On today’s Audio Edition Mail bag:
1) A special message from Doug Nagy
2) Real Optimus Prime Pictures
3) Adjusting the economic realities of the movie
4) Mailbag
Subscribe to The Audio Edition on iTunes! iTunes will automatically download each new episode for you as soon as they go online! Just click this button. iTunes will open to the Audio Edition page. When it does, just click “subscribe”. It’s that easy!
Or you can manually download this installment of The Audio Edition here.
Comment with Facebook
Thanks 123 adware
Thanks 123 adware
Thanks 123 adware
Thanks 123 adware
Thanks 123 adware
Thanks 123 adware
The Matrix Reloaded 738,599,701 worldwide gross
Because of story? No
B-List actors? No
Awesome special effects? Hell yes
Chisox:
That’s funny–that’s what happened with the Writer’s strike in ’88.
Hollywood shut down.
Leonardo DiCaprio
Asking Price: 20
Age: 27
Hits: Titanic. Gangs of New York. Catch Me If You Can. The Man in the Iron Mask
Survival Prospects: Well… he’ll always have Titanic so he’ll go down in history. It’s going to be rough going at least until expectations come semi-down to earth.
Worth It? No. The boy has only ever had two big hits and one of them was strictly based on time of release during hoopla from the other one.
Next Project: Eventually Alexander with Baz Luhrmann.
Tom Hanks
Asking Price: 25+
Age: 47
Hits: Anything he does…even the straight dramas.
Survival Prospects: Already a legend.
Next Project: The LadyKillers for the Coen Bros. and Polar Express, his third outing for director Robert Zemeckis (Forrest Gump, Castaway)
Tom Cruise
Asking Price: 25+
Age: 41
Hits: Anything he does…
Survival Prospects: Already a legend. He’ll be in the history books for sure… His willingness to occassionally push himself (Magnolia) is a good sign for continued longevity.
Next Project: Probable Oscar contender, The Last Samurai and next year the third Mission Impossible.
Julia Roberts
Asking Price: 25+
Age: 35 this Oct 28th.
Hits: Anything she does…
Survival Prospects: Already a legend.
Next Projects: Possible Oscar contender Mona Lisa Smile.
Jim Carrey
Asking Price: 25
Age: 41
Hits: Ace Ventura films. The Mask. The Truman Show
Survival Prospects: He seems to be in a valley rather than peak, but he’ll get thru it.
Next Project: Comedy: Bruce Almighty. Indescribable: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.
Mel Gibson
Asking Price: 25 (supposedly rigid on this -no special deals)
Age: 47
Hits: The Patriot. What Women Want. Lethal Weapon series.
Survival Prospects: Everyone seems to adore him. (me not included :)
But I am confused as to how they pay someone 25 million when their hits are almost always mid size? 80-140 million. Signs is his first $200 million hit. These are not Cruise/Hanks size hits he usually has -so why the same salary? But he is consistent box office wise -a definite plus.
Next Project: Directing Passion in Latin and Aramaic with Jim Caviezel as J.C.
Bruce Willis
Asking Price: 25 (moved up 5 million despite last film, Hart’s War flopping)
Age: 48
Hits: Armaggeddon. The Sixth Sense. Unbreakable.
Survival Prospects: He only seems to get better (as an actor) as the years progress. His smarmy TV persona is now a distant memory.
Next Project: The Whole Ten Yards (yawn) and Die Hard 4 (ohboy) and Hostage. A rather uninspired slate (on paper) Let’s hope he finds another Sixth Sense or Pulp Fiction challenge soon.
Adam Sandler
Asking Price: 25 (flexible)
Age: 37 on Sept 9th.
Hits: Big Daddy. The Wedding Singer. Deeds.
Survival Prospects: Punch-Drunk Love showed us signs of growth.So naturally the audiences rejected it. But eventually they’ll outgrow him unless he continues to take those risks -so good for him.
Next Project: 50 First Kisses with Drew Barrymore which seems to have an eery similarity to both Groundhog Day and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Memory loss is going to be a hot topic this coming year at the movies.
Mike Myers
Asking Price: 25
Age: 38
Hits: The Austin Powers Trilogy. Shrek
Next Project: Cat in the Hat (and judging from the trailers, the Dr. Suess estate should be ashamed of themselves selling the rights for this…)
Cameron Diaz
Asking Price: 20
Age: ?
