Surprisingly to me, I've found quite a few feminists who found Sucker Punch quite a coup for them in the empowerment department.HistoryProf wrote:I think "disaster" is a more appropriate description of Sucker Punch, and I think the critical arena agrees. It was an incomprehensible hot mess. Your adulation remains the only i've seen anywhere that takes it to such heights as to think it a "masterpiece." Even it's defenders seem to say little more than "but dude, hot chicks and dragons and shit!"John Cope wrote:And the elephant in the midst of this whole discussion remains Snyder's Sucker Punch, a total masterpiece, the very existence of which would seem to disprove the notion that such things are not possible with studio money. Still, the fact that it was also a massive financial bust would, I suppose, support the opposing contention.
Hollywood Hackery
- Jean-Luc Garbo
- Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 1:55 am
- Contact:
Re: Hollywood Hackery
Last edited by Jean-Luc Garbo on Mon Jun 20, 2011 1:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
- knives
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
Re: Hollywood Hackery
Yes, Grand Illusion, nobody here is arguing that the landscape is the same. It's constantly changing and if just because of the PG-13 rating and the Internet studio politics have to be different from the earlier periods. My sole point has been that Hollywood doesn't exclusively breed hacks nowadays and that there are many, or at least roughly the same as always, talented and artistically triumphant people working within the studio system as during any other time. There's always been hacks as there's always been great talents. Even during Nothing's coveted '60s and '70s there were tons of hacks and movies made just for the money being made.
-
- Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 7:56 am
Re: Hollywood Hackery
Gotcha.
And Roland Emmerich is a better director than Zach Snyder.
And Roland Emmerich is a better director than Zach Snyder.
- Mr Sausage
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
- Location: Canada
-
- Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 7:56 am
Re: Hollywood Hackery
What's wrong is that you can only mortgage your house once, max out your credit cards once, and ask everyone you know to work for free on your film once. Tons of indie filmmakers want to make good films, but their first features become calling cards because "making another $100,000 feature," which probably won't make its money back, is a one way ticket back to whatever place they called home before moving to LA.hollyharry wrote:Now, what is wrong with this exactly? If you can make a great film for that amount of money, then it should be no issue to make another.
-
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:55 pm
Re: Hollywood Hackery
This is working under the assumption that someone is funding the movie that way. Maxing out credit cards is a frankly idiotic way to fund any movie, at least in this climate. Surely one can scrap together financing for $100,000 (but let's lower that price tag a bit, I was working under Nothing's prescribed budget) twice. It doesn't fall under the "mid-level" film that is the most hurt right now. And why move to L.A.?Grand Illusion wrote:What's wrong is that you can only mortgage your house once, max out your credit cards once, and ask everyone you know to work for free on your film once. Tons of indie filmmakers want to make good films, but their first features become calling cards because "making another $100,000 feature," which probably won't make its money back, is a one way ticket back to whatever place they called home before moving to LA.hollyharry wrote:Now, what is wrong with this exactly? If you can make a great film for that amount of money, then it should be no issue to make another.
-
- Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 7:56 am
Re: Hollywood Hackery
We can lower the price tag "a bit," but even $100k is a rather tiny budget for a feature film. And the reason filmmakers do that is because they have a story to tell. Investing in an indie film has a worse rate of return than if you were to invest with Bernie Madoff, even now while he's sitting in prison. Patronage is dead. Filmmakers do this everyday, and it takes a mere glance at posting sites like Mandy.com or Craigslist or any of the many, many actors posting sites to see how many films are working off of "deferred" payments (i.e. everyone works for free because the movie will never make any money, so don't worry about it).hollyharry wrote:This is working under the assumption that someone is funding the movie that way. Maxing out credit cards is a frankly idiotic way to fund any movie, at least in this climate. Surely one can scrap together financing for $100,000 (but let's lower that price tag a bit, I was working under Nothing's prescribed budget) twice. It doesn't fall under the "mid-level" film that is the most hurt right now. And why move to L.A.?Grand Illusion wrote:What's wrong is that you can only mortgage your house once, max out your credit cards once, and ask everyone you know to work for free on your film once. Tons of indie filmmakers want to make good films, but their first features become calling cards because "making another $100,000 feature," which probably won't make its money back, is a one way ticket back to whatever place they called home before moving to LA.hollyharry wrote:Now, what is wrong with this exactly? If you can make a great film for that amount of money, then it should be no issue to make another.
