives can be fired if they lose enough money, but the threat isn't as terrible as it once was. How can a CEO fear being fired since their contract, which they wrote themselves, has a severance package that could feed Bangladesh for a year? Also, fired executives usually move on to similar or better positions at other companies, networks, or start their own production companies - usually, again, with other people's money.

So you get a widening divide between movie-makers and movie-goers, and it's starting to show in the revenue stream. Movie ticket sales are erratic, but usually trending downward, and becoming more and more centred on fewer and fewer franchises, network TV viewership is down, and people are turning away from mainstream entertainment, and going to the more niche-friendly lanes of cable specialty channels and the internet.

How can this be changed?

It's all about balance.

Hollywood must learn find a balance between the need for praise from their peers, and the need for money. My suggestion is looking for praise by producing quality movies that are also appealing to the general audience.


Follow The Megaphone on Twitter.

JOIN TheRebel.media for more news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-07-02 22:38:05 -0400

Does that mean that you concede that the Sarah Palin documentary and American Sniper is right wing propaganda?
commented 2015-07-02 18:24:52 -0400
Well, you and I may agree to a point at the stupidity of the public. I think they are stupid when the consume left wing drool (and outright lies) from Michael Moore. Funny that the left love anti-war movies since it was the progressives who dragged the US into World War I and World War II, and it was progressives who were the original pro-war Americans.
commented 2015-07-02 16:35:38 -0400
No Jason, the general public are fucking stupid for the most part. This is why a movie like Paul Blart is made and why Adam Sandler movies exist.

There is also a ton of Hollywood films and TV shows that conservatives deem to be anti-war, anti-religion and anti-conservative that do incredibly well. Michael Moore is actually successful – so he wasn’t rejected. And Elsyium simply wasn’t a good movie, which is why it failed.

The Muppet Movie did very well and that was supposedly anti-business and anti-oil according to the retards on Fox News.
commented 2015-07-02 16:09:09 -0400
I disagree. I think the public often knows what it likes and rejects pablum the critics love top try to push on the public. Such as pure propaganda pieces from Michael Moore, or films like Elsyium, or the anti-war crap the left likes to try to push on us, or anti Bush pieces filled with lies like Fair Game. As Michael Medved wrote a couple decades ago, Hollywood has an agenda it tries to push that actually works against them making money. The fact is the major producing houses are run and owned by liberals. That is one has to be really famous or be really careful as a conservative actor, or you could be out of a job.
commented 2015-07-01 13:10:42 -0400
As someone who works in the film industry, I can tell you that the problem really has to do with the general public – because they have the worst fucking taste in everything. So Hollywood is really just spoon feeding them the shit that they want. If the general didn’t like what Hollywood was making, they would stop making crap that happens to make a ton of money at the box office.

Hollywood and many independent production companies are actually making some really fantastic movies these days – it’s been a great time for true movie enthusiasts. Birdman for example was fucking incredible, but again the lowest common denominator doesn’t care about that – the worst movies are consistently in the top 10 with some exceptions. I think audiences have just become dumber for whatever reason and I think you are pointing the finger in the wrong direction.

The better discussion might be – when did audiences become retarded?