Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Hollywood and the script market

For DVDs I believe nothing on top of the sale of a DVD.

It was established in some court ruling in the 80s that you have the right to rent out normal movies. I think blockbuster used to pay extra just so that they could get them a few weeks early.
 
Liam Hall said:
The line is easy to draw. If your film helps sell burgers and toys it's a commercial film. If not it's an art-house indie film.
Click to expand...

?

come on, now you're getting lazy.

"commercial" film? i don't understand this tag. i was under the impression that every film is created with the intention of at least recovering the expenses involved in it's creation. if they're charging a price for admission, it's a "commercial" film. i think it's a very unhelpful term and should be avoided.

"mainstream" is more helpful. but selling burgers and toys? again, not helpful. off the top of my head, successful multiplex films that have no obvious tie-ins with pushing burgers and toys: sex & the city, mr. & mrs. smith, the english patient, the aviator.....

i don't think we should be so flippant about how we define the terms of this discussion. as was pointed out, you're not going to have scorsese's latest film shown on a tiny screen in a coffee shop.

there's no such thing as a simple binary distinction between all films. it's far more complex and layered than this. that's why i raise this question.

every year at the melbourne international film festival i see a lot of 'indie' films that are absolutely unmitigated pieces of shit. so unbelievably awful, and i'm glad they don't get theatrical distribution. there's a big difference between these films and most of the stuff i see at the dedicated 'arthouse' cinemas.
 
D'Arcy Foley-Dawson said:
?

come on, now you're getting lazy.
Click to expand...
Eh?? I'd say 'commercial' is exactly the right word. It clearly defines the type of cynical film that now dominates Hollywood. There are commercial films and there's every other type of film.

If you don't believe me, pop down your local Burger King and order your Transformers mini-burger. Too many films are commissioned on the basis of a deal with corporations that have nothing to do with movie-making; get Hasbro or McDonalds on board and you'll soon have Jerry Bruckheimer and his cohorts hunting you down!

Call me an old fashioned Corinthian, but I still believe there is a place in Hollywood for movies to be commissioned on the basis of a script and the collective ability of the people proposing they make the picture, whatever the genre. But then, I also believe athletes shouldn't take drugs, politicians should represent the people and England will win the Ashes, so what do I know:)

I do know that Hollywood made this problem when they decided to try and control the market by opening a movie on as many screens as possible and that this carpet bombing approach has increased the cost of distribution to such an extent that marketing the movie is the single most important part of the whole enterprise and actually making the damn film is entirely secondary.

Many have tried to change the business model (David Puttnamn tried and got booted out of town) but as Clint has pointed out it will ultimately be technology that changes the way movies are commissioned, made and distributed.

I think Hollywood needs to wake up. Their road map for the digital age wont work. You only need to look at the meltdown in the music business to understand that. They think they can beat the pirates and protect their market share by beaming films into cinemas by satellite, where they are unscrambled and digitally projected. But if the films are the type of mindless shit they are currently producing no one will want to watch them. Also, with cameras like RED the cost of making a film is somewhat reduced, so the opportunity for Indies should be better. But who will decide which of the 2500 or so Indie films is any good and worthy of showing in coffee shop or village halls is another thing?

Hope that was less lazy:)
 
Liam Hall said:
They think they can beat the pirates and protect their market share by beaming films into cinemas by satellite, where they are unscrambled and digitally projected. But if the films are the type of mindless shit they are currently producing no one will want to watch them.
Click to expand...

Well, based on this year's box office, a hell of a lot of people want to watch them.
 
lmao, this is all nonsense. only .01% of human beings are going to be able to pull that rabbit out of the hat and make themselves successful directors, like Aronofsky or Nolan.

if you don't think you have what it takes, get out now. you need to have supreme confidence in what you are doing.
 
Tom said:
lmao, this is all nonsense. only .01% of human beings are going to be able to pull that rabbit out of the hat and make themselves successful directors, like Aronofsky or Nolan.

if you don't think you have what it takes, get out now. you need to have supreme confidence in what you are doing.
Click to expand...

I would agree with you that the need for confidence in what your doing is keep. But I bet you if you ask some of these directors if they had doubts early on in their careers they will say yes.

I believe the act of doubt is a good way to keep one's feet on the ground just as long as it doesn't stop you from doing what you want to do. Everyone needs a moment of reflection and doubt does that sometimes. There are just a lot of unrealistic people out there trying to get into the business.
 
Drew I agree with you. That was an awesome post.
 
Liam Hall said:
Eh?? I'd say 'commercial' is exactly the right word. It clearly defines the type of cynical film that now dominates Hollywood. There are commercial films and there's every other type of film.

If you don't believe me, pop down your local Burger King and order your Transformers mini-burger. Too many films are commissioned on the basis of a deal with corporations that have nothing to do with movie-making; get Hasbro or McDonalds on board and you'll soon have Jerry Bruckheimer and his cohorts hunting you down!

Call me an old fashioned Corinthian, but I still believe there is a place in Hollywood for movies to be commissioned on the basis of a script and the collective ability of the people proposing they make the picture, whatever the genre. But then, I also believe athletes shouldn't take drugs, politicians should represent the people and England will win the Ashes, so what do I know:)

I do know that Hollywood made this problem when they decided to try and control the market by opening a movie on as many screens as possible and that this carpet bombing approach has increased the cost of distribution to such an extent that marketing the movie is the single most important part of the whole enterprise and actually making the damn film is entirely secondary.

