Wednesday, December 10, 2008

HOW WILL THE ECONOMIC CRISIS INFLUENCE STORYTELLING?


Let's plunge right in!!!

If there is a serious economic crisis ahead the big beneficiaries will be TV and the internet. Lots of unemployed people mean lots of people at home connected to the media. These people won't have a lot of purchasing power, but they'll exist in such large numbers that no advertiser will be able to ignore them. Of course what's advertised will have to change. I imagine we'll see a lot of ads for soup, gum, soap, coffee, and the like...things that are cheap and accessible.




We'll probably see a larger audience for network programming since that's free. Cable companies will grow and even prosper for a while, but if the crisis deepens people won't be able to afford what they're offering. Maybe cable can save itself by attracting new advertisers and lowering fees. Maybe they'll acquire network and internet assets. It's hard to predict what'll happen here because at some point TV and the internet will merge, and what the outcome of that will be is anybody's guess.




The demand for animation may level off for a while, but will grow in the long run because frustrated, out of work people like to see exaggerated media. If Americans don't wise up and produce a more dynamic and imaginative product, the beneficiary of that growth will be Asia. A year ago, anime was poised to take over the international animation market, but in my opinion that takeover has been blunted, maybe permanently. The new crisis will create new consumers with new attitudes and Japan, which has animated the same way, and told the same type of stories for half a century, may not be able to adapt.



If the last depression was an indicator, the tastes of viewers will shift over time. In the early years of the Depression audiences wanted escapism and flocked to see stories about rich people in opulent apartments. As time passed audiences acclimated to the hard times, and they were willing to accept gritty stories of reality on the streets, provided they were about appealing and flamboyant gangsters. At the same time we saw stories that were influenced by the heroes of the pulp era, detectives and monsters, and at the tail end of the Depression we saw "arty" and propaganda films, which would evolve into what we later called "Noir."




My prediction is that audiences of the next year or so will prefer the kind of media that traditional television does well, dopey but comforting formats like Oprah and Letterman. After that tastes will dramatically shift to favor feature film-type stories. My prediction is that comedy will be king for a while, then it'll be joined by edgy drama. The comedy will be more sincere and earnest than we're used to, but stand-up will continue, and we might see a lot more physical comedy. Drama will find a new paradigm. It'll be something different, something built around the appeal of specific actors and writers we may not have paid too much attention to til now. Cartoons will be broad and cartoony, because that's what people living on the edge like to see. Horror and religious films too, so long as they also find a new paradigm.




One more prediction, based on audience preferences in the Great Depression: people will want to see dramatic characters that are effective and competent on the job. If this crisis produces any good effect It'll be that America will once again value "can do" types of people. Out of work people identify with people like that.



31 comments:

Bitter Animator said...

Part of me thinks that, at times like this, what ends up on screen could be more driven by the creators and writers than by the viewers. Even with the focus on ratings, the television business can be a little like the fashion business - sort of backwards in that it likes to tell the people in advance what they'll like the next year.

But I think there will be a possible surge in quality and risk-taking that will make the results a little unpredictable.

This is for two reasons. Firstly, people lucky enough to hold on to their jobs in programming are going to know they could be gone next week. Nothing is secure. And with fewer shows and films going into production, each one will have more at stake. And while the thinking could be to play it safe and go bland, I think it will likely skew the other way - the thinking that this next project could be my last unless it's an absolute blockbuster. I think there'll be a few risks taken on projects that could be fantastic.

The second reason is where these fantastic projects come from. Not unlike music, I think creative projects like films and television can often benefit from unemployment. So many of us have stories needing to be told, scripts or novels we want to write. But everyday life doesn't allow that. Work, home, kids, wife, drama, work home, kids, life etc.

Cut work out of that and, suddenly, you've got damn all else to do but sit and write that screenplay you always meant to write.

And, so, in a few years time there will be far more to choose from. Many possibly great projects floating around wanting to get made that otherwise wouldn't have been written.

