Ray Bradbury’s Problem with John Carter

“The bigger your market, Montag, the less you handle controversy, remember that! […] People want to be happy, isn’t that right? […] Don’t we give them fun? That’s all we live for, isn’t it? For pleasure, for titillation? And you must admit our culture provides plenty of these.”

               -Fire Captain Beatty- 

Although not his sole intention in Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury predicts and warns about the future of entertainment and in general America. In a recent article, Disney reported that it was going to have to eat nearly $200 million on its 3D, special effects darling John Carter, and for any cinephile (including this one), this could not be a more pleasing sight. (Although I have not seen it in theaters and will not, so as not to support it. It's doing so well without my help anyways.)The film seems to be another factory-made, big-budgeted blockbuster hopeful that flopped. But the intriguing part about Disney’s failure is that John Carter is a perfect example that there is a problem with the state of Hollywood, a good problem, if the movie industry adapts. So what is this “problem?”

John Carter looking bewildered at a book burning on Mars. "What's the problem?" he asks.

The internet: with it, a niche attitude has been created, not only in the United States, but all around the world. People are able to surf and find anything they are interested in, as specific and obscure as it may be. Whether someone is interested in Crunkcore or 1990’s-era Nicktoons, or whether someone is into men, women or animals for example, the internet is the place to be. Along with having access to that information, there are also small communities for said interests—minority groups, if you will—concerned exclusively with this type of entertainment. So why is this a concern for Hollywood?

Well, let’s put it in an economical context. Disney is recently declaring a $200 million dollar loss on the film John Cater, which, in its second week of release, has plummeted nearly 55% in revenue from ticket sales from its opening week. So why is this important, and why is this not just another flop? Who made the film: Disney—a giant, super-wealthy corporation. Who was their audience: everyone—the average Joe (or rather John). Disney wants everyone to see the film (including those into animals) so that it can recuperate its nearly 250 million dollar budget, and then some (ten-fold would be great.) Naturally, they are a business and want to make as much profit as possible; so in doing so, they try to appeal to the most general audience—the least common denominator.

Speaking of films that appeal to the least common denominator...

Why does the movie industry, and specifically Disney, have this attitude? Well according to Boxofficemojo.com, these are the statistics: on average, while the number of movies being made since 2001 has been wavering but been generally consistent, the total gross of films and the average price per ticket (by more than a dollar since 2001) has been steadily rising perennially; however, the number of total tickets sold has been decreasing since the peak year of 2002 (the immediate post-9/11 year.) Although these numbers can be interpreted in many different ways, and the reliability of said statistics may not be entirely accurate, what seems to be occurring is that while films garner record profits, less and less people go to the movies each year. Their audience is decreasing.

In fact, since 2001—the pivotal year—this decline in movie theater attendance has been attributed to increasing, cheaper-rental outlets (like Netflix, Redbox, etc.), but more recently, to the rise of the internet and movie bootlegging. At the same time, there seems to be a generalized trend in the content of film. For example, it seems that there are more film sequels, trilogies, or franchises; there is an increased number of remakes, superhero movies, and movies based on other popular material like book series’ and comic books; there are a lot more rehashed ideas (not that this did not exist before) with a bunch of glitzy special effects that create an even greater divide between actuality and fantasy.

It is difficult to pinpoint an exact moment or film that caused this trend, or the belief of this trend, to manifested itself, which makes it possible that, in general since the start of the millennium, record profits and decreasing attendance have developed concurrently. However, if you compare the average film budget in 2001 to the average film budget in 2011, it leaps from around 50 million to about 139 million dollars, compared to the ten years prior, approximately 25 million to 50 million from 1991 to 2000. Granted, these numbers are not set in stone, but what can be gleaned from them is a huge change, budgets have nearly tripled in the past decade, whereas only doubling the decade prior. Ticket prices have also increased at a greater rate from 2001 to now, compared to the decade prior (1991-2000). It seems safe to say that Hollywood is riding high on the waves of this trend, all the while making “beaucoup dolares.”

So, what is the point of this? Well, recently there has been an increase in anti-piracy legislation greatly aimed at restricting the internet. But why would Hollywood really care? They are still making a bunch of money. An interesting fact to note, that in post September 11^th America, there were claims of government officials meeting with Hollywood executives to “share […] the themes we’re communicating at home and abroad of patriotism, tolerance, and courage.”

Murica!

If this were to be correct, it would make sense that the government and Hollywood would want to restrict the internet, having less people use it to download freely “indie” or “subversive” films that do not align with what the government propagates. (Now, now, I’m not trying to proliferate a Hollywood/government propaganda conspiracy; I’m just trying to present the possibility of one.) It would make sense, that they would want audiences to increase—to flood, even—to the movie theaters. This is Hollywood’s current concern anyways, the decrease in theater audiences.