Even at $100k, some people probably aren't getting paid on an indie film of that size. And if they are, let's hope that you saved enough to pay for post-production and color correction and post-audio and music rights, etc. And if you did, I hope you have money for fees after the film like marketing, festival submissions, posters/postcards/tchotchkies, a publicist/producer's rep/lawyer, blah blah blah. And because you're probably under the SAG ultra low budget agreement, let's just keep in mind that the first people to make money back on your film (IF you're lucky enough to make a dime) will not be the initial investors, but rather they'll be the actors that worked for below what you should've paid them. That's why we have funding often coming from personal sources, unless in a viable independent product (key word) like a horror film or action film.
As for why move to LA, there's tons of reasons. First, being that LA is where all the major agencies are and a majority of the major managers. LA is where to make connections, which is how you actually get your next gig. It's how to meet people, go to their parties, and talk about the next gig. Sure, you're going to film in New Orleans or New Mexico because of the tax incentives, but you're going to live in LA. Also, you have an unrivaled access to professional crew in all departments, tons of rental houses, stages, as well as organizations built around fostering film communities, independent and otherwise(i.e. Film Independent). Sure, you can take $100k from your inheritance when Grandma dies and make an indie film, but if you want to make another film after that, your best bet is to live in LA. It's possible outside, but much harder.
- John Cope
- Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
- Location: where the simulacrum is true
Re: Hollywood Hackery
Actually, the critical response (at least among those willing to take the film seriously on its terms) has been decidedly more nuanced than that.HistoryProf wrote:I think "disaster" is a more appropriate description of Sucker Punch, and I think the critical arena agrees.
No, it really isn't. To a certain degree, of course, it's meant to be a "mess", by which I mean that it indulges in a very intentionally chaotic mixture of sources and signifiers. There are, however, reasons for that and a multitude of ways through this "mess" to different critical ends.It was an incomprehensible hot mess.
If so, I'm just glad to be on the ground floor of this one as I was decades ago with Blade Runner, as an early devotee.Your adulation remains the only i've seen anywhere that takes it to such heights as to think it a "masterpiece."
Then you clearly haven't seen this or this. Both are excellent pieces that give the film the treatment it deserves. I too am preparing a long piece for another outlet, which I'll happily share or link to when the time comes. It's a close reading as is fitting and I can't really finish it till I see Snyder's preferred "extended cut" next week.Even it's defenders seem to say little more than "but dude, hot chicks and dragons and shit!"
I'm sure that's true but it is very much the covert surface of the thing. FWIW, I intensely disliked both 300 and Watchmen as well. I can't say that I've come around to their charms exactly as I have yet to rewatch them but the simple fact that I am interested in doing so post-Punch should go some way toward suggesting what that film intimated and revealed about Snyder's heretofore unrecognized or unrealized talent. I actually think you'd find merit in this film at least, given your sensibilities. You'll surely understand what I mean if and when you see it, which I recommend that you do.Nothing wrote:John, I haven't, um, seen Sucker Punch (deeply disliked Watchmen and 300)... However the presence of scantily-clad pubescents kicking the shit out of each other should go a long way to explaining the studio's interest...
While I wouldn't go as far as Nothing seems to be going on this one I would, fwiw, agree with him on Speed Racer. It's far more than "candy colored nonsense" and is, in fact, a rather radical formal accomplishment in terms of structure, design and engagement. But all of this was hashed out ad nauseum on the dedicated thread years ago.matrixschmatrix wrote:Particularly when you also claim candy colored nonsense like Speed Racer is also superior to all those things.