And, because they aren't being written by the usual Hollywood reliables, they'll likely offer something different. Something unexpected.

But, because the times are what they are, I think you're spot on that many of them will be about the survivor, the guy with that 'can do' attitude. And they'll come with a gritty realism and an edge.

Not sure I agree with you on the comedy though. People love to bitch and there's going to be plenty to bitch about. I can see some ironic and negative stand-ups doing great business over the next few years while people sit there thinking, man, he's right on the money, life does suck.

Julian said...

How long do you guess the crisis will last?

Jennifer said...

Excellent post, Uncle Eddie.

I'm going to be all over the place on this, so forgive me.

I agree with you about network programming making a comeback and cable and satellite taking a hit during the economic crisis. As disposable income gets smaller, people get choosier on how the money is spent. Network programming is "free", and after the digital broadcast conversion in February 2009, you can get more channels with a digital box since a number of local channels are multiplexing their station signals. Why bother paying $40+/month for a few extra channels?

While cable and satellite may take a hit, I think that there will be a surge with the Internet. High-speed internet is not as expensive as it once was. Plus, you get a bigger return on investment with Internet than you would with cable or satellite. Not only can you get access to television shows on the 'net (Fancast and YouTube comes to mind), but you can also use it for socializing AND you can use it in lieu of standard telephone service.

People are looking to get their spirits lifted during these times. An example - 3 or 4 years ago, a silly movie like Four Christmases would have flopped at the box office. Now, it's been number 1 at the box office for the past few weeks.

I do think that silly, cartoony cartoons will make a comeback because people need a pick-me-up. Spongebob Squarepants is still a runaway ratings hit on Nickelodeon.

I completely agree with you about the "can do" attitude becoming popular on television. Where I'm seeing this trend is in reality television. Shows that (allegedly) give a glimpse into the glamorous life of uber-rich people (ex: "Real Housewives", anything featuring a successful celebrity) are losing ratings, while shows about people battling from adversity are winning ratings hand over fist (ex: "Ruby").

I also think that certain stand-up acts will do well but some will suffer. I think that for now, people are going to look more for silly rather than "in-your-face". As people get used to the bad situation, the comedians who are spot-on with social commentary (ex: the late George Carlin) will flourish.

BTW - when I use the term "silly", I mean it as a compliment. :)

diego cumplido said...

This is the kind of post I like to read in your blog.

I agree with "bitter animator" about comedy, though.

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbIGbZ6gq_Y

good Louis Ck clip thats kinda relevant

PJS said...

What are your thoughts on the prospect of newspapers becoming extinct?

Trevor Thompson said...

Honestly, I hope that people want to see more escapist and, as Jennifer put it, 'silly' stuff, because if not, I will be unsuccessful selling my puppet / cartoon show.

Like Bitter pointed out, it's likely we'll see more risk-taking, and our history has shown that as well. From the depression til after WWII was when some of the best animation and films in this country were made, and maybe that's got a lot to do with a prevailing 'what have we got to lose' attitude.

Also, since media completely controls the way Americans think, you're likely to see uplifting art and stories because if we give up the whole system collapses; and it's already on unstable ground.

The question of stand-up comics intriques me though, because I personally get a great deal from hearing someone else voice my concerns in a harsh, truthful yet funny way.

As my hero the late Bill Hicks pointed out, people have within them an inner voice that says things like, "this isn't right" or "that sounds like bullshit" or "that's wrong, did anyone else notice that, am I the only one seeing that" and if that voice isn't confirmed in some way, people end up feeling isolated and get the idea that they're crazy.

And if yours is an opinion which doesn't get reflected in the mainstream news and public awareness, it can be very uplifting to hear someone else, with clout, respect and intelligence, confirm your feelings. In fact, it is this very reason why John K. is such an influence on me, because he confirms what a lot of we cartoon fans have been feeling for a long time.

My big question is more of a technical one. Will the change from the standard 4:3 TV aspect ratio to the cinematic 16:9 change the way in which stories are photographed? Will this mean we can do more creative things with the storytelling now that there's more screen to tell the story with?