Many have tried to change the business model (David Puttnamn tried and got booted out of town) but as Clint has pointed out it will ultimately be technology that changes the way movies are commissioned, made and distributed.

I think Hollywood needs to wake up. Their road map for the digital age wont work. You only need to look at the meltdown in the music business to understand that. They think they can beat the pirates and protect their market share by beaming films into cinemas by satellite, where they are unscrambled and digitally projected. But if the films are the type of mindless shit they are currently producing no one will want to watch them. Also, with cameras like RED the cost of making a film is somewhat reduced, so the opportunity for Indies should be better. But who will decide which of the 2500 or so Indie films is any good and worthy of showing in coffee shop or village halls is another thing?

Hope that was less lazy:)
Click to expand...

You complain about everything and offer nothing, figures. How about some solutions Liam?!
What do you want exactly, more coffee shop theaters showing art house films? Is it a bad thing that I would want to advertise a film I make and get it on as many screens as possible?

If there is anything wrong with Hollywood its that they are spending too much time fighting the wrong battles.
 
Tom said:
lmao, this is all nonsense. only .01% of human beings are going to be able to pull that rabbit out of the hat and make themselves successful directors, like Aronofsky or Nolan.

if you don't think you have what it takes, get out now. you need to have supreme confidence in what you are doing.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of people that mistake arrogance for confidence and talent.
 
Liam Hall said:
Eh?? I'd say 'commercial' is exactly the right word. It clearly defines the type of cynical film that now dominates Hollywood. There are commercial films and there's every other type of film.

If you don't believe me, pop down your local Burger King and order your Transformers mini-burger. Too many films are commissioned on the basis of a deal with corporations that have nothing to do with movie-making; get Hasbro or McDonalds on board and you'll soon have Jerry Bruckheimer and his cohorts hunting you down!

Call me an old fashioned Corinthian, but I still believe there is a place in Hollywood for movies to be commissioned on the basis of a script and the collective ability of the people proposing they make the picture, whatever the genre. But then, I also believe athletes shouldn't take drugs, politicians should represent the people and England will win the Ashes, so what do I know:)

I do know that Hollywood made this problem when they decided to try and control the market by opening a movie on as many screens as possible and that this carpet bombing approach has increased the cost of distribution to such an extent that marketing the movie is the single most important part of the whole enterprise and actually making the damn film is entirely secondary.

Many have tried to change the business model (David Puttnamn tried and got booted out of town) but as Clint has pointed out it will ultimately be technology that changes the way movies are commissioned, made and distributed.

I think Hollywood needs to wake up. Their road map for the digital age wont work. You only need to look at the meltdown in the music business to understand that. They think they can beat the pirates and protect their market share by beaming films into cinemas by satellite, where they are unscrambled and digitally projected. But if the films are the type of mindless shit they are currently producing no one will want to watch them. Also, with cameras like RED the cost of making a film is somewhat reduced, so the opportunity for Indies should be better. But who will decide which of the 2500 or so Indie films is any good and worthy of showing in coffee shop or village halls is another thing?

Hope that was less lazy:)
Click to expand...

dude i totally agree with you, at least about the cynical commercialism of hollywood, but i don't agree with the use of the term 'commerical'.

as i already stated, i can't see how one film should be more deserving of the tag commercial than another, since they are all products competing in a marketplace for money, regardless of their content or artistic aspirations.

i also don't see this as a particularly bad thing. corporations cynically churning out shit to turn a quick buck, of course, i don't like it. but i don't have a problem with anyone trying to make money with their film. it's that simple. therefore, i find the term 'commercial' unhelpful because it creates a false binary. is that fair enough?
 
Saying that a good movie couldn't spring from the inspiration of X-product is like saying that without film or a red one you can't make beautiful pictures. Or that you will make beautiful pictures if you have a Red or shoot on film.

I could think of three or four basic story concepts that would be loosely based on the game, or at least somehow incorporate the game into the main thread of the story. I am just trying to say that movies that suck do so for many more reasons than just from grabbing a specific and inserting it into the concept. If anything, the blame would most likely fall on whomever fast-tracks it never bothering to look at the script as a necessary piece of the art puzzle.

I could see a magnificent movie coming from this game. I won't put my money on it, but it could indeed happen.
 
Roberto Lequeux said:
I could see a magnificent movie coming from this game. I won't put my money on it, but it could indeed happen.
Click to expand...

however unlikely i think that is, what you say is not incorrect.

but - i don't think that is the point here. i think the real point of the original post - and the original poster may correct me if i'm wrong - is simply that just choosing some old video game with absolutely no plot element whatsoever, is merely yet another illustration, and quite an amusing one, of just how gutless, cynical and conservative hollywood is in choosing its projects.

the issue here is the point at which they decide to greenlight a project, and the poverty of the concept itself. it has nothing to do with what happens after this point.

the clowns who run hollywood have demonstrated time and time again that they are incapable of original thinking or risk taking (which you could argue are important elements in the creation of something with a degree of artistic or creative merit).

the asteroids movie, i have no doubt, will be another bland, mindless piece of cgi garbage marketed in exactly the same way, with the same hype and buzz and moronic trailers as transformers, 2012, g.i. joe, terminator 4 etc. etc. etc.





i mean, sure, maybe they'll get chris nolan on board and maybe he will pull something incredible out of his arse. after all, batman is hardly a great movie on paper. some dude who runs around being a vigilante in a big rubber bat costume? but cinema is about suspension of disbelief, and sometimes the most ridiculous premises underpinning the entire thing can be masterfully suspended.


but in the case of asteroids, i doubt it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top