And, of course, I knew that was ridiculous as I was typing it: Paula Wagner is actually in charge. [link]
Wash ,'Our Mrs. Reynolds'
The Minearverse 5: Closer to the Earth, Further from the Ax
[NAFDA] "There will be an occasional happy, so that it might be crushed under the boot of the writer." From Zorro to Angel (including Wonderfalls, The Inside and Drive), this is where Buffistas come to anoint themselves in the bloodbath.
Are they still around?
I'm not sure they are around the way they used to be. History (or at least FINAL CUT) has written that the HEAVEN'S GATE debacle (the movie, not the cult) killed them, and yet you still see releases under their name.
I don't think they've been artist-controlled for decades, though (unless Cruise did take it over and they are again). I know after HEAVEN'S GATE, MGM bought them for their distribution arm, and did away with the production side. But as I said, things still come out with their name, so I don't know if it's an "in name only" thing or not.
I don't think they've been artist-controlled for decades, though (unless Cruise did take it over and they are again).
He did. Lions for Lambs was their first release, I think, as the new UA.
I don't think anyone can accurately predict what the future holds. I think people will try new things. Some will work, some won't. Personally, I don't think the studios will ever truly go away. But, if they did, I'm pretty sure SAG, WGA and DGA would be phased out along with them.
The Studios per se may go away, but the multinational conglomerates which own them won't. They are the ones trying to pay as little as possible for content and theones which control a lot of the distribution of that content.
Are there really "studios" as such anymore? Or even "networks"?
From what I can see, the opposition is multi-national conglomorates that just happen to produce, among their other products, film and television.
Not that it would be impossible for an artist-generated UAish thing to happen again, but they wouldn't be competing against film studios -- they'd be up against GE.
"Studios" was just faster to type. But you're right.
The studios have power because they have:
- The ability to secure financing for production. (If you walked into a bank and asked for a loan to make a film, they would laugh and laugh and laugh).
- The ability to market and distribute the product.
#2 is becoming more and more irrelevant thanks to the Internet. #1 is more tricky. If someone is going to take the risk of financing you're venture, they're obviously going to want some measure of control.
Well, yes, multinational conglomerates will likely still be here for a long time to come, but everything goes away eventually. Even multinational conglomerates. Even if we can't imagine such a thing right now. Many fortunes have been made throughout history by imagining the unimaginable, and if there ever were a time to try even just crazy schemes to make a quick buck, now is as good a time as any.
There's an article in today's LA Times specifically about #1. It's what got me thinking about this. Today, anyway. The subject has been brewing in my mind for at least a week now.
In our shiny new digital world #1 can involve a lot less money.
Once upon a time, in a pre media age, music and theater and most entertainment were a largely local phenomenon -- each town had its very best fiddler, etc. You had the occasional show that came to town as well, but they only had so much market penetration due to the constraints of, you know, horsies.
I'm intreigued by the thought of that sort of less-global entertainment returning to prominence. In some ways it has.