The Revenge Of The Nerds

Some time back, I was telling a friend of mine how excited I was to see Spider-Man 2. He gave me a funny look, and said, “But you write film. I somehow thought people who wrote film would all be into the cinematic equivalent of obscure indie bands.”

After thinking about it a little, I told him that most writers I know care less about what a writer is trying to do, and more about how well he does it. Which is to say, my favorite films of 2005 included BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, KUNG FU HUSTLE, CURSE OF THE WERE-RABBIT, and BATMAN BEGINS. All four films were trying to accomplish very different things—but all four films accomplished their goals brilliantly.

I suspect the same is true of anybody in a creative field. When Michael Jackson was first bursting onto the scene, Fred Astaire famously wrote him a letter complimenting him on his dancing ability. Talent recognizes talent.

Everyone forgets that Mozart was like a total corporate whore.

BTW, I totally tagged you and you so need to make me look cool in front of my fellow nerd travellers. :)

I would put it this way: texture is king.

If the movie has images and sounds that entertain me - if the flow of audio-visual textures has something captivating about it - I become spellbound by the patterns.

And at that point I could care less about the politics or the filmmakers’ aspirations or the critical evaluations.

This bothered me:

...quirky fifteen year-olds who get no love from their peers, even though those same fifteen year-olds will earn millions of dollars as thirty year-olds.

What does earning millions in the future have to do with getting love from your peers?

The Beatles, ET, Shakespeare, The Godfather, The Sopranos. Yes, popularity is an inadequate marker in the classification of what constitutes art, mere entertainment or outright fluff. That doesn’t detract from the fact that the film industry is becoming more sanitized, more safe, more reliant on tired formula than ever.

This is a simple fact, whether you’re a screenwriter anorak or a screenwriter who gets laid every single night. Prominent filmmakers, even producers of mass entertainment like Steven Spielberg, constantly bemoan this fact. The problem is economic: as the budgets for movies inflate, as stars command more and more money, studios are less willing than ever to invest in moderately budgeted movies. They hedge their bets on the $100 million dollar plus picture. In this area of filmmaking there is little room for risk or innovation.

Writers (nerdish or not) are not alone in extending the argument that, for the most part, Hollywood produces crap. There are plenty of directors and producers (who, one might argue, are implicitly social creatures), who argue exactly the same thing.

Studios have been taking the safe road, going with tried and true properties, trying to appeal to the largest audience possible ever since money has been involved in movie making.

You are romancing the past if you think it is worse today than yesterday.

If people beome bored with what Hollywood has to offer, and attendance drops off, and B.O.s decline, then the studios will be more likely to take a risk and make something different. Once again, it is we who decide that.

I dunno, Craig. You really think this “Hollywood sucks” rhetoric is the result of fat, introverted teenagers not getting laid? I think you’re overcomplicating the analysis, not to mention unnecessarily calling into question the sincerity of those who suffer from this mindset (really, who is going to listen to Sigur Ros if they aren’t inclined toward it?).

I think the reality of the matter is simply that many screenwriters, or would-be screenwriters, are bitter upon discovering that their sensibilities are not shared by as many people as they’d like. The underlying reasons for that are irrelevant (and, I would argue, only occassionally the result of not getting laid in high school).

But it’s much easier to blame the soulless Hollywood machine than to admit that the creative product your sensibilities do not warrant an investment of many millions of dollars by a profit-seeking company.

I’m not romanticizing the past Thomas, although I agree with you that for the majority of Hollywood’s history, Studios have played it safe. Neither do I think there’s anything wrong with trying to appeal to a broad audience. As I wrote, popularity is not synonymous with trash.

Hollywood is in the business of making entertainment, not art. It’s naïve to purport any other position. But as you rightly point out, when numbers dwindle Hollywood is capable of taking risks, as with the emergence of the movie brats in the 70s. All subjective, but I would argue that that creates an environment where movies are MORE entertaining.

As a movie goer I go to the cinema or rent a DVD for many reasons and one of them is to be entertained. I find the majority of Hollywood movies formulaic, uninspired and tepid. I find that I’m more likely to enjoy a movie if it takes risks, plays against my expectations AND entertains me. Hollywood movies that fall into this category are, I’m sad to say, in short supply.

I was merely pointing out that the current Hollywood economic model is weighed against risk taking and thus, in my subjective view, the attributes that make movies appealing. By its very nature the Hollywood Blockbuster narrows opportunities for movies with moderate budgets - the kind of movies I like to watch.

I can surely understand why you, or anyone, would like and appreciate the music of Kelly Clarkson, Craig, even though I was a jock in high school and not big into pop music, I get that.

But what’s hard to fathom is anyone liking or appreciating or greenlighting “From Justin To Kelly” as a film when there certainly must be more worth projects out there deserving to be filmed.

Seeing how well that particular film did, how does that apply to your thesis?

Guess I’m on the right track. I don’t even know who or what Sigur Ros is. Kelly Clarkson, I know and enjoy.

Andy:

My point was that talented people are often underappreciated by their peers when they’re young, in contrast to how well they are appreciated when they’re older. That’s all. The millions was to make the extreme point, but it holds for anyone who is appreciated now more than they were then.

Matt:

Spielberg bemoans Hollywood as a crap factory? Really? Because for a long time now, he’s owned one of the prominent factories himself.

Of course, much of what Hollywood does misses, but that’s true of most industries. Winners are rarer than losers. The real questions are: are they trying to win, and what’s “winning?”

Michael:

I have a penchant for analysis. :)

Joshua:

Greenlighting “From Justin To Kelly” is an easy call. It’s exactly the same reason “A Hard Day’s Night” was greenlit. Did you know that “A Hard Day’s Night” took four months from start of writing to premiere? Know why? Because everyone wanted to capitalize on this Beatles thing before it burnt out, and everyone assumed it was going to be burnt out within months.

Same with “From Justin To Kelly.” As an avid American Idol viewer, I might have even considered seeing an American Idol movie had it seemed good to me, and therein is the problem.

“A Hard Day’s Night” was a shrewd, corporate calculation designed to exploit a pop culture phenomenon, and it appealed to its intended audience of Beatles fans (and many others). “From Justin To Kelly” was a shrewd, corporate calculation designed to exploit a pop culture phenomenon, and it did not appeal to its intended audience. My suspicion is that making it a love story took the entire concept out of the world that AI fans love (the competition) and put it in a world that no one cared about or recognized (weird romance between two people whom we knew didn’t actually love each other).

Either way, the movie sucked because the audience said, “this movie sucks.” The intention behind it? Traditional, time-tested and well worth preserving for the next big pop culture phenomenon.

Therefore, the corporate logic failed when it came to “From Justin To Kelly” - if profit and good movie execution was the goal, someone should have at some point, either in script stage or during shooting, mentioned that this was a probable lemon. Because we knew without even seeing anything other than the trailer that the movie blew.

And if I recall, didn’t Richard Lester just shoot Hard Day’s Night with little to no interference (until time came for editing)?

And for the record, I don’t necessarily disagree with a lot of what you’re saying … I think appealing to a lot of people as an entertainer is a good thing. I just don’t know that creative decisions made by a board of non-creative business execs is the way to go to achieve that, really.

There is a difference between collaboration (a sharing of ideas, it’s a good thing) and corporate groupthink (cover your ass and be conservative as possible) that I think is not being addressed here. Not just in entertainment, but in other areas, groupthink can hurt creative, innovative thinking. It’s a reason why Japan, who does well and adapting and developing other people’s ideas, has had trouble coming up with new inventions on their own (though thankfully the culture is slowly changing over there in the sciences, anyway.)

I just don’t know that certain things, like music, literature and possibly films, are best done by committee. Especially if that committee’s expertise lies in a field other than the one practiced for profit - we never tell our mechanic how to fix a car, yet non-writers other do the same for writers.

And I don’t really think it’s about whether or not a person was popular in school.

This is all just my simple opinion, of course.

Are there not countless examples of movies turned down by studios for not being viewed as commercial, only to see a profitable run much later?

‘Spielberg bemoans Hollywood as a crap factory.’

That wasn’t exactly how I put it Craig but I get your point.

I read an interview with Spielberg a few years back where he intimated that he was frustrated with the difficulty in getting pictures made for around the 20-50 million mark. Now, he may have been being disingenuous (after all this is the man who gave us War of the Worlds, Jurassic Park - a man who had a big hand in shaping the Hollywood landscape as we know it today) but I’ve read similar gripes in interviews with Martin Scorsese, Woody Allen and Francis Coppola.

