Let's not forget, though, that many indie/small studios are just different labels for the majors (eg. Buena Vista & Disney, Samuel Goldwyn & MGM, TriStar & Columbia, etc...).

Maybe this is too obvious and I shouldn't mention it, but it seems to me there's a good reason Hollywood goes testosterone(bombs and explosions). The estrogen films are just as good on DVD or Netflix, so why not wait and watch them at home? The explosions play much better in a big theater, so people are more willing to pay the $12. I'm not sure what the solution is to that. Technology, as always, has changed the game. But I CAN imagine ways that technology has the potential to be a great boon to writers. For example, the period piece. One of the great things about the recent Sherlock Holmes movies is the exciting recreations of London and Paris, which looked awesome on the big screen. Yes, these were big budget films, but being able to recreate those worlds will soon be as simple as any gaming technology. This opens up a whole new world of stories to write, stories which up til now would have been very expensive to produce, but which will soon be very reasonable. And these period pieces will look much better on the big screen than at home. One of the reasons we watch films is to visit worlds which we cannot normally experience, and theaters will be much better at creating those worlds. This could be a great environment for writers, and these stories can touch on character and emotion in the way we'd all like to see.

Scott, I think you just tapped into the heavy undertow pulling the studios toward the implosion: the globalization of the P&L and balance sheet. Instead of turning to producers for the creative leadership in how to reach "the audience," studios now shove marketing into the seat at the head of the table. These "audience experts" win the room and own the ear of the green lighters. "Won't make it if we can't market it...And we gotta be able to market every film...in Tajikistan." Who will save the industry after the road and the sky collide, and before the deluge washes all that has imploded away? The storytellers. Especially the ones flapping the brave and crazy wings of youth. Their movies will keep our spirits high. Their new business and distribution models will keep our children dry, and smiling, and their creativity will reveal new secrets on how to make it all work again...by and by. And in a JB nod to the spirit of the friend you've just lost...hang in there. The light is not lost within us. It's just reaching the sky. Pax, John

Here's the thing. I've been screenwriting for five years and have written 13 of these things. These days, I almost always pick something that's a decade or so old over what's playing at the theaters. It's not just the money, it's that two hours of my left kept getting taken from me -- precious hours I'd never get back -- and you can only make the same mistake so many times before you wise up. Clash of the Titans was really the nail in the coffin, as I talked three friends into going, which means it felt like I'd take two hours of all their lives, too. Eight hours total, and when you factor in getting down to Century City and the cost of parking and food... well, guilt. I actually felt guilt, and that's something no one should feel about taking friends to a movie. Regardless of things like budget and trailer moments and merchandising, the bottom line is this: you can have those things and still make movies that say something about life. Only what's being pumped out right now doesn't. I spent most of last year out of L.A. and did a lot of driving across the country. The difference between the way people actually live in this country -- the way people speak, the way they treat one another, their real concerns, priorities and values -- bears so little resemblance to what's being put on screen that I don't feel like I'm watching real people, as if the characters were caricatures or animatronic cyborgs. Even animated characters from years ago were more recognizably human. Perhaps it's because of the global market, but capturing how Americans live and think and behave these days is not a goal -- or maybe it's just one of those things that is slipping through the cracks -- but never has the L.A. bubble effect been so obvious. If I were in charge of a studio, I'd send all the big decision makers on my staff on a four-week cross country excursion, then I'd ask the interns to drive by their homes every now and again just to make sure they were really gone. If you study screenwriting, the disconnect should be glaringly clear. One major sign is that -- in a vast majority of the screenwriting classes -- when the instructor trots out an example of great writing, it tends to be from a movie ten to twenty years old. In a recent character class, we looked closely at Annie Savoy in Bull Durham, particularly how she was introduced. Wow. That's good writing. As I'm no Kevin Costner fan, I avoided that movie like the plague, but after studying Annie's intro, I Netflixed it... and loved it. It was like spending two hours with real people -- people you want to be around, people you can learn from, people you'll want to hangout with again sometime down the road. I was so impressed, Dances with Wolves is on deck for tonight. Oh -- and I'll bite. "The reason Hollywood has had to change its tactics from 2000 is due to the collapse of the DVD market."

Thank you for the above comment, A.K. Anders. I just moved here to America about 9 months ago now. I knew a few Americans back in the Middle East where I grew up but mostly my knowledge of 'Mericans was from the cinema. You'll are nothing like what the TV and the movies say. And I'm so very glad.

Spielberg was right, but it took video projectors and blu-ray discs. I haven't been to a movie theatre all year, and instead of choosing from the dozen movies at the cinema, I get to choose from thousands, so I don't watch a lot of crap.

I've gotta know, what's the reason Hollywood has had to change its tactics from 2000 due to the collapse of the DVD market?

