Saturday, 5 April 2014

Hollywood Babble On & On #1135: Goodbye Letterman.

You probably heard that David Letterman is retiring in 2015 after achieving his ambition to outlast Jay Leno.

A lot of people are wailing, gnashing their teeth, and rending their garments declaring how much they will miss Letterman, and to them I have a question:  

When was the last time you watched David Letterman's show with any regularity?

Come on, this is a place of honesty, and sarcasm, you can tell me.

I'll wait.

















Pic from my own short-lived 70s late night show.





















There, don't you feel better letting it all out like that?

I won't be missing Letterman as he is now, because I wasted all my late night talk show host attachment missing the Letterman I knew growing up.

As a kid I loved summer vacation because I got to stay up late, and if I showed some real gumption stay up all the way to 1:30 AM local time to watch David Letterman when he came on after The Tonight Show.

I loved Letterman's work in the 80s, he was inventive, he was unconventional, he wasn't above messing with the audience and the owners of the network. 

Then came the battle with Jay Leno to succeed Johnny Carson. It was bloody, it was brutal, and in the end Leno had The Tonight Show, and Letterman moved to CBS and the seemingly perpetual position as the critic's darling.

You see a lot of people in media resented Leno for how he got Carson's coveted desk, and figured they would make Leno pay for his perceived treachery, his obedience to his network masters, and his deliberated middle-of-the-road persona.

That meant Letterman was treated as if he could do no wrong, and that marked the beginning of the end, at least for me. His tics, absurdist pretensions, and mannerisms got more and more pronounced, but without the playful joy he exhibited during his days at NBC. It reached its nadir when he disastrously hosted the Oscars, and, for what I think was the first time in his late night career, he got bad reviews.

Anyway, after that I began to notice a change in Letterman and his show, but first a little digression.

The secret of Johnny Carson's success was that he always seemed interested in his guests. His successors were a different story. Jay Leno only seemed interested in depositing his pay check and getting another steam powered antique car.

After the Oscar disaster I felt that Letterman, see, I said I would get back to him, seemed only interested in 3 things:

1. Outlasting Jay Leno.

2. Proving that he was better than his guests.

3. Proving that he was better than his audience.

Eventually I lost interest in David Letterman, he had gone from being the comedic innovator with an all-American mid-western  aw-shucks attitude, to a smug isolated curmudgeon who played not to the audience, but to the media community that surrounded him.

So I, like millions of others, gradually tuned out, leaving Leno & Letterman to battle futilely for the captaincy of a sinking ship. Except unlike so many others, I'm willing to admit my heresy.

Friday, 4 April 2014

Hollywood Babble On & On #1134: Question Meet Answer!

Nate Winchester asked... 
D, you think this is a big reason why Hollywood always gets capitalism and businesses etc. Heck, when I read some of these I start to see why the movies have this weird trope about "greedy" businesses doing things that would actually cost more money than... almost any other possible action. What about you? You think that's where it comes from?

Definitely, and you've inspired me to go off on a long rant about Hollywood's bad relationship with economics.

So, away we go!

Stupidity, especially about economic issues, is one of my personal bugbears.  Resident Evil, Aliens, Elysium, Repo Men, and literally dozens, if not hundreds of other films, all feature that all purpose villain Evil Incorporated doing things that aren't remotely profitable, but they sure as hell are evil.

Why do Hollywood movies insist on doing this?

Well, there are several reasons:

1. IGNORANCE: The trope of the evil rich person goes so far back it predates capitalism. It's roots lie in the pre-capitalist feudal societies where wealth wasn't created, it was distributed, and usually it was distributed at sword point, and usually by order of whoever had the most swords at their command. This has created an idea that exists in people's heads that if someone has something than that someone must have taken it from someone else.

What people don't seem to know is that wealth is no longer taken, it is created. Someone figures out a way to deliver a good or a service to customers in a way that balances quality and price for maximum profitability.