Winners and losers? I’d guess that from a business standpoint, ‘winning’ for Hollywood means getting as many people in cinemas as possible. If that’s the case the studios are clearly winning and have been for some time. However, does success in business mean you necessarily have to peddle quality product or just market inferior product the right way? Coca Cola is amazingly successful at pushing sugary water. Why should it be any harder for Hollywood studios to do the same thing with blockbusters?

Being on the DVD Premiere end of the industry, I tend to use this analogy (paraphrased from Drive-In King, Earl Owensby) when discussing the movies I’ve written or produced:

“We are not making ‘art’. We are making ‘ort’ - as in it ort to be entertaining, but first it ort to make money.”

Or to paraphrase an editor discussing the pulp magazines of the 30’s:

“Are these movies any good? No - but they’re great.”

Everyone forgets that our motion picture origins are not from the theater - they are from the circus, the sideshow, the nickelodeon. We are the children of spectacle. “Show” business.

Bergman recognized this when he signed the deal for Roger Corman’s New World Pictures to distribute his films in the U.S. The goal was to get the picture seen by the widest audience possible, in as many areas as possible.

Craig, you’re confusing producers’ objectives with filmmakers’ objectives. The moneymen of “Hard Day’s Night” and “From Justin to Kelly” no doubt had the same objective — make a quick buck on a soon-to-be passing fad, but there is a world of difference in the way these two projects were CREATED. One was done with a unique style, energy and enormous wit and the other was ninety-some-odd minutes of vapid soul-sucking without any redeeming values. Everyone wants to be paid, everyone wants to be appreciated, but if your overriding criteria for choosing projects (this goes for writers, directors and actors)is based on profit projections rather than passion for the material, it always shows up in the work like a big fat scarlet letter and THAT’S the definition of a sell-out :)

Gary:

So your thesis is that the filmmakers of “FJTK” wanted the movie to be bad?

Regardless, this article is not about filmmakers. It’s about Hollywood and Hollywood’s intentions and Hollywood’s attitudes toward quality.

“Michael:

I have a penchant for analysis. :)”

I don’t care if you want to put these people on the couch; my point is that, in doing so, I think you’ve got the whole thing backwards. You suggest that writers, “through abuse or underapprecation,” develop what you call “a resentment of popularity itself.” And I think that is a uselessly broad generalization and one that’s largely innaccurate.

Yes, there is certainly a type of person out there who purposefully shuns whatever is popular, but my experience with those folks is that their snobbery also causes them to shun a career path of writing for the movies.

The mindset you’re reacting against is not that of a beer snob who orders a Chimay because everyone else ordered an MGD, it’s that of a Chimay vendor who can’t understand why his stock isn’t selling as well as his competitor’s MGD, and then blames it on marketing or tasteless bar owners or anything other than the fact that most people prefer an MGD over some bitey beer made by Trappist monks.

These people don’t resent the idea of popularity, they resent the fact that what they’re producing does not acheive popularity. And when it doesn’t, they want to find excuses for why not.

(FWIW: I love Chimay, but I can also appreciate a warm can of Tecate when the time is right).

Craig you wrote:

“First, determine whom your audience is, and then work like a dog to entertain them. The best entertainers are driven by that alone, and suggestions of objective quality are ignored.”

Craig, when I write something, I just ask myself if I’m telling a great story. That’s it. I never try to write to a particular audience (incidentally, what I write leans more toward mainstream stuff). Do you disagree with thinking only in those terms — of just trying to write a great story?

CRAIG:

This in response to your original article…

YES, YES, YES!!!

Westerns have ruined us.

What I mean is, westerns have ruined our ability to look at Hollywood for what it is. A business. It’s just far too easy to cast the screenwriter or filmmaker as the man in White and Big Bad Hollywood as the man in Black.

It’s comforting to think in this manner. After all, we’re smarter than everyone else and the mass audience are driveling idiots that will spend incredible amounts of money just to see a lightsaber take off a Computer Generated Sith’s head. It’s fine to keep thinking this way just as long as you realize that any perspective Agent, Producer, of Studio Head will run the other way when it comes time to read your script.

I know I would.

Here’s the thing. There are a lot of movies that Hollywood churns out that are completely awful. There are also a lot of movies that Hollywood churns out that are great and inspiring. Now here’s the kicker:

The awful movie and the great movie may actually be the same movie depending on whom you ask…

We work in a completely subjective medium. And NOBODY knows if a film is going to be bad or good until an audience says that it’s bad or good. But I do know this. NOBODY intends to make a bad film. Not even Hollywood. No…especially Hollywood.

Wanna know the difference between Grease and From Justin to Kelly? People saw Grease.

FJTK is a stupid, campy movie with a plethora of bad acting, bad singing, and bad dancing.

Grease is a stupid, campy movie with a plethora of bad acting, bad singing, and so-so dancing.

On my list of worst movies of all time, My Big Fat Greek Wedding is Number 6. If I was given the script I never would have made it. Does that make me an idiot? No. I’m an idiot for completely different reasons.

I can’t tell you if filmmaking by committee is the best thing for a movie. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t.

Michael kind of hits the nail right on the head. It’s all about excuses.

“Hollywood, BAD! Me, GOOD!”

It’s all crap. Hollywood is kinda like the really pretty girl who dates unattractive guys. You think she’s vapid and stupid. She’s gotta be a Gold-Digger. They look ridiculous together. Why else would she be with him? But you don’t really know what they’ve talked about. You don’t know if he’s the only guy who ever made her laugh. In fact, you really don’t know how they even met. But one thing is for sure:

You just wish you had met her first.

“And for the record, I don’t necessarily disagree with a lot of what you’re saying … I think appealing to a lot of people as an entertainer is a good thing. I just don’t know that creative decisions made by a board of non-creative business execs is the way to go to achieve that, really.”

I think that’s a fair point. With studios being publicly held now, and more of the studio executives being “business types” (i.e., former agents) than in years past, how does that impact creative decision-making?

“Wanna know the difference between Grease and From Justin to Kelly? People saw Grease.”

Uh, no, no and no. I’m sure that there are many dramaturgical differences between the films, and I know that there were sound creative decisions made with Grease (which include casting Stockard Channing and John Travolta) and the fact that the music was and still is popular and hell, they’re just better actors and there are moments in the script that STILL work - and Grease was a successful stage musical before it was a movie, so in essence, there is much to differentiate between the two projects, I’m sure, which is why Grease was and continues to be successful (it’s on television a LOT) and why folks will turn the channel if From Justin to Kelly comes on.

In essence, I am saying that there is A REASON Grease was popular and FJTK wasn’t, and that had to do with the creative choices involved in the execution.

Isn’t that what we’re really talking about?

Ismo-

You “couldn’t” care less.

sorry. My only pet peeve.

bscottw:

Oops. Good call.

I had just realized something cool about the story I’m writing, and the comment reflects my lighthearted mood.

At that moment, I couldn’t care less about proofreading. ;)

I love this line:

“Somewhere, a college radio DJ’s head just exploded.”

Craig:

Most of the times your observations are quite spot on, but I think you missed it this time. First I’d like to make a few comments to some of your statements and then come to a conclusion… So here it goes:

All anyone in Hollywood wants to do is entertain an audience. Hmm… sure, but that’s not everyone’s primary motive, is it? They want to make money, by entertaining the audience (as much as possible). That’s quite something different. This doesn’t apply to everybody, of course. Some people’s sole purpose IS only to entertain, but I’d say that those people are almost always the “creatives” (and not all of them either) I think the resentment of popularity always boils down to that. The fact that it’s not made for the sake of making it, but for the sake of entertaining people and/or for making lots of money. I think that’s the primary motive for hating everything popular.

The dramatically inclined nerd? […]a resentment of popularity itself is born. That seems to me to be rather simplistic. I’ve worked in all kinds of areas like art, fashion, design, the theatre, etc. and I assure you that elitists exist everywhere (and there’s elitism in all of us) and no they’re not always nerds, nor have been.