It will be an interesting sight to behold.

Great post, Eddie!

- trevor.

Eddie Fitzgerald said...

Bitter: Interesting! For my part, I see conflicting trends, so it's hard to say if media will be more or less creative.

Julian: In my opinion the crisis will last for ten years or more. We're spending and going deeper in debt when we should cut spending and begin to pay off the debt we already have.

Jennifer: Fascinating! The thing that makes it hard to call is that the internet is changing. It may be subject to more regulation in the future.

Eddie Fitzgerald said...

Anon: Great clip! Seeing it makes me think that maybe commenters were right, and stand-up will be more resilient than I thought!

Anonymous said...

Irony was said to be dead the day David Letterman hit the air. But that just ain't so. Spongebob Squarepants remains the last big animated hit from any studio or network, despite the marathon efforts of the (now mostly fired) creative execs of the past decade. Should America be forced by its principal debtor China to go off the dollar standard, people in the U.S. will resort to eating their own pets to survive and life will become a bad Sam Pecinpah movie. "The Osterman Weekend" isn't ironic but it always needed gags.

Eddie Fitzgerald said...

Bitter, Jennifer, Diego, Trevor, Anon: Thanks for the good arguments about stand-up! I'm beginning to think you're right! I went back and modified what I said about it!

Patrick: Newspapers were destined to be replaced by the internet, but they might have had a really creative and interesting Indian Summer if they'd developed the right strategy. i'll try to blog about it sometime.

Caleb said...

Interesting theories, Eddie. In a year or more, we'll be able to look back and see if Zoltar was correct. I tend to think of the worst case scenario first:

One of the most unforgivable things from the early depression is the way banks collapsed and took peoples' money. This is why bank robbers who only robbed these types of banks became public heroes. Consumerism has eroded our values and put several guns in our hands. Can you feel the crime wave looming over your shoulder?

At this rate, the middle class will vanish and aristocrats (greedy inheritance types) will be treated like the plague. Basically, it will be uncool to look like you have money (also a good way to get robbed). I think these types of things will lead to more sarcasm and making fun of those that take themselves seriously. Maybe there will be more jokes about slicing single beans and eating shoes.

Or we can just keep reaching into Uncle Sam's never-ending magic bailout hat for some help!

Shawn Dickinson said...

So, the economic crisis will eventually lead to another "golden age" of entertainment? I'm for that! Especially if that means another era of NOIR! I wonder who will be the next Peter Lorre! Who will be the next Bogart...or Robert Mitchum?

Hans Flagon said...

So were bad economic times the reason for Soap and Gum ads being prevalent throughout the fifties, sixties and seventies, compared to now? Thats an interesting theory, but I think the reason ads are for more expensive items these days, is the high cost of TV advertising, plus the advertisers of the commodity products realizing that it was more cost effective to put those ad dollars outside of TV, if advertised at all. Other marketing forces dominate, such as paying the merchant for shelf placement.

So I don't see a return to more humble items being advertised due to a nations economic health, that was not exactly the reason they were advertised less.

Bad economies -have- held silver linings for creative people, but these days, in a downturn, ads are some of the first things to go. Newspapers are about to bite the big one, TV is a mess, Advertising needs consumer confidence to flourish. Advertising these days is overpriced that almost no one uses them to push inexpensive everyday products. All I see pushed in TV commercials is auto, pharmaceutical and lawyers, with a bit of fast food.

Bad times bringing jobs to creatives will be from creatives creating cheaper entertainments for the consumer- something cheaper than driving to the theatre, or something profitably providing more bang for the buck in home entertainment, such as video games. Print and Television are sort of in arrears.

Those gum and soap ads? Consumers had marvelous confidence, and fortunes were to be made on nickel and dime products. These days, no one tells an exotic tale to get someone to pop a candy bar in their mouth. I love those retro commercials, but I don't think bad times are going to bring them back.

