6

Do film experts, critics, industry insiders, etc recognise and discuss signature styles or elements between major Hollywood studios? Along the lines of...

  • "This is a very typical Universal film, in that..."
  • "This screenplay seems to me better suited to 20th Century Fox than Warner Bros, because..."
  • "This film was unusually [x] for a Paramount film, as it..."

...pointing to specific 'signature' details in style, pacing, tone, plot, filmography, commercial risk taking, innovation, elements prioritised, etc? Similar to how there are, for example:

I understand that individual directors (and/or producers) definitely have clear reputations and signature styles, and that most directors and producers work across studios, but in addition to this, do studios themselves earn particular reputations?


If they do exist, I'm not asking for a complete list, that'd be too broad, just a "Yes, for example... [here's an analysis of why X director favours the approach taken by Y studio]", or a "No, because... [they all follow the same trends based on the same viewing data, see this analysis]...".

Short-lived historical differences are relevant too, e.g. if a particular studio pioneered X genre or Y style, but it was then adopted by all the others. My suspicion is that trends get copied so quickly it's hard for any one studio to carve out a niche that lasts longer than a couple of years - but I'm at a loss as to how to find examples confirming or disproving this.


I'm asking because this has bugged me ever since I visited some film studios in Los Angeles and realised that I'd never once paid attention to which studio made what film. I was surprised to realise that I had no idea at all which films were made by which studios. I've tried researching this but found nothing, the only clear trends between studios I can see seem to be around who has the money.

  • 1
    "individual directors (and/or producers) definitely have clear reputations and signature styles, and that most directors and producers work across studios" Because of this, which you've already acknowledged, you're unlikely to find much insight in terms of identifying films with the studio which produced them. The traits you're referring to primarily derive from the director (and writer, cinematographer, editor, etc) and these people simply aren't as strongly associated with single studios as they were in the first half of the 20th century. – recognizer May 27 '15 at 20:04
2

Today the studios have changed. Back in the 20's directors and actors worked for the studios on a salary having no choice what movie to do. It was like a normal 9-5 job and when one movie finished they moved on to the next. - So then they had no style, but you knew when you went to the movies which studio was associated with which actors and directors; tho that didn't matter as much back then because actors and directors never really had creative power.

Today there are unions that help directors and actors be creative and find jobs because it is all about the money. A successful director or actor can pitch an idea to a studio but if they don't like it they can say pass, turn around take the idea and build upon it as they wish. Studios are all about the money, so if you have a good idea and a famous actor to back you up you got a chance. If you got a good idea don't expect much.

Now there are some directors that work with the same company's such as Quentin Tarantino. His first film was distributed by Miramax run by the Weinsteins. After they left to start there own "The Weinstein Company" he followed having the rest of his films done by them. - this is a rare occasion but it happens.

As big budget movie making declines, small - big budget movie and t.v rentals and digital streaming goes up.(Crakel, Nexflix, Hulu+, HBO) Today big studio Movie making is all about money making. The smaller company's are about substance and in some rare cases these company's focus only on a specific niche.

  • "they can say pass, turn around take the idea and build upon it as they wish" is slightly ambiguous, because too many people use bad grammar. Did you mean it as written, that the studio can take and build on the idea, or did you mean that the person pitching the idea can take and build upon it? – atk Jul 15 '15 at 10:50
  • Sorry I mean If you pitch an idea be careful what you say because without your script or treatment registered they have every right to take what you said and make there own. They can even take your work line by line. – akors Jul 16 '15 at 20:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .