PGL: Studio Thinks Bad Script = Commercial?

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    I found a review of the rough cut, of course there's spoilers so click at your own risk.

    It seems Gulager saved the day.
    You just spoiled it for the rest of it yourself with that stupid comment! Nice going!

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    The way I see it (and this is 100% speculation) Dimension/Miramax took such a bath on the first two films, they are trying to make up for losses with this one.

    The way Matt Damon is talking, I don't suspect he will be involved with a PGL4, if there even was one. The process, however knoble and altruistic, doesn't work. Not that their idea was bad, but there will never be a way to work a contest based on an honor system because people, by their nature, are not honest.

    The breakup of Miramax means they would need a new partner anyway.

    PGL1 and 2 never got any type of big release, so, if they can get this thing into 1500 screens, they should make at least the 5 or 10 million they wanted. Who knows, it might be so bad, it's good.

    I do like the reverse psycology aspect of the tv show so far. Tell people the movie sucks up front, and the contrarians will go see it just to say how great it is.


    "Forget about the boys with the typewriters, what's on the poster?" -Affleck

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    I think it IS backwards relative to what Damon and Affleck had originally intended.
    The whole point is to give talented people a shot. NOT A MEANS FOR DIMENSION TO MAKE MONEY.
    Unless you're talking about the search for a different talent: for commercial success (making money) in film.
    You give a guy $1 million to make a film, then you sell the rights of the reality show for $1 million to cover cost.
    Sounds about right. But the parties accruing revenue from the TV show aren't necessarily the same people who are losing their asses on the film. So, unless Party A gives Party B $1 million out of the goodness of their heart (or out of some contractual arrangement), then the costs are not going to get "covered".

    I think the setup's gotten pretty convoluted. Too many people involved and too little money coming in. Result: throw more people at it to get better product and more money, but all they get is higher costs and yet another compromised commercial product.

    All I can say is, it's damn fun to watch, and I'm eminently glad they're doing it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    It really is 180 degrees backwards. The whole poit is to give talented people a shot. NOT A MEANS FOR DIMENSION TO MAKE MONEY.

    As far as the end result of the film, making money should not be the goal, but rather critical acclaim.

    I don't know the whole deal, but I thought that the whole reason for making this thing into a reality show was the way to cover the films budget. You give a guy $1 million to make a film, then you sell the rights of the reality show for $1 million to cover cost.

    Ok. Maybe too simplistic, but something along those lines? Yes? No? Anyone?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    I found a review of the rough cut, of course there's spoilers so click at your own risk.

    It seems Gulager saved the day. Reviewer says there's no story and no characters to invest in but the direction still makes it entertaining:

    www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=19248

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Here's my question: Is the PGL grading system flawed?
    Abso-friggin'-lutely it's flawed! That's why scripts like STOLEN SUMMER and THE BATTLE OF SHAKER HEIGHTS made it into the Top 10 in the first place.

    Even if you look past the fact "warring" screenwriters are being forced to judge one another's work, you also have a bunch of non-entrant PGL members who know nothing about the mechanics and art of screenwriting deciding what story "sucks" and what story is "good."

    Time and finances would ultimately make this a prohibitive idea, but I would like to see the entire peer-judging facet done away with and have professional readers evaluate all of the material. Again, that ain't gonna happen, but I think you'd have better quality material get to the final round.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    My two cents. Okay, four cents.

    I didn't read any of the final scripts either, but I have a hard time thinking that the script was "bad", it just wasn't written as well as the other scripts.

    The studio wants to make money - every time they decide to greenlight something it is to make money. This is business, bottom line. (*note to self, shmoozing works with suits)

    So the question is, what's going to make money? Well, truthfully it's a big ol crap shoot because if I remember right, only four out of every ten movies produced every year make money and only one is a blockbuster. (I could have those stats wrong, but it's along those lines)

    The best they can do is make an educated guess. Monsters will put more 18-25 year old guys in the seats. Monsters will appeal to the basic horror audience. So the script is inferior to the other two finalists - guess what? Scripts can be rewritten. Apparently the problems they had with the script are fixable.

    I'm not surprised that the studio strong armed for the more marketable Beast considering PGL has been a big ol money sucking machine for the last two projects.

    The studio wants this next one to be a success. They think this is their best shot.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    So you're saying, Dave, that Craven's perception of value for the script is monetary value, not artistic value. I can buy that.

    Ele...

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    But I'd wager that most of them want to keep making those Bimmer payments.
    *best hard-ass Mexican accent*

    "Payments? We don't make no stinkin payments!"

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Right, Ele. I mean, maybe there are those rare directors out there who honestly don't give a sh*t about making money and only care about the art.

    But I'd wager that most of them want to keep making those Bimmer payments.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Except we're not talking artistic merit Ele. Because in the final analysis, artistic merit and a quarter won't even buy you a cup of coffee.

    We're talking commercially good.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Here's my question: Is the PGL grading system flawed?

    Don't contestants submit a script and then by doing this, have to read and grade another one?

    Well, who's gonna rave about another script when you have your own up there? Knowing how people are and how tough this biz is to get into, who wouldn't torpedo every submission they could get their dirty, little hands on?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    the set up of Feast sounds like the second 'bar' half of that Tarrantino film with Clooney in it (I forget the title)
    From Dusk Till Dawn, FWIW.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Well, as much as I've enjoyed Wes Craven's films, I would hardly call him a strong judge of artistic merit.

    Ele...

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    I'm just saying. You saying a script sucks, and Wes Craven saying "I can make money with this" makes me believe he might know a bit more about the script's real value than you do.

    No offense meant.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X