This is perhaps the ultimate reality of it all. We are in a state of flux, and movies are so expensive, we must have a restructuring. Stars no longer sell the picture as was once true. Today, the MOVIE, meaning the STORY and execution of the concept sell the story. One of the most anticipated movie's of the summer, and not the 100 million dollar opus film; i.e. Potter, Transformers, etc. But the 30 million dollar District 9 proves that CONCEPTS and stories are what we are eager for and it doesn't even HAVE a star.

More 30 million dollar films, and take more risks with more films being produced. Less 60 - 100 million dollar films, period.

Seriously, COMEDIES now days cost upwards of a 100 mill? As do many films that roll out throughout the year, not just the summer blockbusters.

Really, it seemed this has been inevitable for a while. Movies are just plain and simple too expensive for the game of craps, the roulette wheel.

Doesn't it make sense to make more films for less, than to make fewer films for more? Stars HAVE to drop their rates. It would seem, everyone does... But "stars" should be the leaders in this. Especially WELL established actors. If they can bear the torch and lead the way, we can get back to more movies, more people working, and the chance at creating more profits for the entire system. Which begins to supply itself.

The old model is broken and some serious restructuring is in order.

Scott, you're always a beacon of hope and positivity, but right now, a bit of pragmatism, read telling it like it is... or at least alluding to the true state of the industry is appreciated. Never lose your endearing and becoming voice of hope, but for now, an honest conversation such as this post is a welcomed discussion.

In the 20th Century Fox - Washington cage match, I'm rooting for.... neither, although if I was forced to pick a side I'd be in Washington's corner. The studios and stars learned this summer that they can't just keep putting out schlocky remakes and films with no brain (TRANSFORMERS notwithstanding). I think they'll be forced to work on more movies where the story - a good, original story - is king.

I agree with DeafEars on this one. Folks want good movies. Stars can make good movies. I know, I've seen some over the years, but they can also make some that are awful. Movie studios and stars have to be willing to take some risks instead of turning out the same tired thing we've seen a hundred times before.

Perhaps yesterday's post on the power of Twitter might tell us something about this trend of star movies bombing at the box office. Perhaps the power of the internet and all this instant communication is that movies are being more harshly (fairly?) judged than ever before, and big ad campaigns full of familiar faces may not be enough to save a boring movie.

I can only speak based on my own experience in judging what's happening.

It used to be that I could rely on A-list actors to make great choices. That's part of what made them A-list. But I can no longer do that.

Why? I don't know. But I think it's because those who greenlight projects have been taking the path of least risk. And soon A-list actors had very little quality to choose from. They picked the best but it was the best of the worst.

Movie-goers quickly learned that they their favorite A-list actor starring in a film was no longer enough to determine whether they would see a film or not.

So strangely enough, the story became more important. We are now asking, what kind of film is it and what's it about. The question of who's in it is still asked, but holds less weight.

Well, that's my theory based solely on my experience and partly on hope.

The Hangover was another concept-driven movie that won over audiences this summer. I saw that and District 9, and none of the star-driven movies.

I love all the comments here and I love this post and everything it implies.

Change can be exhilarating yet painful. It's gonna' get weirder before it gets better.

I wonder if, after this summer, we can expect a slew of studio heads to roll? I mean, somebody greenlit these "star" projects that tanked... and Hollywood is not known for their forgiving attitudes, especially where dead presidents are concerned, if you get my drift.

Scott's prior post about alternate distribution networks and now this lead me to believe, again, that this could be a really great time to be penning specs and loading up our canons, y'know?

Are you kidding?! This is a good thing for the industry. It's precicely because actors have such sway that films are so bad, how many films have been knocked out because the star will get people in to see a bad movie regardless? How many films have been ruined by a big star swinging his/her weight around to get more money, thus costing the studios more? It's the big movies which ruin it for all the other screenwriters out there.

Now perhaps the studios will think more about actually making a GOOD film, not just one they can attach a "hot" star to, then knock out knowing they're gonna pull in the masses. Transformers 2 was the worst thing to happen to the industry this year, and possibly for the last decade, and I like Kurtzman and Orci!

Hi,
It's a sticky situation indeed. I think with the proliferation of technology, people have more choices for cinematic fare.
The trend seems to be - on the side of studios - spectacle versus substance.
This places content creators in the unique position of "sticking to the formula" while trying to make unique, meaningful cinema.
It's nearly like the old studio system where execs pick properties then hire people to develop them.
But after things like The Matrix and The Terminator made the character\story bigger than the actors, it caused a slight shift in what viewers look for.

Studios may be going a little too far with the "branding" idea but part of that lies in the "subsidiary" nature of all majors now. Their "definition of bottom-line" has changed in the larger "family of companies."

Larger movies look better on paper in terms of amount of employment required and ease of sale - internally with branded properties.

But in the end the creatives will always be the best bet. Some of the "re-imagining"s I've heard of lately denote a lack of faith in a good concept WITHOUT branding.
The redo of Outland comes really to mind. They are changing the whole story but leaving the name.

I'm actually a fan of the Clint Eastwood style; If it ain't broke don't fix it.
His successes all come from the same archetype in different situations.

