Monday, October 6, 2014
Gone Girl...
Seeing Gone Girl has blasted my cinematic psyche into the stratosphere. I've seen it three times already and the third time was with my housemates and another friend. We had a long conversation about it, and the friend raised an interesting issue regarding misogyny. I think it's a simplistic way of looking at something that is clearly using audience perception of the world against that very same audience to make a statement about how people react based on their own worldviews, and how we try and relate to each other through tropes and cliches rather than honesty. It's a scathing indictment of mass media and the culture it's created in all of us who watch MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, scroll through facebook and twitter reacting to surfaces of things rather than understanding something through context, which can only come by actually delving into the subject matter yourself and taking a thousand foot view of the situation. Gone Girl is like a Rorschach test of the psyche. It's a brilliant cinematic molotov cocktail that takes the hyper aware audience expectation of the modern era of know-everything-see-everything-googl'ing and uses it as a mirror to said audience, thrilling and chilling at the same time. Only David Fincher could take what is admittedly trashy, soap-opera, low brow subject matter and elevate it to high brow art through masterful, virtuoso technique. My favorite films are ones that take lurid, pulpy, genre material and mix it with social commentary to make a point that couldn't be made otherwise. The best films do it. From Psycho to Dirty Harry to Robocop to Fight Club. Gone Girl is a film for the ages
Saturday, May 3, 2014
Perception in the movie business
I was struck the other day by a review of horror filmmaker Ti West's new film 'The Sacrament'. The reviewer at one point compared West to horror-meister John Carpenter ('Halloween', 'The Thing'). I nearly burst out laughing. While I believe West has some talent, which he displayed in his debut film 'The Roost', there is nothing in his work to suggest he is as talented as Carpenter. Yet, this does not matter. In the modern age of media, effort is more important than results. Perception more important than reality. And it shows just how manipulative the media can be. Just the idea that West COULD be as talented as Carpenter is enough to definitely conclude he IS just as talented as the horror-meister himself. Let's take a look at West's films...'The Inn Keepers' was a slow burn to nowhere. 'House of the Devil' was a clumsy attempt to ape 80s horror films. And now 'The Sacrament' is a lame stab at found footage and religious cults. Carpenter made the best and most influential horror films of the 70s and 80s. What groundbreaking films has West actually made? We are a culture trapped in a washing machine of over-stimulation, so desperate to feel something, we'll accept just about anything as long as it gives us our fix.
This seems to be the participation trophy generation, where you get a gold star just for attempting something, and can rest comfortably in the knowledge that you don't actually have to achieve what you set out to. As long as you TRY, you'll be rewarded. All those delusions your mother filled you with about you being special, about you being able to accomplish anything were horseshit. People can't accomplish anything. People fail. They lose. They come up short all the time. And yet, the entertainment industry reinforces the belief that it doesn't matter. As long as you can sort of, kind of approximate talent, then you ARE talented, and you deserve the world. Pretty boy and girl movie actors who can hit their marks, and kind of deliver a decent performance are lauded as the next Steve McQueens and Meryl Streeps. Movie directors who can give us a tinge of nostalgia for our favorite movies and directors of the past are just as good as those directors.
In the 'old days', where there was no twitter or facebook shuttling information at a constant rate, the bullshit filters were much more solid. You really had to earn your place. When a movie came out, the public's opinion of it wasn't broadcast all over the world in a microsecond. The only opinions you relied on were professional movie reviewers and your neighborhood friends who would tell it to you straight. It either sucked, or was good. There was no internet for you to log onto and see the instant, set in stone perception of a movie based on a rotten tomatoes or imdb score. There was no sub culture of movie geekdom who could make a break a director's career and launch mediocre filmmakers into the pantheon of greats just by writing an overhyped blog post. Since we crave so much information now, the fantasy worlds created by perception are extremely attractive. Why does your nostaglia for John Carpenter have to remain nostalgia? There's a director making movies who kinda, sorta makes movies like he did, so why not relive your John Carpenter days again right now? Fuck it, Ti West is the modern day John Carpenter. See? I said it, so it's true. We live in an age where everyone is taken seriously. If you have an opinion, you can broadcast it to the world on facebook or twitter and have it set in some kind of electronic stone. Forget about little technicalities like actually knowing what you're talking about. As long as you have an opinion, people are supposed to pay attention to it. Even journalism has become a joke. The blog culture of armchair revolutionaries and basement dwelling prophets is upon us. Misinformation spreads like a virus, and everyone wants to be infected. The internet has leveled the playing field, but is that a good thing for integrity? Anyone can put a video on youtube, but is it actually worth watching? 8 times out of 10, I find that not to be the case. Yet the silliest, stupidest, raunchiest, most ridiculous videos have hundreds of thousands and even millions of views. The youtube star is a real phenomenon.
But back to movies. When Tobe Hooper made 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre', unarguably the most influential horror movie of the 70s, he was an instant star. He'd earned it. No one had seen anything like TCM, and it was so skillfully made, producing nightmare fuel for an entire generation of movie fans. It's one of the most, if not THE most visceral horror movies ever made. The last shot of Leatherface doing a death dance with his chainsaw with the setting sun at his back, as if in some hillbilly disco, is about as iconic as it gets. There is absolutely nothing in Ti West's work that approaches anything in TCM, yet he is more famous than Hooper ever was thanks to the immediacy of the internet age. The same goes for Eli Roth, an even more egregious filmmaker, who is far more famous than West. Roth has created a horror empire for himself based on the perception that he is some great savior of the horror genre. But where is the work? 'Cabin Fever' was genuinely creepy and terrifying, but 'Hostel' was an incompetent bore, using the cheap tricks of torture and splatter to deliver scares without any mood or substance to back it up. Ditto for 'Hostel 2'. Yet he's probably more famous than Carpenter ever was. Certainly more teenagers know the name Eli Roth than they do John Carpenter. Because of the pervasive and in your face stream of twitter, facebook and online movie blogs, Roth is able to weave a magic cloud of fame around himself, with no actual work of substance to back it up. In the 70s and 80s, Hooper and Carpenter didn't have that kind of access. Their fame was limited to a title card before their movie started.
Another notable example is Richard Kelly, who wrote and directed the cult hit 'Donnie Darko'...another filmmaker given the keys to the kingdom after one promising film. Yet his subsequent work is as bad as anything I've ever seen on the B-movie shelves of Blockbuster Video (when they were still in business).
And this problem is not just limited to horror filmmakers. But I chose to write about the horror genre because it is strangely nurturing. It seems to be easier to cement yourself as a genius in that genre because the requirements to entertain are extremely low. Throw some blood and gore at the screen and audiences squirm. Suspense is an entirely different animal. Hitchcock was the reigning king of suspense. And his first foray into true horror with 'Psycho' single handedly created the slasher genre. And Hitch was rightly rewarded, becoming the most famous director personality of that era, even his pudgy silhouette was famous. He parlayed that power into the well received TV series 'Alfred Hitchcock Presents', much like Roth used his influence to create the 'Hemlock Grove' series on netflix and attach his famous name to other projects to get them produced and seen by millions. Hitchcock was the Eli Roth of the 60s and 70s...yet had more talent in his pinky than Roth has in his entire body. And to an outside observer, they have nearly the same influence when it comes to power.
So another question looms... Is it even possible to make truly groundbreaking films anymore? Or rather, is it possible for groundbreaking films to be seen as such and have massive influence? Could you make something today on par with 'Texas Chainsaw' or 'Halloween' and have them be so influential? Halloween played in cinemas for nearly a year, burning up the circuit via insanely positive word of mouth. Most horror films (and most films in general) today don't even get a theatrical release. If they do, they're limited to a 3 or 4 week run and then room must be made for the next in line from the sausage factory. Would a 'Halloween' be able to latch on when people are too preoccupied watching crude, juvenile videos on youtube or arguing on twitter about why Ti West is the second coming of Christ? The emergence of digital filmmaking has allowed more content to be created, but in reality, human beings can only tolerate so much. A constant torrent of visual and auditory information tends to get filtered out and becomes a stream of white noise. People don't pay attention anymore because they're being bombarded with STUFF.
