The Life and Death of Hollywood
April 19, 2024 7:11 AM Subscribe
Hollywood has always been a cruel and carnivorous place. It always amazes me when people are taken aback by huge studios focusing on profits. Like, why do you think all those big money people got involved in the first place? It wasn't to make art. Art, and good television, gets made in spite of the studios.
posted by grumpybear69 at 7:23 AM on April 19 [7 favorites]
posted by grumpybear69 at 7:23 AM on April 19 [7 favorites]
I'm actually less concerned about the money going to the top talent than I am about the money going to executives and investors. At least a big-name star provides value.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:23 AM on April 19 [21 favorites]
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:23 AM on April 19 [21 favorites]
David Zaslav, who’s every decision is bad and destructive and who has sent the value of Warner Brothers rumbling, just got a massive raise.
posted by Artw at 7:25 AM on April 19 [14 favorites]
posted by Artw at 7:25 AM on April 19 [14 favorites]
I’m not sure this is a Hollywood problem. I think this is an everywhere problem, brought on by 80s neoliberalism allowing inequality to flourish. Inequality takes time to really ramp up, so now we are seeing it doing it’s thang now that things have got so unequal.
posted by The River Ivel at 8:20 AM on April 19 [45 favorites]
posted by The River Ivel at 8:20 AM on April 19 [45 favorites]
Great read.
As noted above, it's sort of an everywhere problem now. With the caveat given in the article that in creating new properties "nobody knows anything" - the boardrooms can't (yet) reliably and cheaply predict what an audience will go nuts for. Look at The Marvel Universe currently imploding.
But yeah, concentrated ownership is the main problem in media generally, not just Hollywood.
From a worker perspective, change has always been disruptive. Radio and recording decimated the ranks of working musicians, movies dislodged stage performers and theatre crew, streaming has attacked broadcast and physical media, etc etc. In the 80s and early 90s, my career was in building and maintaining large post-production facilities. By the mid-90s, high-$$$ audio rooms were being displaced in favour of $20k digital audio workstations in someone's basement. The writing was on the wall; I finally read it in 1995 and I changed careers. Since, technology has completely changed the visual special FX industry, and now it seems it's coming for creatives generally.
Will AI truly end the need for human creativity, in this case writing new stories and screenplays that are good enough? I guess we are about to find out.
posted by Artful Codger at 9:12 AM on April 19 [12 favorites]
As noted above, it's sort of an everywhere problem now. With the caveat given in the article that in creating new properties "nobody knows anything" - the boardrooms can't (yet) reliably and cheaply predict what an audience will go nuts for. Look at The Marvel Universe currently imploding.
But yeah, concentrated ownership is the main problem in media generally, not just Hollywood.
From a worker perspective, change has always been disruptive. Radio and recording decimated the ranks of working musicians, movies dislodged stage performers and theatre crew, streaming has attacked broadcast and physical media, etc etc. In the 80s and early 90s, my career was in building and maintaining large post-production facilities. By the mid-90s, high-$$$ audio rooms were being displaced in favour of $20k digital audio workstations in someone's basement. The writing was on the wall; I finally read it in 1995 and I changed careers. Since, technology has completely changed the visual special FX industry, and now it seems it's coming for creatives generally.
Will AI truly end the need for human creativity, in this case writing new stories and screenplays that are good enough? I guess we are about to find out.
posted by Artful Codger at 9:12 AM on April 19 [12 favorites]
100% this is an everywhere problem. And to FoB's point, the real issue is the profligate extraction of the executive and investor class, not the top talent. To execs, that talent is as ultimately replaceable as everyone else... they just haven't quite figured out how, yet.
My industry (Architecture/Engineering/Construction) is in the process of being consumed by private equity & it has absolutely changed the tenor of my recent job search. Executives I've spoken with recently are more focused than ever before on how tech/digital/org improvements can reduce their cost basis (read: employee salaries and benefits) and/or increase margins above what you traditionally see in AEC professional services.