As an aspiring screenwriter I have to say that the buck isn't stopping here as much as it should.
Every screenwriter should write movies FOR the big stars. And the not so big stars. I've got several in the works.

The studios also need to look more closely at the model in order to trim costs while still "patronizing lots of businesses." P&A is old hat now with digital taking over and the Internet reaching so many receptive people.

I mean film makers like Cameron, Speilberg are pushing for digital and there are 2K and a few 4K theaters ready for digital delivery.

Not since I was a kid did I buy a movie ticket because of the star. The irony is, stars are made because of the movie they were in - a good one. Without a great story to catapult them into stardom, they're just part of the great pool of struggling actors. It's all about story - character and plot - that creates word of mouth, buzz, and success.

I'm one of these MFA victims - The Actors Studio Drama School in NYC - and we were required to attend the Bravo tapings with James Lipton which were very cool, but also very long. Sometimes five, six hours long and then edited down to the hour you'd see on TV. Well, Mr. Tom Cruise was a guest one evening and one of my astute playwriting classmates asked him the question of why he was selecting action roles, quite violent ones too, of late? Keep in mind, this was just after the Samurai gig and then the slew of Mission Impossible parts, and then the hit man thing with Michael Mann... etc. Anyhow, Tom Cruise looked at her, completely serious, and said, "I don't know what you're talking about."

I bring this up to illustrate a point: His career choices seem to mimic what's happening now, and that's the abandoning of well told stories in favor of sensationalism, action films, paper-thin characters, etc. because we think it's what people want when really, they just want a well-told story. After a while, people realize they're watching garbage and stop paying for it.

I think this is what's happening to a degree. This, plus the emphasis on concept. Sure, concept is important in a movie, but there are so many high concept movies out there that were terrible. You could blame execution or you could be willing to see that concept is sometimes hit or miss. You can pitch it, write it, sell it, whatever, but it doesn't always make a good film. I mean, just think of all the best films out there, the all time best 100 or what have you, and see how many of them are high concept? I'm wiling to bet, not more than half. What they are, are well-told stories with great characters in compelling situations. Not necessarily laced with the irony inherent in a high concept movie idea.

Just wanted to drop in here to say some excellent analysis and opinion in this thread. I've been involved with the entertainment business for over two decades now, enough time to see things cycle in and out. Plus many conversations, interviews, and readings of old-timers who tend to all argue the point that the movie business is a cyclical business. So it's tempting just to look at what's happening now and figure that things will turn back - more toward story, more character depth, less noise, less BS.

But maybe not. Maybe Hwood's obsession with bombast, high concepts, style over substance has finally convinced a significant portion of moviegoers to become movie-non-goers.

I know it's hard to argue that point when 2009 promises to set a record in terms of domestic box office revenues. But that takes me back to A.O. Scott's opinion piece here two weeks ago where he suggested this:

"The box office numbers don’t lie, but they don’t tell the whole story either. The weekend grosses, widely guessed at on Thursday night and breathlessly reported by the middle of Sunday afternoon, record the quantity of tickets purchased, but they cannot register the quality of the experience. The aggregate of receipts shows that a lot of people like going to the movies, but not necessarily that they like what they see."

We shall see...

I don't go to movies for the stars anymore. It's simply not the primary motivating factor for me or much of one for that matter, unless I'm going to see a Drama or Period Piece then having Helen Mirren or Kate Winslet/Blanchett helps. Something else appealing must be present in the film--eye candy that tickles my brain, a boredom-crusher thrillride experience, a great story, gut-busting laughs, hella scariness, or offer a new twist on something familiar.

Only 'sure-things' for me are movies made by Pixar and Miyazaki, with Disney & Dreamworks cartoons coming close because I have youngsters. And, it's not about the stars in their movies either, unless you count the track record of those studios' cartoons as being the star appeal.

I think it's good for Hwood to have this shakeup. As much as I love some stars, some of them consistently give impression that they are playing the same character---or essentially themsleves--ad naseum in all their films. For instance, how many more times will Micheal Cera be George Michael Booth and not have his movies be called Arrested Development?

I love Pixar and Miyazaki, especially Miyazaki, because they allow their stories to be the stars. Even with famous voice talent and eye-candy galore, the story is paramount. This is why I also liked District 9 and The Hurt Locker.

And, with there being so much free content (or ones with replay value like video games) that aim to please and strangely hit the bullseye--like the wierd 1 million + hits something called "Klay World" gets on YouTube, filmmarkers have to work harder to deliever movies that satisfy, and can't bank on stars turning duds into diamonds or remakes into instant hits.

I think that people are starting to be more picky with their purchases... if this was 10 years ago, I think that movie stars could bring in the numbers just on their own. But, I don't know how much the recession is playing a factor in this? I would think that since people are tightening their belts, they would want to see a $10 movie that they know will be great, and not have the actors involved swaying their decision.
From a personal stand point - I have changed the way I see movies - since I started learning more about screenwriting and wanting to become a writer myself - I normally go by the writer/director of the film or just independent. I don't like how Hwood thinks that they can just slap a mega star to a picture and promise lots of bangs... it has to be more than that, and I think people are starting to realize that as well.