________ Studios
-
wrote on 27 Jan 2021, 20:52 last edited by
I think it's time to bring the studio concept back.
Most movies made today, cost too much money. Hallmark has done a good job keeping costs down...Filming two movies back to back, with mostly the same actors. Filming on cheap locations with tax breaks. Signing actors to multiple picture deals.
My question is why can't we expand on the Hallmark model and go back to full studio production, albeit on a very small scale. Let's sign some character actors, a few leading men and women types and some older, recognizable b-list names that will work for peanuts. Let's develop some young talen. Let's use sets on more than one production to save costs. Let's concentrate on genres that can be made cheaply...Rom-coms, dramas and westerns.
Let's come in at a dollar figure that allows us to feed the streaming services with fresh content.
Workable?
-
wrote on 27 Jan 2021, 20:59 last edited by xenon
Monetization model is tough. Hard to get people to leave the house to go to the movies.
Big movies win... big movies are risky... risky = generic, repetitive IP.
But I hear what you're saying. Attack the cost side... cheap movies with good writing can be monetized differently.
I agree.
-
I think it's time to bring the studio concept back.
Most movies made today, cost too much money. Hallmark has done a good job keeping costs down...Filming two movies back to back, with mostly the same actors. Filming on cheap locations with tax breaks. Signing actors to multiple picture deals.
My question is why can't we expand on the Hallmark model and go back to full studio production, albeit on a very small scale. Let's sign some character actors, a few leading men and women types and some older, recognizable b-list names that will work for peanuts. Let's develop some young talen. Let's use sets on more than one production to save costs. Let's concentrate on genres that can be made cheaply...Rom-coms, dramas and westerns.
Let's come in at a dollar figure that allows us to feed the streaming services with fresh content.
Workable?
wrote on 27 Jan 2021, 21:02 last edited by Horace@jolly said in ________ Studios:
I think it's time to bring the studio concept back.
Most movies made today, cost too much money. Hallmark has done a good job keeping costs down...Filming two movies back to back, with mostly the same actors. Filming on cheap locations with tax breaks. Signing actors to multiple picture deals.
When I last visited my mom, we enjoyed our evenings together by watching movies. I mostly chose them, of course always biased towards what I thought she would like. She picked up on the Hallmark thing, I didn't know about it. I was choosing Hallmark movies. Maybe it's the colors. It always looks like Christmas.
-
wrote on 27 Jan 2021, 21:06 last edited by
Just from my observation, China has tons of small movie production groups that crank out economically made content meant to go straight into the Internet streaming market. For sure they produce a lot of junk, but every now and then there is a gem.
Technology and infrastructure today are such that it is now easier than ever to create new video content and get that video content distributed widely and economically. In terms of hardware needs, one can create an entire movie with just a smartphone and a personal computer. The likes of YouTube can take care of worldwide distribution. Making consistently high quality movies and actually making money doing it ... those are different problems.
-
wrote on 28 Jan 2021, 02:55 last edited by
I was watching a Christmas Hallmark movie a few months before, and it obviously was on the low cost side.
It was set in Chicago during winter, but in one scene, the people were driving with palm trees and tropical scenes in the background.
The snow was white "felt paper" layed over bushes. LOL It was pretty obvious it was fake, and the story was pretty bad. One of the lower tier Hallmark movies.
(But I usually enjoy those, even if they are pretty predictable)
-
Monetization model is tough. Hard to get people to leave the house to go to the movies.
Big movies win... big movies are risky... risky = generic, repetitive IP.
But I hear what you're saying. Attack the cost side... cheap movies with good writing can be monetized differently.
I agree.
wrote on 28 Jan 2021, 03:05 last edited by@xenon said in ________ Studios:
Monetization model is tough. Hard to get people to leave the house to go to the movies.
Big movies win... big movies are risky... risky = generic, repetitive IP.
But I hear what you're saying. Attack the cost side... cheap movies with good writing can be monetized differently.
I agree.
The target customers are primarily the streaming services, with "cable" channels being the secondary market.