With elitism people try to convince other people (and themselves) that they belong to a certain group. That’s all there is to it really. Most of the times this group consists either out of your colleagues and/or your friends. It’s a way of trying to distinct yourself from “the others” by showing that you belong to a certain group, and this showing is done by having a certain taste which is more or less the same in the whole group. Nobody escapes from that. Not even you. You’ve given the best example yourself by stating that you don’t like Sigur Ros but do like Kelly Clarkson. You distinct yourself with that statement from the elitists. Go ahead. Make fun of me. I don�t care. I like it. If you really wouldn’t care, you wouldn’t have needed to state that. You’ve taught yourself not to care and by doing that getting some pride out of it, upon which you can say, “Hey, I’m not like those elitists, I can appreciate something even when it’s popular. Doesn’t that actually make me smarter?” It’s what all of us do. The elitists and the non-elitists alike. The difference is that the criterium with which the elitists want to distinct themselves is the rejection of everything popular. Everybody defines themselve by criteria like that and with that they define themselves towards other people. The same rules apply to people’s opinions about Hollywood (I think…)

JOSHUA:

“In essence, I am saying that there is A REASON Grease was popular and FJTK wasn’t, and that had to do with the creative choices involved in the execution”

Ha Ha! I was waiting for someone to call, “Bullshit!” on my comparison. Essentially you’re correct. Grease was adapted from a very successful play and then grew into a wildly popular movie. From Justin to Kelly was adapted from a popular television show but then had absolutely nothing to do with the television show. FJTK is just horrible.

But a REASON? Hmmm…

How ‘bout this…Rent.

Rent was an even popular Broadway play, the songs are popular as hell. The play won a Tony Award and a Pulitzer. The movie was directed by an Oscar winning Director and retained most of the original cast. When the film debuted it even got some pretty positive reviews.

Rent flopped.

It lost a ton of money. It cost around 40 million to produce (not including P&A) and it grossed around 28 million. Was there a REASON? Yes.

People just did not want to see it.

The very same thing could have happened to Grease. In fact, if the same audience who made William Hung a star had went to see FJTK, it would have made the movie a success. You just can not predict why a movie is a success and why a movie is a flop.

I could find a million people who absolutely agree with you when you say all those great, positive things about Grease. I could also find a million people who absolutely agree with me when I say that Grease was crap.

And even more shocking…you can actually even find people who like FJTK. All 2 of them.

What about when the opposite happens? I absolutely LOVED Shawshank Redemption, The Usual Suspects, and Cinderella Man. They all flopped at the Box Office. Was there a REASON for this? Sure, anyone can speculate but nobody really knows. Because if it was that easy to find a reason why a movie flops and a movie is successful there would never be any flops. And bad movies wouldn’t exist.

I would definitely sleep better at night if bad and good was an absolute and not a subjective notion. But it isn’t. And that’s why everyone is always so damned terrified all the time.

I guess that’s my point. It’s not about blaming or trying to figure out Hollywood. It’s about the audience. Someone actually quoted Spielberg.

Huh?

Spielberg isn’t famous for little arthouse films. Hell, Spielberg invented the Blockbuster!

So those big sweaty Blockbusters that everyone on this site hates is waaaay in the minority. Just because someone thinks that Star Wars: Phantom Menace is crap just doesn’t make it so.

They’d be right but it doesn’t make it so.

Usual Suspects was not a flop and Shawshank is on TNT every weekend and before that one of the biggest DVD / video rentals ever … evidence of the power of the right creative choices.

Shawshank didn’t do well in its original run, sure, at least not as well as thought … but the audience found the movie because it heard it was quality.

How many times have you seen Shawshank? I would argue that it’s now a profitible movie. It certainly put Darabont on the map.

You are not seriously putting RENT on the same level as FJTK, are you? Rent made money, and again it didn’t do what the studios hoped, but it’s not finished its run around the world, either. Not even counting what it will do when it goes to DVD.

None of the movies you’ve mentioned have “flopped” the way FJTK flopped, dude, not even close. And the reason was because of the creative choices made, which is really what we are talking about here, as I said.

And a pet peeve of mine … people didn’t go to see CINDERELLA MAN because they didn’t need to … we saw the WHOLE fricking movie in the trailer, it showed every beat, every act break and the final fight, except the last few moments. It may be a great film, but why would people spend ten to thirty bucks to see a movie when they just saw the entire story in the preview?

Usual Suspects was not a flop and Shawshank is on TNT every weekend and before that one of the biggest DVD / video rentals ever … evidence of the power of the right creative choices.

Shawshank didn’t do well in its original run, sure, at least not as well as thought … but the audience found the movie because it heard it was quality.

How many times have you seen Shawshank? I would argue that it’s now a profitible movie. It certainly put Darabont on the map.

You are not seriously putting RENT on the same level as FJTK, are you? Rent made money, and again it didn’t do what the studios hoped, but it’s not finished its run around the world, either. Not even counting what it will do when it goes to DVD.

None of the movies you’ve mentioned have “flopped” the way FJTK flopped, dude, not even close. And the reason was because of the creative choices made, which is really what we are talking about here, as I said.

And a pet peeve of mine … people didn’t go to see CINDERELLA MAN because they didn’t need to … we saw the WHOLE fricking movie in the trailer, it showed every beat, every act break and the final fight, except the last few moments. It may be a great film, but why would people spend ten to thirty bucks to see a movie when they just saw the entire story in the preview?

Craig, good post.

I think it’s a matter of ego.

Some people like to stroke their ego by saying they are better than those sell-out Uncle Toms who work in HW, or they say the reason HW hasn’t bought their precious work is because HW is too stupid and too homogenized to recognize the unique genius and voice of their little script.

It has nothing to do with the lame derivative concept or the glacial pacing or the confusing plot and unsympathetic characters - the reason people in HW reject those scripts is because the people in HW are mindless cogs in a heartless machine that devours and destroys originality.

As if bad writing was synonymous with original.

Sure.

No one would argue that HW has produced some bad films. But so has the indi world (more so IMHO).

No one sets out to make a bad film.

Studios are just as driven to make films audiences will connect to and enjoy as their art house indi counterparts are. They all have their successes and their failures.

Neither methodology or ideology has proven itself to be superior - just different from each other.

What HW has proven itself to be better at is in marketing and making films that have a broad appeal. It has always been that way. The studio system was founded on a financial and marketing system that depends on reaching a wide audience.

To suggest that this is something new is to falsely represent the history of the HW film industry.

The indi method has proven itself to be better at making films that have a narrow appeal. It always been that way. The indi system was founded on finding and filling niche markets and reaching a small audience.

Other than their business models, both film industries have the same objective - to reach their audience and recoup enough profits from their films to afford to make more films.

Sometimes they get it right - sometimes they don’t.

That is the nature of commercial art.

That is the nature of this business.

There is no evil conspiracy here.

Just hard working people doing their best to make a good film that people will like and want to pay to see.

My .02

Craig, I am so glad that you made this post. The Hollywood system is referred to as “Show BUSINESS”. Yes, it is art, but to take a risk, people must pay for the art. It seems that those involved the non-confomist craze doesn’t realize that they are conforming to a group of their own. We should all like what we like-not based on the popular opinion.

JOSHUA:

Usual Suspects was absolutely a flop at the Box Office. It was made for about 6 million and it grossed less than 2.5 million Worldwide. It was discovered on DVD but it absolutely flopped at the Box Office.

From Justin to Kelly cost around 11 million and made about 6 million Worldwide. They flopped in about exactly the same loss percentage. In fact, percentage wise, FJTK actually did BETTER than Usual Suspects…

You’re right. Shawshank didn’t flop but it pretty much just broke even at the Box Office.

Rent and FJTK on the same level? Quality wise, absolutely not. But Rent did not make money. It LOST money. A ton of money. Perhaps it will be discovered on DVD but Rent is not the type of movie that does well overseas and I doubt they will even make 2 million in Foreign markets.

Quality aside, these movies are all the same on paper. FJTK, The Usual Suspects, and Rent all lost money. And they all lost the same amount of money percentage wise.

In fact when you factor in P&A, FJTK lost the least amount of money. It’s scary, sick, and wrong but it’s the truth.

Was there a REASON for this? I have no idea.

P.S. I also hate when they show too much of the movie in a trailer.

JOSHUA:

Usual Suspects was absolutely a flop at the Box Office. It was made for about 6 million and it grossed less than 2.5 million Worldwide. It was discovered on DVD but it absolutely flopped at the Box Office.

From Justin to Kelly cost around 11 million and made about 6 million Worldwide. They flopped in about exactly the same loss percentage. In fact, percentage wise, FJTK actually did BETTER than Usual Suspects…

You’re right. Shawshank didn’t flop but it pretty much just broke even at the Box Office.

Rent and FJTK on the same level? Quality wise, absolutely not. But Rent did not make money. It LOST money. A ton of money. Perhaps it will be discovered on DVD but Rent is not the type of movie that does well overseas and I doubt they will even make 2 million in Foreign markets.