This is why such a big flop in John Carter could be important and beneficial to us as the audience. It would benefit companies like Disney to restructure what films they approve for production, to take on a new business-model, to separate themselves from the government (look at how well the government is running their business.) For example, if they start making six smaller-budgeted films rather than one John Carter-esque, huge-budgeted film, it would be easier to recuperate the money. It is easier to gain back 50 million dollars than 300 million dollars isn’t it?

Granted with more films on the market at lower budgets viewers would have more choice (oh no! wouldn’t want that! People thinking different things?!). And this would seemingly just disperse the already sparse theater-going public just creating more flops, right? Not necessarily. Assuming—hoping—that these films were of better quality and Hollywood lowered ticket prices, more people would go to cinemas, pumping more of that green into the economy. But also, studios could afford to do because they would not need to recover 300 million dollars for every film. So if audiences would increase, more people would see more films, it would be easier to gain back smaller budgets. And, if one film were to be very successful, the rewards would be extremely lucrative.

There is less risk, less chance of flopping a 50 million dollar film that Hollywood thinks “no one will see,” rather than a 300 million dollar film like John Carter that everyone has already seen. The movie industry appealing to a more diverse audience would be more beneficial for the audience, for the companies, and for the economy. Diversity is good. Look at the internet for example. If everyone keeps seeing John Carter in droves, what’s to say the makers of these films won’t start telling us that books are evil, that we should burn them?

A Few Fleeting Thoughts About Oscar

I realize I'm about a week late with what I think about the Oscars, but anyway, here are the few fleeting thoughts that I had about the ceremony and the results.

Each year in a rush to see as many Oscar-nominated films as possible, I look forward to the Academy Awards with anticipation, skepticism, and in particularly hope. I have no engrained sentimentality about the event, at least not one that has lasted as long as many of my nostalgic sentiments about movies. Only recently—the past few years in college—have I really gained an appreciation and excitement for the Oscars, and even this year, being on a different continent and having to stay up until six in the morning, I was still committed to watching them.

The Academy Awards receives criticism from all different angles every year, whether it is from them snubbing many deserving films from nominations, or choosing the “wrong” film for Best Picture, or even if the ceremony is stale. The Oscars is what it is. It can’t always siphon down exactly the top five or ten or nine or however many films are the top films of the year; it won’t always get that right. However, it comes close, and it is important to look at the Academy Awards choices and try and figure out the ultimate significance of their choices.

The cast and crew of The Artist, directed by Michel Hazanavicius.

It is important to look at what films the Academy has chosen to recognize and what that means in the bigger picture of the film industry. That being said, if you look at the films recognized this year, you will notice a trend that has continued for a few years now. In 2009, Avatar was the biggest grossing film in the history of cinema; it ushered in a new era for 3-D filmmaking, and it made a huge impact at the Academy Awards, reaffirming the general trend and false belief that has persisted since Star Wars (that’s right—Star Wars, not the butchered version of the film renamed Star Wars: Episode VI - A New Hope,) the belief that big budget equals big success. 

Recently in Hollywood and with audiences, an affinity has grown for films packed with special effects and escapist subjects. In the past decade, since September 11^th especially but not prohibitively, there has been a surge in comic book or superhero movies, filled with special effects, and that appeal to the least common denominator. Avatar—although not from a comic—fits well into this trend, especially with its very seasoned plot that is reminiscent of Pocahontas, Dances with Wolves, and Fern Gully (to name a few.) This year, there was Martin Scorsese’s 3-D special effects giant Hugo that garnered 11 Oscar nods, but like Avatar won mostly only “technical” awards (i.e. editing, cinematography, etc.)

Iranian director, Asghar Farhadi, giving his acceptance speech for his Best Foreign Language Film, A Separation.

However, if you look at the Academy’s track record for Best Picture winners, in the past three years at least, you will notice something maybe surprising—and for me, reassuring. The last three winners have not been the huge-budgeted films that have shown box-office dominance in the past decade. In 2009, The Hurt Locker won, last year it was The King’s Speech, and this year The Artist was victorious. So it seems that there is an increased polarization in the film industry, where big budgeted films are truly dominating the box-office, but the smaller budget, more obscure films are taking home the gold.

It is interesting to note that this year’s Oscar darling, Michel Hazanavicius' The Artist, is a French, silent film. Two characteristics that are not usually recognized outside of the category for Best Foreign Language Film, yet it won Best Picture. My hope is that this year's Awards are an example of what is possible with cinema—that films can be popular and enjoyable regardless of their budget, or the stars in them, or their country origin. I hope that The Artist will help bring recognition and to more films like Asghar Farhadi's A Separation (the Iranian winner of Best Foreign Language Film). I hope that it will help open the minds of American movie audiences so that more people show an interest in and understanding of—not just the movie industry, but—the rest of the world too.