Bryan, with DVD revenues plunging -- and DVD sales were a cash cow for studios -- studios went hard after the next big thing: international market. Thus far, even bad big spectacle sci-fi, fantasy, action movie with lots of spectacular visuals have worked in foreign markets even when they've failed domestically. So that's one thing, but there have been signs that countries like China are wising up and showing more discretion with how they spend their money on movies. Another factor is the franchise phenomenon. It's always been a part of Hollywood's business model [see: Rin Tin Tin, The Keystone Cops, Laurel & Hardy], but never with these huge budget spectacle movies. That's why you see Disney plunking down billions for Marvel and the rights to the entire Star Wars universe. Knowing they have a successful franchise they can slot into dates 3, 5, 7 years down the road, and even further [in theory] provides some level of comfort for studio execs. But here's my point: The studios are expending HUGE amounts of money on big spectacle movies that largely target younger audiences who have no fixed allegiance to going to movie theaters. They have social media, video games, and all the rest from which to choose, movies are just ONE option. Moreover some of them prefer to use illegal bit torrent downloads rather than paying $$ to see a movie in a theater, and they see nothing wrong with this, used as they are to having so much be free in an increasing online world. Meanwhile the largest single demographic group in the U.S. is Baby Boomers, some 78M strong. Most discretionary money, most discretionary time, and a proven love affair with movies. And frankly, we wouldn't know about bit torrent if it bit us in the arse. My contention is a studio could make strong profits with much less anxiety simply by crafting a slate of movies that targeted adults. A bunch of $20-30M movies starring huge names from the dozens of actors out there with incredible name recognition like Meryl Streep, Jack Nicholson, Tom Hanks, Sally Field, etc. I mean does it make more sense to bankroll a $200M spectacle movie that will have to be scheduled in the summer to go up against several OTHER $200M spectacle movies, each of them eating away at the other's audience... Or make 7-10 dramas, comedies, thrillers targeting adults using an endless supply of talented actors age 50 and up? Let's say that one $200M movie does $500M box office. What if each of the 10 adult oriented movies did $50M? That's the same revenue derived from the same expenses. I'm guessing one reason why the studios won't take this approach: The big $200M spectacle can generate vast amounts of funding from merchandising tie-ins. Both Man of Steel and Smurfs 2 supposedly had $180M each in that type of money. Hard to argue with that although I have to believe there are companies out there who are targeting Baby Boomers who would love to be associated with a Diane Keaton-Robert Redford movie. Another reason why they won't focus going after adults: No merchandising in those type of movies. No Legos, video games, graphic novelizations, and so on. Valid point. But if the movie flops, that point is a non-starter. So then the question boils down to, at least at one level, do you want a strategy that assumes MORE risk or LESS risk. Now I'm sure the studios have their reasoning and I would love to hear it. But when Peter Chernin gets into a heated exchange with Lynda Obst, as detailed in her newest book, about the insanity of what the studios are doing, to chase after what he claims is a mere 10% profit margin, then if HE is saying it's crazy, maybe it IS crazy.

You can't hate Kevin Costner without seeing Bull Durham, Dances With Wolves, JFK, Silverado, The Untouchables, and Field of Dreams. There was a period where he made great films despite (or benefitting from) his wooden acting.

I agree 100%. The merchandising is a deal breaker. They might entice me to go to the theatre to see The King's Speech, but I'm not buying King's Speech lunch boxes, King's Speech Lego sets, and King's Speech underwear. So I might plop down $10, but Spiderman generates $100 or more in merchandising sales. So today's movies are just commercials to sell toys. Unfortunately, audiences seem to be eating it up. But one point you missed is that while the kids are going to see the superhero films, parents are staying home to watch their $100+/month cable television. After spending that much to get hundreds of television channels, why spend more to go to the movies? I'd argue that the adults are finding what they want on TV, and that's where all the real writing opportunities are these days.

Scott, this is an interesting piece of analysis. Besides the lack of merchandising potential however, distribution costs are another factor that should be considered. $50M domestic BO on an adult oriented film seems to be a rarity these days, and achieving this level of success across a slate of 10 films would require significant advertising expenditure. Of course, the $200M movie will also require heavy advertising, but likely less than would be required to market a slate of 10 $50M-grossing adult oriented films.

Jess, do you realize the movie Quartet has grossed $57M worldwide? There was hardly any advertising spent on that. But it's the poster child for what I'm talking about, not in terms of subject matter per se, but genre, prod budget, actors, and target audience. Others: The King's Speech: $414M Silver Linings Playbook: $236M Argo: $232M Flight: $161M Zero Dark Thirty: $108M Moonrise Kingdom: $68M Now imagine one studio with a slate of films as diverse as that, some budgeted at $20M, some at $30M, and maybe you stretch to $50M for something like Argo. But always targeting adults, people who have a proven record that they will go to movie theaters if there is a good movie in their wheelhouse.

Bryan, I'll bet Kevin Costner crushes it in Draft Day, a role that is PERFECT for him.