John D. Rockefeller eventually dominated the oil industry by figuring out how to extract, refine, distribute, and market oil to customers cheaper and with a better quality than his competition. He made it possible for people to read at night, and even helped save the whales because nobody needed massive quantities whale oil anymore. (Ladies still needed whale bone corsets until the 1920s)

Carnegie figured out how to reduce the cost of steel by 90%. That made trans-continental railways and high rise buildings possible, thus reducing the costs of shipping and housing.

They didn't go to people's houses wave a sword and say: "Gimme all you got in the name of the king!" They found a way to give people things they could use at a competitive, yet profitable price.

Same thing with Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and thousands of other entrepreneurs and the companies they've founded.

Even contractors who make weapons for the various militaries of the world don't really make their money off the weapons. When it comes to military contracts the company aims to make a small profit from getting the military to pay for the expensive research and development process.

Once that's done they immediately set out looking for civilian uses and markets for variations of their discoveries. The game console that you use to blast aliens probably started life as the hardware running a guided missile. The stuff that helped save your life in the emergency room, probably started out as a military contract, and so on and so forth.

Then there's the whole concept of hogging some sort of technology and keeping it only for the 1%.

Well, that's a great way to go bankrupt.

Take for example two companies: Rolls Royce and Ford.

Rolls Royce made customizable high-end hand-made cars for the super-rich.

Ford made cars for as many people as possible.

Rolls Royce has skirted bankruptcy for most of its history, even during the best of times, and was even nationalized by the British government because of its shaky finances. Ford on the other hand grew immensely huge, with branches worldwide, has managed to weather almost every storm, and was the only car company in the USA to refuse a government bailout.

Do you see what this long-winded rant is getting at?

If everyone in Hollywood truly understood economics, they wouldn't be using half of the premises they use.

2. LAZINESS: To understand economics requires effort, not only to learn, but also to explain to those in Hollywood who still don't understand. That's a hell of a lot of work, especially the explaining part.

It's just easier to stick with the tried and true tropes of "Everything's wrong because of corporations" because it doesn't need to be explained to anyone who works in...

3. HOLLYWOOD: It's believed that Garson Kanin once said "The trouble with Hollywood as an art is that it's a business, and the trouble with Hollywood as a business is that it's an art."

I would like to add to that wisdom that it's a business that's not so much run as a business, but as a feudal kingdom.

In Hollywood too many people end up in positions of power and authority based more on their social connections than their ability. Once in a position of power they then act as if everything is a zero-sum-game and that if any money is to be made it should be made only by them because they're in their position by a form of divine right. Their lack of competence, and occasional abundance of corruption is usually covered by the fact that the companies they run are just small cogs in much larger machines, and their product, movies and TV shows, are a much desired product worldwide.

Spend enough time in such an environment, and you might end up honestly believing that every business operates like that.

_____________

Now I've recently seen some states that puts the whole "corporate villain" trope down is that the "faceless mega-corporation" is on the way out. During the 20th century most corporations employed a large percentage of the population, and had an average lifespan between creation and dissolution or takeover of about 75 years. Nowadays only a small percentage of the population work for so-called mega-corporations and the average corporate life-span is down to 15 years.

What we are seeing is the rise of the individual politically connected mega-investor who runs various investment groups and hedge funds instead of a corporation, and profits by buying and selling corporations, either as a whole, or in pieces.

Wednesday, 2 April 2014

Hollywood Babble On & On #1133: Conjuring Up A Lawsuit


Here's a little tale of terror that's guaranteed to curl your hair, or, if your hair is already curly, straighten it.


Once upon a time, a horror film called The Conjuring was made for about $20 million, and about another $20 million was spent on prints and advertising.

The Conjuring got good notices and excellent word of mouth and raked in $138 million domestically, and another $180 million at the international box office.

Now this should be where I say: "And they all made sequels happily ever after" but I can't.

Because according to the producers all the profits DISAPPEARED!

The film's producer's Evergreen Media claim in their lawsuit that not only has their contracted profit participation not been paid, they're also fighting over who has control over the rights to any and all sequels and that the dispute scotched a proposed Conjuring TV series deal with Lionsgate.

Now I don't know the details of the contracts, or the personal relationships between the major players in this case, but all I can say is:

WHY?

