[TC2]

That's one way of looking at it, but being as I'm currently working with a major film production company at the moment I can answer some of those nagging questions and dispell some myths about hollywood.  It won't necessarily paint a better picture but it will give a clearer understanding on how things work.

First, and this must be made clear to everyone.

Hollywood is a business, anyone who thinks that going into this business for sharing their "movie vision" is completely in la la la, no studio will buy it unless there is an audience for it.  It's all about making a profit, Hollywood is not about creativity, it is about reading current trends, knowing when to produce a movie that fits the current flavors of the month, and then distributing it before the craze dies out.

What's popular now?  The war in Iraq; so what movies are we seeing that are being released?  The Kingdom, Rendition, and probably a few others come to mind.

But at the same time that's not to say Hollywood doesn't take risks.  Lord of the Rings was a HUGE risk and gamble which thankfully paid off.  You can't say that Hollywood doesn't take risks, they do but only when they know they have a stellar project on their hands which can surely net profit.

You also shouldn't be annoyed or ticked off at Hollywood for being so business centric, after all if you want blockbuster titles with a huge special effects budget to put your brain on hold for a bit, you need it to be a movie that is going to sell well.

Independent movies allow the director/producer to follow his vision to the letter.  To completely create a movie that is just how they have imagined it, but unless their vision coincides with what the audience wants to buy none of the major studios will ever pick it up.  It's not that they don't want the movie, it's just that for the amount of effort it will take to market the movie, they don't want to waste those 6-12 months advertising it only to find out that it becomes a total flop, and there are numerous flops out there you can name.

Sure there will be tons of copy cat movies out there, that's because the studios are trying to replicate that formula so that they can get more cash flow.  The more surplus cash a studio or company has the more room there is to "experiment" with newer ideas that are a bit more out there, because then they don't need to rely on that movie to stay in the black.

Now as for the whole leading lady thing, the exec is most likely thinking that their probability of having a million dollar baby oscar winner is pretty slim to none and they would be better off sticking with the male leads in order for them to continue to have success.  It's a very narrow minded view but when you need to keep a major company like Warner Bros in the black you sometimes have to make some really difficult decisions.  He could be possibly pushing a personal agenda that he doesn't like leading ladies, but I think he's just playing it safe so that they can still continue to make more and more movies.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Hollywood is full of idiots… who'd rather commission a million Adam Sandler films that are about enjoyable as rectal cancer than take a chance on some novel new idea.

That said, idiocy is a two way street and it goes without saying – no one has ever gone out of business pandering to the lowest common denominator. So, if there weren't millions of dullards out there to tirelessly buy every new iteration of EA's nigh identical sports games or go and see everythng that had talentless generic Hollywood actor X in it, then this wouldn't be a problem… so, we can't blame the man in Hollywood without blaming the proletariat too.

[crazyfck]

two words: Kill Bill

it's warner fault that they can't bring female leads to the box office

ridley scott can –I know, GI Jane sucks, but sigourney weaver is a proof that an amazon works for action/triller/horror/sci-fi; even the 1984 apple ad is a proof of that

and james cameron always put a strong female character in any movie he makes, even titanic or true lies. and will bring Avatar, in 3D with a female lead

suck that warner

[Holiday]

I don't know what Avatar is about. But one of the actresses, Michelle Rodriguez, will be spending six months in jail for violating the terms of her sentence.

However, years ago France made a 3-D adventure film called "Kaena: the Prophecy". It was good, but not yet ground-breaking. I know Cameron has been wanting to animate Gunnm a.k.a Battle Angel Alita. But it's been dragged on so long I think a native Japanese take would still be better.

While the war on terror has brought up movies like "The Kingdom" and so on, problems in the Middle East still won't be fully addressed by such films. Actually, Muslim filmmakers and European films have already been addressing the culture clash, and women's issues there. Hollywood is just capitalizing on the war. When this is over they'll go back to films directed at their American audience.

[crazyfck]

I read somewhere that cameron said that avatar and battle angel will be in the same universe. He wants to create his Star Wars franchise; so I'm pretty sure that he'll bring battle angel

maybe the michele rodriguez issue will push battle angel to production, who knows? it's a great concept

that hollywood is a sometimes a heartless business is true… with so many failures…

[David]

Idiots is right. For instance. Women can't be action stars. –  Yet each Milla Jovavich movie has made more money that the last.
Cowards is more like it. They are afraid of taking a risk. Part of it is there is so much cost built into a film with the top heavy expenses. I read an article that said that the studio loved the Thor script but they figured it was a $300 million dollar production and they want to halve it.
Look at a movie like Catwoman – where they can't keep even marginally close to the original tried and true concept, bad girl who does good, because hey its a comic and we're doing movies and they are much more sophisticated so we know better.

Another Disney story. The most successful recent traditional animation movies came from the Florida studio, Lilo & Stitch, Mulan even Brother Bear had a decent return but there was too much meddling from California.  BTW, Brother Bear was done because Michael Eisner loved bears. I'd seen concept sketches for what was to be next after L&S and it wasn't a bear movie. After it didn't do really well management first decided that 3D was the way to go and began training everyone in 3D. Then it was decided to move all operations back to California where they could keep an eye on it. So they fired all but a few people in Florida. Then after a few months in California and with nothing going on there was a big meeting where the animators we told. "Don't worry what you make, marketing can sell it." Since then? Chicken Little and little else.

[cpbell0033944]

and james cameron always put a strong female character in any movie he makes, even titanic or true lies. and will bring Avatar, in 3D with a female lead

I remember that Kate Winslet's character in Titanic really turned me on and was possibly the genesis of my love of strong women.  Her character might not have been buff, but, in a deeper sense she was definitly a strong woman.  Kate herself has some of the more psychological Amazonic traits – she's not exactly a waif either, but listen to her in an interview and she has a down-to-earth confidence that I find very sexy. 8)

[Mimi]

[font=Times New Roman]~Mimi[/size”>

[David C. Matthews]

The_Collector: So how many PM’s did you get after admitting you’re in the industry?  “Hey, I’ve got a script…”  LOL.

But I do have a script…  ;D 😀

What's popular now?  The war in Iraq; so what movies are we seeing that are being released?  The Kingdom, Rendition, and probably a few others come to mind.

At the risk of inciting topic drift…

I'd disagree that the war in Iraq is "popular"; certainly the box office reports (the ones I've seen, anyway) on these movies is nothing to write home about.

But the reason these movies aren't burning up the box office is probably (I'd say very likely) the strong anti-war and virulently anti-military themes these movies project.  (That's what's keeping me away from them.)  Support for the war itself may be softening among the American people, but that doesn't translate into the same hatred for the soldiers fighting it that we saw during the Vietnam era (although the filmmakers involved in such movies as In the Valley of Elah and Brian dePalma's Redacted certainly seem to be trying to whip up that hatred again, with their portrayals of US soldiers as rapists and murderers – that viewpoint is very popular in Hollywood, though, and I think they're mistakenly thinking that that viewpoint is popular outside of the film industry as well).

[cpbell0033944]

[size=11pt][font=Times New Roman]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0A8B-nNjh4

[Author]

Posts