Okay, this is getting ridiculous...
There's an upcoming film called THE WOLVERINE, starring Hugh Jackman. Many of you may already know about this film, and that it's a continuation of the Wolverine saga. Wolverine is of course one of the main characters from the X-MEN films and comics. But most of that is irrelevant to this blog post.
What I'm really up in arms about is what has happened with the marketing of this film in the past week. Typically studios, in anticipation for the release of one of their upcoming films, will release a teaser; a short (typically under 90 seconds) collection of scenes and moments from the film...generally about 6 months before the film is set for release. Teasers usually don't give any of the plot away...they're just to make the public aware of the film's existence and that such and such big movie actor is in it. Then, as the date grows closer, they'll release a full trailer or trailers...those are longer (typically 90 seconds to 2 1/2 minutes) and start to lay out the plot. Personally I feel like trailers give away WAY too much of the plot these days, spoiling important moments that would've been a wonderful surprise while watching the film (and given me my money's worth).
Now just the other day, the director of THE WOLVERINE, James Mangold tweeted a 6 second (yes, 6 SECOND) snippet from the trailer that is supposed to be released this Wednesday. Now I actually don't have a huge problem with this...I think it's cool that filmmakers have a more direct connection with the public through social networking sites, and can drop cool little tid bits from their films. BUT what separates this from harmless promotion is that today, the studio releasing the film, Fox, released a 20 second teaser for the actual trailer coming on Wednesday! Yes, a teaser for a trailer. Not a teaser for the film, but a teaser for the trailer that will advertise said film. Say what?!
So lets' catalog the events. 6 second tweaser for the teaser for the trailer on Monday, 20 second teaser for the trailer on Tuesday, then the full trailer on Wednesday. Now this all took place in the span of 3 days. If Mangold had tweeted his tweaser a few weeks ago, then maybe I wouldn't be scratching my head as much as I am right now.
Studios spend enormous amounts of money advertising their films, because the investment into the production of those films is so high...they have to reach a very large number of people so that they can recoup their investment and make gobs of money beyond that. This is nothing new, and it's completely fair. Personally I think studios spend so much money on films that they feel forced to dumb them down to reach the widest possible audience. Because you cannot offend anyone if you want them to not only buy a ticket to your movie, but tell their friends to do the same, and possibly buy another ticket themselves. So as a result of all this money being spent on these productions means they have to be as bland, safe and inoffensive as possible. This is a bit of a side rant, but it dovetails nicely into my greater point.
Advertisers are already scraping the very bottom of the barrel of content when it comes to promoting their product. Commercials are not only insulting, but very often racist and sexist, not to mention morally bankrupt...and sadly it seems to be the only way to reach the average consumer. People are funny creatures...they like to mimic everyone else around them in order to remain popular and acceptable to their friends and society as a whole. Advertisers know this very well, so they tailor their ads to appeal to the lowest common denominator because those are the easiest people to control and hypnotize into buying their (often horribly inefficient and/or tastefully repugnant) product. They know others will mimic those of the lowest common denominator, even when those people doing the mimicking are of sound mind and possess intelligence...popularity trumps intelligence...people do the stupidest things even though they know they shouldn't, simply because everybody else is doing it. It's this sheep like herd mentality that allows corporations to keep their iron grip on the public's consciousness.
Movie trailers very much fall into this mode of operation. The lowest common denominator makes empty spectacles like the Transformers and The Fast and the Furious films into multi billions dollar success stories. Even the Star Trek series was dead until JJ Abrams came and turned it into just another action series set in space. Star Trek's more intelligent identity was not enough for the lowest common denominator, so they mostly ignored it until it resembled something more akin to Star Wars than Star Trek. I've said this before but Star Trek 2009 was made for people who don't like Star Trek. These action films tend to be fast, furious and eschew anything in the way of logic, well rounded characters, and philosophical and moral resonance. It is the short attention spans that these films have perpetuated that have led to the ridiculous and insulting idea of a 6 second tweaser!!!