Quality aside, these movies are all the same on paper. FJTK, The Usual Suspects, and Rent all lost money. And they all lost the same amount of money percentage wise.

In fact when you factor in P&A, FJTK lost the least amount of money. It’s scary, sick, and wrong but it’s the truth.

Was there a REASON for this? I have no idea.

P.S. I also hate when they show too much of the movie in a trailer.

JOSHUA:

Usual Suspects was absolutely a flop at the Box Office. It was made for about 6 million and it grossed less than 2.5 million Worldwide. It was discovered on DVD but it absolutely flopped at the Box Office.

From Justin to Kelly cost around 11 million and made about 6 million Worldwide. They flopped in about exactly the same loss percentage. In fact, percentage wise, FJTK actually did BETTER than Usual Suspects…

You’re right. Shawshank didn’t flop but it pretty much just broke even at the Box Office.

Rent and FJTK on the same level? Quality wise, absolutely not. But Rent did not make money. It LOST money. A ton of money. Perhaps it will be discovered on DVD but Rent is not the type of movie that does well overseas and I doubt they will even make 2 million in Foreign markets.

Quality aside, these movies are all the same on paper. FJTK, The Usual Suspects, and Rent all lost money. And they all lost the same amount of money percentage wise.

In fact when you factor in P&A, FJTK lost the least amount of money. It’s scary, sick, and wrong but it’s the truth.

Was there a REASON for this? I have no idea.

P.S. I also hate when they show too much of the movie in a trailer.

This is how I see it.

Anyone who’s risked being unpopular to say something they believed in ought to appreciate the courage it takes someone else to have to take the same risk.

Which is what I think inspires a lot of artists to vilify unpopular artists. They respect the conviction required to produce something unpopular.

But the point of just such a display is this: you?re prepared for what you do to be unpopular.

To make a movie that you know is going to say things people don’t want to hear, to present bittersweet scenes in unsympathetic molds, and then complain when you?re movie is unpopular… that just means you’re an effing MORON.

It takes balls to be different. It takes no balls to Xerox the status quo.

It takes creative insight to realize something new. It takes creative nil to Xerox the latest entertainment fad.

You need creative balls to create something new that also understands and capitalizes on prevailing trends. You need to be stubborn and deliberately ignorant of prevailing trends to expect work that is neither new nor capitalizes on prevailing trends to be popular.

Terry said it best: To ignore the audience is suicide.

Honestly — why parade your work around for public appraisal if you didn?t make it with the intent to please the public?

Art isn’t good because it’s unpopular. It’s unpopular because no one likes it. That’s all it means. And if an unpopular work was designed without popular elements, then it was designed to be disliked.

And just because a movie does nothing but become popular doesn’t make it a failure, either. Quite frankly, I get enough insight from real life, thank you very much. If all the movie does is tell a damn good yarn for two hours, who cares if it tells me anything new?

I (figuratively) roll my eyes at the “artistes” who scorn screenwriters and others involved in the creative arts who appeal to a large number of people—why am I not surprised that these folks (the critics), though not untalented, are not enormously successful at what they do? When I see what appears to be a case of sour grapes, it lowers my respect for the critic, not the criticized.

Dude, Usual Suspects won Oscars and it also on television, somewhere at some point … and it also made money overseas as well, which I doubt FJTK did.

If you are speaking strictly original run domestic BO gross, perhaps it’s close … but we are talking about profitability, are we not? Usual Suspects MADE money, I wager, and will until the end of time.

How many people do you know who have seen it? A lot. How many people do you know have seen FJTK?

I don’t know any, and I know a lot of people.

And Rent is still earning, and was not a flop - I’m not sure where you’re getting your figures, but it definitely will, in the end, out-perform FJTK and will also play well when it gets to DVD.

I think the films are not comparible.

Double Dude, the figures I quoted to you are absolutely positively correct. I was very specific and it’s quite easy to verify. I’m talking about Box Office, Domestic and Foreign.

The Usual Suspects deserved to win Oscars. It was a great movie. But it at the BOX OFFICE it totally died (in its initial run). It lost more money than FJTK. They did in fact rerelease the film, however. True, with the DVD’s and the sales to television markets it became quite profitable but not in THE BOX OFFICE.

Rent was indeed a flop and it is not earning anything anymore domestically. The theatrical run is closed. If they release this Worldwide and I do mean IF, it truly won’t make a dent. They lost a TON of money.

You keep talking about quality and that’s my point. You can’t measure quality by profitability. It’d be nice but you can’t.

And I personally don’t know one soul who saw FJTK. I feel sorry for anyone who watched it.

But why couldn’t you compare Rent and FJTK? They’re both musicals that lost money. FJTK lost about 5 million dollars for FOX. Rent lost about 11 million for SONY. I’m sure that Rent is a superior movie and I’m also sure that Sony put a lot of thought into the movie. Everyone I know who saw it said they liked it. But it lost money.

Quality of movie and Profitability have less to do with each other than we’d care to admit.

Profit wise, Rent will make it’s money back, as Usual Suspects did … . so I still believe it’s not an apt comparision …

Okay.

I’m not entirely sure what we’re disagreeing on so I have a question.

We know that Hollywood doesn’t want to produce bad movies, right? We know that Hollywood wants to produce profitable movies, right?

Okay, so how do these bad movies happen? (Heh, heh, heh, I see all the hands raising saying things like, “Bad Script! Bad Acting! Bad Direction!”)

So if a movie is “Bad” then it shouldn’t make any money, right?

But sometimes they do.

How is that possible?

And if a movie is “Good” then it should make money, right?

But sometimes they don’t.

How is that possible?

Whenever these conversations come up, it’s usually summed up in this little equation:

Hollywood=Popular=Bad.

Somebody even called Hollywood SLAVEMASTERS. I found that particularly hilarious.

Why was Armageddon a hit and Deep Impact a flop? Because people saw Armageddon.

That’s the only difference.

Tom Roston at Premiere magazine asked me why I make Art House films. My response was this:

“It’s only Art House if doesn’t make any money. Once a film makes money it immediately becomes commercial, no matter what the subject.”

I believed that then and I believe that now because it’s the absolute truth. If you were to tell me that The Woodsman would’ve been a tremendous flop when I was at Sundance I would have laughed in your face. At Sundance we were the bell of the ball. When it came out, it just totally died. Because nobody wanted to see it.

Hannah Pilkes, the little girl in the film was only in it for 6 minutes. But she was nominated for an Independent Spirit Award. Because she was that good. And I still believe the movie is very good. But nobody wanted to see it.

Most aspiring writers that I know, especially in New York, absolutely HATE the very notion of Hollywood. And it’s usually the assumption, an incorrect assumption, that Hollywood is indeed a crap factory. Mainly because of those big, noisy, brainless Blockbusters.

But you know what? I like some of those Blockbusters. My son likes some of those Blockbusters. And nothing will instill the fact that good and bad is subjective than having a 6 year old kid.

Do you know what I think when people say that a movie like George of the Jungle (the Brendan Fraser version) is a piece of crap and never should’ve been made. I think,Fuck You.

My son likes that movie and it makes him laugh. And no one’s gonna take that away from him, especially not an intellectual nerd who thinks that every movie should be written by Charlie Kaufman.

I don’t particularly like those movies but there are scores of others who do. And that’s my point. Just because someone thinks a movie is bad or good just doesn’t make it so. Hollywood has absolutely no interest in making a bad movie. I love Pirates of the Caribbean. And I love the writing. But if Johnny Depp wasn’t cast, I think the ultimate fate of that movie would’ve been vastly different. It would’ve been Cutthroat Island.

Hollywood is a Business. And they want to make money. And the better the product, the more money they make. As artists we tend to believe that Studio Execs (read: Hollywood) are soulless, uncreative, morons who’s soul job is to screw up our movie. We think that because that’s our role. We think we know everything, including what makes a successful movie. And you know what Studio Execs do? They pat us on the head and take the heat. Because that’s their role. Fact is, I’ve known a lot of very smart, creative, and funny Studio Execs. They think in ways that we don’t because that’s their job. And when they suggest that the protagonist should be playing the scene with a Coca-Cola in his hand, that doesn’t necessarily make them idiots.

We don’t read about the really helpful and creative solutions that Studio Execs think up. Because praising an executive is unpopular. And from a marketing point of view, not very smart. Audiences don’t care or like executives. They want every good idea to come from the Writer, Director, or Producer. But that’s just not always the case.

