If the product is poor, the entity which controls the manufacture of the product is to blame. The studios control the manufacture of films and are therefore to blame for the poor quality. If your GE remote dies two days after you buy it, you blame GE, not the store that sold it to you and not the other customers who buy it and products like it.
The "if people didn't buy tickets" argument is depressingly true but not particularly relevant in the context of placing blame. It also becomes a completely circular argument -- if the studios didn't make bad films, people wouldn't buy tickets. But this is not a chicken-and-egg situation; we know where films start.
The blame is on the manufacturer. The blame is on the studio. It's true that the studios are encouraged towards inferior products because that appears to be what people want. This is no excuse. It starts with the studio and responsibility therefore falls to the studio. The studios are responsible for taking pride in their work, which is (theoretically) supporting and guiding artists. As with any job, significant profit should be secondary. To say that fault rests with the audiences because they continue to pay the studios is to validate the greed of the studios, the investors, the executives, et al. Greed is not valid. Many will argue that such people can't afford to lose money on risky projects. Take a tour of LA to a few houses owned by execs and investors and see how they're doing. Look up the Weinsteins and find out if they're living in the poorhouse after a string of flops. And if people really can't afford to lose money...fuck 'em. Don't invest. Less investments means less movies, and that's not a bad thing.
None of this is to say that studios are the end-all problem and that they should be wiped out. Thinking just has to change. There has to be some genuine passion about art. That's all that really matters. Good films will be made when passionate producers hire passionate film crews to work on something they can care about.
On a side note, Elmer, your list of evidence is extremely problematic. Coppola made many films under Zoetrope/American Zoetrope, including The Conversation, The Outsiders, and the recent Tetro, which were extremely well-received (and are also good). Lucas made THX-1138 and American Graffiti, the former completely independently and the latter primarily under Lucasfilm and Coppola Pictures but admittedly also with involvement from Universal, and both were excellent. Peter Jackson had consistently made extremely strong and innovative films up until The Frighteners, including Dead Alive, Heavenly Creatures, and Forgotten Silver. Furthermore, the list of apparently strong directors who have made bullshit once involved in the Hollywood big studio system is massive. Roger Donaldson, Terry Gilliam, Guy Ritchie, Pitof, Timur Bekmambetov, and (for the action fans) Louis Leterrier, for example, come to mind.
That said, I do think studio involvement is necessary to stop many directors from making films that are terrible. Everyone needs a helping hand. Except Kubrick.
Plus, if you're gonna plop down $10 for a flick, one thing that seems to be true is that you can't trust the big movie reviewers to give it straight |
Primarily due to the fact that said reviewers are owned -- either figuratively or literally -- by the studios.