And this is where this tweasers for teasers for trailers thing starts to make sense. Big budget Hollywood spectacles are built on hype and anticipation, because Hollywood needs their film to secure the #1 box office spot on opening weekend. This is because films tend to perform worse as they go on, not better. Typically a film that is #3 during opening weekend is not going to ascend to #2 or #1 the following weekend. Blockbusters make their biggest chunk during opening weekend and drop off after that. But, if a big film is actually great, it can defy the odds and actually make more money as time goes on. Films like Avatar, Titanic, E.T., Jurassic Park, Star Wars and Back to the Future are just a few examples...those films were not only well made, but had heart, soul and didn't insult the viewer's intelligence. Since Hollywood tends to churn films out like a factory, they do not allow filmmakers the control necessary to make such solid films like the ones I just mentioned...those are generally made by filmmakers who are well respected and wield the power to keep the studio's meddling at bay.
So studios must now resort to releasing teasers for teasers because the public is becoming even more fickle...the lowest common denominator must be taken even lower...and be treated like impatient children who can't wait a few days for a trailer to come out. There has been a trend in the movie business to assault the public in every facet of their lives, and that is now manifesting in these ridiculous marketing schemes...it really is like something out of a surrealistic comedy. And I'm afraid there really is very little place for it to go...you cannot operate on these insane levels of hype forever...6 second tweasers are about the limit...a 2 or 3 second tweaser would be incomprehensible...so the next step could be an implosion of the movie business. Nothing is too big to fail.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Why Lynne Ramsay just set women directors back 20 years...
Lynne Ramsay, the female director of the critically acclaimed WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN made headlines today by failing to show up on the first day of shooting for JANE GOT A GUN, the Natalie Portman, Jude Law starring western.
Those of you unfamiliar with how films are made should know why this is a such a big deal. When a director decides to make a movie, they begin pre-production. This involves casting, hiring crew, location scouting, costume and set design, coming up a with a shooting schedule and working the script into the best shape it can be in. It is a massive undertaking even for a small movie about several people in a room talking. It is the time when a director acclimates herself to the heartbeat of the film, in order to make her decisions align with the needs of the film. It is also the time where the cast and crew begin to build a trust with the director, who is captain of the ship. The director is by far the biggest influence on a film. Actors and crew must trust her to deliver a vision that will make them all look good. Directing is a lonely and stressful job...you must have all the answers all the time, and any sign of weakness can literally destroy a film's progress...it is much like a therapist/patient relationship...if the therapist starts to crack, the patient will no longer trust them. It is also much like a war ship...the captain is the head honcho, and any chinks in his armor has drastic consequences on crew morale, and could even lead to a mutiny. So you can see why it is so important to keep the bond between director and cast/crew intact. Steven Spielberg once remarked "even if you don't know what you're doing, pretend you do!"
Once pre-production is done, production begins. This is when the film is shot. It is when all the prep work done in the months before shooting will start to pay off and the film comes to life. A director abandoning a film at this stage is completely traumatic and near fatal for the film's life. The cast and crew's faith in the film is only as good as their faith in the director. If she bails, then the film is doomed, because morale affects everything...actors cannot give their all if the director is fucking around. The crew cannot focus on making the actor look good if the director is fucking around. Directors are given tons of leeway when it comes to behavior, but abandonment is unforgivable.
That said, Lynne Ramsay has broken the sacred trust a director relies on between herself and her team in order to make the film work. That's if she even has any intention of returning. Apparently (per the producer), there is some bad blood between Ramsay and certain members of the team. But even this is common on film shoots. It is like a dysfunctional family trying to decorate a house...there will be tantrums and yelling and hurt feelings. But this is simply water under the bridge in the grand scheme of things. A film is forever, hurt feelings are temporary. Now, even if Ramsay returns to work, she has probably irrevocably sabotaged her own film, as she has broken the bonds of trust...if the director of the movie can't even be bothered to show up on the first day, then what hope is there? Even Lindsay Lohan shows up on the first day!