Why does every business  partnership involving a major studio seem to end in litigation?

Why do major studios look at potentially lucrative franchises and the first thing they think of is how can they ruin relationships with the people who made that franchise possible?

Why do I always have to assume that it's always the studio's fault?

Why can't Hollywood studios accept the first rule of real capitalism?

You don't know what that rule is?

Oh, well I'll drop some explaining on your lap.

The first rule of capitalism is that in any business relationship all sides get what they want.

Here's an example: you want to buy a cup of coffee at your local chain store. You want the coffee more than you want the money in your pocket, and the clerk wants your money more than they want that triple chocolate latte double-double vente fortissimo congealing on their counter.

You get your coffee, they get your money.

You both got what you wanted.

Why can't Hollywood grasp that?

They could probably milk about 3 to 4 more Conjuring movies with comparable budgets and similar box office if they manage to maintain a similar level of quality before they hit the inevitable law of diminishing returns.

Why not just do those movie and television projects with a minimum of fuss and muss and litigation, relax, and let them make everyone some money?

It's not rocket science, it's just plain old common sense.

Monday, 31 March 2014

Hollywood Babble On & On #1132: Random Forebodings?

CAN NOAH SAIL?


The box office for Darren Aronofsky's non-Bilblical Biblical epic Noah has been very good for the opening weekend raking in about $44 million domestic and $50 million internationally. Now Hollywood is thinking that it's a victory for the film which sparked some controversy by, according to some reports, removing most of the involvement of God and religion from the Biblical tale, replacing them with CGI monsters, which strikes me as akin to making a Batman movie where all you see is Alfred doing chores.


But that's an argument for Biblical scholars and Hollywood folks to have, what I'm here to talk about is whether or not the movie has legs. Or in the case of Noah: sails.

You see "legs" is old school theatrical talk for a show's ability to pull an audience over time. One way is to gauge word of mouth, like a film's Cinemascore rating, which in the case of Noah is an unhealthy "C."

That means that while audiences are flocking to the opening weekend, they are leaving the theatre unsatisfied at best, and will most likely not recommend the film to other potential ticket buyers.

That doesn't bode well for Noah, which cost about $125 million to make, and at least 2/3s of that amount to promote and release. Add that to the fact that on-average the distributor gets about 50¢ of every domestic dollar, and anywhere between 25-40¢ of each international ticket dollar, depending on the territory, and you have a potential problem.

Noah is going to need to maintain that opening weekend momentum if it's going to turn a profit. The reports of audience dissatisfaction don't bode well for that, and for its future home-video revenues.

SPEAKING OF THERE BEING NO GOD

The Shituation Situation from Jersey Shore is getting another reality show.

That crew are like herpes, you never truly get rid of them as long as TV execs have zero imagination and they have unlimited greed.

THIS DOES NOT BODE WELL EITHER

Colin Farrell is signed up to do the movie The Lobster, about a dystopian future society where if you don't find your true love by a specified time you're turned into an animal. Most likely a lobster.

Why?

It's a dystopia, we don't need reasons!

Is it just me, or does the combo of Colin Farrell, and a romantic-adventure story with a surrealistic premise seems like a rerun of the fiasco surrounding A Winter's Tale?

Friday, 28 March 2014

Hollywood Babble On & On #1131: Got Money? Make Movies?

Just about anyone with an internet connection knows that folks like crowd funding movies, and we all more or less have a sense of how that works.

A filmmaker puts out a call for money, and in exchange for your donations you get prizes, like DVDs of the film in question, autographs, scripts, props, and/or other related-memorabilia, all depending on how much you kick into the kitty.

You're essentially pre-buying stuff related to a movie before it gets made, but you're not expecting to own a piece of the film's profits.

However, that might change.

Junction Investments is a new website set up to connect accredited investors with a way to purchase a piece of independently financed films from major independent financiers.

Now if you don't know what an accredited investor is, well they sort of look like this…
Get my point?

You gotta be rich to play this game.

Anyway, let's take a moment to look at THE PROS AND CONS!

