Think Commercial

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: The Eyes Have It

    brody,

    See my post responding to CE, where I describe the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient" cause.

    Tha fact that films with visual spectacle bomb in no way undermines the argument that visual spectacle is a near- necessary cause in the success of the top films. It's a fine logical point, but its withstood the test of centuries of minds far greater than mine.

    BEVERLY HILLS COP: I can still remember what a fun romp it was watchiing this fiilm's spectacular opening sequence, where Axel F. provoked a wild, demolition-derby semi-truck chase through downtown Detroit! It was a blast! That's Visual Spectacle.

    FORREST GUMP: I don't remeber this one too, well, either. But from what I can remember, it did incorporate some startling and, at the time, innovative visuals where Gump was composited into scenes with President Kennedy and at other historic news-reel events. It was big part of the buzz about the film at the time it was playing. That's also Visual Spectacle. Oh yeah, and they also had one of the most spectacular-looking Viet Nam Napalm attacks I've ever seen...

    THE EXORCIST: This movie definitely succeeded on the force of visual spectacle. Linda Blair's makeup won an Oscar I think. The whole thing was shocking, revolting visuals that had audiences shocked and scandalized around the world. That's Visual Spectacle.

    Comment


    • #17
      Commercial

      "Spec development" duly noted, Doc.

      What I was trying to point was that
      AB did have an impact on development
      slates because of its success (which,
      by the way, takes away more oppor-
      tunities for spec sales).

      Boski, again, I will not argue with your
      theory. Visual spectacle makes a lot of
      sense. I was arguing more with your
      very confident stance on positively
      KNOWING what is commercial (which
      you have retracted).

      (And as a poster argues above, referring
      to the car chases in RUSH HOUR 2 as
      "visual spectacle" is pushing the
      envelope a bit.)

      Your observation is not a new one.

      Richard Michaels Stefanik wrote a book
      called THE MEGAHIT MOVIES. (I wrote
      the "Forward" in his latest edition.) In
      the book he examines all the commonalities
      of films that have grossed $250 million
      domestic. He talks about "cinematic
      material" - which is a more subtle translation
      of your "visual spectacle."

      By the way, those on the "inside" confess
      that there is no way of REALLY knowing
      what is commercial.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Commercial

        CE and anyone else,

        It's a side topic, but why did THE CORE bomb, anyway? Usually there are lessons to be learned from such failures, no?

        TIMELINE?

        Regarding "visual spectacle" it sometimes makes the difference but not always, definitely. I tend to think an appealing flick provides more of an "escape" than anything; that or it "engages" the viewer in a powerful way. Those are the words I tend to use when thinking about why one film works for me and another doesn't. for what it's worth, c

        Comment


        • #19
          good concept = potentially commercial

          Commercial = Idea easy to sell

          Most flops looked like a good idea on paper but transposed badly onto celluloid. But the concept on paper was originally an easy sell i.e. commercial.

          Just my opinions

          Comment


          • #20
            Why they bombed?

            Can't really say why either of those films
            bombed, Carl.

            Neither script was particularly good.

            Neither featured any proven box-office
            talent.

            Perhaps they were released against
            heavier hitters (can't recall). And
            neither had any sweeping advertising
            campaign either.

            As suggested above, these ideas must
            have looked good in the concept
            stage. (But Crichton isn't always the
            golden boy at the box-office either:
            SPHERE and THE 13th WARRIOR
            bombed.)

            Comment


            • #21
              Could the agent have meant..."Write a good story" because when he reads a good story he thinks "hey, that could be commerical." I don't mean that in a smart ass way.

              Comment


              • #22
                best thread in a long, long time.

                thanks.

                Comment


                • #23
                  hmmm, this is a good thread.

                  Dr Stiggers- you're right about American Beauty (and on a side note, what's the deal with first time writers being nominated for oscars and then never writing again? Alan Ball, Nia Vordalos, Matt and Ben... Yes I know they've been busy doing other things, but they kinda seem like one trick ponys to me) but in the case of Lords of the Rings, I thought studios were busy buying up backlist titles by everyone from Issac Asimov to Dan Simmons, no?