Hits: There’s Something About Mary. Charlies Angels
Next Project:
Obscenely Rich $15-20
Will Smith
Asking Price: 20
Age: 35 this Sept 25th.
Hits: Men in Black. Wild Wild West. MIB: 2 (sort of)
Survival Prospects: Good. Solid commercial and career instincts. His bravery in taking on Ali showed a desire to grow and the kind of extraordinary confidence that all superstars seem to have. But two steps forward two steps back since he’s back to stuff like…
Next Project: Bad Boys II. There’s always next year. Next summer he’ll be in I, Robot.
Russell Crowe
Asking Price: 20
Age: 39
Hits: Gladiator. A Beautiful Mind
Survival Prospects: As an actor -great. I’m not sure about this Crowe Superstar thing though. With the kind of chameleon actor he is why is he going the superstardom route which will make meatier roles more difficult to come by?
Worth It? Probably, yes. His initial skyrocketing salary was the Leonardo DiCaprio syndrome. One hit and suddenly he’s considered a sure thing? The world does not work this way! One hit can easily be a fluke…and doesn’t anyone think that Cameron had something to do with the success of Titanic and Ridley Scott with the success of Gladiator. Wake up! Smell the auteur-But then a strange thing happened. The hype turned out to be justified and he even took a drama (A Beautiful Mind) to close to $200 million. No small task.
Next Project: The great Peter Weir high seas drama “Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World” After which there’s two maybes: Cinderella Man and Tripoli.
Vin Diesel
Asking Price: 20
Age: 36
Hits: Pitch Black. The Fast and the Furious.Triple X (sort of -but given the hype it was an underperformer.)
Survival Prospects: Who the hell knows? It’s either a long one or a flash in the pan. There’s probably no inbetween here.
Worth It? Whatever. Of course not.
Next Project: Two sequels: Riddick and XXX2
Eddie Murphy
Asking Price: 20
Age: 42
Hits: Nutty Professor films. Dr. DooLittle films
Survival Prospects: He’s a legendary comic so despite the extremely uneven box office record, he won’t ever be out of work. But I wish he’d work on more Bowfingers and less Daddy Day Cares, don’t you?
Next Project: Two more family flicks (where he has the best luck these days): Haunted Mansion and voice work for Shrek 2
Martin Lawrence
Asking Price: 20
Age: 38
Hits: Big Momma’s House. What’s the Worst That Could Happen
Survival Prospects: Not so hot but he’s not going down real soon either.
Next Project: Somehow despite the flopitude of What’s the Worst That Could Happen and Black Knight he’s still receiving 20 million. Next up -two sequels: Bad Boys 2 and Blue Streak 2.
Jackie Chan
Asking Price: 20 (doubled after Rush Hour 2)
Age: 49
Hits: Rush Hour. Rush Hour 2.
Survival Prospects: Hmmmmm. Well, he’ll always have his cult/devoted audience but 20 million dollars worth of them? Really?
Next Project: The Medallion, Around the World in 80 Days, and Rush Hour 3
Nicolas Cage
Asking Price: 20
Age: 39
Hits: Face/Off. Con Air. Gone in 60 Seconds
Survival Prospects: Appeared shaky but then he got some of his old critical cred back with Adaptation, so let’s hope he doesn’t squander it anytime soon.
Worth It? No. He’s only going to generate that type of money if he stays in those specific no-brainer action films and his audience appeal there is obviously waning.
Next Project: Matchstick Men this summer. Then Land of Destiny. And I’ll believe it when I see it, Ghost Rider.
Denzel Washington
Asking Price: 20
Age: 49 this December 28th.
Hits: Crimson Tide. Training Day. John Q
Survival Prospects: Assured.
Worth It? Box Office wise this might be semi inflated. Talent wise it’s more than reasonable asking price. Great actor. Unarguably one of our best.
Next Project: The Carl Franklin thriller Out of Time.
Brad Pitt
Asking Price: 20 (flexible)
Age: 40 this Dec 18th.
Hits: Se7en. Interview with a Vampire. The Mexican. Oceans 11
Survival Prospects: Duh. But let’s hope he goes from big star to legendary. He has loads of talent but people only seem to focus on his charisma.
Worth It? Yes. His hits aren’t often mega hits, he’s flexible, artistically sound, and generates a ton of press…i.e. free publicity.
Next Project: To the White Sea was cancelled as was apparently The Last Man so we won’t see him onscreen for awhile. You will hear him as the lead voice in Sinbad . Next year he’ll be in the big budget epic Troy and will possibly follow that with Mr. and Mrs Smith with Nicole Kidman. A great combo that might be!
John Travolta
Asking Price: 20 (rumored to have dropped ?)
Age: 50
Hits: Pulp Fiction. Face/Off. Grease. Saturday Night Fever. Look Who’s Talking…
Survival Prospects: He always rises from the ashes of self immolation.
Worth It? His salary is ridiculous though. For every Face/Off there’s a Battlefield Earth. For every Broken Arrow, a Lucky Numbers.
Next Project: Mr. 3000 and Basic.
Cameron Diaz
Asking Price: 20
Age: 30
Hits: There’s Something About Mary. Charlies Angels. Shrek. Vanilla Sky. Gangs of New York.
Worth It? Getting there . Perhaps a bit of wishful thinking pricing but she does seem to be putting asses in seats. A tentative yes on that price range.
Next Project: Shrek 2
Chris Tucker
Asking Price: 20 (asking for 25 after Rush Hour 2)
Age: 30
Hits: Rush Hour. Rush Hour 2.
Survival Prospects: Not looking rosy. Mega overpriced after one hit. I hope he saves his pennies. Unless you throw Chan into the mix -too much.
Worth It? If hell froze over.
Next Project: Mr. President.
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Asking Price: 25+
Age: 57
Hits: Gobs of them…most recently T-3:Rise of the Machines for which he received $30 million -and raised most additional Hollywood salaries in the process for next year in the process I’m sure.
Next Project: Politics
Harrison Ford
Asking Price: 25
Age: 61
Hits: Gazillions of them….but the last few have flopped. Most recent hit was What Lies Beneath
Next Project: An important choice for him since he hasn’t connected as a lead actor since the late 90s… Most people think a challenging career rejuvenating indie would be a good choice. But Harrison never goes that route. We shall see.
Obscenely Rich $15-20
Sylvester Stallone
Asking Price: 20
Age: 57
Hits: Rocky films. Nothing recently, though.
Next Project: Spy Kids 3
Michael Douglas
Asking Price: 20
Age: 59
Hits: Traffic. He put asses in seats in the 80s, though…but his current track record doesn’t seem to justify a 20 million take.
Next Project: It Runs in The Family and The In-Laws.
Robert DeNiro
Asking Price: 20
Age: 58
Hits: Meet the Parents. The Score.
Next Project: There’s probably 17 on the way. Don’t worry. He works non-stop.
Tommy Lee Jones
Asking Price: 17-20
Age: 58
Hits: Men in Black. The Fugitive.Men in Black II
Next Project: The Missing
Jack Nicholson
Asking Price: 10-20 (flexible)
Age: 66
Hits: Batman. As Good As It Gets. About Schmidt. Anger Management.
Next Project: Nancy Meyers Untitled Comedy.
.
When every actor is in the screen actor’s guild and they strike hollywood get’s shut down.
John you are proving your point but strengthening another. It’s not screenplay that makes a lot of money its special effects. People love a big budget spectacle. If you can attach a names actor to it great. If you can attach a big budget actor to it your risk of failing is very small. CGI studio’s are now the #1 complaint by studio’s about the rising cost of films right now. There has been a shift. In the 80’s and 90’s actors dictated how much a movie would draw. Now the special effects are the deciding factor. Even on a shitty screenplay you could have a hit film if the special effects deliver.
My opinion (degree of importance)
1. Special Effect
2. Director
3. Actor
4. Screenplay
John you can’t buy a condo in Hollywood for 6 million dollor.
It’s CITROËN. SI-TRO-ING :) Not Sitteron.
Okay, define a good screenplay???
I ask you what defines a great script? Who knows?
It’s art for Christ sake. A really great film is luck.
And You can argue anything.
Ten great songwriters
Ten great authors
But, I agree script is paramount.