Now here is why Ramsay's actions have dire consequences for women directors. It is no secret that Hollywood is a white boy's club. The vast majority of filmmakers, movie executives and crew members are white males. It is a male dominated industry...and misogyny runs rampant. As if producers needed yet ANOTHER reason to not hire female directors, Ramsay throws them all the ammo they need to keep ignoring them. Katherine Bigelow winning a precedent setting best director Oscar for THE HURT LOCKER was a huge blow to the age old view of women directors as inferior. Ramsay just destroyed all that progress. To add insult to injury, Ramsay has a pay-or-play deal; meaning she gets paid whether she finishes the movie or not. Even Natalie Portman fought to get her attached to the film in the first place. Even for a male to pull what she pulled would be absolutely unforgivable. But men wouldn't be short of work afterward. Nobody is going to say "I will never work with another male director again!"
Those of you unfamiliar with how films are made should know why this is a such a big deal. When a director decides to make a movie, they begin pre-production. This involves casting, hiring crew, location scouting, costume and set design, coming up a with a shooting schedule and working the script into the best shape it can be in. It is a massive undertaking even for a small movie about several people in a room talking. It is the time when a director acclimates herself to the heartbeat of the film, in order to make her decisions align with the needs of the film. It is also the time where the cast and crew begin to build a trust with the director, who is captain of the ship. The director is by far the biggest influence on a film. Actors and crew must trust her to deliver a vision that will make them all look good. Directing is a lonely and stressful job...you must have all the answers all the time, and any sign of weakness can literally destroy a film's progress...it is much like a therapist/patient relationship...if the therapist starts to crack, the patient will no longer trust them. It is also much like a war ship...the captain is the head honcho, and any chinks in his armor has drastic consequences on crew morale, and could even lead to a mutiny. So you can see why it is so important to keep the bond between director and cast/crew intact. Steven Spielberg once remarked "even if you don't know what you're doing, pretend you do!"
Once pre-production is done, production begins. This is when the film is shot. It is when all the prep work done in the months before shooting will start to pay off and the film comes to life. A director abandoning a film at this stage is completely traumatic and near fatal for the film's life. The cast and crew's faith in the film is only as good as their faith in the director. If she bails, then the film is doomed, because morale affects everything...actors cannot give their all if the director is fucking around. The crew cannot focus on making the actor look good if the director is fucking around. Directors are given tons of leeway when it comes to behavior, but abandonment is unforgivable.
That said, Lynne Ramsay has broken the sacred trust a director relies on between herself and her team in order to make the film work. That's if she even has any intention of returning. Apparently (per the producer), there is some bad blood between Ramsay and certain members of the team. But even this is common on film shoots. It is like a dysfunctional family trying to decorate a house...there will be tantrums and yelling and hurt feelings. But this is simply water under the bridge in the grand scheme of things. A film is forever, hurt feelings are temporary. Now, even if Ramsay returns to work, she has probably irrevocably sabotaged her own film, as she has broken the bonds of trust...if the director of the movie can't even be bothered to show up on the first day, then what hope is there? Even Lindsay Lohan shows up on the first day!
Now here is why Ramsay's actions have dire consequences for women directors. It is no secret that Hollywood is a white boy's club. The vast majority of filmmakers, movie executives and crew members are white males. It is a male dominated industry...and misogyny runs rampant. As if producers needed yet ANOTHER reason to not hire female directors, Ramsay throws them all the ammo they need to keep ignoring them. Katherine Bigelow winning a precedent setting best director Oscar for THE HURT LOCKER was a huge blow to the age old view of women directors as inferior. Ramsay just destroyed all that progress. To add insult to injury, Ramsay has a pay-or-play deal; meaning she gets paid whether she finishes the movie or not. Even Natalie Portman fought to get her attached to the film in the first place. Even for a male to pull what she pulled would be absolutely unforgivable. But men wouldn't be short of work afterward. Nobody is going to say "I will never work with another male director again!"
Friday, March 15, 2013
Veronica Mars and Kickstarter...studio trojan horse?
The internet is ablaze with the news that the Veronica Mars kickstarter campaign broke records by raising it's $2Million goal in a single day. As of this writing, they've raised $3.3Million...in three days...let that sink in for a moment.
Veronica Mars was a popular TV show that got cancelled 3 seasons in. I personally have never watched it, but I've heard good things. I've been trying to gather my thoughts about this over the past several days and keep bouncing back and forth between excitement and revulsion.