In fact, it’s a flat out lie.

But it makes us feel much more comfortable to blame evil Hollywood for the shit on screen. Gimme a break.

And if Hollywood was run by solely by creative thinkers like Writers or Directors or Producers, who have absolutely no idea how to run a business, it would close up shop within the week.

Isn’t Hollywood the worst?

That is, until we want their money.

I think that there are many creatives good at business and many business folk who are creative, so I’m not arguing with you about that. And as I stated earlier, I think appealing to a broad spectrum is a good thing … so I don’t think hollywood is a big bad monster. I took issue with two things …

Screenwriters were geeks and that’s why they resent hollywood

don’t agree

Two

The only difference between Grease and From Justin To Kelly is that people saw Grease.

Untrue. People saw Grease because it was quality work in a certain genre. They didn’t see FJTK because it wasn’t.

As I said, I think populist entertainment is a great thing. I think collaboration is a good thing.

I think groupthink is possibly negative in any creative field.

There’s really no way to know if Pirates would have been on par with CI. That was a disaster from day one, ill concieved on every level. LKG, on the other hand, would have been a very big hit if it was released at a different studio and they had found a bankable leading lady. Clearly, boning Geena Davis will do no man good. Pirates would have brought a decent amount of people into the theater based on marketing and the brand name. No one knows how much it would have made without Depp, but if you think it would have grossed 10 million domestic…

Screenwriters were geeks and that’s why they resent hollywood

I agree with you and I don’t agree with that notion.

I think that it’s just naivete and a basic fundamental misunderstanding of the entertainment business.

The only difference between Grease and From Justin To Kelly is that people saw Grease.

We definitely disagree here. Quality and Popularity is not mutually exclusive. It never has been and it never will be.

I think groupthink is possibly negative in any creative field.

You could be right. But then again, films are a group project. It’s not like painting a picture. A film can only exist in groupthink. Whether that makes it good or bad, I can’t say. Sometimes it’s a disaster, sometimes it’s successful. But there’s only one group that can determine that…

The Audience.

Craig, I’m thinking t-shirts:

I am Kelly Clarkson.

Self-satisfied, self-indulgent, self-rationalizing. Using high-school debate terms to sound smarter. You just lost a reader.

And for the record: There is something very wrong with McNuggets and the public’s popular consent in regards to them.

It’s an enormous health hazard.

Damn, Larry…this is the post that did it? I’ve been way more self-indulgent, self-satisfied and self-rationalizing (whatever that means) in the past.

I will cop to having been on my high school debate team. I wasn’t very good.

Kevin, I don’t know where you’re getting your numbers from, but according to Box Office Mojo The Usual Suspects made $23.3 million in theaters in its U.S. release alone, on a production budget of $6 million.

That’s domestic, not worldwide. The movie was hugely profitable, even before it hit DVD.

Also Kevin, Deep Impact was not a flop at all. It made $140 million domestic, and another $209 million foreign.

That’s $349 million worldwide. Less than the $553 million that Armageddon made worldwide, but still, people saw Deep Impact. A lot of people. Even though it was second.

I feel strangely compelled to watch FJTK now.

In my humble opinion…

The artistic v. commercial debate is so tired and more importantly, it is almost exclusively the domain of folks who are completely unfamiliar with any of the day-in, day-out realities of the film industry. The production and distribution of a movie is extraordinarily expensive. Everyone acknowledges that. What then confuses me is the thought process that accepts this realization, and can still yield self-righteous complaints about how “Hollywood” is scared to take a chance.

It stems from the “artiste” mentality that believes, “I am special. The rules don’t apply to me. I shouldn’t be held to the same standards as everyone else. My project deserves to be made by virtue of my own sense of specialness.” Studios have a bottom line to worry about when deciding what products to invest millions of dollars in. They need to make these decisions in such a way as to minimize risk. That doesn’t make them evil, that makes them a business. No shareholder would prefer a screener of an Oscar winner that lost million in place of their dividend check. That’s who they answer to: not the audience and certainly not some disgruntled auteur.

Good and Bad are individual subjective assessments of value. Even an overwhelming consensus doesn’t make them objective. The only proof is in the bottom-line. Anything else is academic. FJTK is bad because it tanked. That’s the only reason. Everything else is opinion.

If “Hollywood” doesn’t want to make your movie, then pay for it yourself. it’s a very simple alternative. Can’t? Won’t? Guess what, you just made a business decision.

Scott:

I did mention that The Usual Suspects was Re-Released.

But you’re right, I was totally off with Deep Impact. I was thinking of Dante’s Peak.

Perhaps the comparison I was looking for was Volcano vs. Dante’s Peak.

Sorry ‘bout that.

Hey Craig. I’d say it’s the nerd category is part of the ven dam diagram, but the larger circle is those with “existential detachment”. Writers usually spring forth from that larger category, those who feel unable to connect for a variety of reasons, (Jean-Dominique Bauby wrote the Diving Bell and the Butterfly from within his stroke paralyzed body, blinking an eye as code to a nurse who wrote his words ) writing is the desperate need to pour that longing of lonliness - of lack of connection - out - and literally connect with the world through your words - and to create a world they you with. so the nerd thing is true to a point, but the bigger “gee we’re ugly” group is more to the point - a lot of folks who feel they just don’t fit into the mold of life, who feel they have no voice in life, so they create one on the page. As to Hollywood - of course, it’s the corporate shit box, crushing everything into one bland juice to try and hit the biggest market. Do these two ever cross over? If hollywood thinks it can make money off some poor existentially distressed loner’s story, of course. Will they defile the original talent’s brilliant point of view - that ironically might have generated more money becuase it had a brilliant point of view? Sadly - that’s guaranteed unless you luck out somehow.

“As to Hollywood - of course, it’s the corporate shit box, crushing everything into one bland juice to try and hit the biggest market. Do these two ever cross over? If Hollywood thinks it can make money off some poor existentially distressed loner’s story, of course. Will they defile the original talent’s brilliant point of view - that ironically might have generated more money because it had a brilliant point of view? Sadly - that’s guaranteed unless you luck out somehow.”

But Philip, the subtext of your post is clearly, “I am the ‘original talent’ who has the ‘brilliant point-of-view,”’ so it’s really putting the horse before the cart. For a studio, it’s about risk management. They can’t simply take your word for it that you are ‘brilliant’. If a writer is that confident in their material, they ought to do whatever it takes to make the picture themselves. Why would anyone who feels the way you do send anything to “Hollywood” in the first place?

I don’t even know what you mean by “corporate shitbox.” The reason these corporations have all this money to spend in the first place is because they have successfully managed their risk exposure. They didn’t just appear out of whole cloth yesterday. Why would they change their business model so that you and your “artistic vision” can be fulfilled. To suggest that there is something wrong with an entity wondering what’s in it for them when you want them to lay out millions of dollars is horribly naive.

The Usual Suspects was not re-released. It made all that money in its first run.

It opened in August 1995 in a double-handful of theaters, and made over $600,000 its opening weekend. By the following month, it had expanded to over 800. It pulled in $3-$5 million a week for several weeks running.

I’m just saying that whatever your argument is, the idea that The Usual Suspects was less successful than From Justin to Kelly should absolutely not be any part of it, because it simply isn’t true.

Are we missing the point here?

I don’t know. You were the one who made a huge point about how The Usual Suspects is an example of something that it clearly isn’t an example of. So I’m not sure there really is a point, now.

And by the way, Dante’s Peak made $172 million worldwide. Less than Volcano, which only made $122 million worldwide (though it clearly wasn’t a flop either). So I’m not sure what your point is there either.

If you think my point was about the success of these movies then you’ve missed it.

But maybe you’ve made it for me. The fact that I’m getting all these movies confused (Volcano, Dante’s Peak, Armaggedon, and Deep Impact), clearly shows that none of those movies made an impact on me. And the money that each of these films made has nothing to do with QUALITY.

The fact is, the audience just decided to see one movie over the other. In fact, I’m shocked to see that Dante’s Peak made than Volcano as I’ve seen both and to me Dante’s Peak is clearly inferior. But then again, that’s my opinion. Which doesn’t mean anything.

My taste in movies is subjective. Because Good and Bad is subjective.

That’s my point.

If you honestly don’t believe that the money a movie makes (or that any of those movies made) has NOTHING to do with quality, then you are in the wrong business.

Though there are examples of bad movies that have made a lot of money, in general the better a movie is, the more money it will make.