But who is going to direct it? Whose going to be in it? Whose going to edit it (and editing has saved a number of films)
Hell, your next post should be pay editors more
“Blade runner- nightmare from beginning to end, even the “tears in rain” thing was written by the ‘actor’ 10 mins before it was shot’
First, a troubled production, even like ‘Blade Runner’ had nothing to do with the script. [co-written by David Peoples who later wrote the award winning ‘Unforgiven’- yeah, BAD WRITER! Yeah, right!] Since you mention Rutger Hauer’s line, so what? A lot of actors read off the page time to time. and…well should I refer you to p196 of “Future Noir: The Making Of Blade Runner” by Paul Sammon?
This is what Rutger Hauer says:
“But you know, everyone writes about me and that speech, and ignores the screenwriter. I thought David Peoples, the man who wrote that version of Batty’s solioquy, really did a beautiful job”
Yes, it was a troubled production. So was Lawrence Of Arabia.
So was Apocolypse Now.
Were they poorly written too?
Well Paul… you’re wrong. It does work, and would work.
As I said above:
1) The better a script is that a director gets his hands on, the greater the potential is for a good film. Yes?
2)If you had an idea for a film about the moon crumbling apart and falling towards the earth… which of the 2 senarios do you think would result in the best screenplay for that idea in your hands:
A) Hire one good writer to draft a screenplay?
B) Hire 7 good writers to draft 7 screenplays, and you pick the best one?
I think we would both agree that senario B would (9 times out of 10) result in the highest quality screenplay being in your hands. Yes? Combine that with #1, thus giving you the greater potential for a good film.
I also said that this IS NOT a 1 solution fix all, but that it’s a step in the right direction. But can you say you disagree with any of the above statements? If so, which one do you disagree with… and why?
Are you saying the better the screeplay does NOT increase the potential for a good film?
Are you saying that having 5 (or 10 or 8 or whatever) good screen writters submitting 5 different scrpits from your idea and you getting to pick the best one, would NOT end up with you having a better script than if you just hired 1 writer? Not 100% of the time obviously.
I’m sorry Paul… but I just don’t see what part of that “Just doesn’t work” according to you. Help me out here. Why is having a better script NOT a good idea? And how would having 10 writers submit drafts NOT lead to you 9/10 getting the best script you could? Explain that to me.
The problem John is that your whole argument just doesn’t work. Creating a great film is not about money, who ever gets it. It’s about luck, the right people at the right time as well as the wrong people at the right time.
1. Star wars – Harrsion Ford said “you can write this shit but you sure can’t say it” so the so called ‘actor’ turned bad dialogue into one of the best characters ever.
2. Blade runner- nightmare from beginning to end, even the “tears in rain” thing was written by the ‘actor’ 10 mins before it was shot
3, Jaws, thank fuck the shark didn’t work so they had time on the script, the actors workshopped most of the stuff.
And before you say I’m missing your point. Your point is that you think there can be a formula, and that’s wrong.
Trying to turn any art form into an A following B thing is never going to work. Most of the great films evolve out of chaos, if there was a formula or a scheme wouldn’t they already do it.
And who cares if Chris Tucker gets 25mill!
In ten years time we’ll be talking about the stuff with longevity.
And Tucker will be thinking what goes on my gold tombstone, maybe actor in rush hour 1,2,3!!!!
Hey Black Steven,
Once again you’re putting words in my mouth (perhaps unintentinoally) I laid it out pretty clearly that this is what I hold that studios SHOULD do. Not that it’s what they are clamouring away to do (The quote from the universal guy was just to illustrate the point).
Nox… did you even listen to the podcast?
I listed about 6 things.
And yes, if all the studios drew a line in the sand and only offered Russell Crowe $6 million… then Russell Crowe would work for $6 million. Same with any Hollywood star. Can you refute that?
Can you “prove” any of what you’re saying? 3 of the top 10 boxoffice hits of all time had no A-list actors in them. How do you explain that? TONS of films totally bomb each year that have big A-List actors in them. How do you explain that?
My theory provides for better stories and keeping named actors. Can you prove this theory doesn’t work?
Jeezum crow, John, this is why I used the ‘S’ word that upset you so much – you’re dealing with a problem that simply doesn’t exist.
Do you really think studios are sitting around wishing they could spend more on script development – if only they didn’t have to pay those pesky actors so much money?
You do? Okay. Give ’em a call. You should at least be able to get hold of someone at Paramount. Tell them your plan. Maybe you’ll get a bonus of some sort. You know, like a finder’s fee.
With that, it’s quitting time. Thank you for – once again – helping me through another boring work day. See you tomorrow!
