CITTA: Hollywood ignores quality for quantity

Congratulations "Slumdog Millionaire," you lived up to your title and defied the odds.  
After a calamitous journey involving disinterested studios; uncertainties about distribution and possibly never even seeing the light of day – this little indie film found itself on top of the world with eight Academy Awards in hand, including the coveted best picture statue. 

And it deserved every last one of them. 

The story behind "Slumdog" illustrates the downside of the modern Hollywood studio system. A great film that is stymied by the studio suits and must fight every step along the way just for a chance to be viewed by the public. Inevitably, there are stories of films like "Slumdog" that don't end as happily; masterpieces which are doomed to fester on a shelf, only to be released without anyone noticing. 

These major movie studios don't have a good sense about a film's quality. Instead, they're more focused on dollar signs than the artistic spirit – which isn't necessarily a terrible thing.

They are a business, after all. 

But businesses should also make a quality product. You wouldn't buy cologne if it smells like excrement, and unfortunately, a lot of movies these days reek of manure.

Major studios do have a couple redeeming qualities: they're pros at distribution and marketing. If a film needs hype and the theaters to run it, a big Hollywood studio is the way to go. 

But all too often, studios use these important skills for all the wrong reasons. They hype big-budget spectacles relying on explosions, car chases and partial nudity; all within a nice and safe PG-13 rating.

If it was possible for these industry giants to use their skills for promoting more quality films, a whole new generation of moviegoers would have different attitudes about the silver screen. 

Take the story behind "Slumdog Millionaire" as an example. It began as a small indie film with a budget around $15 million. To help with distribution costs, Warner Independent agreed to kick in $5 million and screen it around the country. But, like many small indie studios, Warner Independent folded and "Slumdog" was thrown back to its parent company, Warner Bros. 

To make a long story short, the suits at Warner Bros. hated "Slumdog" and shelved it. Deeming it unprofitable, the powers-that-be of this major studio considered releasing it straight to DVD, but by some miracle Fox Searchlight agreed to distribute the film. 

"Slumdog" has gone on to make over $189 million worldwide, get nominated for 11 Oscars, and take home 8 of them. Not bad for an "unprofitable" film. 

There are countless other examples that illustrate the shortcomings of the modern studio system. Big corporations with big egos vying for an even bigger payoff that leaves masterpieces behind in favor of throwaway eye candy. Eye candy that only sticks with you for the two hours you spend watching it.

The costs associated with making a movie are getting ridiculous. One "A" list star can command $20 million just to make the picture, two big stars and a famous director have your film breaking $50 million before a single frame is shot. 

Some of the most expensive films ever made are just mindless, action-packed affairs that are instantly forgettable once you've left the theater. Spider-Man 3, the third Pirates of the Caribbean, Superman Returns – you probably saw them all, but none are probably your favorite. 

What the major studios don't realize is that in reality, the size of the budget has nothing to do with the overall profit of a movie. According to the statistical organization, The Numbers, the most profitable return goes to "The Blair Witch Project" with a 354,614.29 percent return. Other films on the profitable list are "Super Size Me," "Night of the Living Dead" and a personal favorite: "The Evil Dead." 

Notice anything missing? Almost none of the top 20 most profitable films were big budget blockbusters; the only exception being E.T. 

But honestly, who doesn't love that adorable alien? 

As a society, we still choose to embrace the comfort of a giant explosion over the meticulous detail devoted towards developing a character. Recent films that were critically lauded like "Man on Wire" or "Let the Right One In" disappeared without most knowing of their existence. 

It's not entirely our fault though. This studio system rewards escapists films and suppresses a lot of the good stuff. The failure of the Oscars to attract viewers isn't a failure on the part of the films being nominated. It's a failure for the entire system.  
Critics of the Academy Awards like Richard Corliss of Time or L. Kent Wolgamott of the Journal Star have pitched the idea of nominating more popular films to boost ratings.

But that kind of solution sacrifices quality for quantity. The Academy makes a lot of good decisions regarding their awards; let's not turn it into the Grammys. 

The ideal solution is for these big studios to put more attention on films like "Slumdog Millionaire" or "The Wrestler," along with big budget enterprises like "The Dark Knight." If they can get the average movie patron to be excited about these brilliant, under-the-radar efforts – then a whole new paradigm shift in how mass audiences look at movies will be underway. 

Or we can just head back to see "Paul Blart" again. 

Kyle Citta is a junior anti-Michael Bay activism major. Reach him at kylecitta@dailynebraskan.com