If From Justin To Kelly had kicked ass, it would have made substantially more cash. And your argument that even though The Usual Suspects was good it made less than FJTK doesn’t hold any water (while I’m disappointed that, after rather arrogantly throwing down numbers earlier in this post to justify your claims, you are completely unwilling to eat crow and admit that you were simply wrong).

Quality isn’t everything when it comes to box office, unfortunately. But the good James Bond movies make more money than the bad ones. Subpar action movies like Stealth or The Island don’t make as nearly as much money as they would have made if they were good movies.

Good and Bad isn’t really that subjective. Your personal tastes might make you like some movies and not like others. But a large group of people’s tastes can pretty accurately define whether a movie is good or not (and I’m not talking as reflected in the box office — I’m talking about films that can be classified, through mass agreement, as either good, bad or mediocre).

By the way, that last reply obviously should have begun “If you honestly believe that the money a movie makes has NOTHING to do with quality”, and not “If you honestly DON’T believe”.

Goof on my part.

Kevin, taste is subjective, but quality and execution in creative storytelling is not - which was my point from the very beginning. You mentioned that there is essentially no difference between Grease and From Justin To Kelly except that people saw Grease. I maintain that Grease made more (people saw it) because there were qualitative differences in approach to the project and that the creative decisions made on Grease were the right ones and the creative decisions made on FJTK were the wrong ones.

You may not like musicals (I don’t, really) but one doesn’t have to have the taste for a genre in order to recognize excellence in craft.

In essence, Craig’s post is that a lot of writers resent mainstream Hollywood because we didn’t go to prom. I happen to disagree, I think that a lot of writers resent mainstream Hollywood because creative decisions are made by people untrained in that field (though they may be smart folk) who excel in another (business) and that schism causes the resentment.

Which is why somone like Spielberg, who seems to be able to work both ends of the field, is worshipped by many.

I think quality creative work will find it’s audience, depending on the genre. I think that too often the creative end of things is sacrificed in the name of marketing and / or business.

And I think knowing the market and knowing the business is a good thing, so I’m not one of those guys bitching about it. I’m just saying it’s not a good idea to put the cart ahead of the horse, like they did with FJTK. I don’t even think they had the horse facing the right way with FJTK.

I was going to post the numbers on Usual Suspects, but Scott beat me to it. We shouldn’t slur it, it was a big hit and put several people on the map, not just the director but the writer and it’s considered Benico del Toro’s break-through film. I saw it in its original run, a packed house, and really enjoyed it. Seems old now, but at the time it was quite daring.

SCOTT:

If you honestly don’t believe that the money a movie makes (or that any of those movies made) has NOTHING to do with quality, then you are in the wrong business.

I think I’m in the right business. I’ve been in it for the last 10 years and I do quite well. And I think you’ll find more people actually in the business, agreeing with me rather than disagreeing with me. It’s probably one of the first and the most painful lesson you learn when you truly work within the entertainment business.

But for example, when you mention The Island as subpar, I actually loved that film. And I hated Pearl Harbor but more people saw the latter. I was shocked when it didn’t do well. And if you look at the Special Features on the DVD you can see how much thought went into the movie, especially the decision to use more practicals and less CGI.

And I did say I was wrong about The Usual Suspects.

And if you honestly believe that Good and Bad isn’t subjective you’re gonna have a whole lotta heartbreak as you progress into this business.

JOSHUA:

I think you’re right about execution but make no mistake that there are people who hate Grease just as much as FJTK (me, included).

“…creative decisions are made by people untrained in that field (though they may be smart folk) who excel in another (business) and that schism causes the resentment.”

I don’t understand what would make you think that a Studio Exec is “untrained” in the entertainment business. And how do you get trained anyway?

We’ll have to disagree on what is quality. Quality has always been about perception. Make no mistake, I loved The Usual Suspects. But I know a lot of people that didn’t.

“And I think knowing the market and knowing the business is a good thing, so I’m not one of those guys bitching about it. I’m just saying it’s not a good idea to put the cart ahead of the horse, like they did with FJTK. I don’t even think they had the horse facing the right way with FJTK.”

Yeah, we definitely agree on that one.

I think the bottom line is this:

Comparing two movies’ box office, and trying to find a relationship of their box office numbers to their relative quality, just doesn’t work. Movies draw an audience for a variety of reasons; quality is just one.

Clearly the best independent movie ever made is never going to make more than the subpar Star Wars Episode I.

Yet, whatever a specific movie’s potential box office range, the only way it is ever going to maximize its box office is to be as good as it can be. If there are two versions of a movie in alternate worlds, all other things being equal, the better version will make more money. Quality is an important, important dimension.

And studies realize this. Whether they can achieve it is another matter. But making a movie the best it can be translates into better best office.

While we’re at it, let’s shake out some more popular misconceptions.

The Shawshank Redemption wasn’t a flop. It made $28 million in domestic box office, and that was in 1994. Not a huge number, but more than the $25 million it cost. A decent performer.

Cinderella Man is viewed as a disappointment, because it cost $88 million. But it has made over $60 million U.S., and $108 million total worldwide, where it is still playing in a lot of places. Not a success, but not a flop.

I haven’t read all the comments, and maybe I’m not alone in thinking this, but why is the focus on the lonely, ugly writers? Shouldn’t the focus instead be on the intelligent, discerning, film-goers who know crap when they see it and just wish there was something better on offer at the local multiplex than Get Rich or Die Tryin’?

I never said that all people would love Grease … I said it was well executed and therefore fans of the genre (and them some) supported it - I believe I mentioned that you may not like the genre - a lot of folks like horror movies and a lot don’t, but even people that don’t like horror as a genre can tell a well made movie from one that was not, and if you cannot tell me that there is a qualitative difference between Grease and FJTK, well, we don’t got nothing more to talk about.

“I don’t understand what would make you think that a Studio Exec is “untrained” in the entertainment business. And how do you get trained anyway?”

You’re misquoting me … I didn’t say a studio exec is untrained for the entertainment business … this isn’t that hard to understand … someone with a law degree may know law, but it doesn’t make them capable of writing a novel or screenplay, nor does it make them capable of understanding story, structure, plot, all the things we’re here at artful writer to discuss. That’s a different discipline. Just like a lot of screenwriters don’t know the first thing about contract negotiation or marketing or a whole lot of things. I merely pointed out that many execs excel in a field that is not creative.

I should add, it doens’t make them NOT able to understand it, I simply point out that what creative people do in our field is work, it takes time, blood, sweat and tears to do well and someone who’s focused in another area may not be able to step in and make the right creative choices. Much less a committee of them.

On the other hand, the same is true of creatives when it comes to business, as you pointed out earlier, many creatives don’t underestand the business end of it and it takes time, work and understanding to do so. Some, like Spielberg, do. Some don’t. A lot more of us are working at it - (and can I say that I admire George Clooney, who seems to effortlessly handle both ends very well.) It has nothing to do with being a geek, really. As frustrated as Hollywood types get with creatives not understanding the biz, creatives get doubly frustrated because most of the time, they don’t have the power to make the choices they know / feel are right. Which is why a lot of directors insist on final cut once they make the big time.

That’s what I meant by “untrained in that field”. I think I was pretty clear about that, Kevin. I think too often business types put marketing choices ahead of creative choices when both should carry equal weight. I’ve said that many, many times.

How did this transition into an business analysis of From Justin to Kelly? And why hasn’t Michael Bay’s name appeared? He is by conisdered by some to be “the worst director”. But I dont’ understand why. If I want you don’t want to watch something that has minimal character devleopment, lots of action/chase sequences, and big explosions, then what they hell are you doing watching a Michael Bay film!

If we get back to the heart of Craig’s post: some people believe that popular = bad.

Which I believe is leading us into a sort of form vs. content discussion. Is a movie “good” because it is a mediocre storytold extrememly well versus an extrememly good story that is not told particularly very well? I don’t know. Maybe both can be good. I too am tired of the “film snob/elite” Just watch IFC’s Film Fanatic. It’s scary to see the hate for Michael Bay some have and the elitism proudly displayed. It’s one thing to discover something obscure that you connect with (I discovered Wim Wenders’ Wings of Desire while working at a video store in high school) and another to denounce it because it becomes popular. I watched City of Angels. I didn’t care for it. Others did. I didn’t feel it necesary to tell them “Hey, there’s this German movie that this movie is adapted from and I loved it and you should too and then you will see how inferior the American version is.” Come to think of it I loved Le Femme Nikita and didn’t like Point of No Return. hmmm… Anyway I liked those “European arty films” because I saw them first. They weren’t stories I hadn’t seen before and they were told in a very intersting manner. “Popular flims” often tell stories in a way we are familiar with. That’s what many people want reliable quality. If the quality of food in your favorite restaurant varied from day to day I think you might stop eating there. And that seems to be the case with movies today. People aren’t willing to shell out big $ on an unknown. They’re more willing to drop a few $ to rent it on dvd. I think alot of this popular = bad is really a cover for popular = not new.