Hey John
So you think that Studio’s can pay millions less for a named actor and still hire them. If you can get an actor for a few million cheaper then a movie studio is currently paying then why are you not working for the studios saving them millions?
Do you not think that they have whole teams of people who try to negotiate cheaper deals with big name actors, how do you intend to get better deals then them? Sure you can get a not so big name actor cheaper but they do not have the same size following.
Ultimately it comes back to what evidence do you have that spending less on the actor and more on the script will lead to bigger profits.
Yours
Nox
Hey there Black Steven,
The point you seems to be missing (although I could be mistaken here) is that you’re looking at what I’m suggesting as an issue of money as opposed to an issue of talent depth. Put it this way, I think we’ll agree on the following:
1) The better a script is that a director gets his hands on, the greater the potential is for a good film. Yes?
2)If you had an idea for a film about the moon crumbling apart and falling towards the earth… which of the 2 senarios do you think would result in the best screenplay for that idea in your hands:
A) Hire one good writer to draft a screenplay?
B) Hire 7 good writers to draft 7 screenplays, and you pick the best one?
I think we would both agree that senario B would (9 times out of 10) result in the highest quality screenplay being in your hands. Yes? Combine that with #1, thus giving you the greater potential for a good film.
As a Universal exec once told me “We’d love to commission several writers to submit drafts. But project budgets don’t allow for that”
My point, is that if you take $10 million out of actors salaries (or $1 million, or $5 million… the number itself isn’t important), then this becomes feasible.
I’m not saying (as you seem to be suggesting… I think) that throwing more money at a writer will make that writers product better. Not at all.
Your counterpoint seems to suggest (correct me if I’m wrong) that all screenplays are butchured by Studios. That’s just not true. Often the studios do play with it… and sometimes that’s a GOOD thing (Dear God… M. Night Shymalan should have let Disney work his pathetic script for Lady in the Water).
However, there is a saying in video editing: “Best in – Best Out”. What that means is, that the better your starting source material is when editing video… the better the final product will be. Even though the video will be chopped and compressed… the better the video is to start with… means the better the final product will be.
So yes, sometimes, maybe often, studios work the screenplays. But even then the principal of “Best In – Best Out” applies. The better the starting script is, the better the final draft will be regardless of who touches it. If you start with a LOWER quality script, then the final product will be even worse.
The issue is not money. The issue is talent and deepening a talent pool for individual projects. THAT takes money… but money is not the issue. Where to get the money to do it is? The actors.
Hope that clarifies things.
Cheers!
Anybody else having trouble downloading the Audio Edition or is it just me…
I’m sorry, John – maybe I’m missing something – but what is exactly IS your argument, then?
These are your words: ‘redeployment of studio funds and resources to deepening a writers significence and talent pool’ (sic).
This says you think more money should go toward creating a solid roster of talented screenwriters who can build a better script, right?
My counter to your thesis is that more money won’t do any good. They already have more than enough writers in LA, so it’s not that they need money to fix a hiring shortage. There are THOUSANDS of unproduced scripts doing the rounds at any one time, none of which will be improved by adding money. My counter is that the problems occur when those scripts are butchered during production. My counter is that perhaps if there was less meddling – not more money – better films might be the result.
Now, if I’m misrepresenting your original thesis – which I believe was titled ‘LESS MONEY TO THE ACTORS – MORE TO THE SCREENPLAY’ – please let me know.
Hey Evil Eye,
If I were an American, I would probably be a Republican if George W. Bush wasn’t president. As things curently stand… I’d probably be a Democrat. Oh how I miss Regan.
Hey Black Steven,
No sweat Dude,
However, I don’t really think you’re providing a “counter” to my argument. What you seem to be talking about is a totally different issue.
I’ve talked at length before on this site about the creative process… the need sometimes for the suits to get involved, and the need for the suits to keep their hands off. You and I are in complete agreement on that.
There is no 1 sinlge solution. And I’m certainly not suggesting that my idea is a “one idea fixes all” solution. It is however, in my opinion, a step in the right direction.
Cheers.
Apologies for any condescension, John. You know I’m a fan of you and your site, so no offense was intended.