And I've been getting fewer questions on how to deliver quality work to the customer or hiring, developing, and retaining top talent. The ones I do get are typically about how they can use AI to extract better work from a cheaper less-skilled, less-talented, more precarious workforce.
posted by turbowombat at 9:13 AM on April 19 [36 favorites]
My industry (Architecture/Engineering/Construction) is in the process of being consumed by private equity & it has absolutely changed the tenor of my recent job search. Executives I've spoken with recently are more focused than ever before on how tech/digital/org improvements can reduce their cost basis (read: employee salaries and benefits) and/or increase margins above what you traditionally see in AEC professional services.
And I've been getting fewer questions on how to deliver quality work to the customer or hiring, developing, and retaining top talent. The ones I do get are typically about how they can use AI to extract better work from a cheaper less-skilled, less-talented, more precarious workforce.
posted by turbowombat at 9:13 AM on April 19 [36 favorites]
Corey Doctorow nailed this entire thing with one word.
posted by nofundy at 10:46 AM on April 19 [8 favorites]
posted by nofundy at 10:46 AM on April 19 [8 favorites]
As of the end of last year, Vanguard, for example, owned the largest stake in Disney, Netflix, Comcast, Apple, and Warner Bros. Discovery. It holds a substantial share of Amazon and Paramount Global. By 2010, private-equity companies had acquired MGM, Miramax, and AMC Theatres, and had scooped up portions of Hulu and DreamWorks. Private equity now has its hands in Univision, Lionsgate, Skydance, and more.
It's always the private equity....
posted by subdee at 12:58 PM on April 19 [5 favorites]
It's always the private equity....
posted by subdee at 12:58 PM on April 19 [5 favorites]
Vanguard isn't private equity. It's mutual funds and ETFs, largely passive. If you have an index fund, it's through a company like Vanguard and it's essentially your money, held in their name.
posted by praemunire at 1:18 PM on April 19 [12 favorites]
posted by praemunire at 1:18 PM on April 19 [12 favorites]
On top of that, Vanguard is structured kind of like a Co-op, where the company itself is owned by its funds, and, therefore, by its customers (avoiding the need to extract extra wealth to appease separate owners/partners). Its founder invented the whole idea of an index fund, whose low overhead avoids another wealth-extraction point, that of the active managers).
Apart maybe from the sense in which the whole idea of investment enriches those who already have enough to invest, Vanguard's kind of a do-good company, and structured in a way that removes the incentives other companies have to eventually do bad.
posted by nobody at 1:41 PM on April 19 [5 favorites]
Apart maybe from the sense in which the whole idea of investment enriches those who already have enough to invest, Vanguard's kind of a do-good company, and structured in a way that removes the incentives other companies have to eventually do bad.
posted by nobody at 1:41 PM on April 19 [5 favorites]
Yeah that’s always a strange talking point to see without context.
three asset-management companies—BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street—would take over American business, becoming the largest shareholders of 88 percent of the S&P 500
The implications of this for American business are an interesting subject but presumably the reason for it is that it has become conventional wisdom that the best way to invest in stocks for the vast majority of people is to buy the S&P 500 through one of those companies.
posted by atoxyl at 1:43 PM on April 19 [2 favorites]
three asset-management companies—BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street—would take over American business, becoming the largest shareholders of 88 percent of the S&P 500
The implications of this for American business are an interesting subject but presumably the reason for it is that it has become conventional wisdom that the best way to invest in stocks for the vast majority of people is to buy the S&P 500 through one of those companies.
posted by atoxyl at 1:43 PM on April 19 [2 favorites]
As a supplemental note to this article, Participant Media (An Inconvenient Truth and dozens of other socially-relevant films) has abruptly shut down, per the Hollywood Reporter.
"How Modern Hollywood Doomed Jeff Skoll's Participant Media Dream."
posted by JDC8 at 3:08 PM on April 19 [2 favorites]
"How Modern Hollywood Doomed Jeff Skoll's Participant Media Dream."
posted by JDC8 at 3:08 PM on April 19 [2 favorites]
Profit will of course find a way; there will always be shit to watch. But without radical intervention, whether by the government or the workers, the industry will become unrecognizable. And the writing trade—the kind where one actually earns a living—will be obliterated.
This is just stupid.
The article seems to be bemoaning the end of a boom era. Because of something about deregulation, and the executives making tons of money.
Yet, as I see it, not only will there always be shit to watch, it's been better, and in greater quantity than ever. Even if there's enough of a contraction, viewers will still demand good. And especially if there's a contraction, those big fat execs will be driven to get more eyes, and will be willing to pay for it. Why? Because they like being big, fat execs.
