Just back from Vienna and pleased to report a thriving interest in movies. Lots of independent cinemas, a couple of film museums, young people at the cinema. Netflix hasn’t ruined the scene yet.
At a cinema near our hotel, we went to see Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. We came out thinking nice film, it’s quiet for a Tarantino movie, a lot of speculating about the meaning of life with the compulsory violence sequestered to a few short scenes. The next night we went back and saw Little Forest, a Korean movie, released in 2017. We came out thinking nice film, quiet, a lot of speculating about the meaning of life with a little violence towards the end in the form of a storm.
The point being that Once Upon a Time cost 90M+ to make, whilst Little Forest was 1.4M. Although Once Upon a Time made more millions, Little Forest made a much greater return for investment at far less risk. 346M vs 11.1M. Admittedly Once Upon a Time has only been released a few weeks ago, but as far as I understand it, that means it’s already available free (if illegally) online and probably nobody is paying for it anymore.
The other problem for Once Upon a Time is that you can make 64.2857142857 Little Forests for the same price. And frankly Once Upon a Time isn’t worth nearly 64.2857142857 x Little Forest. Indeed, I’d say they are equals.
Not that it isn’t a plea I’ve made a million times before, but we would be so much better off with 64.2857142857 Little Forests than one One Upon a Time. Just imagine a film scene where over the course of a year 64.2857142857 movies came out, let’s say mostly acceptable fare or better, the odd stinker. What happy little cinema campers we’d be. The industry would be thriving world-wide. The whole gamut from writers to techies would have any amount of work. We end up with a better economy, cinema’s impact reaching far, a better society, and less Hollywood spongers cruising the world in private jets telling other people what they have to do to stop global warming. That means you Leonardo di Caprio.