You mention something in this response, Scott, about younger audiences that seems to frighten me more than Spielberg's theory of the pending "implosion" of big-budget movies. It seems as though for younger audiences that the thrill of going to see a movie no longer exists (at least not for the right reasons). Lately, I tend to notice that most people (namely, teenagers - and certainly not all of them) find it more enticing to sit and utilize their cellphones, as opposed to allowing themselves to be absorbed into another world for a few hours. What seems to be happening, in my humble opinion, is that younger audiences are not encouraged to appreciate the beauty of this art form, nor are they encouraged to open their minds to what film has to offer. I remember overhearing a few teenage girls talking in the bathroom after I saw The Great Gatsby. They were having a conversation about how stupid they thought the movie was. Now, I'm sure plenty of people disliked the movie for whatever reason (and I certainly won't begrudge anyone of their opinion), however, based on the contents of their conversation, it seemed as though they simply didn't understand the story. And that really got to me. Obviously, they hadn't read the book, but what was more glaring is the fact that they had this expectation of the movie being nothing more than 2 hours of Jay-Z and flashy parties (unsurprisingly, these same girls were taking pictures of themselves during the movie to upload to Instagram). I'm sure there exist plenty of avid fans of the novel who would agree with their interpretation, but the point I'm trying to make is that the movie was marketed like that with the intention of making the movie seem more universal, as opposed to prompting people who haven't read the book to go and check it out first. Unfortunately, I feel like this is going to be increasingly more common as studios continue to push these nonsensical, mindless action movies on audiences. I love film as much as I do because of my mother. I used to watch Terminator 2 every weekend for an entire summer when it was first released on VHS, and I used to cry every time. I already knew what was going to happen, but it didn't matter. That was just one moment that made me realize why film is such an amazing form of art. I felt an emotion for someone/something I never met, knew or interacted with in any way, except for this 2 hour span of time that I never wanted to end. Thankfully, there are still films being made that provide their audiences with the ability to experience emotion(s), and writers who create beautiful, inspiring characters, however, these movies don't seem to be marketed towards an audience that I believe needs to learn the value of caring about something more than who liked their status update on Facebook. That is really what I would love to see change, and then maybe, just maybe, will the industry revert back to caring about creating movies, and not just manufacturing these massive franchises.

Everything you're saying could have been said about me when I was a teenager. The truth is few teenagers have any appreciation for art - or at least the kind of art that adults appreciate. They wanted Jay-Z and parties because that's the art they appreciate, and there's no reason to discount that as art. The filmmaker certainly didn't. For teenagers going to movies is a social event - an excuse to hang out with friends - usually away from parents. Cell phones are an extension of that socialization. Appreciation for art takes time and effort - and many people never come to appreciate great art. We also have to acknowledge how amazing the internet is as a place for creativity, art, education, and communication. It trumps movies in a lot of ways. I know I gave up watching TV when I got the internet, and spend the same amount of time onilne that most people spend watching TV. I'd rather read sites like Go Into the Story. So maybe another reason why movies are mindless spectacles is because the internet is better at providing substance, and what's happening online is more relevant than what's happening at the cinema?

So apparently the studios (and Weinstein) are doing exactly what Scott wants. So why is he complaining? Is it simply the marketing for the big budget stuff is just overwhelming everything else? These good movies obviously don't need much marketing. They have good word of mouth. They get awards. They stand the test of time. It's the crappy movies we'll forget in a year that need a lot of marketing.

Sarah, I hear you and it concerns me, too. Is it possible this narrative form - longform movies - may lose its luster for any variety of reasons including a lack of interest with young people carrying that apathy with them as they grow up. OTOH I teach one class per semester to upper class college students: History of American Screenwriting and Master Screenwriting. And the degree of interest, involvement and knowledge about movies, at least among these young people, is remarkable. Plus every semester I have at least a handful of non-film majors who take American Screenwriting on a whim who tell me it was one of their favorite classes. And we screen movies from the 1890s up until the present, decade by decade. Movies have survived enormous challenges. Hopefully they can withstand the onslaught of social media on the minds of our youth. Thanks for your thoughtful comment.

I seem to be suffering from a baby boomer specific malady called explosion fatigue. Symptoms include leaving the movie theater during the last twenty explosion filled minutes of a film. May be epidemic among the over 55 demographic.

The cure is pretty simple. Just don't go to movies with superheroes or space aliens. You'll be enjoying satisfying endings in no time.

Actually the studios are NOT doing what I'm suggesting. Weinstein does mostly acquisitions, which means those filmmakers have had to go the independent funding and financing route. Moreover while there are SOME movies targeting adults emerging from major studios, the pre-branded franchise films are dominant. And because they cost so much, studios have slashed the number of films they produce and distribute each year, which translates into less diversity and fewer options via major studios. [As noted, financiers have backfilled with movies of the type movie studios use to produce in numbers, often just don't get exposure and marketing support necessary to penetrate noisy consumer marketplace.]