PROS:

1. SPREADING OF RISK: The more people paying into a project, the less risk each individual investor has to face. Pretty simple really.

2. WIDENING OF INVESTOR POOL: The movie business needs more people willing to invest in movies, and, by succeeding at turning a profit, hopefully improve the image of the financial side of the movie business. Which will attract more investors… etc… etc...

CONS:

1. STUDIO BOOKKEEPING: The article says that some packages will be offering shares of the net profits.

Wanna see a picture of some Hollywood net profits?

Well sorry, but net profits haven't been seen in Hollywood since Disney released Splash about 30 years ago, so all I can show is something you're more likely to see.

Now I'm bringing this up because a lot of these projects will be either already set to be distributed by a major studio, or could potentially be released by a major studio. That means they will be subject to the bookkeeping of a major movie company. If studio bookkeeping were on a medieval map, it would be labelled under "Here be where madness doth lye."

Studios are black holes for net profits, and that is a bad pairing with this inevitability of movies...

2. SIMPLE RISK: Every movie is a crap shoot. You could have the biggest stars, the best director, and the greatest screenplay ever written on the most widely appealing subject matter and you could still drop a turkey.

It's just how things happen in the movie biz. Bombs happen, and there's no way to stop them from happening or predict which films will bomb and which will be blockbusters. If there was, filmmakers would only make hits, but there isn't, and that's that.

However, if you couple this simple inevitable risk with studio bookkeeping and you're going to attract...

3. LITIGATION: The bane of independent film. So many companies and investment schemes have been destroyed by rampant litigation. This litigation can be inspired by real outrage over shoddy or shady bookkeeping, or it can spring forth from a possibly innocent misunderstanding over the true nature and risks of their investment.

Usually these cases end up as a "guilty until proven innocent" situation if not always in court, then at least in the eyes of investors.

I wish the people behind Junction Investments luck, and I hope they have the ways and means to avoid the cons that I've discussed here.

Tuesday, 25 March 2014

Cinemaniacal: Don't You Forget About Me...


Yesterday, March 24 2014, was the 30th anniversary of the setting of the teen classic The Breakfast Club. In case you lived in a cave during the 1980s The Breakfast Club was about five very different kids, a jock, a criminal, a 'princess,' a nerd, and a social outcast who are stuck with each other in detention all day on Saturday, March 24, 1984 for various offences.


Over the course of the day they get to know each other beyond the social facades that  had defined them and their high school lives. 

That movie was funny, sincere, and moving and it made John Hughes an important filmmaker for a generation of movie goers, and deserving of some appreciation.

John Hughes was a midwestern boy who started out selling jokes to stand up comedians, the most famous probably being Rodney Dangerfield, which led to work in advertising, and eventually with National Lampoon magazine. That led to working in films, achieving success with National Lampoon's Vacation, directed by Harold Ramis, and starring Chevy Chase.

That film's success, and the prodding of Ramis, allowed Hughes to start directing his own films. Since they were inexpensive, small scale comedies, they didn't attract much meddling from the studios. Which seemed to be just perfect for him, because he was going to produce a filmmaking revolution.

Before John Hughes "teen" films had been divided into three camps: 

1. Nostalgic reminiscences of bygone eras with lots of period music and filters over the lenses. 

2. Overly sincere and downright preachy cautionary tales about the dangers of this and that behaviour.

3. Loud obnoxious comedies where 25-30 year old actors pretended to be teenagers in plots that were just vehicles to get the female cast members to take their tops off.

Hughes directorial debut Sixteen Candles broke the mould by being none of those three. It wasn't nostalgic, no one was in danger of anything worse than a bad case of embarrassment, and no one took off their top. The lead actress Molly Ringwald was actually the age she was playing, and she looked it.

The film became a sleeper hit in theatres, and had a whole second life on home video, and paved the way for The Breakfast Club, and Hughes pretty much became a genre onto himself.