This HD transition for telly is going to really whack the industry upside the head though. Already, too many people just do not care what is on TV, even if it is their only diversion. And a lot of people are just not going to go HD, or eve4n try to keep TV as it has been, going in their homes. TV only counts the share of those that are still watching, it does not count those leaving in droves for ala carte internet entertainments. Marketing, not general economics, is behind this. Divide and Conquer mentality has worked against them. There is no general cultural community holding people together any more, as everything has gone niche to target a segment of consumer.

The good old days (of entertainment) will return in small pockets just because it is relatively more lively and interesting than the target market dreck killing our culture. Its difference, and relative novelty, will help it out. Just like Ren and Stimpy broke out from the doldrums being foisted on everyone ( to sink back into the mire of same).

Trevor Thompson said...

Two current stand ups I've been listening to a lot lately are the guys who took over The Man Show after Kimmel and Adam Corolla (sp?) left.

They're Joe Rogan and Doug Stanhope. Some of you UFC fans know Joe from his hosting abilities, but if you've never seen his standup, you're missing out.

Both of these guys have experienced a lot of things I have, but you can't talk about those things in impolite society ( to say nothing of polite society ) because if you do you've got to contend with the dismissed and bemused looks.

It's a shame we can't be more honest with each other as a society. Maybe after the apocalypse. :)

- trevor.

Ricardo Cantoral said...

This is definetly true. The Golden age of animation and film was during the depression and World War II. Entertainment is a relief during any natural or economic crisis so it's only industry that does better as a result. However there is a difference between then and now, we all starting to aknowledge the world in color instead of black and white. We are all aknowlegding the world is large and complex more then ever. As a result even the most fantastic movie characters are becoming more ceberal,namely James Bond and Batman. They both retain many of the trademarks that made them famous but they live in a world of more consequences, everything that they do effects them or the ones they love in some way.

Ricardo Cantoral said...

BTW Eddie, What did you think of these new Batman and Bond films ?

JohnK said...

we can only hope some good will come of it

Anonymous said...

I hope you're right.
Entertainment needs a kick in the ass to get it rolling again!

PJS said...

Hey Eddie,I don't know how into music you are but I have a theory for you. (Not to stray too far off topic), It seems like the best music over the last 100 years has come out during times of war. Probably other art forms too.

John A said...

I believe I have the answerfor America's current financial crisis: The Treasury should start printing coupons on the back of its currency. Let me explain: say you buy a $5.00 pizza, but on the back of that $5 dollar bill, there's a coupon for half off the price of your pizza, you get your $2.50 change,and on the back of one of your dollars is a coupon for a free drink. you use the dollar and your other sigle to buy an additional order of chicken wings when you redeem the drink coupon. You've just purchased an $8 dollar meal for under $5. Printing coupons on the back of our money will stimulate the economy by providing us with an incentive to keep cash in curculation, and help keep other businesses up and operating (you could get a free car wash, or get your rug shampooed) Maybe we should sell advertising space on the back of our money, or print game pieces on the back of our money. People could have a shot at winning more money, which will in turn bring more coupons and more savings and more chances to win-MORE MONEY! We could have this recession beat in no time! What do you think Eddie?

Whit said...

The best art tends to be made in difficult times.

Eddie Fitzgerald said...

John A: Wow! I don't know how practical that idea is, but it's a really stunning example of imaginative thinking! My hat's off to you!

Caleb: Interesting! I'll have to make a more thought-out answer later. Right now I got hung up on the word "consumerism." I like consumerism and I've never been able to understand why it has the bad reputation that it does. Buying things is fun, and it generates jobs so that other people can buy things too. Just don't spend more than you make.

It seems like a variation of the old materialism vs. spiritual values debate. Of course spiritual values are more important, but that doesn't mean that you should deny yourself the ipod you've had your eye on all summer.

Eddie Fitzgerald said...

Patrick, PC: I'll come back to this!

PJS said...

Whit: Is that why the late '70's & '80's sucked so bad, art-wise?

Anonymous said...

