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 :)

The Day the Movies died

It is just easier to chose people you know than it is to check references. Likewise it is often better to choose help that may be less skilled, but you know are reliable. Reliability and loyalty increase with familiarity and kinship, so therefore it is often beneficial to practice cronyism and nepotism.

Make a good work ethic your primary goal and make sure the people you work with know about it. Make friends. Work with them. Treat them well. Word will get around. Problem solved... Easy, right?
 
M Most said:
Complaining about nepotism "ruling" the film industry is stating the obvious, but not just about the film business, it's stating the obvious about society in general.
Click to expand...

Again... I wasn't complaining. Complaining would be if I started a new thread about it. I was just stating the obvious because I felt people were missing an obvious reason why the industry keeps making stupid decisions (topic of the thread). Most executives and decision makers didn't get to their positions by creative thinking and they A: Shouldn't be there, or B: Don't know what they're doing.

IIRC, The title of this thread wasn't "Let's talk about how we should just accept the current state of the Movie business because it's the ADULT thing to do". It was a discussion about WHY it got to this point. I just chimed in with my observation that nepotism keeps the most of creative types out of the decision making process and favors the business-networking people... and in an industry that is BASED on creative endeavors, this contradiction is responsible for the failure.

I also never said anything about directing, cinematography, ect... It was just aimed at the executives and producers. Since they're making the calls, and in the end, responsible for it all.

M Most said:
The previous poster was right: this is the adult world we live in.
Click to expand...

I never said I didn't realize this. I just said it was stupid. Because for such an "adult" world we live in... nepotism is very childish and instinctual behavior.

M Most said:
And how exactly is that different from any other business, in any other industry, in any country in the world?
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of medicine, engineering, or America?

Well, maybe not America these days...

But would you really want a less-skilled surgeon operation on you just because he's friends with the owner of the hospital? No matter "how great of a guy" you are or how "reliable" you are, you cannot succeed in medicine or engineering just by knowing people. I don't see why Hollywood should be any different. Except for the fact that art and entertainment are subjective, so there's really know real way to "prove" your skills or ideas in concrete evidence.
 
Rob Castiglione said:
Hi Falk. I also think that parallel to all the craven failure of hollywood to there is an incredibly vibrant independent film sector emerging. No need to be depressed about the future of film! I recently saw Another Year by Mike Leigh and was blown away. It is still possible to make and screen innovative films.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. There will always be a place for HW or equivalent, but I really think some of film's best writing, directing, acting, cinematography, etc., are coming from the indie sector, and at all levels of production, from the 5 million to the zero budgets.

a
 
Stephen Matthews said:
I would also say that the indie sector has some of the most contrived work as well (in my opinion), though I guess that is to be expected.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. With cameras so readily available, pretty much anyone can be a filmmaker. Without some foundation in storytelling, or at least a broad understanding of which films and novels have been successful, and why, I think falling back on the story of least resistance will forever be the safe zone. Terribly contrived and unoriginal start to finish. This is a big malady in short film.

Who doesn't love the sixteen-year-old-actor-posing-as-a-forty-year-old bank executive making out with the sixteen-year-old-actress-posing-as-a-twenty-something home-wrecker set on having his baby in the back of a limo?

Youtube. Changing the way the world gets film.
 
alexwhitmer said:
Who doesn't love the sixteen-year-old-actor-posing-as-a-forty-year-old bank executive making out with the sixteen-year-old-actress-posing-as-a-twenty-something home-wrecker set on having his baby in the back of a limo?

Youtube. Changing the way the world gets film.
Click to expand...

My personal favorites are... "So-and-so wakes up with no memory at the scene of a murder and needs to figure out what happened." or "I'm in my twenties and I can't figure out what to do with my life, so I'll make a poor attempt at a Kevin Smith film."
 
alexwhitmer said:
Absolutely agree. With cameras so readily available, pretty much anyone can be a filmmaker.

Youtube. Changing the way the world gets film.
Click to expand...

And yipeekayay for that.

You aren't suggesting that is a bad thing are you? We all need to practice our craft and readily available digital cameras offer tools to do just that, and shorts are the format to do it in.