What bothers me about your argument is you’re boiling it all down to money – something they aren’t short of in Hollywood. What you’re missing is this: good scripts are written all the time, it’s just that they’re often butchered on their way to the screen. The end result we fans get to see at the multiplex often has little to do with the manuscript Johnny Screenplay handed over a few years earlier. Check out any of William Goldman’s brilliant books, or any of the many screenwriter blogs online these days and you’ll see a very consistent pattern emerges.
The more money you spend on a film, the more skittish the people providing that money become, which means a bunch of producers all shoving their fingers into the pie in the hope they can ‘guarantee’ a decent return on their investment. I don’t blame them for that – that’s their job – but it does result in a slew of very bland, forgettable ‘product’ in our cinemas.
My counter to your point is that what Hollywood needs is a little more respect for writers and the work they produce. No stage actor would order a rewrite of a David Mamet or Harold Pinter play to make it ‘more urban’, because they respect the words they’ve been given. Wouldn’t it be nice if that was the way it worked in the film business? Respect – not money – is what I think would result in a better quality of film making it out here to us fans.
My respect to you, John, and my thanks for this discussion. Um… The Movie Blog rules!
John,
It would be great if you could discuss the whole screenwriting idea with some people who are actually involved in the profesion.
I’d suggest Jeff Goldsmith from Creative Screenwriting magazine. Their podcasts are with the screen writers.
http://www.podcastalley.com/podcast_details.php?pod_id=8894
Holy shit! John Campa for president! Ok, I’m not that much of a fan boy, but one of the things I’ve loved about your mail bag episodes is the way you communicate. You seriously are one of the best and most concise communicators I’ve heard. I don’t always agree with you, but your position is always so well thought out and so well laid out that you often win me over, or at the very least make me really think about my own position. I’d love to hear you do some political stuff, just not on The Movie Blog.
Your screenplay dissertation was fantastic. You clearly covered all the bases in a short amount of time. You convinced me.
I’m still not sold on the transformers. I’ll be in line to see it, but I’m just not sure many others will be there with me.
Quick question. I know you’re not American, but if you were, would you consider yourself a Republican or a Democrat? Just curious. Feel free not to answer that one.
Hey Black Steven,
I find it funny when the only way to counter my thesis is to throw out randomly condecending words, and then made up hypothetical situations.
Also, you’re putting words in my mouth. My argument was never that “Better movies always make more money”. When did I say that? My argument was that big A-List stars do not always make more money. So you see… my argument isn’t undermined at all, beacuse what you’re saying was never my argument in the first place.
And your comments reveal that you didn’t really “get it”. I NEVER ONCE SAID that paying more for scripts would solve anything. I said very clearly in the podcast that the “number” wasn’t the important part.
The key part wasn’t the ammount of money paid for the script… the key to it is deepening the talent pool from whcih the script is developed. That in and of itself will cost more money. I’ve yet to see anyone refute that. This is true in Sports, Business and Art. Deeper talent pools equal better final results 95% of the time.
As an aside, I was just reading over my comment and I realize it’s coming across as a little cindecending itself. Totally unintentional dude… please don’t read it as such. I just have a tendancy to come across like that when I’m frustrated… and I get frustrated when I feel like people are refuting arguments and points I never made and not paying attention to the arguments and points I was actually making.
And how on earth do you see my call for an industry wide radical financial market reconditioning and redeployment of studio funds and resources to deepening a writers significence and talent pool as a “horribly simplistic screenplay rant”???
If you actually find that “simplistic”… my hats off to you.
Mmmm… I think James Franco will pull a Steven Seagal (in Executive Decision) and get his life taken away during that fight with Peter Parker in the first 30 minutes of the film. That’s why they are not pushing him too much in the media as a main character.
I used to work at a telecoms company, and people would often phone us with suggestions. The most common suggestion we received was this: ‘Why don’t you make your service cheaper? More people will buy it if it’s cheaper.’ Your horribly simplistic screenplay rant reminded me of those wonderful people.
The amazing and frustrating thing about good ideas, John, is that they arrive completely free of charge. All you need is some craft and a little talent and you can just pluck those story ideas from the ether. So why, why, why is it you think spending more money on screenplays will produce better films? Do you know what would happen to a screenplay that cost over a million to write? An entire legion of studio executives would KILL it by trying to control it, reshape it, do ANYTHING to justify such a profligate investment.
Hollywood’s problem is that it doesn’t respect or understand the writing process – and why should they, they’re business men – not that they don’t pay enough money for it.