On the one hand, a rising tide lifts all ships, as they say...meaning all the publicity this story is receiving potentially attracts more attention to the struggling artists who slave over kickstarter campaigns every day.
BUT...a rising tide may raise all ships, but an aircraft carrier plowing through is probably going to capsize your sailboat. I don't think that just because Mars may draw more attention to kickstarter that it will necessarily help struggling artists...the new converts may simply be drawn to the more popular (and sometimes corporate sanctioned) kickstarter pages, since popularity is what drew them to kickstarter in the first place. Like attracts like. I currently have a kickstarter page up and running for my documentary...since the flood of Veronica Mars fans hit the site, I haven't seen much upchuck to my campaign. That is actually a bit unfair I know...there are hundreds of kickstarter pages, some maybe even more worthy than my documentary, and my page could simply be buried under a sea of digital information that your average site visitor may not even get to.
But I was making a greater point. Who is really going to benefit from this new paradigm? Is it the Farrell Rose's on kickstarter? The upstarts who have the talent, drive and ambition, but may simply lack the connections needed for a groundswell to occur to get their project funded. If anything I'd like a quid-pro-quo with studios. As in, "I will donate to Veronica Mars, if you donate ten times my donations to my kickstarter campaign...since you are a multibillion dollar corporation who could easily fund the peanuts being raised on the VM page, and since the donations you are receiving from fans are not investments and do not have to be paid back...you are essentially collecting free money...quid-pro-quo...yes or no...?"
Potentially (and very likely IMO), all this exposure to kickstarter will simply make studios less willing to foot the bill for development costs on their lower budgeted features, using fan gullibility to fund projects outright, or fund their development (scripting, etc) with the promise of memorabilia. I offer the following potential future scenario:
INT. WARNER BROTHERS CONFERENCE ROOM - DAY
Mike and Tom eagerly sit across from the STUDIO BRASS, having just finished a pitch for their thriller.
STUDIO BRASS: Great idea guys, we love it...but we have some reservations.
TOM: Like what?
STUDIO BRASS: We don't know if there's a market for this material.
MIKE: Are you kidding? People love thrillers...they see them all the time.
STUDIO BRASS: Our last thriller actually bombed, so no, people don't love thrillers. But tell you what...if you can raise the necessary $5Million in development costs on kickstarter, we'll give you a greenlight.
MIKE: Um...
STUDIO BRASS: If you're worried about recognition, don't...your last film was a success. The kickstarter could read "from the writing, directing team behind 'Danger Beach' comes...'Wipe Out'...potentially starring Channing Tatum and Olivia Wilde, IF we reach out $5Million goal in 30 days. BOOM! YOU GOTTA A WINNER BABY! That way we don't have to pay the development costs, you guys go off, write a killer script and we've already got the interest of the fans...the American Dream..."
Mike and Tom look at each and smile.
FADE OUT
..............
ADDENDUM:
Alternately, studios can now use kickstarter as a way to crap out low budget knock offs of cult properties purely funded by kickstarter as a way to gain free profit with zero risk at the expense of the fans (who would pay for something knowing nothing of its quality...there are no early reviews of the film with kickstarter). "Hey guys, remember Power Rangers? We want to do a reboot but need $5M..." so they start a kickstarter, easily raise the money (lots of kids watched Power Rangers), film a cheesy, low budget crapfest and it's all profit...they've invested nothing.
Really the sky is the limit now for studios to find ways to milk the consumer even more with low grade product.
Veronica Mars was a popular TV show that got cancelled 3 seasons in. I personally have never watched it, but I've heard good things. I've been trying to gather my thoughts about this over the past several days and keep bouncing back and forth between excitement and revulsion.
On the one hand, a rising tide lifts all ships, as they say...meaning all the publicity this story is receiving potentially attracts more attention to the struggling artists who slave over kickstarter campaigns every day.