And let’s not forget we’re talking about a very young art form. What is popular today may be pase in 20 years, and what is “arty” may be more accepted.

On a side note: tastes do change. My wife had never seen Die Hard. We rented it. It’s a very different movie now. Maybe we’re getting old and impatient, but this movie takes it’s time to getting to the shooting and exploding. And damn that Michael Bay because there just weren’t enough big explosions and chases and shooting. It seemed realtively mild for an “action movie”. If I saw it for the first time today I would have to say that it’s slow, boring, and full of cheesy cliches.

I fear that like Citizen Kane it may be relagated to the status of a classic as defined by Mark Twain: A [movie] that everyone has heard of but no one has seen.

I like movies. I like to be entertained by a good story. I like to take chances on odd movies. But I am also willing to call something crap when I see it regardless of whether it was made by Hollywood or an eccentric genius living in a chicken coop.

Scott:

I think you need to keep in mind that box office doesn’t flow back in its entirety to the studio. Typically, the exhibitors retain 40-50% of the box office.

So halve the numbers you see. Then make sure to add at least 10-30 million for a reasonably promoted wide release.

“From Justin To Kelly” came up because Craig, in his original post, stated his love for the music of Kelly Clarkson, artistic critics be damned. I stated that it is certainly easy to understand why someone would love her music but difficult to understand why anyone thought From Justin To Kelly would be a good movie.

That’s how it started.

Craig:

Shame on me for not mentioning that earlier! I mentioned the cost of marketing earlier but forgot about the share for exhibitors.

For my first posting on here, I have to ask a very simple (and completely unimportant) question: has anyone on here actually seen From Justin to Kelly? While I suppose you could guess at someone’s intentions for making the film (the speed with which they churned that puppy out indicates a certain corporate cynicism, though no more - as Craig points out - than for A Hard Day’s Night), is it really fair to criticize a film that you haven’t seen? It reminds me of the protesters outside the theater on opening day of The Last Temptation of Christ. People told me that the film was blasphemous, even though they hadn’t seen it.

I’ve seen From Justin to Kelly, and I’ve lived to tell the tale. And while I can’t exactly call it good, I somehow love it for its very ineptness: for its ill-chosen camera angles, for Justin’s Madonna-bad acting, for one song that is written in D major and D minor at the same time, for a skirt that Kelly wears made of neckties, for so many reasons.

As Craig said, “Go ahead. Make fun of me. I don’t care. I like it.”

But it’ll be hard to make fun of me until you actually see the film.

Andrew:

A song written in D major and D minor at the same time!

Okay, I’m excited. :) What’s it called? It has to be worth the $.99 download.

I think I tend to agree more with Michael Gilvary’s take this time than Craig’s. That is, I think it’s an intellectual snob phenomenon more than a “I didn’t get any in high school” phenomenon. (However much one occasions the other.) “Artistes” and would-be auteurs come to Hollywood wanting to bring their masterpieces to the screen unfouled by the fingers of those nasty development execs, and recoil in abhorrence when the profit rubber meets the road. I certainly wish the level of writing in produced films was higher, and feel like the studios could demand more of their product, but I’m not so fool as to believe they don’t have a right to create the product they believe is going to generate the most profit for them. I personally don’t understand the level of ownership so many screenwriters apparently feel for their work. I’ve written three scripts, having poured myself into all of them, researched them to death, tweaked them endlessly, and I’d be perfectly happy to sell them at this point and have a studio change them however it sees fit. I’ve done my work. I like it. I think it’s good. But once they buy it, it’s all theirs. It’s a business.

For what it’s worth, Deep Impact came out before Armageddon, not after. Hence my believing that upon seeing DI, I thought I’d seen the worst movie of the year—until Armageddon came out.

Clint:

I used to be amazed that so many creatives just couldn’t understand that the Entertainment Business is a business. As an agent, I can truthfully say that every single creative that railed and lamented against Hollywood never went anywhere. Once the realization hits that a successful business relationship is mutually beneficial, only then can you hope to have some semblance of a career (not a job or one sale—a career). Of course, when you “make it” you can rage against the machine all you’d like but that makes for better PR than it does for the truth.

Joe Unidos says it best with this comment:

“The production and distribution of a movie is extraordinarily expensive. Everyone acknowledges that. What then confuses me is the thought process that accepts this realization, and can still yield self-righteous complaints about how “Hollywood” is scared to take a chance.”

That’s one of the most truthful statements to date.

Oh well…

doggone it, Kevin, it’s a mutually beneficial relationship if BOTH sides work together … you keep hammering on creatives like we’re ENTIRELY to blame, when it’s just NOT TRUE, when in reality most often the power of decision-making and creative choices lies with the business folk and not the creative folk … and THAT’S the problem and that’s why creatives get frustrated. And frankly, I myself have met very successful creative people who have at one point been frustrated with the business end of it, a WHOLE LOT of them.

Damn man, why is it always our fault as far as you’re concerned?

Both sides should respect the opinion of the other, that’s what should happen. As it is, most often the creatives don’t have the power to make the money-making creative decisions, those get made by non-creative folks … THAT’S where the conflict lies, not with writers who don’t understand the business end of things. I submit that there are probably more writers who understand the biz end of the job than their are execs who understand the creative end completely. This is why a lot of writers do very well in producing and writing for television and why television in undergoing a creative upswing at the moment.

This is why most writers I know want to write for HBO.

Frankly, this lament that screenwriters just don’t get what the marketing or business end of our craft and as a result are to blame for shoddy product is, to me, more than a little old and frankly based on shaky empirical evidence.

JOSHUA:

I’m also a Screenwriter and I don’t always blame ourselves.

In fact,I agree with you.

Both sides should definitely respect the opinion of the other. I’m specifically talking about the writers that lament that Hollywood is an evil soulless palace of excess.

“I submit that there are probably more writers who understand the biz end of the job than their are execs who understand the creative end completely.”

I don’t think that’s entirely true.

Listen, I love Creatives. I am a Creative. But you have to admit that there’s a tremendous disrespect for executives—and yes, there’s definitely disrespect for Creatives.

I know I catch the brunt of this because I’m a bit more vocal than Craig, Ted, or Derek but as a former agent I’m sure that there are some really talented people who post on this site that will never see the inside of a studio because they resent the very idea of an Employer and the inner workings of this business.

If you notice, when we were destroying the movie FJTK (this has GOT to be the most this movie has ever been mentioned—EVER), the common consensus was that HOLLYWOOD ruined it. But not one mention of the writing. Hmmm…

The common consensus has always been:

• If a movie is bad, Hollywood ruined it.
• If a movie is good, it was because of quality writing.

Now we all know this isn’t true but it’s a very easy thing to say because it’s commonplace.

“Frankly, this lament that screenwriters just don’t get what the marketing or business end of our craft and as a result are to blame for shoddy product is, to me, more than a little old and frankly based on shaky empirical evidence.”

I definitely don’t believe that writers are to blame for shoddy product. There’s a million reasons for a shoddy product. But again, a product doesn’t become shoddy until the audience says it’s shoddy.

But you are hammering on the writers and frankly, it just doesn’t wash …

And also, the writers don’t make the choices on what does or does not get filmed in a movie like FJTK, that’s why it doesn’t get mentioned. People are smart enough now to know writers don’t have control over final product - sure, we know bad writing, but most of the time if it’s a good movie, the writing isn’t mentioned, in fact, the writer is marginalized by the title An Allen Smithee film or what have you …

I’ll say it again, the writers don’t have the power in this situation, when it comes to movies, they are low on the totem pole, well paid, sure, but they don’t get to make the creative decisions most of the time - so to blame them for being slightly irate about it seems a bit Bushy to me.

I don’t know that bandying about box office figures makes a lotta sense when that’s now a tiny sliver of the revenue stream. Just a thought.

Wait a minute, how in the world would you know what makes it to the screen or not? And which writers are you speaking of?

And What if FJTK was shot exactly as written?

