Is “Hollywood” worth saving?

Although I want to believe change will happen, experience tells me that change happens much more slowly than I generally expect. So I don’t expect much short-term change to the “Hollywood” studio model, but I do see that there’s a lack of direction. Sequels and franchises borrowed from elsewhere, to push the tentpole model, isn’t the creative industry it can be. (Many, many very creative people make these films, but the ideas seem repetitive.)

Well, Erik Lokkesmoe wonders Is Hollywood Worth Saving?

It’s a long article and not easy to sum up, so I recommend reading it in its entirety but here’s an excerpt to wet your appetite.

No one inside Hollywood can answer the question: what are we about?

Outside of Hollywood, few are sticking around to wait for the response. The audience is driving head-snapping changes – from demanding “anywhere, anytime” viewing to embracing indie films created with Macs and Final Cut Pro by filmmakers who are democratizing Hollywood in places like Lexington and Littleton. It used to be that filmmakers came to town with scripts; now they come with completed features.

Most of the industry is determined to have nothing to do with change. It is a company town driven by self-preservation; innovation and risk live five hours to the north in Silicon Valley. You quickly learn that you are only as good as your last movie. You conform, play it safe, or risk marginalization.

This 100-year-old Hollywood system remains in place not because it works but because no one dares propose anything different. Consider how many executives have worked their way up to the corner suite only to find that everything they learned is no longer a viable solution: critics and television ads are losing influence, stars aren’t selling tickets, and your target audience is now splintered across ten thousand blogs. The execs just want to hang on for a few more years, and then sneak out the back door before making too many mistakes.