That genre was films aimed at teenagers that didn't look down on teenagers as slavering morons who will take whatever crap is given to them as long as it was "trendy." Hughes' teenage characters were portrayed not as vehicles for gags, or targets for ogling, they were portrayed as people. Human beings with all the ups and downs of life amplified by the simple fact that teenagers are great at turning such trivia into melodrama. For the most part they weren't classical villains or heroes, sex-mad oafs, or cautionary examples heading down the road of self destruction, they were just normal kids, trying to make it to the next day.

Put a bunch of modern teens in front of a John Hughes movie, and their reaction is usually awed wonder. They see the films as speaking to them in much the same way kids of my generation saw them.

That's a pretty impressive accomplishment.

Maybe it was because Hughes based his characters not on what other filmmakers did before him, but on the people he knew growing up. Even his most fantastical creation: Ferris Bueller, had roots in reality. Ferris was based on Hughes' high school best friend who prided himself on his ability to talk and charm his way in to and out of any situation.

According to legend that friend grew up to become a big wheel attorney, representing a lot of big names including former vice president Dick Cheney.

Eventually Hughes moved onto other kinds of films, making classic comedies like Planes, Trains, & Automobiles, and writing and producing mega-hits like Home Alone.

However the death of friend and collaborator John Candy, and the increasing frustration of working in Hollywood just got too much for Hughes. He dropped out of the public eye, only occasionally writing or executive producing project from his base in the midwest.

His death in 2009 was a real shock to people of my generation, it was like a piece of our childhood had died along with it. 

Also, his particular brand of teen film seems to have died with him. Replaced by broad gross out comedies and sex farces populated by fashion models and pop stars instead of people who seem designed more for marketing than storytelling.

It's a shame.

Friday, 21 March 2014

Hollywood Babble On & On #1130: Aiming In The Wrong Direction...


THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REBOOT IT!


If there was one thing I cannot stand about the Baby Boom generation is their irrational nostalgia for everything about the 1960s. If all you know of history is what you've been told by Baby Boomers you'd think that the 1960s witnessed the invention, by them, of sex, rebellion, pacifism, and the idea of equality under the law.


As a member of the so-called Generation X I was driven almost to drink by the Baby Boomers obsession for all things that happened within their lifetime. As I witnessed a parade of movies based on 1960s TV shows I swore that I would never try to cram my childhood down the throats of those who come after me.

Sadly, I appear to be the only one of my generation to have the self-awareness to make such an oath.


A bunch of folks who should know better have announced that they're making a big-budget live action movie based on the Saturday morning toy commercial cartoon Jem & The Holograms.


Since the show hasn't aired on regular TV since the end of its 3 season run in 1988 I'll give you a quick primer.

Toy maker Hasbro contracted an advertising agency to construct an animated show around their new series of rock-star themed fashion dolls. The show that was created was about a teenage music mogul who used her late father's hologram technology to create a new identity as a pop-star to keep that technology out of the wrong hands. Personally, I'm assuming giving any technology to a pop star is putting it in the wrong hands, they're not known for their rationality.

Anyway, most episodes revolved around Jem dodging attempts by her rivals The Misfits to murder her, because the best way to go up the Billboard charts is to murder your competition.

Back to the roots of the reboot. Apparently the Jem franchise languished in a form of limbo since the late 1980s due to rights issues. However, now those issues are, as far as I know, solved, and the folks at Hasbro and Blumhouse think Gen-Xers and their kids are eager to see the return of something that really only has camp value to the culturally masochistic.

I wish someone who these people will listen to will tell them that just because some kids watched something back when all they had were 3 broadcast TV channels doesn't mean that they'll pay good money to see it now on the big screen. Especially if the see the old episodes and say: "Did I watch that piece of crap?"

IS IT JUST ME?

Or does anyone else suspect that Muppets Most Wanted will underwhelm at the box office this weekend?

I don't really like to make predictions, but I'm not getting some serious underwhelming vibes coming off the movie. I suspect it might be coming from the ad campaign pushing the film's 2 most prominent guest stars Tina Fey and Ricky Gervais.

Tina Fey has only had a little modest success at the box office, never cracking $100 million on her own star-power, and is best known for having a TV show that only Hollywood watched.

