Exploiting Hollywood 1980.

Chapter 1633 Adding Competitors to You

Ronald tried many friends in the circle, but none of them recognized the harm caused by so-called negative marketing.

But this is understandable. People always have a sense of luck about things that haven't happened yet, thinking that maybe they are not as terrible as you say. The Oscars have been awarded for more than 60 years, and I have never heard of anyone winning an award by using negative marketing to attack his competitors.

Moreover, Harvey Weinstein is only a secondary producer and distributor under Disney, and Oscar public relations have always been handled by the agent teams behind major studios and well-performing stars. They think that even if Weinstein jumps up and down, he can only affect the results of some awards with very weak advantages.

Even for Mira Sorvino, who was a relatively unpopular winner this year and should not have won the award according to common sense, people are still more willing to believe in the personal influence of her father, Paul Sorvino, who is also a star in the industry, and her boyfriend Quentin Tarantino.

Besides, it’s not like there haven’t been upsets in the Oscars before. Even if Miramax really did break the rules in terms of PR, they haven’t been successful in other awards.

"I don't know, Ronald. I'm not favored by the Oscars, and I like to shoot special effects action movies, so the chances of winning are even smaller."

Even Ronald's best director friend in the industry, Jim Cameron, was not very convinced.

"Confucius once said that the best doctor begins treating you when you are about to become ill." Ronald was a little upset. He was the only one who saw Weinstein's brilliance (or filthiness) and was not understood by others.

"That's why people don't want to be treated by such doctors. They always think they will only go to the doctor when they are seriously ill." Cameron is not wrong.

"By the way, how's your new film going? Do you need my investment?" Ronald thought of Cameron's film about a shipwreck in the icy sea. Anyway, there was no rush to fight against negative marketing.

"Oh, great! I found the company that built the Titanic, Harland and Wolff. They provided me with the blueprints for the ship. It has been rumored that the blueprints have been destroyed because no one is willing to build such a large steam-powered ship."

"Great, where does Fox want to build the model of this ship?" Ronald saw Cameron's excited look, and it seemed that he hadn't seen him so enthusiastic about the creation of a movie since the Terminator.

Of course, the two of them are good friends who understand each other. As soon as I heard that he got the blueprint, I knew that he must want to build a 1:1 large model to play with. It seems that my good friend is getting bigger and bigger in the scale of filming.

"We will choose one of the three beaches in Mexico, Canada and Britain, build a pool with a capacity of more than 10 million gallons, and then build a real-life model of the Titanic."

Cameron told Ronald some of his predictions and then asked Ronald for his suggestions.

"Stick to the end, stick to your ideas, don't change your plans because of anyone's interference, and if you have money problems, call me."

When Ronald heard about such a big production, he was reminded of the filming of Dances with Wolves. He expected that there would be nearly a thousand staff members working on the film, which was about the same as commanding a battalion-level armored combat group in war.

In order for Cameron to make this movie well, he needs to have a bit of a tyrant's temper to suppress the various crew members. In addition to giving him a backing and promising to supplement the budget if the cost exceeds the budget, Ronald also plans to send him some mobile toilets and shower facilities, as well as some large mobile cooking equipment for military use.

Shooting a film for long periods of time in the wild, especially in uninhabited areas, with proper shower facilities and hot meals available, is a huge boost to morale.

……

A few days after the awards ceremony, the main reports of various media focused on the victory of Braveheart and the two newly-crowned Best Actor and Best Actress. Mira Sorvino unexpectedly won the Best Supporting Actress award, but this did not occupy too many headlines.

Ronald was still holding the newspaper, thinking. Harvey Weinstein seemed to have found the secret to winning awards since last year. He had endless "creativity" and could come up with all kinds of new tricks.

In addition, Weinstein seems to have special experience in winning awards at the three major European film festivals, especially Cannes. The collaboration between Europe and Hollywood actually gives him a lot of room to maneuver.

The nomination and award at the Oscars gave him a better chance of raising funds and selling trailers at Cannes. After getting investment in Europe, it would be easier for him to get bank loans and other outside investors when he returned to Hollywood.

"Ok?"

However, after studying the nomination and award lists of the past few years, Ronald suddenly discovered a problem.

From 1990 to 1996, among those nominated for the Best Director Award every year, there was only one person who was nominated for the first time.

And the only truly fledgling young director was Quentin Tarantino last year. The other first-time nominees, Kevin Costner, Mel Gibson, and Clint Eastwood, were actually actors who turned directors after becoming famous.

Only this year did new nominees win the Best Director Award, and there were five of them. This is obviously not a normal phenomenon. Weinstein's manipulation is obvious.

Ronald vaguely remembered that in the 1980s, there were quite a few people who were nominated for the director award for the first time. There were about two in each session, and these people were all truly new directors. For example, Robert Benton, David Lynch, Roman Polanski, Wolfgang Petersen, Alan Parker, and even Sidney Pollack were nominated or even won for the first time.

In that era, there were still some veteran directors working on the front line of filmmaking and achieving great results, but there were also a large number of new directors emerging, adding many fresh styles and narrative methods to Hollywood.

Including earlier Ridley Scott, Woody Allen, Marty Scorsese, as well as Lynch, Polanski, etc., are all great directors with distinctive styles. After receiving the recognition of Hollywood nominations, they have shot countless good films.

