@rooprect said:

I got this bit of information from Robert Altman's commentary on 3 Women (1976), but Silent Running is the film it really applies to. Here's the reason why Hollywood movies were awesome in the early 70s, and why they suck today.

In the mid to late 60s there was a big turnover in management at the major Hollywood studios. The old heads were out, the young kids were in. As Altman says, many of these younger execs had no idea what they were doing or what the future of cinema held in terms of money making. So they adopted a new, casual strategy. Instead of the traditional formula of determining a budget, then hiring the directors, actors & crew based on that budget, then monitoring the production on an hourly basis to remain under budget, these new studio heads were more inclined to talk to filmmakers first and get their price quote, then say either yes or no.

This new formula was so simple it was brilliant. The studios write the check, and it's up to the filmmaker to make it work. This leaves the filmmakers in total control to either sink or swim, leading to much creativity and innovation with minimal interference from the suits. At the same time, the studios were off the hook in terms of losses. Their "loss" is up front, and typically minimal ($1-2 million), so if the movie bombs then whatever. Move on to the next low-risk gamble.

Astute cinephiles might note that this isn't anything new. It was famously done once before in the early 1940s with a film you might've heard of: Citizen Kane.

Silent Running is a prime example of an artistic success though it didn't make much money. The movie's cousin, Easy Rider, is a prime example of both artistic AND commercial success. Both Silent Running and Easy Rider were among an experimental crop of 5 films funded by Universal at $1m each. Total artistic freedom to the filmmakers, they could shoot whatever they wanted. Altman himself wasn't among this crop (He was working with 20th Century Fox) but his films of the early 70s were basically the same formula. Name your price, get cash up front, make a movie. Altman would typically get around $1.5 mil to do a movie like 3 Women.

(This is where Altman's commentary ends. The rest is me.) By the late 70s, the major studios had abandoned this formula and gone back to the standard big bucks. I blame it on films like Jaws and Star Wars that were such earth-shaking moneymakers that the studio heads--these young clueless kids Altman mentions--got a quick schooling on how the pros make money. They make money by relegating art & creativity to the back seat, and let money & advertising drive the car. As a result we saw a return to the old Hollywood ways of traditional stories dressed up with A-list actors and lavish productions, all of which are marketed and advertised by the studios so heavily that you can't throw a twizzler without hitting a theater marquee.

Altman sarcastically jokes that the Oscars award for Best Picture isn't actually for the best picture, it's for the best marketing.

Anyway, the history of Silent Running, along with films like Dennis Hopper's Easy Rider and Altman's 3 Women, is a really interesting look at the neverending battle of art vs money, how they both grapple with each other yet cling to each other for life, and how the early 70s was a rare moment in time when art was winning.

Are we going to see a return to that? I think we sorta have in small doses. Netflix sorta did this by throwing a handful of cash at anyone who owns a digital camera. But it resulted in so many garbage productions (as well as some gems) that we got lost in the noise. Unfortunately I think that's the future of cinema from here on out. Traditional big studio moneymaking surrounded by a sea of noise, and it's up to us to pick thru the noise to find the gems. But one thing's for sure, the gems won't be coming from big studios.

I totally agree. Nowadays it's more about money and less art. Budgets (production and marketing) have ballooned out of proportion, and the big production companies will often choose cast and crew not based on who is the best in their ability, talent and experience, but who and what script would attract more investors.

Are there any gems ? Certainly. Just like gold, you'll have to pan for them in the river of films. Some that I've found - different genres - look interesting at first glance - e.g. "Chłopi (2023)", "Monkey Man (2024)", "Conann (2023)", "Sleeping Dogs (2024)", "悪は存在しない (2023)", "Bonnard, Pierre et Marthe (2024)", "Back to Black (2024)", "La chimera (2023)", "El eco (2023)" - but will their sparkle last or are they just simulants?

By the way, when I saw the title "Silent Running", I had to think of a different movie, "Cool Runnings (1993)".

@wonder2wonder said:

@rooprect said:

I got this bit of information from Robert Altman's commentary on 3 Women (1976), but Silent Running is the film it really applies to. Here's the reason why Hollywood movies were awesome in the early 70s, and why they suck today.

In the mid to late 60s there was a big turnover in management at the major Hollywood studios. The old heads were out, the young kids were in. As Altman says, many of these younger execs had no idea what they were doing or what the future of cinema held in terms of money making. So they adopted a new, casual strategy. Instead of the traditional formula of determining a budget, then hiring the directors, actors & crew based on that budget, then monitoring the production on an hourly basis to remain under budget, these new studio heads were more inclined to talk to filmmakers first and get their price quote, then say either yes or no.