Yeah, but I think even that is a superficial reading of the film that doesn't do it justice. It goes far beyond the simple rhetoric of didactic politicizing. That element that some feminists are responding to is certainly there and very apparent but it's put into tension with a variety of other elements and the whole thing is carefully, carefully contextualized in a way that prevents easy reductions and provides valuable, insightful irony (not the glib, superficial kind).Jean-Luc Garbo wrote:Surprisingly to me, I've found quite a few feminists who found Sucker Punch quite a coup for them in the empowerment department.
Some have said this stuff I'm referring to happened despite Snyder rather than because of him. Well, there we get the old intention-of-the-artist debate. Even if it isn't intended it can be read coherently and persuasively. It's the fact, however, that I think it is so clearly and carefully arranged and designed that makes that an irrelevant argument to me. Part of the film's greatness, too, stems from the fact that it is a big budget spectacle. What it is trying to do truly could not be done anywhere near as powerfully in any lesser fashion. So it should provide a template for what can and should be able to be accomplished with Big Money. The goal then would have to be steady acculturation of the broad public to whom Big Movies are pitched to expect more and not accept less. This can be done. It's been done in the past. The current cultural/social climate doesn't exactly aid such endeavors though.
On the basis of just this one film alone I can only say: No. Way.Grand Illusion wrote:And Roland Emmerich is a better director than Zach Snyder.
- matrixschmatrix
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm
Re: Hollywood Hackery
The Slant article's argument seems to be that for every ostensibly shitty or problematic element of Snyder's work, it is pushed until it is so shitty or problematic that it is in fact a Haneke-esque punishment, where the audience is forcefed what it wants until it becomes repellent. I don't buy that argument, but to be fair, I don't buy it for Haneke, either.
-
- Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:04 am
Re: Hollywood Hackery
Firstly because it isn't sustainable. Even if they can find private investors (unlikely in the current financial climate), the director and producer themselves will have been paid less than the minimum wage, if anything. So, unless independently wealthy or able to access soft money in Europe, at some point they'll have to decide either to sell out or to go back to stacking grocieries or whatever. Given the unpalatable nature of the latter, this then increases the pressure to just make a calling card film out of the gate, as already pointed out. Secondly, as I said, it takes real money to pursue the full possibilities of the artform. For $100,000 (actually probably more like $150-200k), a director has to shoot in a matter of days rather than months, ruling out the possibility of, say, Malick and Chivo's 'catching butterflies' approach. They probably won't be able to afford a SAG cast (unless stupid enough to sign the ultra-low-budget agreement) or many extras or a period setting. Unless they're an award-winning effects guy like Gareth Edwards then VFX are out too. In short, the old adage of 'working within limitations' is all very well and good, but to forcibly reduce all specialty filmmaking to bargain basement contemporary realism in the sub-Dardenne or Bresson mold is philistinism imho (not to mention that of course the Dardennes and Bresson actually work/ed with very experienced crews, healthy shoooting schedules and relatively decent budgets to achieve those kinds of results, however deceptively simple; their cinematic approaches also took a number of films to perfect).hollyharry wrote:Now, what is wrong with this exactly?
No, excepting the occasional 'one that got away', it seems to me that Hollywood is only useful these days to an ambidextrous and well-placed few who are able to make good money selling their soul to the man before flying over to Europe cap in hand to make the films they really want to make (Che, Paranoid Park, etc). What seems far more important therefore is preserving the European institutions that allow for these more artistic, inherently uncommercially medium budget films to exist and not to let fanciful commercial concerns infect the waters there too, as has happened so fatally in the UK and now in Hungary.