In the last decade, there emerged many directors who were good at shooting successful commercial genre films and had a certain authorial quality, such as Jim Cameron, Barry Levinson, Sidney Pollack, and Ronald himself.

The two major categories of art and commerce complement each other and have given rise to many new varieties, allowing Hollywood to have an excellent record in both the market and artistic heights.

The most successful person who has mastered both is undoubtedly Spielberg, one of the current owners of DreamWorks, who made both Jurassic Park and Schindler's List.

But looking back at the first five years of the 1990s, there weren’t many impressive young directors, so much so that until last year, the most impressive young director was still Quentin Tarantino.

As for this year's director nominees, let alone being compared with the directors who emerged in the 1970s and 1980s, they can't even catch up with Quin Tarantino.

In the 1990s, there were three Best Director winners who were actors turned directors, Kevin Costner, Clint Eastwood, and this year's Mel Gibson, which also reflects from another perspective the lack of fresh forces among the director group.

Besides, Mel Gibson's acceptance speech this year also showed that he does not want to completely transform into a director, or to direct and act in all his future films, but rather wants to win the Best Actor award again as an actor.

Why is there a lack of good new directors in the industry? Ronald thought for a while and concluded that it might be because low-budget films were disappearing in Hollywood.

When he entered the industry, there were companies like Roger Corman's New World, which specialized in making low-budget films, giving many novice directors the stage to shoot their debut films.

But today, whether you are a college graduate majoring in film and television, or a practical person who has learned from the bottom of the film set, the difficulty of directing a theatrical movie for the first time increases exponentially.

The opportunities for these newcomers are now concentrated in two categories of film and television dramas. One is low-cost movies that are directly supplied to the videotape market. Most of the movies made by Ronald's friends in Hong Kong are of this type.

Compared with theatrical films, this type of film has a fundamental difference, that is, the distribution channel is different. Films that are directly supplied to the video tape market have no chance to be shown on the big screen, so from shooting, drawing of storyboards, to lens design, shooting lighting, and even the final editing, it is a completely different system.

Directors who have shot many videos will have an instinctive discomfort when shooting for the big screen. A plot is expressed in a few shots, and the orientation of the big screen and the small TV is completely different.

There are also differences in editing. To make the audience move their eyes and to make them move their necks are two completely different editing systems. If you are used to the former, the edited movie will lack expressiveness when shown on the big screen.

Ronald himself has collected a lot of copies of old movies. When playing on videotapes, many classic movies seem dull and slow. But once played on the big screen, it takes more time to shift attention to the focus on the screen (usually the actor's face), and the rhythm of the movie will be completely different. A very dull movie on TV will appear intense and fast-paced on the big screen, which is a completely different experience.

This is a problem with videotape movies, but if it is another field that new directors often enter, such as television series, then the director's problem is even greater.

The performance modes of movies and TV series are completely different. Movie performances usually need to be shot multiple times, and the particularly exciting shots that meet the director's imagination are selected and edited together. TV performances, on the other hand, are more about shooting in the shortest time possible.

Compared to movies, which mostly use audio-visual language and editing to lead the audience forward, TV dramas use more dialogues and jump cuts of facial close-ups to advance the plot.

For directors who have shot too many TV series, it will be an obstacle to filming movies. The correct methods for TV series will become mistakes when shooting movies.

If you don’t have the opportunity to try, make mistakes, and improve, it’s very likely that your first movie won’t do very well at the box office, and you’ll lose the opportunity to make further movies.

Hollywood producers are very demanding. If you are a successful film director, they will give you three chances. They will give up only after three consecutive losses. But if you have never made a box office success, you often only have one chance.

If your first debut film fails at the box office, then you will be labeled as being only suitable for making TV series and videos, and it will be difficult to get a second chance to make a theatrical movie.

"No wonder, it seems like there is a talent gap..."

Ronald was holding a list of important new directors compiled by his assistant since the 1970s. Since the last few years of the 1980s, the number of people on the list has been getting smaller and smaller.

If this continues, Hollywood's artistic level may decline.

After all, if a director, especially a commercial film director, repeatedly shoots the same type of film, he will exhaust his talent and the audience's affinity.

Having new directors’ new tricks can provide stimulation and also allow old directors to feel fresh stimulation, and maybe they can make better movies.

"Miramax, Harvey Weinstein..."

Ronald drew a heavy red circle around Miramax's name.

The so-called "independent production" companies led by Miramax are actually harmful to the training of new directors.

Their business route is to start from the European Film Festival, and then introduce it to the United States after winning the award. Therefore, new directors like Quentin first get the recognition of the European Film Festival, and then accept the judgment of the box office.

European film festivals have always been small juries, with less than ten judges deciding the winners, which is more susceptible to the artistic tastes of a few people. They are actually further squeezing out the opportunities of potential new directors in Hollywood.

Coupled with Weinstein’s smear campaign, many local directors have even fewer chances of being nominated for awards.

Moreover, so-called "independent production" companies such as Miramax, Searchlight, etc. have been acquired by the eight major studios in the past few years, and their tastes in film selection have become closer to commercial blockbusters.

The entire Hollywood has lost the initial vitality it had in the 1980s, and it is no longer possible to see a variety of unique movies.

This is certainly not a good thing for the industry as a whole. Ronald feels that he is also responsible for this. Maybe the original directors of those dream movies may have lost an opportunity?

"We still need to add some competitors for you..." Ronald pointed at the name of Miramax, which he had drawn a big cross on.