The extreme danger in all this should be obvious by now. If filmmakers like West and Roth can make the public believe they are just as talented as the real deal auteurs of the past, and if the public's idea of a good time is 'Charlie bit my finger!' on youtube, then the public's expectation of what is actually good, becomes horribly skewed. Standards plummet. What will one have to do in 30 years to become the next Eli Roth? Throw a bucket of pig guts at the screen? Where is all this over-stimulation headed and what does it mean for our culture?
This seems to be the participation trophy generation, where you get a gold star just for attempting something, and can rest comfortably in the knowledge that you don't actually have to achieve what you set out to. As long as you TRY, you'll be rewarded. All those delusions your mother filled you with about you being special, about you being able to accomplish anything were horseshit. People can't accomplish anything. People fail. They lose. They come up short all the time. And yet, the entertainment industry reinforces the belief that it doesn't matter. As long as you can sort of, kind of approximate talent, then you ARE talented, and you deserve the world. Pretty boy and girl movie actors who can hit their marks, and kind of deliver a decent performance are lauded as the next Steve McQueens and Meryl Streeps. Movie directors who can give us a tinge of nostalgia for our favorite movies and directors of the past are just as good as those directors.
In the 'old days', where there was no twitter or facebook shuttling information at a constant rate, the bullshit filters were much more solid. You really had to earn your place. When a movie came out, the public's opinion of it wasn't broadcast all over the world in a microsecond. The only opinions you relied on were professional movie reviewers and your neighborhood friends who would tell it to you straight. It either sucked, or was good. There was no internet for you to log onto and see the instant, set in stone perception of a movie based on a rotten tomatoes or imdb score. There was no sub culture of movie geekdom who could make a break a director's career and launch mediocre filmmakers into the pantheon of greats just by writing an overhyped blog post. Since we crave so much information now, the fantasy worlds created by perception are extremely attractive. Why does your nostaglia for John Carpenter have to remain nostalgia? There's a director making movies who kinda, sorta makes movies like he did, so why not relive your John Carpenter days again right now? Fuck it, Ti West is the modern day John Carpenter. See? I said it, so it's true. We live in an age where everyone is taken seriously. If you have an opinion, you can broadcast it to the world on facebook or twitter and have it set in some kind of electronic stone. Forget about little technicalities like actually knowing what you're talking about. As long as you have an opinion, people are supposed to pay attention to it. Even journalism has become a joke. The blog culture of armchair revolutionaries and basement dwelling prophets is upon us. Misinformation spreads like a virus, and everyone wants to be infected. The internet has leveled the playing field, but is that a good thing for integrity? Anyone can put a video on youtube, but is it actually worth watching? 8 times out of 10, I find that not to be the case. Yet the silliest, stupidest, raunchiest, most ridiculous videos have hundreds of thousands and even millions of views. The youtube star is a real phenomenon.
But back to movies. When Tobe Hooper made 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre', unarguably the most influential horror movie of the 70s, he was an instant star. He'd earned it. No one had seen anything like TCM, and it was so skillfully made, producing nightmare fuel for an entire generation of movie fans. It's one of the most, if not THE most visceral horror movies ever made. The last shot of Leatherface doing a death dance with his chainsaw with the setting sun at his back, as if in some hillbilly disco, is about as iconic as it gets. There is absolutely nothing in Ti West's work that approaches anything in TCM, yet he is more famous than Hooper ever was thanks to the immediacy of the internet age. The same goes for Eli Roth, an even more egregious filmmaker, who is far more famous than West. Roth has created a horror empire for himself based on the perception that he is some great savior of the horror genre. But where is the work? 'Cabin Fever' was genuinely creepy and terrifying, but 'Hostel' was an incompetent bore, using the cheap tricks of torture and splatter to deliver scares without any mood or substance to back it up. Ditto for 'Hostel 2'. Yet he's probably more famous than Carpenter ever was. Certainly more teenagers know the name Eli Roth than they do John Carpenter. Because of the pervasive and in your face stream of twitter, facebook and online movie blogs, Roth is able to weave a magic cloud of fame around himself, with no actual work of substance to back it up. In the 70s and 80s, Hooper and Carpenter didn't have that kind of access. Their fame was limited to a title card before their movie started.
Another notable example is Richard Kelly, who wrote and directed the cult hit 'Donnie Darko'...another filmmaker given the keys to the kingdom after one promising film. Yet his subsequent work is as bad as anything I've ever seen on the B-movie shelves of Blockbuster Video (when they were still in business).
And this problem is not just limited to horror filmmakers. But I chose to write about the horror genre because it is strangely nurturing. It seems to be easier to cement yourself as a genius in that genre because the requirements to entertain are extremely low. Throw some blood and gore at the screen and audiences squirm. Suspense is an entirely different animal. Hitchcock was the reigning king of suspense. And his first foray into true horror with 'Psycho' single handedly created the slasher genre. And Hitch was rightly rewarded, becoming the most famous director personality of that era, even his pudgy silhouette was famous. He parlayed that power into the well received TV series 'Alfred Hitchcock Presents', much like Roth used his influence to create the 'Hemlock Grove' series on netflix and attach his famous name to other projects to get them produced and seen by millions. Hitchcock was the Eli Roth of the 60s and 70s...yet had more talent in his pinky than Roth has in his entire body. And to an outside observer, they have nearly the same influence when it comes to power.
So another question looms... Is it even possible to make truly groundbreaking films anymore? Or rather, is it possible for groundbreaking films to be seen as such and have massive influence? Could you make something today on par with 'Texas Chainsaw' or 'Halloween' and have them be so influential? Halloween played in cinemas for nearly a year, burning up the circuit via insanely positive word of mouth. Most horror films (and most films in general) today don't even get a theatrical release. If they do, they're limited to a 3 or 4 week run and then room must be made for the next in line from the sausage factory. Would a 'Halloween' be able to latch on when people are too preoccupied watching crude, juvenile videos on youtube or arguing on twitter about why Ti West is the second coming of Christ? The emergence of digital filmmaking has allowed more content to be created, but in reality, human beings can only tolerate so much. A constant torrent of visual and auditory information tends to get filtered out and becomes a stream of white noise. People don't pay attention anymore because they're being bombarded with STUFF.
The extreme danger in all this should be obvious by now. If filmmakers like West and Roth can make the public believe they are just as talented as the real deal auteurs of the past, and if the public's idea of a good time is 'Charlie bit my finger!' on youtube, then the public's expectation of what is actually good, becomes horribly skewed. Standards plummet. What will one have to do in 30 years to become the next Eli Roth? Throw a bucket of pig guts at the screen? Where is all this over-stimulation headed and what does it mean for our culture?
Sunday, April 13, 2014
The implosion of the movie business?
Last summer, Steven Spielberg offered a bold prediction...that the movie business was rapidly headed toward a steep cliff, and implosion was imminent.
"...there's eventually going to be an implosion — or a big meltdown. There's going to be an implosion where three or four or maybe even a half-dozen megabudget movies are going to go crashing into the ground, and that's going to change the paradigm."
Steven Spielberg practically invented the modern movie industry...along with his pal George Lucas, they created the seminal blockbusters of the 70s and 80s that transformed the movie business into the formulaic sausage factory it is today.
Like the Frankenstein monster, Spielberg's creation has betrayed him...at the same talk, he went on about about barely being able to get his film 'Lincoln' made as a theatrical production (studios wanted it for TV). This is a man who personally took home $250M from 'Jurassic Park'. A man who at one point got sent every hot script in Hollywood as a first look to direct the film. A man who was so feared that even Harvey Weinstein (who was, for a time, the most fierce personality in the film business) was terrified of crossing him. A man who could get any film made.
But not anymore. If there is anything that screams the movie business has been radically altered, it's that Steven Spielberg has been relegated to hat-in-hand filmmaker who has just as much trouble getting a film off the ground as an NYU film student. 'The Trial of the Chicago 7' was to be a Spielberg film until he ran into problems getting a green light.
So what the fuck is going on?
Blockbusters are making more than ever, but the bland, safe, disposable, impersonal nature of blockbusters means that there isn't much room anymore for subtlety or nuance. Spielberg still makes them, and they make good money ($750M for Indy 4), but he's always been a man who's swapped genres like socks, and could easily get a Lincoln or Chicago 7 made based on the goodwill from his blockbusters.
