I have a hard time telling a money guy who knows how to make money that he's wrong about how to make money. After all, Alice WAS a crap movie and it DID make over a billion dollars. Could it have made more if it was a better-told story? Perhaps, perhaps not. Perhaps something other than the story mattered here, and if Alice had been given to a production team who cared about making a good story, they wouldn't've made a movie that people wanted to go see.

But there's no money in that. At least not as much money as the big spectacle tent poles. At least not in the time frame that makes any difference to the studio executives in question.

I dunno, maybe if you tied compensation to an executive for the rest of their life, a la residuals. That way individual agents have an incentive for the movies they green light to have lasting value, i.e. be well told stories. But if you're making hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars a year, how much do you really care about that check for $20 ten years from now?

I see what you're saying.  I suppose if we had some kind of magical process to make millionaires at the top do things the way that benefits the guys at the bottom, we not only could have great movies but also could mostly have a solution to, y'know, Republicans in general.  Unfortunately that means that fixing the movie industry is pretty much the same task as fixing America.

So... are we prepared to call this Disney Exec Rick Perry, or is that just a little too cruel?

To my great disappointment, I have found that it's really really hard to rise up by yourself.

...I mean with pitchforks and stuff, I have no problems getting an erection if that's how you interpreted that statement. 

Look for me signing autographs at DIFcon, hidden somewhere in the shadow of the Saber Shop booth.

Maybe.  I live in Indiana and my biggest filmmaking experience to date was Conciousness Has a Cloth Tag,

Hey you're the guy from that short I watched that time! 

I figure you release 40 or so 5 million dollar flicks a year, onto a service like netflix, and then make a REALLY BIG DEAL out of it when you make something like Cowboys vs. Aliens, more people will wind up watching both.

But there's no money in that. At least not as much money as the big spectacle tent poles. At least not in the time frame that makes any difference to the studio executives in question.

I dunno, maybe if you tied compensation to an executive for the rest of their life, a la residuals. That way individual agents have an incentive for the movies they green light to have lasting value, i.e. be well told stories. But if you're making hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars a year, how much do you really care about that check for $20 ten years from now?

Which is exactly the demographic they care about almost to exclusion. Rise up! Demand better! Grab the pitchforks! Have fun storming the castle!

At least, I think it would.  I figure you release 40 or so 5 million dollar flicks a year, onto a service like netflix, and then make a REALLY BIG DEAL out of it when you make something like Cowboys vs. Aliens, more people will wind up watching both. 

Maybe.  I live in Indiana and my biggest filmmaking experience to date was Conciousness Has a Cloth Tag, so my perspective is purely as a middle america 18-35 consumer.

But the problem is that studios and executives are still of the mindset that the only real thing that matters is box office gross. And opening weekend box office at that. It used to be that a movie could be said to "have legs." Maybe it didn't make all its money back in the first weekend, but it did steady enough business that over the span of a month or two it did okay. Not anymore. Executives only care about those first few days and as a result, the turnover is greater. Movies don't spend as long in the theater. And once it leaves the theater, they pay it even less mind.

The movies that thrive in that mindset are ones like Alice In Wonderland. Big spectacle, no lasting value. They're not really thinking about DVDs and On Demand. They're definitely not thinking about Netflix and Hulu. It just doesn't factor into their financial equations. So they're not thinking about the kind of movies we would choose to watch at home instead of shelling out the cash to see them in the theater.

Ideally, the economics of the system would be setup so that the decision makers were incentivized to make products with lasting value. Make the best movie you can with the best story possible and you have a product that retains more value over the long term. People want to see it again, own the DVD, go to a rerelease in the future. The company has a healthier portfolio that's more stable over the long term. As a result, the company makes more money in aggregate over the next 20 years instead of having one amazing quarter followed by one lousy one.

Structure the incentives so that the decision makers care about more than opening weekend. That's what needs to happen to improve the quality of movies. Don't know how you'd go about doing that though.

Consider this- for eight bucks a month, I have unlimited access to Netflix, anywhere, any time.  I can watch anything on Netflix if I'm on my couch in front of my TV, I can watch it naked in bed in my room, I can watch it anywhere out and about if I have a full battery and wifi.  I can literally decide I'm bored waiting at the BMV and watch Pawn Stars just cuz.

So there's that.  Eight bucks a month and I have pretty close to unlimited entertainment, and that's just ONE service.  There's also on demand, redbox, hulu, and insultingly easy piracy options for seeing just about anything for free or so-cheap-it's-basically-free.

By comparison, if I want to take my girlfriend to the movie theater, I'm spending at least 25 bucks to have an enjoyable experience, not to mention the drive there and back to see a movie. 

The point I'm driving at is, as far as I'm concerned, I don't have a reason to go to see big movies anymore.  However, here's the rub- I DO go see fireworks every fourth of July, because I can't do something on that scale at my house.  So frankly, I'm more likely to go to the theater or IMAX or something a couple times a year IF it's a massive explodey spectacle of oohs and aahs that I can't replicate on my monitor or phone.  I LIKE thoughtful, interesting, funny, QUALITY movies, but the vast majority of them I have literally no desire to see 30 feet tall in front of me.  Nor do I have a frantic need to see it as soon as it comes out, because it's still the same movie by the time it hits the internet or Redbox or whatever and by that time I'll have a good idea of what the movie is and what the opinions of it were among people whose opinions I value.

So while yes, I care about seeing good films, I don't really care at all whether they get a theatrical release.  Around here at DIF there's a lot of talk about smaller budgets, or at least smarter use of budgets, and I think that's coming.  In my ideal world, the studios toss "story" guys a few million dollars to make smart and enjoyable movies that can wind up on Netflix or otherwise distributed on a subscription program or something, and then put out a few 200 million dollar movies every year that are the cinema equivalent of fireworks for me to go see if I want to grab some popcorn and go "oooh, ahhh!"  These movies don't have to be BAD, obviously you can put work into a spectacle (LOTR) and I'll totally want to see it in the theater.  But I can understand why a studio doesn't think there's a point to funding The Invention of Lying for a theatrical release, because I don't think it's worth going to the theater to see that movie anyway, even if it's worth a watch.

Do I make sense or have I made enemies?  I'm looking over my shoulder waiting for Brian or Michael to pounce and tear asunder my flimsy logic.

If you think about it, they're kinda modelling their business on The Asylum. Bigger budgets, and more time per film, but that's about the only difference.