Let's put another idea to rest

[Rantanplan]

Or should I say to the test.

I think I speak for a lot of writers when I say that one of the most puzzling / contradictory / frustrating aspects of the biz is that on the one hand you're told you should be writing incredibly great, unique, original material, and that yet on the other hand, that kind of material is not necessarily what comes out at the multiplex.

I mean let's face it, most films that HW spends 50 + millions of dollars on have completely left our consciousness by the time we reach the parking garage. That's the extent of their impact.

Now I know people will often say the scripts were pure works of genius before the studio execs got their hands on them, but... um, really?

It's the same with a lot of creative fields. I'm sure we've all read novels we thought were pure crap, written at barely the level of a high school graduate, yet the author made tons of money.

So, is it possible to have a rational discussion about good script versus marketable script? Someone here said recently that HW was looking for fresh, original, never before seen characters, and I almost laughed out loud when I read that. Because well, there just isn't a whole lot of evidence to support that.

Please let's not get into the discussion of unproduced writers being bitter or the whole, well if people pay to see it, it must mean it's good. People pay to eat crap food at McDonalds by the billions, it doesn't mean it's good, it just means people like cheap crappy food and expensive medical bills.

So yeah, rational discussion please. Pros, what have you had to compromise? Do you think HW could make just as much money with better films?

Because to me the difference is, the best chefs in the world are not working at McDonalds. But the best of EVERYONE is supposedly working on a studio film. So why are so many films so forgettable?

Personally I think the audience is highly underestimated, and that if you give people better food, they will eat it and (grow to) like it.

I hope Brian weighs in with SOLITARY MAN, because I think this is the type of film that would have gotten a lot more attention a few years ago. That's not my own theory, I read that about a similar film a while back, a smart, serious, insightful "grown-up" type flick (sorry, can't remember which one), and the reviewer was lamenting the fact that a decade ago, that film would have been considered mainstream, but that now, it was relegated to art-house status, which of course seriously limited its revenue potential.

Thoughts?

[belac]

Writing a good movie is difficult business, even for the working writers.

[Rantanplan]

Originally Posted by belac

Writing a good movie is difficult business, even for the working writers.

I am certainly not blaming the writers. I'm questioning the system. I understand that ultimately money is the end result, not "excellence" or critical acclaim. But presumably a lot of the people involved in the making of a film, from the writer to the actors to the director to the producer, are all people who have a passion for film and who have struggled like hell for years to get onto that 50 M dollar set. And they KNOW film, inside and out.

So if you put all that talent, and all that drive, and all that passion, and all that money together, mathematically shouldn't a lot of films be a lot better? Even by default, for lack of a better word?

[Screenplay Savant]

I pitched the head of production at a studio last year. When I was done he said "I'd pay to see that, but not to make it."

The most telling feedback I ever got from a pitch or submission.

[Rantanplan]

Originally Posted by Screenplay Savant

I pitched the head of production at a studio last year. When I was done he said "I'd pay to see that, but not to make it."

The most telling feedback I ever got from a pitch or submission.

That's a great line!

[BattleDolphinZero]

So, is it possible to have a rational discussion about good script versus marketable script? Someone here said recently that HW was looking for fresh, original, never before seen characters, and I almost laughed out loud when I read that. Because well, there just isn't a whole lot of evidence to support that.

Black Swan is at 90 mill.

The Fighter must be close to 80 mill.

True Grit has probably passed 150 mill by now.

Social Network doing big numbers with no stars.

Look at Slum Dog just a few years ago.

And Grand Torino.

It's been a great couple of years for grown up movies.

Then realize tha tall those movies combined don't generate as much money as a Transformers flick.

[Rantanplan]

Originally Posted by BattleDolphinZero

Black Swan is at 90 mill.

The Fighter must be close to 80 mill.

True Grit has probably passed 150 mill by now.

Social Network doing big numbers with no stars.

Look at Slum Dog just a few years ago.

And Grand Torino.

It's been a great couple of years for grown up movies.

Then realize tha tall those movies combined don't generate as much money as a Transformers flick.

You're right, I mean for the time being, I am personally grateful that there is still quite a lot of variety out there and some really good "smart" films being made on a regular basis. Most of the ones you mention have well known directors attached to them though, which is still great news for audiences but also probably means that without them they wouldn't have gotten made.

I do think though that with Social Network, the director, the writer, and the topic were the stars, it didn't really matter who acted in it. Personally, I'll go see anything Aaron Sorkin writes, even if to me SN couldn't hold a candle to a single episode of The West Wing. But it's still Sorkin, and it shows. As far as I'm concerned, that guy can do no wrong. He's fvcking brilliant.

[LauriD]

Originally Posted by Screenplay Savant

I pitched the head of production at a studio last year. When I was done he said "I'd pay to see that, but not to make it."

The most telling feedback I ever got from a pitch or submission.

Along similar lines, I was told a few months back that a script of mine was "too good" for current studio buyers.

So what do you do with feedback like that?

Good (and original) movies DO get made and DO bring in audiences. But it seems that newbies are expected to stick to the trite and formulaic in order to break in?

[belac]

In other words Lauri, he couched his sentiment. Instead of saying, it has zero marketability.

[Rantanplan]

Originally Posted by LauriD

Good (and original) movies DO get made and DO bring in audiences.

Well, depending on which films you're talking about, a lot of those "good" films are director-driven and sometimes passion projects that those directors had to struggle to get made, despite their reputation.

As far as audiences, as Dolphin pointed out, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the talking semi-trucks.