But not anymore. Michael Bay had to make 3, billion dollar busting Transformers movies before he was allowed to make a little movie like Pain and Gain. Christopher Nolan has yet to make a "small" movie since TDK. What will studios say after Interstellar drops when he wants to make a costume drama? "Just another Batman Chris, then you have our blessing"?
Where is all this leading? Video-On-Demand/streaming services are catching on strong. The once incredibly profitable DVD market is a shadow of its former self. High Definition TVs have been great for the Bluray market, but is it the gold mine the former DVD market used to be? No. Higher resolution TVs have introduced more options from online services, not to mention smaller devices like tablets and smart phones. People are ditching hard media for instant streaming convenience.
There is a great divide happening, where the selling point of a film isn't necessarily the film itself anymore, but the various ways you can watch it. 2D, 2D IMAX, 3D, 3D IMAX, DVD, BluRay, streaming, cloud, special edition, deluxe edition, anniversary edition...
And since the studios are spending more money to not only make these gargantuan films, but to advertise them and the various ways you can watch them, they're having to hike ticket prices up to justify the cost. Theatrical showings of World War Z had a $50 deluxe option where you got some trinkets to go along with the experience...George Lucas recently said that going to the movies would become more like going to a Broadway show. Higher prices, longer length theatrical runs.
Now personally, what I see is like the very tail end of a drunken high roller streak, where the guy at the table is up...WAY up. That would be Hollywood, with some of the best grosses in the history of the movie business in the last several years. They're drunk on success, feeling good, and sure they can't lose. But perpetual gambling is an addiction, not a science...there is no rational reason to continue betting huge hands just because you've been winning..,you are not applying logic and reason based on evidence of win patterns during that time of year...you're betting because you're feeling good and want that feeling to continue. But by betting more and more money, the question isn't whether or not you'll crash, it's how big the crash will be and how soon it will happen. It's as sure as death and taxes.
Spielberg is a smart guy. Out of half a dozen fellow filmmakers, he was the only one to predict Star Wars would be the biggest film of all time. He has an instinct and I trust his judgement...especially since he's been around the top tier of Hollywood for several decades. If he thinks the film business is going to implode, I wouldn't bet any money against it.
"...there's eventually going to be an implosion — or a big meltdown. There's going to be an implosion where three or four or maybe even a half-dozen megabudget movies are going to go crashing into the ground, and that's going to change the paradigm."
Steven Spielberg practically invented the modern movie industry...along with his pal George Lucas, they created the seminal blockbusters of the 70s and 80s that transformed the movie business into the formulaic sausage factory it is today.
Like the Frankenstein monster, Spielberg's creation has betrayed him...at the same talk, he went on about about barely being able to get his film 'Lincoln' made as a theatrical production (studios wanted it for TV). This is a man who personally took home $250M from 'Jurassic Park'. A man who at one point got sent every hot script in Hollywood as a first look to direct the film. A man who was so feared that even Harvey Weinstein (who was, for a time, the most fierce personality in the film business) was terrified of crossing him. A man who could get any film made.
But not anymore. If there is anything that screams the movie business has been radically altered, it's that Steven Spielberg has been relegated to hat-in-hand filmmaker who has just as much trouble getting a film off the ground as an NYU film student. 'The Trial of the Chicago 7' was to be a Spielberg film until he ran into problems getting a green light.
So what the fuck is going on?
Blockbusters are making more than ever, but the bland, safe, disposable, impersonal nature of blockbusters means that there isn't much room anymore for subtlety or nuance. Spielberg still makes them, and they make good money ($750M for Indy 4), but he's always been a man who's swapped genres like socks, and could easily get a Lincoln or Chicago 7 made based on the goodwill from his blockbusters.
But not anymore. Michael Bay had to make 3, billion dollar busting Transformers movies before he was allowed to make a little movie like Pain and Gain. Christopher Nolan has yet to make a "small" movie since TDK. What will studios say after Interstellar drops when he wants to make a costume drama? "Just another Batman Chris, then you have our blessing"?
Where is all this leading? Video-On-Demand/streaming services are catching on strong. The once incredibly profitable DVD market is a shadow of its former self. High Definition TVs have been great for the Bluray market, but is it the gold mine the former DVD market used to be? No. Higher resolution TVs have introduced more options from online services, not to mention smaller devices like tablets and smart phones. People are ditching hard media for instant streaming convenience.