                  Cliches come in and out of style. To your list I would add Con-man stories and Time travel. (of course as soon as I sell my first spec I will pull out my old serial killer script.)


                  boski62- I don't think it's fair to compare first time specs with the 200M+ blockbusters. A lot of these films are developed around their visual elements, it's success belongs more to the set designer, FX people, cinematographer, stunt people, etc. , than the writer. People like George Lucas, James Cameron, the Wachowskis, Pixar invented fx and then built stories around them. The biggest movie of this coming summer is sure to be Sky Captain, a film that was developed around a new computer program.

                  Dr Stiggers (again) - I'm currently working on a story set in the year 2034, it's about a detective coming to terms with the fact that his job has been obsoleted by technology.

                  Carl Colt- The Core bombed in part because of the space shuttle disaster. That and the comeplete implausability of the script.

                  Timeline I don't get. Here is a writer (Chrichton) who built his career coming up with imaginative alternate reality plot devices (Jurassic Park, Westworld, Futureworld among others) and then falls back on the oldest hack technique (time travel) ever. Oh well, he had a nice long career there...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    The C Word

                    We could argue whether anybody really knows what will be commercial, or if anyone really knows what time it is...

                    But that's not the question.

                    If an agent tells a writer to "think commercial" they aren't talking about the sets or cast - the writer has no control over that. They're talking about THE SCRIPT.

                    And being an agent, they're thinking about selling the script (ie - what elements will make people want to buy it?).

                    The buyers may not know what will be a hit (Miss Cleo is out of biz) but they can make an educated decision based on what has worked in the recent past.

                    I would suggest not chasing trends, but chasing genres.

                    Instead of looking at the success of THE MATRIX (and the awful sequels) and deciding to do a metaphysical kung fu computer hacker script, I'd look at the big picture and think about an action/sci-fi story. So T-3 or PAYCHECK fit that genre - as do a bunch of other scripts that sold last year.

                    (Stiggers advocates chasing trends - his post shows how to make that work.)

                    Basically - look at what genres are attracting an audience. Brody's post covers this.

                    Hidden in CE's posts is a line about writing stories that will appeal to a broad market - and that's what commercial is. I think we can never really know what will hit and what will flop, but we can make an educated guess... and in many cases we can make an educated guess as to what will NOT be a hit.

                    I was at a screening of SHATTERED GLASS last night and writer Billy Ray spoke afterwards. Everybody knew that script wasn't going to be the next PIRATES. The project was initially set up at HBO as "Emmy bait", but when HBO shelved it, Ray found a way to get it set up at Lions Gate as an indie film which he would direct. The film was NOT set up at a major like Paramount - the story is still not a mass audience story. It's about journalistic ethics! Ray said that even with the young cast, they didn't get anyone under 35 in the audience. Why? It's about journalistic ethics! Take that same cast and put them in a workplace COMEDY and you'd have a young audience. But a drama? Serious drama is the genre of flops. The Oscar noms usually tap out at $35 million. (check out all of last years Oscar nominated films that were dramas).

                    So you may not be able to predict with certaintly what will be a hit, you can have a pretty good idea what will NOT become a hit - MONSTER will not be making $100 million. It just doesn't appeal to a wide enough audience. It's not a GENRE MOVIE.

                    If horror westerns are suddenly the hot genre hybrid and you hate that genre, don't write one. There's never only one popular genre. There are usually a half dozen to pick from - and most have been around forever. I write thrillers and action - the genres I loved as a kid (and continue to love - though many current films suck).

                    So - what did you see this weekend?

                    My advice is to write the kind of movies you regularly pay to see - the ones that you stand in line for.

                    - Bill

                    PS: The way I see genre - it's the emotional response the audience expects from the film. Comedy - laughs. Horror - fear. (etc) People select movies based on genre the same way they select restaurants based on the type of food they serve. Italian. Thai. Surf & Turf. Chinese.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Here is a writer (Chrichton) who built his career coming up with imaginative alternate reality plot devices (Jurassic Park, Westworld, Futureworld among others) and then falls back on the oldest hack technique (time travel) ever.
                      Actually, if he had actually taken Time Travel and ran with it, Timeline might have been a good book. Instead, he reheated Jurassic Park and designed the technology around the need to create a "historically accurate theme park"?

                      When I came to that part, I assumed Crichton had really lost it, as if I owned a time machine, the last thing I'd be doing would be bringing back schematics of old buildings. :lol

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Think castability.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Another thing one might try, hang out with average joes and janes from middle american nowhere. Talk to peope, tell them about this really great, but obscure movie you saw. Pitch them your story, if their eyes glaze over, chances are so will a lot of people's.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X