Biggest change is that many creators can approach their audience directly via the Internet. This makes self-publishing feasible for many, profitable for some (i.e., making enough to live on, though many creators will be satisfied just making enough to cut into the overhead).

Print-on-demand via Amazon is a viable publishing method, and low band width "free" comics and videos can always sell higher res hard copy versions. Since one no longer needs a distributor to carry the product to a market place where it sits more or less on consignment until somebody buys it, this means more creators get their work out there.

Downside: A lot of crappy work gets published, but enough innovative stuff finds an audience that the better/more distinctive creators will find their audiences.

I predict book and magazine publishing will chase newspapers into the grave (though freebie newspapers such as the L.A. Weekly et al seem to be surviving, but that's because they are primary ad sheets with some news copy to attract people to pick 'em up).

I'm hoping the next world war gets fought in the far east between/amongst some permutation of China-Russia-India and we get to sit it out.

Caleb said...

Hi Eddie, I don't mean to sound down on capitalism or consumerism. I don't see things that black and white, and it would take forever to explain the gray in between. I also don't have a better solution. I just think there are pitfalls of responsibility such as manufacturing more guns than there are people. Even when I worked for Apple I didn't get an iPod because they keep phasing them out every year. I like the Sony PSP because I can show people cartoons on a bigger screen. There's no reason to be loyal to one company or product in this type of environment.

I'm talking more about the people during hurricane Katrina that were stealing tv's they've had their eye on, to take back to a home that is demolished. The instinct to acquire a gadget overrides the instinct of survival now for some. This stuff seems like common sense to smart people, but I'm not sure about the rest (while I'm typing this my neighbors are screaming bloody murder outside because their dog is running amok).

Anonymous said...

Patrick,

The late 70's/early to mid 80's sucked so bad because animation had been allowed to steadily become degenerate through endless hackwork since the late 1940's. By the late 1970's, America was on reasonably steady economic ground and had been for decades. During WWII, with the world on the brink of collapse, animation was at its creative zenith. The craft itself took years to reach that level but it paid off tremendously. The coming depression may not yield superior animated films but it should bring about paintings or art or something of greater consequence than what we've seen lately and are seeing now.

Mr. Trombley said...

Dear Sir,

I wanted to show you this little internet comic strip. The original joke is that they claim contemporary internet catchphrases actually had their origin in a 1920's era comic, Laugh-Out-Loud Cats.

Obviously, some of the attempts are more successful than others.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/apelad/946563421/in/set-72157600296941365/

Eddie Fitzgerald said...

Mr. Trombley: Interesting!

Anonymous said...

Hey, Eddie, I know this is an older post, but I thought you'd get a kick out of someone sharing your hypothesis. Here's Peter Farrelly one why they're pushing their Three Stooges movie right now.

“It takes place in present day, and they look, dress and sound exactly like the Stooges,” Peter Farrelly told Daily Variety. “When the economy started turning, we felt like the world could use a Stooges slapfest. Bobby and I haven’t done a real physical comedy in a while, and it’s the most exciting thing we could think of now, to have people go to the movie, see some great slapstick fun family humor.”

By the way, this is only my opinion, but by all accounts this movie looks like it's going to be a real dog. First of all, trying to remake The Stooges is a fools errand, that goes without saying. But sticking gross-out bodily fluid gags in classic Stooge shorts? That's ridiculous! There's a scene in the new movie where the Stooges are at a hospital with a bunch of babies and the babies keep spraying them in the face with their baby cocks, like that classic oyster scene.

That's a really funny gag, but for Ren & Stimpy, not for Moe Howard. They should have made a new movie with new characters instead of desecrating the classics. Gags that pay homage to old styles of comedy but with modern twists (like this urination bit) work better for new characters.

Secondly, Sean Penn as Larry Fine? Johnny Depp as Moe Howard? Why not Anthony Hopkins as Curly! They can get Jack Nicholson to play Emil Sitka! Why would they get boring Oscar nominated actors with personalities like dead moths to try to do comedy?

The sad thing is the Farelly's really are geniuses.