There is a great divide happening, where the selling point of a film isn't necessarily the film itself anymore, but the various ways you can watch it. 2D, 2D IMAX, 3D, 3D IMAX, DVD, BluRay, streaming, cloud, special edition, deluxe edition, anniversary edition...
And since the studios are spending more money to not only make these gargantuan films, but to advertise them and the various ways you can watch them, they're having to hike ticket prices up to justify the cost. Theatrical showings of World War Z had a $50 deluxe option where you got some trinkets to go along with the experience...George Lucas recently said that going to the movies would become more like going to a Broadway show. Higher prices, longer length theatrical runs.
Now personally, what I see is like the very tail end of a drunken high roller streak, where the guy at the table is up...WAY up. That would be Hollywood, with some of the best grosses in the history of the movie business in the last several years. They're drunk on success, feeling good, and sure they can't lose. But perpetual gambling is an addiction, not a science...there is no rational reason to continue betting huge hands just because you've been winning..,you are not applying logic and reason based on evidence of win patterns during that time of year...you're betting because you're feeling good and want that feeling to continue. But by betting more and more money, the question isn't whether or not you'll crash, it's how big the crash will be and how soon it will happen. It's as sure as death and taxes.
Spielberg is a smart guy. Out of half a dozen fellow filmmakers, he was the only one to predict Star Wars would be the biggest film of all time. He has an instinct and I trust his judgement...especially since he's been around the top tier of Hollywood for several decades. If he thinks the film business is going to implode, I wouldn't bet any money against it.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
The rise and fall of Manoj Nelliyattu Shyamalan
I used his full name because at this point the rose colored glasses are off.
Shyamalan is probably the most unique filmmaker in history because when his career took off (after selling some scripts and directing a stinker), he became a household name not seen since Spielberg, and his films made shitloads of money, yet the cost to profit ratio was so large. The Sixth Sense cost $40M (excluding marketing), yet grossed $674M (over $1Billion adjusted for inflation), excluding video sales which doubles that number. An amazing return on investment.
At this point Night was the Michael Jordan of filmmakers. Even when he went off and did an ultra personal and downbeat film like Unbreakable, it still grossed $250M (probably close to $600M adjusted) off a $75M budget...another phenomenal return on investment. Night could maintain his independence as an auteur since his films were so profitable. It is one thing to gross that kind of money with a bigger budget film, but films budgeted under $100M generally do not gross those kinds of figures.
Still, many critics saw Unbreakable as a disappointment box office-wise, so Night turned back to feel good crowd pleasers with Signs. Again, with a fairly low budget of $70M, the film grossed $400M (probably closer to $700M adjusted) shutting the critics up and putting Night back on top as the reining king of Hollywood. Spielberg's films made lots of money, but his budgets were higher. Night was unique in that he crafted fairly low key films that could be made cheaper, but had high concept ideas to draw in huge crowds. It was the best of both worlds.
At this point though, audiences and critics started to give Night flack for becoming what seemed to be a one trick pony with his twist endings. It was arguably this technique though that made him who he was, that brought in those huge crowds to his films...without it, would his movies continue their blockbuster streak? The Village would challenge this idea. A medium budget of $60M (which is somewhat high considering the subject matter and plot), the film was another twist ending capper, but did Unbreakable business of about $250M. Still very profitable...problem is, this was no Unbreakable...it wasn't a personal film that had a downbeat vibe...it was a horror/thriller crowd pleaser and it didn't deliver on the level the studios were used to with those types of films from Night. But honestly, when was the last time a costume flick made that kind of money? The studio probably didn't care though, they were keeping an eye on Night from now on...and audiences continued to grow tired of his schtick. Not to mention the films themselves were becoming lazy and hackneyed. The Village had an incredibly stupid twist that literally made no sense and destroyed the fabric the film was built on.
