I was meaning to respond to Mark Harris's GQ article about the Marketing Era and how it's killed movies but between work and wasting time on Twitter (damn you, Melo!) I haven't gotten around to it. So I'll just jot down some quick thoughts. In fact, SoulHonky.com might become more and more just quick notes and what not as I try to do more work on my spec scripts (and work itself has been a beast of late, taking up a lot of hours.)

Anyway, Harris writes that we're now in the marketing era of film, which is odd because we've been in that era for about 20 years now. He even cites 1993 as the good ol' days, ignoring the fact that that year helped launch the marketing era with the top three films being: the adult friendly kid film (Mrs. Doubtfire), the somewhat obscure TV remake (The Fugitive), and the kid friendly grown up movie (Jurassic Park). Also, he complains about too many comic book movies but in 1993, critics were complaining about too many pulpy novels by the likes of Crichton, Grisham, and Clancy being turned into movies. Furthermore, Harris completely ignores the fact that we're now in a global economy. I used to bitch about big movie stars not being worth their salaries but the fact of the matter is that while Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie might not be worth 20 million in domestic box office, their presence can make a stinker like The Tourist into a $200+ million movies overseas.

But perhaps my biggest beef with Harris's article was that it had no eye to the future. Hell, he barely looks at the present. While he's upset that the top box office grossing films are all kid-ish fare, he ignores the fact that the Oscar fare this year did surprisingly well. The King's Speech, True Grit, and Black Swan all made over 100 million. The Social Network is almost there and The Figher, with an Oscar push, might even get there (it's at 88 million now). We're in a new era in which the main studios are going to make mainstream fare that appeals to as many quadrants as possible and the smaller indie companies (many of which aren't exactly small anymore) are going to do the heavier fare. When studios pump 200 million into a film, they are obviously going to hope that it can sell some toys, clothes, and launch a franchise. And honestly, given the studio's eye on the bottom line, it's probably better that the more serious fare doesn't have to go through their notes process.

The one thing that might hold the more serious fare back is that, because the smaller places will be making it, people are going to have to take a pay cut. While it's fun to blame studios for the problems in Hollywood, it's not like the actors and directors are free of blame. Sandra Bullock finally got some power and she used it to make All About Steve. It seems like fewer and fewer stars are willing to produce other people's movies. Even Spielberg doesn't seem to be putting his neck out; making weaker fare like Eagle Eye or only working with established guys like JJ Abrams.

In the end, it's easy to sit back and say things were better 20 years ago but back then we were seeing terrible Batman movies, a Flintstones franchise, and the Home Alone franchise sitting near the top of the box office lists. The studios are definitely worried about marketing but their blockbusters are aimed at the global market. The serious movies, the smaller fare, can be treated as such, which should make it better. People aren't going to try to water down dramas in order to make them four quadrant films anymore. We're on the brink of a new era in film; I think it is better to find ways to push forward rather than look back and complain "Well, back in my days..."

I have a few ideas but I'd like to think them out more and not plop them in this rant. Sorry for the online spew; I'll try to do better in the future. Just wanted to get this off my chest, even if it was in a rather stream of conscious form rather than a more well thought out discussion.