Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Hollywood stopped making movies in Hollywood

statsignificant.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 264 posts

Re: How Hollywood stopped making movies in Hollywood

#131

Post by vjvjvjvjghv »

lenerdenator wrote: post #106
mc32 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sports teams are an interesting one because often times these things go on the ballot and people vote for that. So it looks like people and municipalities have varying reasons for keeping a team. That said sometimes it just doesn’t make business sense for a team to stay and other times a municipality decides it’s not worth the cost to keep a pro team.

In the case of the Chiefs, Jackson Co., MO voters voted not to fund a new stadium. The reasoning was pretty simple: the Hunt family is worth $25 billion [0]. They could likely pay for any sort of improvements to Arrowhead, or to replace it altogether, without taxpayer funds, which comes from people in a metro area where the average income is on the lower side of things in a time when costs for everything keep going u…

The crazy thing is that the best case is that the city will hopefully break even i all the promised benefits materialize. In most cases they don't. I bet if they hired a good VC to invest the same money into maybe 50 startups they would have a much higher change of a good ROI. But then the same people who accept sales tax increases for the sports team would probably be complaining about the tax burden.

Re: How Hollywood stopped making movies in Hollywood

#132

Post by vjvjvjvjghv »

expedition32 wrote: post #127
mc32 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also don’t like subsidizing sports teams. To me it doesn’t make too much sense. Yes I know fans can be pretty loyal and sometimes that team is sort of like a pet dog. They love it through highs and lows. It’s something that can provide some identity to some as well as live vicariously through them. I get it but I feel sometimes you gotta let boyhood ideas and dreams go. But hey sometimes people vote for their teams…

What is weird to me as a European is that sports teams in the US can move. Can you imagine FC Barcelona moving to Madrid?

It's a little weird but the teams and the sports leagues are basically just corporations that engage in show business. They have no real connection to where they are located.

Re: How Hollywood stopped making movies in Hollywood

#133

Post by asdff »

bsenftner wrote: post #38
harrall wrote: post #23

The cost of housing is probably the #1 reason and, in my opinion, California’s biggest problem. California as a whole is still doing pretty well but high housing cost is slowly pulling out the rug from under the state. But the California legislature does know that and has forced many cities to start building housing but there is still a lot work still in flight.

I'd say it is the size of the population, far far too many people try to make it in Los Angeles without any specialized educations, so the car washers have 40 people that dry your windows, and the wait staff jobs are exponentially Orwellian. When I finally moved away, I was living over an hour away from Santa Monica, paying $4K a month for rent, and the entire neighborhood lights up every night like a gangsters' para…

Over an hour away and paying $4k for that? I'm guessing you were renting an entire house. If we were talking 1br apartments you could be in santa monica for about half that today.

Re: How Hollywood stopped making movies in Hollywood

#134

Post by asdff »

devindotcom wrote: post #26
bsenftner wrote: post #6

I worked in Los Angeles doing animation and VFX software for 33 years, and left 5 years ago as the cost of living there made no sense, and my prospects for work became nomadic global chasing of work now taking place in countries with no or ignored labor laws. (As if labor laws are respected in the US anyway.) Interesting in relation to the article, the author describes working out of the empty Warner Bros. lot; I liv…

yeah this is what I heard from pretty much everyone in the business down there. since production has gone international LA can't compete with, say, Romania. You can ship out your must-haves and rely on locals for the rest, the savings are enormous. There's some stuff you can still do in LA but a huge amount of actual shoot days are in countries with lower costs and fewer labor restrictions.

Obsession was shot entirely in Burbank for chump change.

Re: How Hollywood stopped making movies in Hollywood

#135

Post by asdff »

rfwhyte wrote: post #129

Something interesting to note, is that while "Hollywood" is fast losing its status as the nexus of the traditional film / tv industries, LA in the broader sense is already very well established as the global (Well at least "Western") hub of the content creator economy. Literally thousands of wannabe / up and coming YouTubers, Tik Tokers and "Influencers" of all sorts are packing up their lives and moving to LA every…

$10k rent on a hollywood hills mansion isn't so bad when you have it sleeping 10-15 20 year olds.