Now things got interesting. Night had a pretty disastrous falling out with Disney, the studio that had bankrolled all his hits and allowed him his continued autonomy. All wonderfully detailed in the great book The Man Who Heard Voices. It was in this book that one could witness just how horribly skewed Night's point of view was and how insulated and arrogant he'd become, as it chronicled the making of his next film Lady in the Water. It was no wonder his films were becoming hackneyed...he refused to listen to people who didn't like his ideas (even threatening to fire his assistant when he disagreed with him about a trailer). Warner Brothers picked up the tab though, and bankrolled Lady In The Water for $70M. This time, there was blood in the water...the film was savaged by critics and grossed a pathetic $72M worldwide. And this had been Night's most personal film to date. The party was over. It was a weird, personal film like Unbreakable, but couldn't pull in that film's numbers. Night's reputation was starting to bleed into his films' box office take...he was becoming a bloated, parody of himself and his films were literally becoming parodies themselves.
A personal note...after I'd seen Lady, I pretty much lost touch with a filmmaker I greatly admired up to that point. A filmmaker who remained removed from Hollywood (he lives and makes his films in Philadelphia, his home town), but dominated their system and made fairly personal films. He was living the dream. But Lady was...I couldn't believe how bad it was, and I couldn't believe the man who made Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs was even capable of making such a wretched abomination. How can someone who can make something as genuinely amazing as Sixth Sense, and to a lesser degree Unbreakable and Signs, make such a stinker? It amazes me to this day.
At this point the business was getting more and more bloated with expensive blockbusters and the mid budgeted films were vanishing from studios' release schedules. Night was probably the only filmmaker in town able to make $60M thrillers without huge stars...studios weren't making those much anymore because they didn't want singles or doubles, they wanted home runs, and to get home runs, the model the business used was generic, safe, razzle-dazzle films with lots of action and visual FX in order to bring in huge grosses, and those films cost alot of money.
Now Night was forced to go back to the well and come up with a high concept idea, that could be done relatively low budget. So The Happening...happened. With his lowest budget since The Sixth Sense ($48M), Night made an absolutely laughable piece of shit...a movie so tone deaf you wonder if Night sold his soul to the devil to make it in Hollywood and the devil had come to pay up. This was supposed to be a Night-one-hitter-quitter-thriller...the kind of film he could reliably make and bring home the bacon for the studio (which was Fox...I'm assuming Warner Brothers dropped him like a bad habit after the Lady disaster). But it couldn't even do Unbreakable or The Village numbers. A combination of Night's falling star with the public and a garbage movie to his name, it seemed Night's career was on life support.
So I imagine at this point he had no choice. The medium budget era was all but over at the studios, and since Night couldn't deliver anymore at that level anyway, he was forced to become a filmmaker for hire on a big budget spectacle...this was Night backed into a corner. The Last Airbender was the first film in his career that did not originate from his brain. Not to mention he had little to no experience with CGI. The result was an even bigger travesty than even Lady or The Happening...if you can believe it. A film so horrible that I kept having to pinch myself while watching it. I couldn't believe a studio had allowed filming to continue on a film with actors so fucking wretched they made soap actors look like Oscar contenders. Who was watching the dailies and seeing this shit? I suppose since the film cost $150M (excluding marketing, and Night's biggest budget BY FAR), the studio was afraid to shut the film down, sit Night in a corner and tell him that they may as well let an NYU film student take over because the results would probably be the same, but the student would be cheaper. The film made $319M, but it didn't matter...Night was at the adult's table now, and with a $150M negative cost, excluding marketing, that simply wasn't good enough. If this had been another medium budget thriller from Night, he'd be alright, but it was a big budget spectacle based on a popular IP, and the studio obviously expected better results.
So now we have After Earth. Another big budget spectacle, not based on an existing popular IP, but the biggest movie star in the world as backup (Will Smith). Night has no more choices if he wants to stay in the A-level game. He has to take studio for hire work now, or find some small company willing to bankroll a medium budget film so he can originate his own ideas, since clearly the studios are not taking chances like that anymore. If After Earf bombs, Night's A-list career might be over...
It's a sad, but interesting story of a man filled with such promise, but the cold, hard reality of money, fame and success turning him into a cautionary tale. I'm sure if you were to ask Night how his career were going he'd say something about enjoying being challenged to play the Hollywood game and broaden his experience...but underneath I'm sure he's missing the days when his name on a movie screen didn't incite laughter, and he could write his own ticket with his own ideas.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Commercials for commercials? What's wrong with the advertising industry?!
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.
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)