BUT...a rising tide may raise all ships, but an aircraft carrier plowing through is probably going to capsize your sailboat. I don't think that just because Mars may draw more attention to kickstarter that it will necessarily help struggling artists...the new converts may simply be drawn to the more popular (and sometimes corporate sanctioned) kickstarter pages, since popularity is what drew them to kickstarter in the first place. Like attracts like. I currently have a kickstarter page up and running for my documentary...since the flood of Veronica Mars fans hit the site, I haven't seen much upchuck to my campaign. That is actually a bit unfair I know...there are hundreds of kickstarter pages, some maybe even more worthy than my documentary, and my page could simply be buried under a sea of digital information that your average site visitor may not even get to.
But I was making a greater point. Who is really going to benefit from this new paradigm? Is it the Farrell Rose's on kickstarter? The upstarts who have the talent, drive and ambition, but may simply lack the connections needed for a groundswell to occur to get their project funded. If anything I'd like a quid-pro-quo with studios. As in, "I will donate to Veronica Mars, if you donate ten times my donations to my kickstarter campaign...since you are a multibillion dollar corporation who could easily fund the peanuts being raised on the VM page, and since the donations you are receiving from fans are not investments and do not have to be paid back...you are essentially collecting free money...quid-pro-quo...yes or no...?"
Potentially (and very likely IMO), all this exposure to kickstarter will simply make studios less willing to foot the bill for development costs on their lower budgeted features, using fan gullibility to fund projects outright, or fund their development (scripting, etc) with the promise of memorabilia. I offer the following potential future scenario:
INT. WARNER BROTHERS CONFERENCE ROOM - DAY
Mike and Tom eagerly sit across from the STUDIO BRASS, having just finished a pitch for their thriller.
STUDIO BRASS: Great idea guys, we love it...but we have some reservations.
TOM: Like what?
STUDIO BRASS: We don't know if there's a market for this material.
MIKE: Are you kidding? People love thrillers...they see them all the time.
STUDIO BRASS: Our last thriller actually bombed, so no, people don't love thrillers. But tell you what...if you can raise the necessary $5Million in development costs on kickstarter, we'll give you a greenlight.
MIKE: Um...
STUDIO BRASS: If you're worried about recognition, don't...your last film was a success. The kickstarter could read "from the writing, directing team behind 'Danger Beach' comes...'Wipe Out'...potentially starring Channing Tatum and Olivia Wilde, IF we reach out $5Million goal in 30 days. BOOM! YOU GOTTA A WINNER BABY! That way we don't have to pay the development costs, you guys go off, write a killer script and we've already got the interest of the fans...the American Dream..."
Mike and Tom look at each and smile.
FADE OUT
..............
ADDENDUM:
Alternately, studios can now use kickstarter as a way to crap out low budget knock offs of cult properties purely funded by kickstarter as a way to gain free profit with zero risk at the expense of the fans (who would pay for something knowing nothing of its quality...there are no early reviews of the film with kickstarter). "Hey guys, remember Power Rangers? We want to do a reboot but need $5M..." so they start a kickstarter, easily raise the money (lots of kids watched Power Rangers), film a cheesy, low budget crapfest and it's all profit...they've invested nothing.
Really the sky is the limit now for studios to find ways to milk the consumer even more with low grade product.
Saturday, March 9, 2013
My beef with JJ Abrams' Star Trek
Star Trek was never an "action movie franchise"...it is now thanks to JJ Abrams...
Paramount, believing the Star Trek films were stale and didn't have enough fans, set out to broaden it, so they brought Abrams.
Unfortunately "broadening Trek" means dumbing it down, as that is what needs to happen to reach the largest possible audience. But what is the point of doing that if the very nature of Star Trek itself is neutered? Unfortunately Star Trek is an intellectual property to be mined and pillaged as the studio see fit. It becomes, ironically, much like the Borg, losing it's very identity and being assimilated into the collective of the bland, safe, and inoffensive Hollywood summer blockbuster.
It's like what happened when McDonald's started popping up in places where hamburgers weren't a staple...it broadened the hamburger for a larger public, but had to dumb it down into the most bland thing you can imagine in the process.
Abrams' Trek was more like Star Wars than Star Trek...which is ironic considering JJ's next big movie...
True, the Trek series started declining pretty steadily in quality after Wrath Of Kahn...but no matter what their faults, they remained true to the spirit of Trek...the problem isn't the original formula, it works. It works when the scripts are good and the director knows what he's doing, as we saw with WOK.