This new formula was so simple it was brilliant. The studios write the check, and it's up to the filmmaker to make it work. This leaves the filmmakers in total control to either sink or swim, leading to much creativity and innovation with minimal interference from the suits. At the same time, the studios were off the hook in terms of losses. Their "loss" is up front, and typically minimal ($1-2 million), so if the movie bombs then whatever. Move on to the next low-risk gamble.

Astute cinephiles might note that this isn't anything new. It was famously done once before in the early 1940s with a film you might've heard of: Citizen Kane.

Silent Running is a prime example of an artistic success though it didn't make much money. The movie's cousin, Easy Rider, is a prime example of both artistic AND commercial success. Both Silent Running and Easy Rider were among an experimental crop of 5 films funded by Universal at $1m each. Total artistic freedom to the filmmakers, they could shoot whatever they wanted. Altman himself wasn't among this crop (He was working with 20th Century Fox) but his films of the early 70s were basically the same formula. Name your price, get cash up front, make a movie. Altman would typically get around $1.5 mil to do a movie like 3 Women.

(This is where Altman's commentary ends. The rest is me.) By the late 70s, the major studios had abandoned this formula and gone back to the standard big bucks. I blame it on films like Jaws and Star Wars that were such earth-shaking moneymakers that the studio heads--these young clueless kids Altman mentions--got a quick schooling on how the pros make money. They make money by relegating art & creativity to the back seat, and let money & advertising drive the car. As a result we saw a return to the old Hollywood ways of traditional stories dressed up with A-list actors and lavish productions, all of which are marketed and advertised by the studios so heavily that you can't throw a twizzler without hitting a theater marquee.

Altman sarcastically jokes that the Oscars award for Best Picture isn't actually for the best picture, it's for the best marketing.

Anyway, the history of Silent Running, along with films like Dennis Hopper's Easy Rider and Altman's 3 Women, is a really interesting look at the neverending battle of art vs money, how they both grapple with each other yet cling to each other for life, and how the early 70s was a rare moment in time when art was winning.

Are we going to see a return to that? I think we sorta have in small doses. Netflix sorta did this by throwing a handful of cash at anyone who owns a digital camera. But it resulted in so many garbage productions (as well as some gems) that we got lost in the noise. Unfortunately I think that's the future of cinema from here on out. Traditional big studio moneymaking surrounded by a sea of noise, and it's up to us to pick thru the noise to find the gems. But one thing's for sure, the gems won't be coming from big studios.

I totally agree. Nowadays it's more about money and less art. Budgets (production and marketing) have ballooned out of proportion, and the big production companies will often choose cast and crew not based on who is the best in their ability, talent and experience, but who and what script would attract more investors.

Are there any gems ? Certainly. Just like gold, you'll have to pan for them in the river of films. Some that I've found - different genres - look interesting at first glance - e.g. "Chłopi (2023)", "Monkey Man (2024)", "Conann (2023)", "Sleeping Dogs (2024)", "悪は存在しない (2023)", "Bonnard, Pierre et Marthe (2024)", "Back to Black (2024)", "La chimera (2023)", "El eco (2023)" - but will their sparkle last or are they just simulants?

By the way, when I saw the title "Silent Running", I had to think of a different movie, "Cool Runnings (1993)".

lmao For the longest time I also confused Silent Running with Cool Runnings. Whenever someone talked about SR, I kept thinking "wait so there are bobsleds in space?" 🤔

I hadn't heard of any of your picks, so you've given me some good study material! Mostly I rely on the Criterion Collection to do the gold panning for me, or another distributor that lets me know about the good stuff is Film Movement. But there's still a few years delay before I hear about what's out. Word of mouth might be the only chance to hear of the gems while they're still fresh.

@rooprect said:

@wonder2wonder said:

@rooprect said:

I got this bit of information from Robert Altman's commentary on 3 Women (1976), but Silent Running is the film it really applies to. Here's the reason why Hollywood movies were awesome in the early 70s, and why they suck today.

In the mid to late 60s there was a big turnover in management at the major Hollywood studios. The old heads were out, the young kids were in. As Altman says, many of these younger execs had no idea what they were doing or what the future of cinema held in terms of money making. So they adopted a new, casual strategy. Instead of the traditional formula of determining a budget, then hiring the directors, actors & crew based on that budget, then monitoring the production on an hourly basis to remain under budget, these new studio heads were more inclined to talk to filmmakers first and get their price quote, then say either yes or no.

This new formula was so simple it was brilliant. The studios write the check, and it's up to the filmmaker to make it work. This leaves the filmmakers in total control to either sink or swim, leading to much creativity and innovation with minimal interference from the suits. At the same time, the studios were off the hook in terms of losses. Their "loss" is up front, and typically minimal ($1-2 million), so if the movie bombs then whatever. Move on to the next low-risk gamble.

Astute cinephiles might note that this isn't anything new. It was famously done once before in the early 1940s with a film you might've heard of: Citizen Kane.

