Project X

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • #46
    Re: Project X

    Sure, there's an art to televising a primetime NBA game too. But why do they televise it? For entertainment.

    What's the purpose of paying millions to produce a film? To make a profit. Not to make art.

    The business of entertainment.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Project X

      Originally posted by ATB View Post
      Movies: entertainment.

      Paintings: art.
      Jesus. Do you really believe this, ATB? That's unfortunate, not to mention reductive.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Project X

        Originally posted by ATB View Post
        What's the purpose of paying millions to produce a film? To make a profit. Not to make art.
        Yes, I'm sure the makers of Tree of Life had only profit in mind when they funded a 3 hour epic without a plot.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Project X

          Of course it's reductive. There's more to it, yeah, but in its simplest form, movies are entertainment.

          Art has its place, but not every film is meant to be pondered. It doesn't have to be life-changing. Sometimes people just wanna laugh.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Project X

            Originally posted by nathanq View Post
            Yes, I'm sure the makers of Tree of Life had only profit in mind when they funded a 3 hour epic without a plot.
            You really believe they made it to lose money?

            Sure, Tree of Life is the exception but I'm sure they still believed it would make money. Terrence Malick has a following.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Project X

              You guys are missing the major point that can best be summed up as...

              Different strokes for different folks.

              The Tree of Life has an audience. Project X has an audience. The Lorax has an audience. The Film Industy is like investing in the stock market, it's all about diversity. The same can be said about television. The Big Bang Theory and Mad Men are both very successful, but made for different audiences.
              twitter.com/mbotti

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Project X

                Originally posted by ATB View Post
                You really believe they made it to lose money?

                Sure, Tree of Life is the exception but I'm sure they still believed it would make money. Terrence Malick has a following.
                No, the film was funded regardless of whether or not it made a profit; it was made solely because of it's it's artistic value.

                The Tree of Life isn't an exception. For example, Gasper Noe got a $24 mil budget for Enter The Void and the film was never expected to make a profit, the same is true for Bella Tarr's work, David Lynch's, Paul Thomas Anderson's, some of the Cohen Bros films (like A Serious Man), and many others.

                If you don't know of the many of the artistic films made in the past decades (funded regardless of their commercial viability) then you are simply illiterate in the art of film or only able to discover films that are advertised with a dozen commercials during the NBA playoffs.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Project X

                  Nathan,

                  Read the post above you. No one funds films to lose money. If they do, they sure as hell don't do it for long.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Project X

                    It seems to me the way people seem to look at art vs. entertainment and artists vs. entertainers is that artists make art to please themselves and entertainers make entertainment to please others, which I think is an incredibly selfish way of looking at the world.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Project X

                      So anything made for profit can't be art? I disagree.

                      If you watch a movie or listen to a song or look at a painting or read a poem, and then have to look up whether it made any money or not to tell if it's art, you're doing it wrong.

                      Art is judged in and of itself.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Project X

                        Originally posted by michaelb View Post
                        Not make back it's budget? It cost 12. Opened at 20.5. Studios get 70% of opening weekend. Sure, it still has to over P&A, but Project X is money in the bank for WB.
                        Hm? I said it would make back its budget.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Project X

                          Originally posted by Biohazard View Post
                          Art is judged in and of itself.
                          Right, so the viewer determines the film's artistic worth.

                          Is it art? Is it not art? Doesn't matter.

                          It was made with the hope that it would entertain and, therefore, make a lotta money.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Project X

                            Originally posted by ATB View Post
                            No one funds films to lose money. If they do, they sure as hell don't do it for long.
                            Some do.

                            I appreciate that in the American film system there is probably nobody who funds films to lose money, but outside the US system it is very common.

                            If you look at the KPIs & official aims of national funding bodies, for example, whether the film makes a profit is actually irrelevant. Sad - but true.
                            • Sometimes the funding body's aim is to stimulate the local economy
                            • Sometimes the funding body's aim is to promote 'art'
                            • Sometimes the funding body's aim is to promote a culture or a location as product placement. (eg: 'Australia')


                            For example, the funding body 'Screen Australia' are quite happy for many of their films to win some prestigious awards and for them to never get a cent back.

                            It is hard for the rest of us to understand .. but they honestly aren't funding films to make money.

                            Mac
                            New blogposts:
                            *Followup - Seeking Investors in all the wrong places
                            *Preselling your film - Learning from the Experts
                            *Getting your indie film onto iTunes
                            *Case Study - Estimating Film profits

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Project X

                              I assumed we were referring to the real film industry. I realize other countries do many things differently.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Project X

                                I dig Todd, but I also dig the film's negative reviews more. It's as if producers are being paid not to make movies, but to test the dumb-down boundaries of audiences. And naturally guys of Todd's ilk don't care, since the movie will more than likely be well into the black.
                                "There is no greater agony than bearing an untold story inside you."
                                -Maya Angelou

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X