The film and TV industry is now controlled by only four major companies, and it is shot through with incentives to devalue the actual production of film and television. What is to be done? The most direct solution would be government intervention. If it wanted to, a presidential administration could enforce existing antitrust law, break up the conglomerates, and begin to pull entertainment companies loose from asset-management firms. It could regulate the use of financial tools, as deWaard has suggested; it could rein in private equity. The government could also increase competition directly by funding more public film and television. It could establish a universal basic income for artists and writers.
All this, and a pony, too. And it still wouldn't fix the industry in favor of creatives, except for the few best who can command a premium.
posted by 2N2222 at 8:28 PM on April 19 [3 favorites]
This is just stupid.
The article seems to be bemoaning the end of a boom era. Because of something about deregulation, and the executives making tons of money.
Yet, as I see it, not only will there always be shit to watch, it's been better, and in greater quantity than ever. Even if there's enough of a contraction, viewers will still demand good. And especially if there's a contraction, those big fat execs will be driven to get more eyes, and will be willing to pay for it. Why? Because they like being big, fat execs.
The film and TV industry is now controlled by only four major companies, and it is shot through with incentives to devalue the actual production of film and television. What is to be done? The most direct solution would be government intervention. If it wanted to, a presidential administration could enforce existing antitrust law, break up the conglomerates, and begin to pull entertainment companies loose from asset-management firms. It could regulate the use of financial tools, as deWaard has suggested; it could rein in private equity. The government could also increase competition directly by funding more public film and television. It could establish a universal basic income for artists and writers.
All this, and a pony, too. And it still wouldn't fix the industry in favor of creatives, except for the few best who can command a premium.
posted by 2N2222 at 8:28 PM on April 19 [3 favorites]
Yet, as I see it, not only will there always be shit to watch, it's been better, and in greater quantity than ever.
People will watch what's there to watch. Viewers demanding good? They'll gravitate to it, follow the buzz, but no I haven't heard of any roads in LA being blocked by disappointed audience members. See also: fast food. Yes, we're on the backside of the streaming boom, which took risks with new writers and ideas, but now its going the same direction as cable - several providers, each with a few hits and a whole lotta reruns and dreck. Monthly rates increasing. Ads creeping back in. Boardrooms like Minimum Viable Product - the cheapest thing that will sell sufficiently well.
There are always cycles, and the disruption of the new, but still, workers-paradise-stuff aside, the article's not wrong about how the trend towards verticality and consolidation is pushing down on quality (in this case writers) in favour of short-term profits. And you know that the execs now dream of AIs with an IN slot where you push in a one-paragraph story outline or an out-of-copyright novel, select number of episodes, and out pops a finished script... or a full, computer-generated series.
Control ideas... control the population. I'm not a communist, but I don't think that profit elbowing out integrity, creativity and free expression is the right direction, especially in media. Is there a structure that will do both - profitable media companies AND careers for people who create?
posted by Artful Codger at 3:37 AM on April 20 [2 favorites]
People will watch what's there to watch. Viewers demanding good? They'll gravitate to it, follow the buzz, but no I haven't heard of any roads in LA being blocked by disappointed audience members. See also: fast food. Yes, we're on the backside of the streaming boom, which took risks with new writers and ideas, but now its going the same direction as cable - several providers, each with a few hits and a whole lotta reruns and dreck. Monthly rates increasing. Ads creeping back in. Boardrooms like Minimum Viable Product - the cheapest thing that will sell sufficiently well.
There are always cycles, and the disruption of the new, but still, workers-paradise-stuff aside, the article's not wrong about how the trend towards verticality and consolidation is pushing down on quality (in this case writers) in favour of short-term profits. And you know that the execs now dream of AIs with an IN slot where you push in a one-paragraph story outline or an out-of-copyright novel, select number of episodes, and out pops a finished script... or a full, computer-generated series.
Control ideas... control the population. I'm not a communist, but I don't think that profit elbowing out integrity, creativity and free expression is the right direction, especially in media. Is there a structure that will do both - profitable media companies AND careers for people who create?
posted by Artful Codger at 3:37 AM on April 20 [2 favorites]
Yet, as I see it, not only will there always be shit to watch, it's been better, and in greater quantity than ever. Even if there's enough of a contraction, viewers will still demand good.