Star Trek was never meant to be as popular as Star War...it isn't a space opera, it isn't about Top Gun-like dogfights, pew-pew laser combat, and the Joseph Campbellian hero's journey (young Kirk) structure most Hollywood summer action flicks subscribe to. Star Trek was never about that. Trek has (or had) a very specific identity that made it what it is, regardless of how many Joe Six Pack's didn't care for it...it still reached a pretty large audience of dedicated fans.
By trying to broaden the appeal of Trek, they're effectively hooking people who never gave Trek a second glance. Now that it looks and feels like the more popular Star Wars, everyone is hooked. Maybe your wife or your cousin was never meant to like Star Trek...they have reality TV and bad soap operas. Why does Trek have to be liked by every single human being on planet earth? Star Trek '09 is for people who don't like Star Trek! They like Star Wars and will not watch Star Trek unless it looks, sounds and feels like Star Wars...
So this Evil Dead remake...
Reviews for the new Evil Dead remake are flooding the internet, and I'm kind of bothered by them...reviews keep saying the film is incredibly "intense" and "gory".
It is not hard to gross people out or terrify them with gore and dismemberment...those are not filmmaking skills. Anyone can film somebody getting ripped limb from limb with realistic FX work. That doesn't impress me. Take David Cronenberg's early work...tons of gore, but it was the way he wove the story around it so subversively and made metaphors become physical...that is style...that is what made Cronenberg not just another gore filmmaker...he used the gore as a tool to make a statement about things...rather than just gore because it looks nasty and intense.
What worked about the original ED films was Sam Raimi's very distinct style of humor mixed with a kind of grunge aesthetic...it's what separated it from most horror movies. I keep hearing people calling this remake INTENSE...but intensity is not style. It's like Zac Snyder's annoying tendency to just dial everything up to '11' without understanding the subtlety of tone and how it affects the storytelling.
The director of this remake is Fede Alvarez. I remembering seeing Alvarez's short 'Panic Attack', and it was stuff just happening without any distinct filmmaking style or tone being laid down...it was just "OMG GIANT ROBOTS!" I feel like people are missing the point these days and just marveling at anything INTENSE, as if that makes a good movie. I feel like Alvarez realized he needed to make a big impression with his first feature and the easiest way to do that is dial everything up to '11' and go even further...it guarantees a reaction.
As George Lucas said, "If you want me to make you feel something, that's not hard. I'll choke a kitten in front of you, and you'll feel something".
Friday, March 8, 2013
Remakes
Remakes are a big thing in Hollywood these days. It seems Hollywood is so risk averse that they must have some guarantee of success in place before greenlighting a movie. It used to be putting a popular actor in the lead role(s). But that is no longer enough. Now it is also putting a popular intellectual property in the title...popular novel, comic book, video game and board game properties...sequels, and of course, remakes. These all contain the prerequisite known title entity so that when an audience sees the movie advertised, they are familiar with the property already, and MAY be more enticed to spend their hard earned money. Transformers, The Da Vinci Code, the Harry Potter and Pirates films with their seemingly never ending sequels, are the most popular of these remakes. But the top of the pyramid is small...the bottom makes up failed trash remakes like The Stepford Wives, Poseidon, The Wolfman, Arthur, Bewitched, The Day The Earth Stood Still, The Hitcher, The Omen and on and on.
I feel like remakes are different somehow. Especially remakes of films that already worked. Take the upcoming Poltergeist remake. The original Poltergeist was one of the few horror movies from the 80s that had high production values, fantastic acting, was genuinely terrifying, haunting and filled with a slew of iconic moments with one of Jerry Goldsmith's best scores. Everyone brought their A-game and Steven Spielberg pretty much ghost directed the movie. Do the filmmakers even care that there is virtually zero chance they will improve upon the original? But it's not about that...they know they can't. It is part of the Hollywood meatgrinder. It is about box office. Hollywood doesn't want to risk a bomb by taking a chance on something original...if the film bombs, they at least want to keep their jobs by pointing to the fact that they did their best to insure the movie's success. Executives who take chances on original material only have their own integrity and taste to fall back on in case of failure...and in Hollywood, that's not enough. The shareholders to these huge conglomerates that own the studio don't care about integrity or taste, they care about the stock. The stock must stay up, at all costs.