-
- Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 7:56 am
Re: Hollywood Hackery
Agreed with the rest of the paragraph, but this is a little harsh. If you don't have a SAG name in your film (even an Indie C-lister), you're probably not selling your film and getting distribution anyway. Unless you've made a genre film, like horror, but I don't think we're talking about that.Nothing wrote:They probably won't be able to afford a SAG cast (unless stupid enough to sign the ultra-low-budget agreement)
Also, I know you expressed preference for tastemakers in the form of festival programmers. Even an Indie B- or C-lister can help exponentially towards getting into a festival. Forgetting even about Cannes, Berlin, or Sundance, a somewhat known actor is a boon to any other good indie fest that might help towards getting a second film made.
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
Re: Hollywood Hackery
Indeed - which is why I'm taking a very keen interest in the Polish Film Institute, which was founded in 2005 and which has had funding involvement in the vast majority of Polish features made since (plus co-productions like Antichrist, Inland Empire and the recent work of the Quay Brothers). Granted, a lot of them are mainstream dreck, and I'll be very glad indeed if I never have to sit through another Polish romantic comedy - but they've also backed more challenging medium-to-big budget films like Skolimowski's Four Nights with Anna and Essential Killing, Wajda's Katyn and Sweet Rush, Xawery Żuławski's Snow White and Russian Red, Wojciech Smarzowski's The Dark House, Jan Komasa's The Suicide Room and many others.Nothing wrote:What seems far more important therefore is preserving the European institutions that allow for these more artistic, inherently uncommercially medium budget films to exist and not to let fanciful commercial concerns infect the waters there too, as has happened so fatally in the UK and now in Hungary.
In fact, the latter is a very good example of a clearly commercially-oriented film that hasn't been forced to dumb itself down by cautious funding bodies - it's hard to imagine a Hollywood teen film namechecking Schubert's 'Der Doppelgänger' and umpteen variations on the Orpheus myth in the process of leading up to a wrist-slittingly bleak ending. But it's been a huge hit with teens and twentysomethings, who seem relieved to have found a film that speaks their language and deals with their concerns without treating them like idiots.
-
- Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:04 am
Re: Hollywood Hackery
The ultra low budget agreement is insane... It allows SAG to sue the producer for points on the gross (!), something an indie producer working on that scale can't possibly deliver (and shouldn't have to), and yet the actors aren't even obliged to turn up on set if they get a better offer at any time (!). Lefty as I am, I'd happily see the US film unions cast into the depths of hell, they are insanely greedy. Just the concept of a 'minimum wage' that equates to thousands of dollars for a five day week, 8 hours door to door, should be insulting to real working people the world over - and it takes the piss out of the crews and actual creators of these films who are usually working for next-to-nothing. it even causes trouble for many of the lower-profile SAG members themselves, as they are basically being threatened out of taking lower budget work in between those hoped-for studio roles. Only in America Anyway, in regards to distribution, festival exposure, etc, I doubt any of the actors in, say, Afterschool were on SAG contracts (and unless you can score Brad Pitt, the weight of the cast really isn't going to make a difference to the programmers at a major European festival).Grand Illusion wrote:Agreed with the rest of the paragraph, but this is a little harsh. If you don't have a SAG name in your film (even an Indie C-lister), you're probably not selling your film and getting distribution anyway. Unless you've made a genre film, like horror, but I don't think we're talking about that.
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Re: Hollywood Hackery
I've always appreciated John Cope's off-kilter tastes and sensibilities, probably because I believe they are sincere and not "look at me"-ist contrariness-- unlike a certain poster's bold claims
-
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 4:40 pm
Re: Hollywood Hackery
Apart from his championing of Speed Racer and some typical hyperbole, what is really so radical about Nothing's comments in this thread? He's far from alone in his pessimism about current Hollywood, and, regardless of whether you agree with him, he's done a pretty thorough job of explaining his side of the argument -- and he's done so without the personal attacks and hostility that several posters have directed at him.domino harvey wrote:I've always appreciated John Cope's off-kilter tastes and sensibilities, probably because I believe they are sincere and not "look at me"-ist contrariness-- unlike a certain poster's bold claims
- knives
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
Re: Hollywood Hackery
You obviously don't know Nothing if you think he is above personal attacks. He's just really passive-aggressive about it.
