I canāt remember who it was. A famous actor, anyway. They were talking about whatās happened with movies. Thereās nothing in the middle.
Itās either $100m+ or less than $3m. Either it gets a big producer and they pump so much money into it that it must be safe because it canāt lose money. Or is a small producer doing it for the love, but a small budget doesnāt go very far. The risky narratives done well would be funded somewhere between the two extremes but itās just not how itās done anymore.
In a strange way, to get more money in for the riskier productions, we need to get the money out of Hollywood. Canāt see it happening, myself.
You canāt? We just had a summer filled with high-budget flops, and now both the actors and the writers are on strike meaning that the studios wonāt be able to recoup their losses any time soon. Add the reduced to non-existent theatre turnout in the first couple of years of the decade due to COVID and thereās been a hell of a lot of money āgetting out of Hollywood.ā
I disagree that a flop means lost revenue. This is an industry thatās so adept at hiding income to avoid paying taxes, actors, and every other studio worker that dodgy accounting is known as āHollywood Accountingā. Maybe weāre talking about different things. When I say Hollywood, I mean the movie industry as a whole.
Hollywood has failed to capture some income streams. From theatres, for example, as you say. But thereās still too much money to be made (and too much propaganda potential) for enough big money to leave that the problems of monopoly finance capital go away.