Anyway, I got to thinking about an interesting parallel the other day. The music album. There are great, classic albums that sell alot. And people love them. But the record companies don't remake classic albums. There are cover bands that do cover songs, but those aren't really taken seriously. The original is a historical document. Michael Jackson's 'Thriller' is like the Mount Rushmore of music albums...and nobody is going to fuck with Mount Rushmore. Labels don't remake albums because albums are made by artists with a singular vision.
You could argue that people don't go to see movies for one element; one person with a singular vision...they go for several different elements...the actors, the story, the visual FX and eye candy, the director, the writer, etc. But classic movies are classics...they are official records of the successful execution of that work of art. Casablanca or E.T. are not very much different than Michael's Jackson's Thriller. They are both beloved by millions of people. The record industry is not going to remake Thriller because only Michael Jackson could do that record. But Hollywood WILL remake Casablanca. I heard Madonna wants to remake it. And there is supposedly a remake on the Hollywood books without her. But would Madonna want to re-do a classic Joni Mitchell or Janis Joplin album? Of course not. But why not? Couldn't you just get somebody who SOUNDS like Joni or Janis, just like you can get someone who acts like Bogart and Becall? There are plenty of musical imitators floating around on youtube. Madonna could produce the record, get a Janis or Joni sound alike and BAM! Another hit right? But the public most likely wouldn't stand for it...they'd probably call Madonna and the record label lots of nasty names for even thinking of doing it. But the public wouldn't care if they remade Casablanca. Some would...those who love the classic, but most people wouldn't give a rats ass. Remakes are standard anyway right? Hollywood uses this loophole of apathy from the public to continue the remake trend. And as long as the public continues to open their wallets and purses to these remakes, Hollywood will continue to supply the demand.
Why aren't classic movies, or hell, even just movies that were pretty good...why aren't they left alone like the great albums? These are official documents of an artistic achievement. Some of these movies are even entered into the library of congress! The record industry wouldn't dream of screwing around with something like Thriller, or The White Album, or The Dark Side of the Moon. But Hollywood doesn't think twice about assimilating classics like Casablanca, Poltergeist, Annie, Robocop, The Birds, The Wild Bunch and My Fair Lady.
They don't care about movies. Movies are not official documents of an artistic achievement...they are intellectual properties, there to be milked for all their worth. I would be more sympathetic to Hollywood if original ideas didn't exist. If there were only a few dozen properties that could ever be made into movies, they'd have nothing but well wishes from me. But there are COUNTLESS stories and COUNTLESS ways of expressing them. The highest grossing movie of all time is not a remake, adaptation or sequel! It is an original property...James Cameron's 'Avatar'. And while that film contains certain elements taken from classic literature and other films, the execution is wholly unique, and it does not use the name of another intellectual property to sell tickets.
But this speaks to the main problem. Hollywood doesn't trust its artists. Filmmakers are no longer in charge. Studios spend too much money to entrust their properties to the guys who actually make them! It's like a stock broker hiring an architect to build him a house, and then second guessing his every move, and eventually meddling so much that the house ends up looking like a cross between something a stock broker would design and something a genuine professional in his field would design...in other words, an abomination. If you know nothing about pipes and drainage, you don't hire a plumber and then start telling him how to do his job. Why should this be any different in Hollywood? Because insanity runs rampant there. You have executives who are too chicken shit to risk their jobs on original films, and then try to tell the filmmakers how to make a movie....watching lots of movies does not make you a filmmaker capable of making hits. If that were true, my father would be qualified to make hit movies. He's not. He's a businessman and he sticks to what he knows.
