83,022
edits
Blockbusters: Why Big Hits and Big Risks are the Future of the Entertainment Business: Difference between revisions
Blockbusters: Why Big Hits and Big Risks are the Future of the Entertainment Business (view source)
Revision as of 09:30, 25 April 2020
, 25 April 2020no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
If you only see one movie a year, it’s not likely to be ''Dersu Uzala''.<ref>What do you mean, “what on earth is Dersu Uzala”?? Sayeth Wikipedia, of Kurosawa’s lyrical masterpiece: ''Dersu Uzala is epic in form yet intimate in scope. Set in the forests of Eastern Siberia at the turn of the century, it is a portrait of the friendship that grows between an aging hunter and a Russian surveyor. A romantic hymn to nature and the human spirit. </ref> | If you only see one movie a year, it’s not likely to be ''Dersu Uzala''.<ref>What do you mean, “what on earth is Dersu Uzala”?? Sayeth Wikipedia, of Kurosawa’s lyrical masterpiece: ''Dersu Uzala is epic in form yet intimate in scope. Set in the forests of Eastern Siberia at the turn of the century, it is a portrait of the friendship that grows between an aging hunter and a Russian surveyor. A romantic hymn to nature and the human spirit. </ref> | ||
If you are a movie executive, this ought not to rock your world. It certainly isn’t a function of the information revolution, and would have been as true when ''Derzu Uzala'' was released in 1975 as it is today. Yet it is the intellectual cornerstone of {{author|Anita Elberse}}’s provocative new book “Blockbusters” — | If you are a movie executive, this ought not to rock your world. It certainly isn’t a function of the information revolution, and would have been as true when ''Derzu Uzala'' was released in 1975 as it is today. Yet it is the intellectual cornerstone of {{author|Anita Elberse}}’s provocative new book “Blockbusters” — an unfortunate title, given Blockbuster’s fate, come to think of it — which dismantles that millennial canard that is {{author|Chris Anderson}}’s {{br|The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More}}. | ||
Elberse’s hook is simple: if you are a global media conglomerate, you are better betting the farm on a small number of “blockbuster” projects than managing | Elberse’s hook is simple: if you are a global media conglomerate, you are better off betting the farm on a small number of “blockbuster” projects than managing your margins across a diverse portfolio of smaller projects. Elberse compares Warner, who did this, which NBC TV — and latterly, I wonder, Netflix — who did not, and reaches her conclusion. | ||
There is something of a false premise here: in plumping for yet another superhero instalment, Warner Brothers isn’t really “risking big”. Rather, it is goosing its scale, but risking ''small'': the five films on its annual slate will all be formulaic (remakes, sequels, or new films in tried-and-true genres), will rely on well-known stars and directors and immense production resources to deliver superficial fireworks without challenging norms or demanding any great commitment from viewers. More or less, guaranteed to shift tickets: for the average punter who sees but one movie a year, this is the kind of movie it will be. | There is something of a false premise here: in plumping for yet another superhero instalment, Warner Brothers isn’t really “risking big”. Rather, it is goosing its scale, but risking ''small'': the five films on its annual slate will all be formulaic (remakes, sequels, or new films in tried-and-true genres), will rely on well-known stars and directors and immense production resources to deliver superficial fireworks without challenging norms or demanding any great commitment from viewers. More or less, guaranteed to shift tickets: for the average punter who sees but one movie a year, this is the kind of movie it will be. | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
Perhaps Elberse's theory, which owes nothing at all to the digital revolution, suggests the anointed few are getting smarter, and are hitting their channels more clinically than they used to. But down the tail lurks a much more interesting question: what happened? How was {{author|Chris Anderson}} so wrong? How is it that, all things being considered, the infinite time and choice vouchsafed by digital revolution has led to us exercising fewer choices? | Perhaps Elberse's theory, which owes nothing at all to the digital revolution, suggests the anointed few are getting smarter, and are hitting their channels more clinically than they used to. But down the tail lurks a much more interesting question: what happened? How was {{author|Chris Anderson}} so wrong? How is it that, all things being considered, the infinite time and choice vouchsafed by digital revolution has led to us exercising fewer choices? | ||
{{Ref}} | |||