Oh, and you undermine your own argument when you use Fight Club as an example of big stars not helping with box office, because that film had a fucking GREAT script.
The problems with the idea screenplay you suggested are this:
A) There are no THAT many screenwriter of a high level profile (if you want to make a blockbuster) to work on a lot of movies. Thus, this tactics you suggested cannot be applied to all films! Maybe some huge blockbusters. But again, if the studio want a huge movie to pay off, the will hire some expensive A-list actors.
B) If you pay all 10 writers, but only 2-3 works will be used, some may go like “Blah! I gonna write some crap, they gonna use another one and I got my money”. If you don’t pay all screenwriters in advance… who gonna work like that?
Hey Nox,
Thanks for commenting on my Screenplay rant. But I think you missed the point I was trying to make…
You see… it’s not a one or the other situation. If you listen to my rant again, you’ll see that my suggestions mean that more money would go to the script AND the big A LIST stars would still appear in the movies. So it’s not an “either – or” situation.
Cheers!
~John
Hey John. I figured I’d answer the question that blockbuster chose not to or is too busy to answer…and this is up to the best of my knowledge…
…I worked in a video store back in the VHS era. When movies were released, there would be two different marketing proceedures. One was called a sellthrough, which meant you could buy the movie on dvd or vhs from the big chain stores or anywhere else on the same day as they were released for rental.
The other method was, to my knowldge, not named, but it was basically a system set in place to allow renting houses to have access to copies of the dvd/vhs movie BEFORE it was released to be sold at, say, Wal Mart or the like. The video store I worked at would keep a copy ( the movies that weren’t sold through would usually cost around 100$ american to buy. ) on the shelf for about 3 months or until there was no more shelf space and then sell them for 10 bucks as a used copy.
I’m thinking the sticker he has on his DVD, though it said “not for rental” has something to do with that system. Though it definitely is something I”m not familiar with it. In the United States, it was legal ten years ago to go out and buy a video at Wal Mart and then put it in the system and then just rent it out. This is what most stores did. So having a “not for rental” sticker MAY be a way that the go about stopping such behavior in the U.K.
hope that this info leads to an answer. And CONGRATS….I loved this podcast. It was much more fluid and entertaining….
…hardly missing the Nadge at all…: (
Regarding Johns movie studios should change rant.
Independent movies generally put way more budget and effort into the scripts then the actors and many people consider this to result in a much better quality movie. The problem is that big studios make more money with their lower quality movies by hiring an actor that has a built in audience, sheep that will see anything they are in, and over hyping the movie.
John do you have any evidence that movie studios would make more money by focusing on high quality movies instead of big name hyped movies? With out that evidence you are not going to convince the movie studio shareholders, who are only interested in a good return on their investment, to change the focus from name actors to script writers.
it’s ok it happens to the best of us and i apoligize for the long rant lol but on the bright side you were really spot on with your x-men 4 suggestions. it’s just too bad fox dosen’t give a crap about the x-men franchise and will probably just churn out movies of x-3 quality or worse in the future but i am still holding out some hope for another great x-men flick
Yeah… I got messed up there with the Batman thing in 2007. AND i confused Batman Forever with Batman And Robin. I was off tonight for sure.
~John
darren beat me to it but yea i was also going to point out that the dark knight is coming out in 2008 not 2007 (i think it will be the biggest movie of 2008 though). I think that fourth spot for 2007 will go to the simpsons movie.
I also wanted to point out that the comparison made about x-men 3 being the new batman forever was pretty dead on. I disagree with john’s assesment that no one enjoyed batman forever because i know a fair amount of people who enjoyed batman forever and i myself enjoy and i have even heard john himself say he enjoyed it (although he might of got confused and thought of batman and robin which IS universally hated). both batman forever and x-men 3 attempted to follow the groundwork laid from the previous two films while shifting the focus from the characters and more on the action and attempting to lighten the mood of the movies in the process also. both movies also had plots that suffered due to having too many characters in the movie with little time to introduce or establish them in the story and also suffered due to big name actors stepping in and having a little too much creative control and directors that were thrown onto an already established project too late in the mix. As a huge fan of both the batman and x-men comics and characters i enjoyed both batman forever and x-men 3 as entertaining popcorn flicks and give credits to the directors for making something out of two very jumbled francise projects. the only real difference is that in my opinion batman forever was a small step up from batman returns and i never really thought burtons bat flicks were all that great anyway while i find xmen 3 to be a huge step down from x-2 and i find singer’s x-men flicks to be some of the best “comic book” flicks ever made. let’s just hope x-men 4 dosen’t turn out to be another batman and robin lol
Regarding Man of the Year and what if Jon Stewart or whatever celebrity became president – we’ve actually had that in the Philippines. You know how in Hollywood people “fail upwards” here entertainers fail into politics. Actors go from being extras to big names and then they go into politics on the basis of their popularity.