The short script may suck, production value may be lacking and the performances may suck, but on any of those sets people have the opportunity to learn at a pace more rapid than was ever possible before. Cinema in general can only benefit from this down the road, so I can't see it as a bad thing.
 
Most shorts sucks balls. This is to be expected though, as it is often the first road to be walked by any beginner and it isn't easy! Would be nice with some more original short screenplays thou... (even wacky ones about robot chickens taking over the world are better than generic-indie-shallow-popular-fad-which-makes-attempt-at-being-deep).
 
Cause zombies are the balls and expectations are already low. It's a hedged bet and it's fun.
 
Steve Das said:
Meanwhile Coppola..DePalma..and Polanski can't get studio jobs.
Click to expand...

The first one could but he is having fun with his indie side projects and running his winery.

The second one is over the hill. When was the last time he did anything noteworthy? His last couple of films have been crap.

The third one is still making films (The Ghost Writer), but he should not be allowed to.

Not trolling just saying that some careers have to come to an end eventually. All three of these guys are not the directors they once were.
 
Bryce O said:
Have you ever heard of medicine, engineering, or America?

Well, maybe not America these days...

But would you really want a less-skilled surgeon operation on you just because he's friends with the owner of the hospital? No matter "how great of a guy" you are or how "reliable" you are, you cannot succeed in medicine or engineering just by knowing people.
Click to expand...

It is a general understanding that a large number (most??) jobs in engineering and computer science in US are gotten because one knows somebody. That does not mean poor candidates or inherently any malicious nepotism, just that there are many qualified applicants for a few posts, sometimes one is not even aware of an available job or even the existence of a small company looking for people, and several other reasons.

Sincerely,

Joofa
 
I think there is an old saying - it was passed down to me anyway - that if one wants to go into big business, they had better learn to play golf. In other words - you won't get anywhere without being able to meet people socially, and then, of course, discuss business over a couple of rounds of golf.

I don't think the idea of nepotism is in anyway unique to the film/production industry. It's the same way pretty much everywhere - even in the military. Who you know matters, especially when the people you know matter.

This does, unfortunately, mean that people with good connections or the mean$ to achieve those connections can get further than those with fewer connections but gobs of skill. Such is life.
 
Michael Olsen said:
This does, unfortunately, mean that people with good connections or the mean$ to achieve those connections can get further than those with fewer connections but gobs of skill. Such is life.
Click to expand...

Exactly... and usually, those people are not the creative or intellectual type that should be making decisions on what's getting produced each year. They're the extroverted social type. They simply networked their way to the top of the movie game without any deeper knowledge or insight. That was the whole point I was trying to make, then everyone got defensive for some reason... maybe allot of people here have jobs their uncle or father gave them? :dita:
 
I wonder what the turn-around is for some of the positions in the decision-making arena is. What is the tolerance for fail rates? One scew-up and you're gone? Two? Depends on the cost of the screw-up?

Thinking from my own CYA point of view, I would be pretty dang careful who I recommended for a position. Their performance will reflect on me.

It's a dangerous game, really. You don't want to bring in someone who is better than you (job security first, what's good for the company second :rolleyes5:), nor someone who makes you look like a complete dufas because of their ineptitude.
 
I think that's an important point, Alex.

If you've pretty much got to make a movie that works, and you have your finger hovering over the "Go button", which do you press it for?

A sequel to a popular, proven, and financially successful IP?

Or a new very interesting, potentially popular, but untested, and financially unsure IP?

I imagine those with less job security or those who just want to make a buck would hit it for the first. They need a movie that works.

Those who can afford to make a mistake and who care about the art/story of films would hit it for the second.
 
Bryce O said:
Exactly... and usually, those people are not the creative or intellectual type that should be making decisions on what's getting produced each year. They're the extroverted social type. They simply networked their way to the top of the movie game without any deeper knowledge or insight. That was the whole point I was trying to make, then everyone got defensive for some reason... maybe allot of people here have jobs their uncle or father gave them? :dita:
Click to expand...

I call it the suck it up, and kick it down mentality. :D

I reasontly did a test (and yes I make my living of this) on this forum with a way over the top topic.
For some reason the members with senior behind there name had the most disrecpectful replays..the rest where just off topic, or didn't dare to disagree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top