- colinr0380
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
- Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK
Re: Hollywood Hackery
I thought Nothing's point on Speed Racer was quite well made! Very amusing at the very least! (Though I think I have had a higher tolerance than Nothing for most of the other films that he wasn't keen on from Speed Racer on)
By the way we probably have to discount the Let Me In film from this talk of Hollywood financed films - that remake was produced by the long dormant, now revived Hammer Films outfit (probably the highest profile title so far out of Beyond The Rave, the Hilary Swank/Christopher Lee film The Resident and Wake Wood).
By the way we probably have to discount the Let Me In film from this talk of Hollywood financed films - that remake was produced by the long dormant, now revived Hammer Films outfit (probably the highest profile title so far out of Beyond The Rave, the Hilary Swank/Christopher Lee film The Resident and Wake Wood).
- The Elegant Dandy Fop
- Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 3:25 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: Hollywood Hackery
I'm a little late into the discussion for this, but this doesn't make much sense. Brad Bird with Pixar works with team of hundreds while directors like Avery, Clampett, Jones and even McKimson worked with incredibly small teams to each develop personal styles right down to how the popular characters are drawn and maneuvered. There is something recognizably Pixar in the character designs, style and feel in each film (just like in the Disney heyday) but the Merrie Melodies directors seemed to have more room to move around. Just look at the backgrounds in the films by each retrospective director to get an impression.knives wrote:As an aside while they actually tow to house style much more than Bird ever bothered with the other Pixar directors are just as distinct from each other as the old Disney or Merry Melody directors were.
- knives
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
Re: Hollywood Hackery
I was thinking of story, comedy, and other similar sensibilities when I said that. In general the Disney cartoons (even their shorts) have stuck to one style with limited personality eschewing that.
- Lemmy Caution
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:26 am
- Location: East of Shanghai
Re: Hollywood Hackery
It's not that hard to rustle up $5M to $15M, provided one buys the right list ... and doesn't get indicted.
- aox
- Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
- Location: nYc
Re: Hollywood Hackery
Let me caution you about that....
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
Re: Hollywood Hackery
It's hard to have much sympathy for anyone who invests in an indie film sincerely believing that they'll get "up to a 1,000% return". That figure alone should have set alarm bells jangling.
- swo17
- Bloodthirsty Butcher
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
- Location: SLC, UT
Re: Hollywood Hackery
Yeah but even if the film only does half as well as promised, that's still a 500% return!
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
Re: Hollywood Hackery
You're right - where do I sign?
- matrixschmatrix
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm
Re: Hollywood Hackery
I thought this was interesting in the context of this discussion. From this AVClub interview:
He goes on to discuss how the success of Black Swan makes him more hopeful, but it does sound like he's in general agreement with the tentpole idea, which is particularly interesting given that he starred in the movies that are arguably responsible for the most recent cycle of them.Elijah Wood wrote:There was a huge independent upheaval that then led to all the studios having smaller divisions, which were essentially studio films. Then all those companies died out, and out of the ashes, the studios are doing the complete antithesis. They’re making these massive franchise, comic-book films, sequels—look, there’s always exceptions, because every year, the studios release a handful of great films, but last summer was dismal. There were movies that cost $200 million, where for the studios it was a sure thing, and they failed. It served to show that that equation can’t always work. I’m looking forward to when there’s balance again; right now, it’s either $200 million major tentpole, or $5 million or less for independent films. Those midrange films, which used to tell great stories and didn’t need $200 million, aren’t being made anymore. That gap needs to diminish.
There’s also this massive focus on 3-D as a medium to get people in seats, and that seems to be getting old as well. It’s a lot of tricks and efforts to get people to buy tickets, and less reliant on taking risks and telling great stories.