Re: How Hollywood stopped making movies in Hollywood

#136

Post by Tangurena2 »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #99
Tangurena2 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My state, like many others, offers rather large tax credits to make films inside this state. > the entertainment industry's economics are brutal A large part of those economics are self-inflicted. The money is "loaned" to the production company at credit card rates with repayment from the receipts from theater viewing years later. Depending on how "big" the movie is, 95-100% of the box office receipts for the first 2…

>so the movie theater survives on selling popcorn and stuff) Apparently some of those profits now go to the studio too? Some of the deals being made sound borderline criminal to me.

This sounds like the "360 contracts" that record companies require bands to sign. When bands are touring and getting an audience, they frequently sell CDs and T-shirts. The "360 contracts" require the band to give a percentage of that income to the record company and frequently require them to purchase CDs from the company at a higher-than-wholesale prices.

Re: How Hollywood stopped making movies in Hollywood

#137

Post by fluoridation »

shevy-java wrote: post #62

To be fair: the quality of movies produced by Hollywood has gone rapidly downhill already in the 1990s. You only need to compare the movies Quentin Tarantino makes; now personally I think Pulp Fiction is still by far his best work, but I concede that the movies he created lateron were above average (though I would not go as far as many others, who'd rate these in the 8 to 10 point ranges; I'd go more between 6 to 7 o…

Investment-driven development. When it's no longer about creating something compelling, but about convincing the investors that banking the production means a fairly safe ROI, you stop getting creative works by auteurs and you start getting sequels, remakes, and low-stake, inoffensive, mediocre, forgettable, bland sludge. At the upper end, investors give directors checklists and guidelines to limit their authorial voice. That's why it doesn't matter who the directors of the MCU movies have been. They're just Disney-produced movies. A film student could have directed them and it wouldn't make a difference.

Re: How Hollywood stopped making movies in Hollywood

#138

Post by biophysboy »

g42gregory wrote: post #122

With a very few exceptions, I don’t watch anything made past 2016. Not sure what happened in Hollywood then, but it’s just seems that they are constantly making some sort of public service messages that they need to pay me to watch. Not the other way around. That goes even if I agree with some of the messages.

There’s definitely didactic art made post 2016, but I wouldn’t write everything off beyond that date forever. Online review aggregators are less reliable for recent movies, so you might want to find individuals that you trust for >2016 recs, instead of algorithmic scores.

Re: How Hollywood stopped making movies in Hollywood

#139

Post by bradchris »

g42gregory wrote: post #122

With a very few exceptions, I don’t watch anything made past 2016. Not sure what happened in Hollywood then, but it’s just seems that they are constantly making some sort of public service messages that they need to pay me to watch. Not the other way around. That goes even if I agree with some of the messages.

I actually view 2012-2020 as peak “PSA messaging” era more, which a lot of people would probably coincide with the liberal optimism from Obama and course-correcting anxiety of Trump term 1. I think since covid Hollywood has “toned it down”, because the US has by and large moved on from that social phenomenon.

I’ve been in Los Angeles for over a decade, and I disagree with the premise that Hollywood has some overarching plan to shape how we think— more people watch TikToks than movies and network TV. I view Hollywood, and the creators/writers/producers of films themselves, moreso holding up a mirror reflecting the current circumstances we’re in rather than manufacturing it out of nowhere.

Re: How Hollywood stopped making movies in Hollywood

#140

Post by watwut »

Papazsazsa wrote: post #55

My take on the problems including cost sickness: 1) Supply/demand. There's actually a shortage of quality movies relative to what the market will bear, one need only look at the occasional breakout hit like Obsession to see that it's possible to make a ton of money if you understand the demand signals. 2) Demand signals. Median age of someone with greenlight authority is ~62. In the 80s, there were 30-year-olds runni…

Ad 2.) 30 years old are on the youtube. They do their own thing.

And it is also actually ok to do entertainment for older people, including boomers. People act as if there was something shameful about over 40 existing and have entertainment for them. It is as ok as enrertainment for young.

Post reply on HN