Silent Running is a prime example of an artistic success though it didn't make much money. The movie's cousin, Easy Rider, is a prime example of both artistic AND commercial success. Both Silent Running and Easy Rider were among an experimental crop of 5 films funded by Universal at $1m each. Total artistic freedom to the filmmakers, they could shoot whatever they wanted. Altman himself wasn't among this crop (He was working with 20th Century Fox) but his films of the early 70s were basically the same formula. Name your price, get cash up front, make a movie. Altman would typically get around $1.5 mil to do a movie like 3 Women.

(This is where Altman's commentary ends. The rest is me.) By the late 70s, the major studios had abandoned this formula and gone back to the standard big bucks. I blame it on films like Jaws and Star Wars that were such earth-shaking moneymakers that the studio heads--these young clueless kids Altman mentions--got a quick schooling on how the pros make money. They make money by relegating art & creativity to the back seat, and let money & advertising drive the car. As a result we saw a return to the old Hollywood ways of traditional stories dressed up with A-list actors and lavish productions, all of which are marketed and advertised by the studios so heavily that you can't throw a twizzler without hitting a theater marquee.

Altman sarcastically jokes that the Oscars award for Best Picture isn't actually for the best picture, it's for the best marketing.

Anyway, the history of Silent Running, along with films like Dennis Hopper's Easy Rider and Altman's 3 Women, is a really interesting look at the neverending battle of art vs money, how they both grapple with each other yet cling to each other for life, and how the early 70s was a rare moment in time when art was winning.

Are we going to see a return to that? I think we sorta have in small doses. Netflix sorta did this by throwing a handful of cash at anyone who owns a digital camera. But it resulted in so many garbage productions (as well as some gems) that we got lost in the noise. Unfortunately I think that's the future of cinema from here on out. Traditional big studio moneymaking surrounded by a sea of noise, and it's up to us to pick thru the noise to find the gems. But one thing's for sure, the gems won't be coming from big studios.

I totally agree. Nowadays it's more about money and less art. Budgets (production and marketing) have ballooned out of proportion, and the big production companies will often choose cast and crew not based on who is the best in their ability, talent and experience, but who and what script would attract more investors.

Are there any gems ? Certainly. Just like gold, you'll have to pan for them in the river of films. Some that I've found - different genres - look interesting at first glance - e.g. "Chłopi (2023)", "Monkey Man (2024)", "Conann (2023)", "Sleeping Dogs (2024)", "悪は存在しない (2023)", "Bonnard, Pierre et Marthe (2024)", "Back to Black (2024)", "La chimera (2023)", "El eco (2023)" - but will their sparkle last or are they just simulants?

By the way, when I saw the title "Silent Running", I had to think of a different movie, "Cool Runnings (1993)".

lmao For the longest time I also confused Silent Running with Cool Runnings. Whenever someone talked about SR, I kept thinking "wait so there are bobsleds in space?" 🤔

I hadn't heard of any of your picks, so you've given me some good study material! Mostly I rely on the Criterion Collection to do the gold panning for me, or another distributor that lets me know about the good stuff is Film Movement. But there's still a few years delay before I hear about what's out. Word of mouth might be the only chance to hear of the gems while they're still fresh.

Criterion Collection is excellent. I just mentioned some more recent ones.

@wonder2wonder said: "Back to Black (2024)"

omg finally a good movie about Amy Winehouse?? Don't get me started on Fallen Star, a movie whose opening scene is so silly I honestly thought it was a Spinal Tappish satire (maybe it is?) -> Opening scene

@wonder2wonder said:

Criterion Collection is excellent. I just mentioned some more recent ones.

They've been getting into recent films which I think is really cool. I tend to get stuck in the infinite rabbit hole of classics, but when they release a new film I always take notice. Haven't been disappointed yet...

@rooprect said:

@wonder2wonder said:

Criterion Collection is excellent. I just mentioned some more recent ones.

They've been getting into recent films which I think is really cool. I tend to get stuck in the infinite rabbit hole of classics, but when they release a new film I always take notice. Haven't been disappointed yet...

I would love to have the Criterion channel but $11.00 a month is too much.

The reason why Hollywood movies will never be as good as 1969-1976

I'm gonna suggest rose-tinted glasses.

@bratface said:

@rooprect said:

@wonder2wonder said:

Criterion Collection is excellent. I just mentioned some more recent ones.

They've been getting into recent films which I think is really cool. I tend to get stuck in the infinite rabbit hole of classics, but when they release a new film I always take notice. Haven't been disappointed yet...

I would love to have the Criterion channel but $11.00 a month is too much.

I agree... Even though it's less than the cost of a movie ticket, it feels weird paying that much for 1 specialty channel. I still rely on used DVDs/blurays on ebay. Especially since Criterion started issuing 4k upgrades, as well as their own streaming platform undercutting physical sales, the outdated DVDs & 2k blurays are going for pennies!