Heck some mayors, governors still continue to act while office…
the flames on optimus prime bother me hugely.
They look fucking cheap and corny.
I also hated the decepticon police car with “to enslave and destroy” or what ever it said….
cheesy lame shit.
Michael Bay is a terrible director and he is going to fuck this thing up.
John—
First, thanks for playing my question, but I never said, nor implied, that “all DTV/DVD movies stink”. I know that is the “general” internet mentality (sadly) but I want to go on record that’s NOT my stand. I have seen a few great low budget horror and suspense films like “The Dark Hours” and “Tamara”, and I even enjoyed Jean Claude Van Damme’s flicks “Wake Of Death” and “Second In Command”…
What my problem was that, although a new filmmaker was given 1 mil to play with, and there is exposure, both “Stolen Summer” and “Battle Of Shaker Heights” were given limited theatrical runs. “Feast” gets two midnight screenings before getting dumped to the back shelf at Blockbuster. [Interestingly, there are always indie films which come out not related to PGL which always fare better]..but thanks for your thoughts on this.
I myself watched PGL now and then, but felt that they did manipulate people from time to time…but perhaps because I hang around writer’s boards frequently, (and yes, I DID enter…er…no, we won’t get into that…) I might have a slight bias. Well, no. I don’t. Not when I see other indie filmmakers putting PGL on a whipping post.
Reality shows I will watch? Oh, I do watch UFC [and Pride fights, for that matter] but I don’t really consider them ‘reality’ shows. Heck, you might as well call any sporting event “a reality show”. I will see “Dog The Bounty Hunter” , “Apprentice” and…”Inside The Actor’s Studio” [but I don’t consider that much of a “reality show” either]
Anyway…
I was about (again) to strongly retort on your “idea”. But then…I remembered something called “X-Men 2”. Remember how that was written? Pretty much the way you suggest, having two or more writers writing different scripts, and then melding them together into one. Is that a better example?
Because the way you suggest still brings up the problem of arbitration. A studio can’t say to a writer “pick and choose the best from these other scripts” and credit to yourself.
One last thing.
Why do insist on saying “Batman :The Dark Knight” will be released next year? That film’s planned for 2008, not 2007.
-Sealer
Great audio edition. I think the Wednesday mailbag is a great idea.
Honestly, I think you should go for 40 minute Wednesday editions: 30 of questions, 10 minutes of editorial. That’s not too long in my book.
Anyway, keep up the great work and I look forward to hearing Doug on the next AE (once he gets back from his depravity in Thailand)!
I like this audio editions, but in this one and the other about Halo, you are very very repetitive. You’re like 15min saying something that could be said in 5min
I was really trying to say it would be more ironic. Seeing the guy who makes jokes making the decsion to see him making the decsion.
I agree that all the great speeches, comebacks, quips, characterization and story start in the screenplay. And yes, there should be more effort put into bringing better screenplays to life.
But… no matter how good a screenplay is written, no matter how many ideas are put into place to better the process of writing them, no matter how much money you choose to throw at scripts… it will always be up to some witless studio head to give a certain screenplay a green light.
I believe that there are excellent writers writing excellent screenplays out there but they will always be filtered through a studio head or producer without a creative bone in their body who thinks he knows what the audience wants to see. Until hollywood returns to the director/screenplay driven world it should be, and away from studio/producer driven crap it is now, it wont matter what you do.
I do agree that the crazy salaries need to have a forced reality check.
I’m totally with you on the Opyimus Prime “flame job”. Who gives a crap about the paint job. The overall shape and size are whats important.
Dude Batman as number 4? Great but it will never end up as number 4 next year.
ANd the longer the AE is the better it is
And Italy lost 2-0 to Croatia in a football football-match today.