I feel like remakes are different somehow. Especially remakes of films that already worked. Take the upcoming Poltergeist remake. The original Poltergeist was one of the few horror movies from the 80s that had high production values, fantastic acting, was genuinely terrifying, haunting and filled with a slew of iconic moments with one of Jerry Goldsmith's best scores. Everyone brought their A-game and Steven Spielberg pretty much ghost directed the movie. Do the filmmakers even care that there is virtually zero chance they will improve upon the original? But it's not about that...they know they can't. It is part of the Hollywood meatgrinder. It is about box office. Hollywood doesn't want to risk a bomb by taking a chance on something original...if the film bombs, they at least want to keep their jobs by pointing to the fact that they did their best to insure the movie's success. Executives who take chances on original material only have their own integrity and taste to fall back on in case of failure...and in Hollywood, that's not enough. The shareholders to these huge conglomerates that own the studio don't care about integrity or taste, they care about the stock. The stock must stay up, at all costs.
Anyway, I got to thinking about an interesting parallel the other day. The music album. There are great, classic albums that sell alot. And people love them. But the record companies don't remake classic albums. There are cover bands that do cover songs, but those aren't really taken seriously. The original is a historical document. Michael Jackson's 'Thriller' is like the Mount Rushmore of music albums...and nobody is going to fuck with Mount Rushmore. Labels don't remake albums because albums are made by artists with a singular vision.
You could argue that people don't go to see movies for one element; one person with a singular vision...they go for several different elements...the actors, the story, the visual FX and eye candy, the director, the writer, etc. But classic movies are classics...they are official records of the successful execution of that work of art. Casablanca or E.T. are not very much different than Michael's Jackson's Thriller. They are both beloved by millions of people. The record industry is not going to remake Thriller because only Michael Jackson could do that record. But Hollywood WILL remake Casablanca. I heard Madonna wants to remake it. And there is supposedly a remake on the Hollywood books without her. But would Madonna want to re-do a classic Joni Mitchell or Janis Joplin album? Of course not. But why not? Couldn't you just get somebody who SOUNDS like Joni or Janis, just like you can get someone who acts like Bogart and Becall? There are plenty of musical imitators floating around on youtube. Madonna could produce the record, get a Janis or Joni sound alike and BAM! Another hit right? But the public most likely wouldn't stand for it...they'd probably call Madonna and the record label lots of nasty names for even thinking of doing it. But the public wouldn't care if they remade Casablanca. Some would...those who love the classic, but most people wouldn't give a rats ass. Remakes are standard anyway right? Hollywood uses this loophole of apathy from the public to continue the remake trend. And as long as the public continues to open their wallets and purses to these remakes, Hollywood will continue to supply the demand.
Why aren't classic movies, or hell, even just movies that were pretty good...why aren't they left alone like the great albums? These are official documents of an artistic achievement. Some of these movies are even entered into the library of congress! The record industry wouldn't dream of screwing around with something like Thriller, or The White Album, or The Dark Side of the Moon. But Hollywood doesn't think twice about assimilating classics like Casablanca, Poltergeist, Annie, Robocop, The Birds, The Wild Bunch and My Fair Lady.
They don't care about movies. Movies are not official documents of an artistic achievement...they are intellectual properties, there to be milked for all their worth. I would be more sympathetic to Hollywood if original ideas didn't exist. If there were only a few dozen properties that could ever be made into movies, they'd have nothing but well wishes from me. But there are COUNTLESS stories and COUNTLESS ways of expressing them. The highest grossing movie of all time is not a remake, adaptation or sequel! It is an original property...James Cameron's 'Avatar'. And while that film contains certain elements taken from classic literature and other films, the execution is wholly unique, and it does not use the name of another intellectual property to sell tickets.
But this speaks to the main problem. Hollywood doesn't trust its artists. Filmmakers are no longer in charge. Studios spend too much money to entrust their properties to the guys who actually make them! It's like a stock broker hiring an architect to build him a house, and then second guessing his every move, and eventually meddling so much that the house ends up looking like a cross between something a stock broker would design and something a genuine professional in his field would design...in other words, an abomination. If you know nothing about pipes and drainage, you don't hire a plumber and then start telling him how to do his job. Why should this be any different in Hollywood? Because insanity runs rampant there. You have executives who are too chicken shit to risk their jobs on original films, and then try to tell the filmmakers how to make a movie....watching lots of movies does not make you a filmmaker capable of making hits. If that were true, my father would be qualified to make hit movies. He's not. He's a businessman and he sticks to what he knows.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)