Gervais had huge success with franchising his show The Office all over the world, but his more recent TV work has seen him become more of a cult figure among critics rather than a star with the general population, and from what I've been able to gather, he can't even crack $20 million based on his appeal. (It's tricky to gather data, because he doesn't even have his own Box Office Mojo page.)

The ads pushing them over wacky Muppet antics strikes me as trying to appeal to critics over audiences. That's a mistake, because most critics don't pay to see the movies. The ticket buying great unwashed want to see the Muppets doing silly things and singing sillier songs. They don't really care if the movie's considered "edgy" by casting critical darlings.

Then again, maybe it's just me.

________________

UPDATE: It's apparently not just me, Muppets Most Wanted had an opening weekend down 43% from the last Muppet movie.

Wednesday, 19 March 2014

Hollywood Babble On & On #1129: Haunted By Ghostbusters

How is this for Hollywood logic.

Columbia Pictures wants to release Ghostbusters 3. Which is natural since the first made $290+ million way back in 1984 which is roughly the equivalent of $659 million in today's money, and that's just according to the rate of inflation. Remember that ticket prices then were a fraction of what you pay now, and if you calculated the numbers of tickets sold with today's prices it might top a billion.

The sequel made around $215 million in 1989, and you can do the math on that one. Either way, wanting another sequel seems as natural, and inevitable as the sunrise.

However, there's a catch. Three catches to be specific...

1. The one Ghostbuster the fans most want in the movie, played by Bill Murray probably won't be in it, because Bill Murray doesn't feel like doing sequels.

2. Harold Ramis, who co-wrote the first two, many believing he gave them their structure and coherence, as well as playing another Ghostbuster, is now, tragically, a ghost.

3. Ivan Reitman, who reinvented the blockbuster comedy in the 1980s with films like the first two Ghostbusters has dropped out of directing the proposed third film.

So, two out of the four original Ghostbusters are either unwilling, or unable, to do it. It's lost a key player in the writing, and the director's gone.

That doesn't seem to bother Columbia, they've given the picture, which will most likely have a hefty price tag, a green light for release in 2015.

Now common sense dictates that making a big budget sequel 25 years after the last instalment, that's missing most of the elements that made the original a success has more checks in the CONS column than in the PROS column and might be dropped or at the least put off a while.

So why is Columbia rushing to make it?

One word answer is DESPERATION.

While Sony-Columbia-Tri-Star has the Spider-Man movie franchise and won't let it go, that's about it when it comes to franchises. Attempts to start new big budget blockbuster franchises like After Earth and Elysium either tanked horribly, or at best failed to turn a profit. 


They desperately need a blockbuster franchise to continue justifying their existence and the affection people have for the Ghostbusters franchise is seen as just what they need to put them back on top again.

But is their desperation sending them down a blind alley? Will the fans accept a Ghostbusters movie that's literally a ghost of the originals they knew and love? Expectations will be next to impossible to meet and could harm it at the box office.

We'll just have to see where this takes us, but I'm feeling cynical.

Monday, 17 March 2014

Hollywood Babble On & On #1128: California Rest In Peace.

A few days ago I wrote about how California's being outshone by other states, especially Louisiana, when it comes to film and TV production, and how producers are calling for tax breaks to restore the industry in the state, and now there's a petition calling for California's state government to do something, anything, to reverse the stats seen in this infographic they provided:


I don't doubt that any of these stats are true, however, I do doubt that California's politicians and the big studios and producers can do anything to fix it since they're a big part of the problem.

To look at how everything went wrong in a state where everything is supposed to be so right, we need to go into the Way-Back machine for a little history lesson.

Legend says that bad weather was the reason Hollywood and Los Angeles became the centre of the movie universe. The legend is that the producers of the film The Squaw Man were going to shoot their film in Albuquerque while avoiding the Edison Trust that made filming in New York a pain in the ass. But bad weather made them take the train to the end of the line in Hollywood, California.

The truth is a little more complicated. Film companies had been filming in California almost as soon as they could get a camera on a train. There were very specific reasons for this:

1. NATURE: The weather is generally sunny, mild, and easily predictable. The landscape is also wildly varied from desert wastelands, to forests, to mountains, and jungles were easily faked. Since most filmmaking at that time relied on using sunlight and shooting outdoors, such weather was pretty important.