So then in which situation can the writing ever be blamed?

And by Bushy, do you mean George Bushy?

Who else?

How many writers get final cut of their script? Not to mention final cut of the movie, but the script itself? Most do not, it’s part of the biz, you’ll more than likely be rewritten by someone else in a way not your choosing, again, the writer is financially compensated for it, I’m not arguing that the rewards are not there, but creatively most of the decisions are made by the director and producers.

What if FJTK “was” shot as written? What would that prove?

No writer sat down blindly and said, “Hey, you know what a great idea for a film is? From Justin To Kelly!” That’s not how that came about, some guy had an idea to do a movie about it, hired two or three or four writers, told them to make sure it was set on a beach, make it sexy but with no sex, a boatload of other notes until he / she got the script that outlined the movie they had in their head and hired a director and had the movie shot.

The writer (s) was not the creator (s) of the vision for that movie. It was something who recognized that the Pop Idol phenom could possibly translate into film money but someone who didn’t know the best way of realizing it profitably.

I’ve personally been involved in over 40 films to some level and every single one of them has been pretty close to the script (that’s cause mostly they’ve been kind of indy).

Joshua, I get at least 5 scripts a week and if I find one that’s great out of 50, I’m shocked. That’s why talent is so special to me. That’s why I put talent on another level. I don’t think it’s a secret that most of the screenplays are written—STINK. I don’t think it’s a secret that more than half of the screenplays produced—STINK.

And if you’re being rewritten, you’re rewritten by a writer. So that’s the writing, right?

Here’s the reality of filmmaking. When a screenplay is written and after the Director and/or Producer has made their notes, nothing would please them more than to shoot what’s on the page. If the Director/Producer see eye to eye before shooting, well then, that’s ideal. But keep in mind that neither The Writer nor The Director is going to be always right. If The Writer sees Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind as an uproarious comedy and The Director sees it as a serious drama, there’s gonna be issues.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think The Writer is more to blame than the Director or the Producer. But to just exonerate the writer simply because he’s the writer is incorrect and naive. With that type of thinking, how could you then give praise to a movie for the writing? If it’s good, it’s the writing, if it’s bad it’s gotta be somebody else?

I don’t think so…

And how could you possibly know what the process was into making FJTK?

The idea DID come from a single writer.

Kim Fuller.

Kim is the sister of the creator of the show. Her entire career has been making television shows EXACTLY LIKE FROM JUSTIN TO KELLY. And they’ve been pretty popular. Ever see S Club 7? I think they still run it on ABCFamily. Wanna know what it’s about. It’s a television show starring a real singing group and there wacky adventures…ON A BEACH.

And it was insanely popular.

I’m not trying to exonerate the writer, damn it, I’m merely …

We’re going in circles and it’s pointless … I maintain my point is that the schism between creatives and biz isn’t because the writers are geeks, it’s because they, for the most part, are not as empowered as the folks at the other end. Nothing you’ve said or done has countered that argument, and instead you’ve stated, time and again, that creatives don’t understand the business end of the industry and that’s why do crappy work and they’re frustrated - you even made a point that every creative you know who is frustrated by the biz has never had success because they don’t understand the biz … the sum being that if you’re complaining about it, you’re not successful. That’s nuts.

We’re not resolving anything so I should probably withdraw.

By the way, I said a number of times that I don’t agree with Craig’s “geek” assessment.

“The writer (s) was not the creator (s) of the vision for that movie”

“No writer sat down blindly and said, “Hey, you know what a great idea for a film is? From Justin To Kelly!” That’s not how that came about, some guy had an idea to do a movie about it, hired two or three or four writers, told them to make sure it was set on a beach, make it sexy but with no sex, a boatload of other notes until he / she got the script that outlined the movie they had in their head and hired a director and had the movie shot.”

It is these assumptions that I’m talking about. It can only be Hollywood bias that could make anyone come to this incorrect conclusion. It’s the “Writer Do No Evil” mentality that totally drives me up a wall. I’m just saying that when people don’t know the facts, the Hollywood Executives are ALWAYS the first to blame.

And the difference between S Club 7 and FJTK? People watched S Club 7…

In my opinion they’re both horrible but one was incredibly successful, the other a complete dud. But not because of Hollywood Execs. Because of the Audience. Just like every other Movie or Television show that’s ever been produced.

How else can you explain the demise of Arrested Development?

It’s one of the funniest shows I’ve ever seen. It’s won Emmy’s, Golden Globes, Sag Awards, Television Critic Awards, and WGA Awards but it’s being canceled because…the audience didn’t watch it.

But you’re right, it’s time to end this.

I’m not even sure what the argument is any more.

By the way, the difference between S Club 7 and From Justin To Kelly is that one is an obscure TV show, one is a crappy movie, and neither really have anything to do with anything.

And I’m pretty sure that many more people watched the average episode of Arrested Development than watched S Club 7, at least in this country. Abd word is that it’s about to be picked up by another network.

Facts and assumptions like, Usual Suspects only grossed 2.5 million world wide? Come on - I’m not making assumptions here, I’m saying that blaming the powerless is pointless. Writers don’t greenlight pictures. Writers are hired to write a movie for someone else. Some are good, some aren’t. I’m not arguing that. But writers are not the ones in power in Hollywood, and so they get crapped on and blamed more than they should.

We can blame Woody Allen for a bad movie because he writes, directs and gets final cut. He chooses which movie he wants to make and which one he doesn’t. If the movie sucks, it’s on him.

And I disagree with you that the executive gets blamed most of the time, I think they get out of it, usually it’s the director, writer and / or actors who get blamed if it’s a stinker. Justin hasn’t made a movie since, but I bet the producer / executive who greenlit FJTK is.

I think the executive should get blame if the executive is the one responsible for the creative decisions that get made and they turned out to be bad ones … I’ll blame the writer when the writer deserves it, but as I pointed out, most of the time the writer isn’t the one responsible for the creative decisions … they do the creative work, but they don’t make the decisions, they are not the ones saying, we’re going to make this movie but not this one … the executives are making those decisions and as I’ve said time and time again, they aren’t always well-versed in the creative arts, just the business ones, which is why we get a travesty like FJTK on our screens.

Damn it, I was gonna walk away and I just hadda look over my shoulder … that’s it, though, I’m outa here, it’s sending my blood pressure up too high …

Just for the record, I didn’t make an assumption about The Usual Suspects. I just stupidly trusted an unreliable source:

http://imdb.com/title/tt0114814/business

That was my mistake but it was not an assumption.

I just have no idea how anyone can blame a writer, a director, or a studio executive without knowing the intimate details of the production.

And S Club 7 is obscure? It was a television show that derived a spin-off and 11 movies.

That’s like saying that Aishwarya Rai is obscure because she’s not that popular here in America.

Ok, put a fork in me. I’m done.

Looking at the past two weeks of releases, with the next two weeks upcoming — heavens alive, great stuff, and then some mainstream safe stuff, some obvious trash-bin dud stuff, some Indy potential classics, great drama pieces, stupid-comedy fun pieces, classic horror, moody deep-thinking character dramas, good niche stuff, things better sent D2DVD, fun kids cartoon fare, easy Disneyified kids pieces, artsy French styled films, so-bad-it’s-good and grand sweeping historical epics. It’s all there. I never cease to be amazed at the never-ending waterfall. I can’t even keep up and I drink in everything. Hollywood is a promised land (just with a moat and sharks). :)

The whole “Hollywood Sucks” argument is overdone and way way too pat, made by elitist tarps that don’t like (or understand) entertainment for it’s own sake, or by people looking for an easy excuse out as to why something failed, or by journalists looking for an easy-piece one-riff off shot.

Hollywood sucks? Well make them not suck. Go Indy, do on cheap, direct and script as you would wish, infuse yourself into the Robert Rodriguez mold, or go TV or other outlets — if get an audience, they will take notice. Always a way around the system or “the man”. If the vision finds an audience, that’s all that matters. Muttering in a corner that “Hollywood Sucks” is a cop-out. Granted, sometimes it takes years and years, and much pain, toil and teeth-grinding, but then always hope, as for Tony, ‘The Salton Sea’ did get eventually get made.

I’ve had to delete a couple of comments in this thread. Just a reminder…you can debate and disagree all you want, but as the disclaimer says right underneath “Post a Comment”, please keep the tone civil.

If it’s not civil, I delete it without warning or regret.

I can only imagine what was posted…

Let’s not lose sight of the real meat of this discussion: Cheap Trick are actually better than Nirvana.