Comments on: Video Blog: Yes, Movies Are About The Money

By: Jake

Jake — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 07:55:39 +0000

Seriously, though: studios need money. That’s absolutely true. They need to make a profit. They HAVE to at least break even. But no one with real ambition is going to actually make a movie for money. If that’s their prime motivation, I doubt that they are going to get very far.

I’m in the process of writing a script right now, but I’m not doing it for money. I’m doing it to prove myself. I’m doing it because I believe that this is something I’m suppose to do. To tell the truth, I’ve hardly given money a second thought.

By: Robb Wo

Robb Wo — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:58:56 +0000

Exactly! Well said! You can’t really blame a studio for continuing to try and rake in guaranteed cash, but how often have we seen lousy, rushed, and ill-concieved sequels made purely for the sake of the dollar? For me, it ruins the feel and integrity of previous films and the franchise as a whole when they pump out a piece of garbage to try and squeeze out a little more profit. Nothing wrong with a sequel or a remake as long as it at least TRIES to maintain what made the original film a classic in the first place. Doesn’t have to be word-for-word, doesn’t have to avoid taking liberties to expand the story, but it should at least keep the originals in mind by honoring them with a well-thought-out and fan-rewarding film.

By: Zach

Zach — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:36:36 +0000

I think when most people say “they’re just making it for the money” they mean that the people making them are milking the original material only for financial gain, not caring whether or not the movie is any good..a la saw 10

By: Marc

Marc — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:54:29 +0000

Glad you made this video John, I’ve been thinking about this for some weeks now especially considering the swarm of remakes out there. When people say “why don’t the studios come out with something original”, this video blog touched on the one thing maybe most fans don’t think about: the producers. Right, they’re the ones who fund and finance a film. With fan bases already out there, it seems like a no brainer that studios would rather hit up an already tested idea or series before venturing out and taking a chance on something new. In theory, that ‘fan base’ would more likely see that movie from a series that they love thus being more likely to turn a profit on that film, in the end giving the investors a ROI. But (given that many, many sequels bomb) when the premise is ill conceived, or the delivery is poor, fans get burned and later think twice about seeing the film since the quality isn’t up to par. In worst case scenarios, the subsequent films get panned by critics and fans alike, no one goes to see them, ticket sales are horrendous and the series suffers. Then studios, still not wanting to take a chance on an untested or new film idea/theme then look for the next series to milk and the process continues. Thank god for people like Christopher Nolan who command and ultimately quality. Studios will back a winner like him.

Just my thoughts…anyone agree or disagree or can tell me something I’m missing??

By: 1138

1138 — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:43:11 +0000

Actually movies aren’t about making money. They’re about making TONS AND TONS OF MONEY.

By: Sound Designer Dan

Sound Designer Dan — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:33:37 +0000

John,

What do you think of a film like The Fall (directed by Tarsem Singh) which Singh spent all of his own money on it because he said he NEEDED to make the film not for monetary reasons but for artistic ones. I remember him even saying during the commentary, “I’m poor but I’m happy like a pig in shit.”

By: cloud720

cloud720 — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:25:55 +0000

John

You have said that you think Matthew Mcconaughey is an underrated actor. He is not a bad actor he just repeatedly does bad movies. He gets paid yes but that seems to be all he cares about.

Do you think there is a difference between the way Matthew Mcconaughey picks a role and the way Leonardo Dicaprio or Russel Crowe picks one? Who ends up in better movies? Do you think it makes a difference when money isn’t the only concern?

By: cloud720

cloud720 — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:03:58 +0000

What I got from those ten minutes is that I should use full sentences. Instead of saying “this movie is just a money grab” I should say that “this movie is just a money grab and the developers behind it have no passion for this film”. Wait, those two statements are saying the same thing. Yes I know they are making movies for the money but when they only make it for the money the movies tend to suck.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 05:22:53 +0000

I agree with you and thought I would tell you that I like your video blogs. Keep them coming.

By: Mladen

Mladen — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 05:20:06 +0000

While I agree with most of your points, I’d say that Michael Bay probably does have the ambition to thrill and entertain, and make films which are ‘spectacular’. You can see that he genuinely enjoys the types of films he makes.

A more fair example would be the types of directors and studios who have no particular vision, and churn out schlock. The makers of The Ernest-goes-to-_____ and Air-bud movies for example.