Fun Stuff > ENJOY

Exciting Sequel News

<< < (4/21) > >>

rynne:
Considering what a mess Richard Kelly made of DD: Director’s Cut, I don’t know if him not being involved in the sequel makes me feel better or worse about it.  Either way, it’s still a bad idea.

KvP:

--- Quote from: Inlander on 02 Jun 2008, 06:30 ---The thing that makes me uncomfortable about the "film industry is just a business" argument is the phenomenal amounts of money being spent, in combination with what seems to be an increasingly low strike-rate in terms of commercial returns. So basically, there's this massive industry which spends a large amount of its time spending what I feel, frankly, are obscene amounts of money, making products that by and large few people actually seem to want. I mean, I'll be genuinely surprised if this movie we're talking about here makes its money back - but I'll also be gobsmacked if that failure makes the industry thing twice about making another pile of dogshit. I know it's a bit like comparing apples and oranges, but it makes me feel almost angry that millions and millions and millions of dollars are squandered in such a way, when with even a fraction of that amount so many of the world's problems could be significantly eased. It makes me think that just maybe society's priorities are a little bit fucked up!

--- End quote ---
Actually, I think that's one of the reasons why Alan Moore is so opposed to having his properties developed into films. And he's right, really. $20 million is cheap by studio standards. Think about that.

Boro_Bandito:
You bring up a really good point Inlander, the majority of Hollywood movies do not make any returns. in the modern model of Hollywood, Large studios rely mainly on a few big blockbuster movies every year to make back all of the money they lose on smaller and less lucrative projects. In a way, the movie industry is spending a huge amount of money just to sort of feed itself internally, giving out money to people who make a living on the big guys' payroll in the hopes that they might be able to produce a blockbuster if they get any good working on smaller movies, or even the sweeter taste of a surprise hit that cost a lot less to make.

Of course, I'm really not aiming to be a part of that system. This is why I'm sort of rejecting the idea that Hollywood or New York is the place to be if you want to make it big, and instead when I graduate I'm going to head back down to Texas to see if I can get a job doing something in Austin.

And I also feel like its necessary to point out that I didn't say that the film industry is "just a business". I said its a hybrid of business and art, art cannot reliably sustain itself without business and catering to mass audiences, and the industry gets stale without a constant influx of art.

IronOxide:
Meanwhile, it seems that Hollywood has good success with films that don't match the 'blockbuster' ideal. If I'm not mistaken, one of the highest grossing films in recent history was Juno, a movie that cost about the amount of Jason Bateman and a fat suit (6.5 Million). The strange thing is that the box office has generally spoken on the issue that good movies (barring some kind of issue with release timing) perform well and bad ones do not. However, that seems irrelevant in the executive environment, flooding the market with lowest-common-denominator trash.

It's nothing to get worked up about though, I'm just going to forget about the industry by watching Norbit on HBO.

est:
See, but the thing is that Juno was a good movie.  You don't have to pay a lot of money to make a good movie, you just have to want to not pump out a stupid, pointless, shit movie for the sake of putting out something.

Restraint is a word that Hollywood needs to become acquainted with.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page