Yes, that's why we're on like the 356th season of Survivor, because TV audiences demand quality.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:54 AM on April 20 [5 favorites]
Yes, that's why we're on like the 356th season of Survivor, because TV audiences demand quality.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:54 AM on April 20 [5 favorites]
Yes, that's why we're on like the 356th season of Survivor, because TV audiences demand quality.
I don't do TV anymore, but I remember back in season 2, Survivor Outback when there was a flash-flood, and one team's food -- well the person with the camera did a great job of filming it floating away. And then the show changed the challenge's prizes to... food. And I'm like, "you're not going to just let them forage or starve? That would have been the best TV ever. You suck, producers! I'm out."
Oh, the franchise could have really been great!
posted by mikelieman at 5:46 AM on April 20
I don't do TV anymore, but I remember back in season 2, Survivor Outback when there was a flash-flood, and one team's food -- well the person with the camera did a great job of filming it floating away. And then the show changed the challenge's prizes to... food. And I'm like, "you're not going to just let them forage or starve? That would have been the best TV ever. You suck, producers! I'm out."
Oh, the franchise could have really been great!
posted by mikelieman at 5:46 AM on April 20
Opening HBO Max (or “MAX”) these days is wild because though the old, good, pre-“MAX” stuff is still there and there’s still new HBO material being made it is buried under tidal wave of total unwatchable shit, and it’s easy to see that as the beginning of change in ratio of shit/worthwhile that ends in all shit all the time.
posted by Artw at 10:53 AM on April 20 [3 favorites]
posted by Artw at 10:53 AM on April 20 [3 favorites]
There's a part of me that wonders if David Zaslav isn't some kind of secret change agent whose long term goal is to set humanity free by releasing us from the bonds of prestige TV. If once again TV can be aimed squarely at the lowest common denominator, everyone else can stop watching it and actually get about the business of solving our countless problems.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:19 PM on April 20 [1 favorite]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:19 PM on April 20 [1 favorite]
I don't think we can ascribe positive ulterior motives to a TV exec. Occam's Razor is he's just a stupid person. Who other stupid people agreed to let lead them. There is no ultimate goal. They're just extremely stupid.
posted by downtohisturtles at 7:03 PM on April 20 [1 favorite]
posted by downtohisturtles at 7:03 PM on April 20 [1 favorite]
Basically at this point everybody with any large amount of money turns out to be brain breakingly, jaw droppingly stupid with such regularity that there has to be some kind of positive relationship between the two.
posted by Artw at 7:30 AM on April 21 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 7:30 AM on April 21 [2 favorites]
Part of it I think is once you reach a certain level of wealth people around you start agreeing with you or at least disagreeing with deference. And it becomes easier to avoid people who don't agree. Without any negative feed back you start thinking you are the smartest person in the room even if you are proposing a land war in Asia.
posted by Mitheral at 12:58 PM on April 21
posted by Mitheral at 12:58 PM on April 21
Yes, that's why we're on like the 356th season of Survivor, because TV audiences demand quality.
You can watch Survivor all you want. This is a good thing.
Curious you pick that as an example, since it, well, survives on over the air broadcasting with the limitations that medium has. And if you're actually concerned about the jobs provided in the industry, as a show that's been running over 20 years, I'd not be pissing on it. But TV has moved well past those restrictions that over the air programming has. If you're going to argue that TV hasn't gotten better since '97 when Survivor first premiered, I'm calling bullshit. The point is that shows like Survivor haven't crowded out storytelling that's better than ever before. That is the result of competing companies seeing opportunity to present better shows and movies to get those viewers. There is more now that I actually want to see than I even have time for. And that's not even counting places like youtube, where people create tons of stuff, who'd never have even dreamed of trying out in Hollywood, serving niche audiences that Hollywood could never conceive.
Creative people will always have a tough time breaking into the business and contrary to the article, it's been increasingly good for them. If it has been an unsustainable boom, so be it. Many of those out of work creatives got to get a slice that they might never have gotten 30 years ago.
posted by 2N2222 at 3:36 PM on April 22
You can watch Survivor all you want. This is a good thing.
Curious you pick that as an example, since it, well, survives on over the air broadcasting with the limitations that medium has. And if you're actually concerned about the jobs provided in the industry, as a show that's been running over 20 years, I'd not be pissing on it. But TV has moved well past those restrictions that over the air programming has. If you're going to argue that TV hasn't gotten better since '97 when Survivor first premiered, I'm calling bullshit. The point is that shows like Survivor haven't crowded out storytelling that's better than ever before. That is the result of competing companies seeing opportunity to present better shows and movies to get those viewers. There is more now that I actually want to see than I even have time for. And that's not even counting places like youtube, where people create tons of stuff, who'd never have even dreamed of trying out in Hollywood, serving niche audiences that Hollywood could never conceive.
Creative people will always have a tough time breaking into the business and contrary to the article, it's been increasingly good for them. If it has been an unsustainable boom, so be it. Many of those out of work creatives got to get a slice that they might never have gotten 30 years ago.
posted by 2N2222 at 3:36 PM on April 22
Creative people will always have a tough time breaking into the business and contrary to the article, it's been increasingly good for them.
This is not what I have heard about the past few years from literally any person in a creative industry that is trying to make a living at it.
posted by Artw at 4:42 PM on April 22 [4 favorites]
This is not what I have heard about the past few years from literally any person in a creative industry that is trying to make a living at it.
posted by Artw at 4:42 PM on April 22 [4 favorites]
Creative people will always have a tough time breaking into the business and contrary to the article, it's been increasingly good for them.
David Zaslav, is that you??
What I think some people aren't understanding is that Hollywood has always been a tough business, but since streaming supplanted network TV, PEOPLE CAN'T SUPPORT THEMSELVES EVEN WHEN THEY HAVE A HIT. That is what has changed. For example, The Bear was a huge show. It was successful. It was critically acclaimed. It won awards. Jeremy Allen White, Ayo Edebiri and Ebon Moss-Bacharach became stars. It streamed on Hulu, which has ads. This is a show that 20 years ago would have paid every single one of its writers a solid middle-class income and residuals indefinitely, and yet they make 43k a year with ZERO residuals.
The supporting cast of Orange is the New Black (another popular show, so zeitgeisty that people subscribed to Netflix just to watch it) were so poorly compensated they had to keep second jobs while filming and again, received almost nothing in residuals (these articles are from before the new WGA/SAG contract, which did win some concessions, but not enough).
These shows were hits, and Hollywood used to reward you if you made a hit. Getting into the business has always been a roll of the dice, but the last ten years of corporate fuckery have made it a hell of a lot harder to roll a six.
posted by Nibbly Fang at 5:09 PM on April 22 [5 favorites]
David Zaslav, is that you??
What I think some people aren't understanding is that Hollywood has always been a tough business, but since streaming supplanted network TV, PEOPLE CAN'T SUPPORT THEMSELVES EVEN WHEN THEY HAVE A HIT. That is what has changed. For example, The Bear was a huge show. It was successful. It was critically acclaimed. It won awards. Jeremy Allen White, Ayo Edebiri and Ebon Moss-Bacharach became stars. It streamed on Hulu, which has ads. This is a show that 20 years ago would have paid every single one of its writers a solid middle-class income and residuals indefinitely, and yet they make 43k a year with ZERO residuals.
The supporting cast of Orange is the New Black (another popular show, so zeitgeisty that people subscribed to Netflix just to watch it) were so poorly compensated they had to keep second jobs while filming and again, received almost nothing in residuals (these articles are from before the new WGA/SAG contract, which did win some concessions, but not enough).
These shows were hits, and Hollywood used to reward you if you made a hit. Getting into the business has always been a roll of the dice, but the last ten years of corporate fuckery have made it a hell of a lot harder to roll a six.
posted by Nibbly Fang at 5:09 PM on April 22 [5 favorites]
There was a whole strike about this!
posted by Artw at 5:13 PM on April 22 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 5:13 PM on April 22 [2 favorites]
« Older ☆彡 ☆彡 ☆彡 ☆彡 It was like fireworks. ☆彡 ☆彡... | emo ambient Newer »
posted by Melismata at 7:19 AM on April 19 [4 favorites]