2. INFRASTRUCTURE: From the turn of the century to the 1960s California was the centre of dozens of massive infrastructure projects providing low cost water and electricity to large swathes of the state which contributed to the…

3. LOW COST OF LIVING: Those infrastructure projects made huge chunks of formerly unusable land not only usable, but cheap, because there were lots of it. That means that the big studios could build huge production facilities, and their employees could build and/or buy houses. Not only houses, but nice houses, with comparatively cheap utility rates. These homes were also adjacent to some of the most fecund agricultural lands in North America. Which meant groceries were cheap too.

This ride continued through to the 1960s with Hollywood and aerospace dominating the southernmost third of the state and Silicone Valley in the north. The Golden State seemed truly golden as people flooded into the region searching for the American dream.

Now you have to ask:
Well, like so many things it all started to go wrong in the 1970s.

The upper-middle class baby-boomers who had "dropped out" in California chasing free love, cheap dope, and sunshine began to drop into the state's cultural, economic, and political mainstream. They had embraced a simplified form of the "Small Is Beautiful" philosophy that called for cutting back on spending on things, and spending more on people.

The idea was that if they stopped building and expanding then everything will exist in a state of perfect equilibrium, and the state's seemingly never ending wealth could then pay for a variety of anti-poverty programs that would solve all of society's ills. 

Since at the time southern California was choking under a thick layer of smog caused by the region's explosive, and poorly managed growth, it seemed like a great idea.

This caused two things to happen.

Taxes went up, regulations grew exponentially not only controlling what, how, and where anything could be built, but what could be grown and how in California's fertile central valley.

The California electorate began to stratify along class lines with an alliance forming between the very top and the very bottom of the economic scale. The rich could either afford to pay the high taxes, or at least the ways of legally avoiding them, as well as manipulate the state's stringent regulatory regime through political patronage. Meanwhile the poor don't pay taxes, and didn't deal much with the regulators unless they tried to get out of poverty and tended to vote the way the rich wanted them to, because the rich's pet candidates had all the campaign money.

Meanwhile, the population of California kept growing, at least until recently, but they hadn't built any new infrastructure delivering power and water, since the 1960s when the population was much smaller. This means that the costs of basic utilities have skyrocketed far above the national average.

These factors keep the housing market artificially inflated, despite the near total collapse of the real estate market in 2008. Try to find a house that won't cost you your entire future, and you might end up living in Death Valley, and still be overpaying for it.

And to top it all off municipal and state government salaries and expenses, including their horribly managed public pension system, have skyrocketed. At least one city that I know of has declared bankruptcy, another has seen almost its entire government indicted on corruption charges, and many more cities in the state are on the brink of one, the other, or both.

This has made the state almost uninhabitable for the middle class. Small business people and the self-employed saw their profit margins whittled away, sometimes to almost nothing. They can't get any relief from the politicians, who care only about the feelings of their major individual and institutional donors, who think everything's a-okay, because they're a-okay. They aren't going to change the system beyond a few token gestures, because they run the system.

Now how does this explain runaway productions?

We all know about the top of the heap producers, directors and stars make great money, but they're only the top of the movie-making pyramid.

Below them are thousands of middle class people, many of them small-business subcontractors, who have to make a living. They can't afford to live in California anymore, and are migrating, like hundreds of thousands of middle class Californians every year, to Louisiana, Texas, the Carolinas or other states.

It's also now way more expensive to run production facilities in California as well, and thanks to new technology, filmmaking can now be done just about anywhere under almost any weather conditions. They don't need California, and since it's so expensive to work there they're moving onto greener, and possibly swampier pastures.

That's why Hollywood has stopped being the place where movies and TV are made, to being a sort of never-ending convention. It's where people go to make deals to make movies and TV, but then hit the road to other cities in other states to do that actual work.

Is there a solution to this problem?

I don't really see one.

But I'm a pessimist at heart.