Bob, is there any reason that they couldn't just go ahead and buy the rights to more original films, then focus and market test them before committing large funds? If the data comes back good, spend the cash. If it flops anyway, point to the data. Show you did your homework.
Great video all around.The reasons that you gave are exactly why "indie" branches like Fox Searchlight are pretty much a joke now.Independent filmmaking used to be a viable venue for the young talent to get their feet in the door, and could include films of any genre.Now it feels like the word "independent" just feels like shorthand "let's make a bunch of "quirky" characters and ripoff Wes Anderson" (That's one example at least)Do you think that modern audiences are becoming unable to realize that they're being pandered to, or that they just don't care?
this is completely off topic from this post so feel free to ignore it, but I'm just wondering if we'll have your opinion on the latest amazing spider-man trailer
@ SeanThey want things that already exist "in the wild". Modern marketing is based around saturating the public with memes (the broader definition, not 4chan and co.) that link back to a product or brand. By using an already existing property, somebody else has done the first (and easily the hardest) stage of that job for them over the course of years (if not decades). It also gives them built-in cross-promotion (I'd be surprised if Hasbro doesn't already have a warehouse full of the "movie edition" Battleship board game).Also, while people cite Hollywood's obsession with derivative works as what's killing it, that's not it. The real problem is that they've only been making the same dozen or so formulas with characters, settings, and motifs plugged in while keeping everything blandly inoffensive.@ biomechanical923Here's a great explanation of independent vs. "indie"
@Mack: Bob hated it. (http://moviebob.blogspot.com/2012/02/so-when-did-albert-pyun-change-his-name.html)
Kevin smith talked about this stuff years ago in one of "An Evening With with Kevin Smith". He was asked how he stayed in business with modest movies and he answered that He(among other things) sticks to a relatively modest budget, and although his box office numbers are modest he said the income from DVD sales is very good and that keeps him his job. He also said that the entire studio system is aimed at making profit from DVD's and also something you may not know about:As A student of electrical engineering I leard about all the corners cut in order to make suff work, and not just rounding the numbers – I'm talking about some equations that in order to make them more "nics" 3 sometimes equals 2(not kidding). Also when you have some ugly numbers and you want to present them in a "nicer" way you present them in LOG scale. That way you "bend" the scales a bit and use that in order to show off "HEY – This works!" and when they blew my mind with this I was told that EVERYBODY uses this in order to sell some idea – from electrical engineering to economy and so on.
What would I have learned Bob if you offered no solutions?
The moral of the story, that I keep hammering to my friends, is that this stuff continues to happen because we, along with our family and friends, continue channeling money into it and becoming positive statistical data. If we as an audience truly want more original ideas, only go see those films. Stop putting movies like Candyland in first place. (You know it will be.) Even if it's just a film for children and you think fluff is OK for kids, why bother going to the theater for it? The number fudging currently works because we make it work.
Post a Comment