Hey there guys. This is actually a few days late, but I wanted to follow up my video blog where we talked about sequels last week. Sometimes when a sequel is announced some people will say “they’re just doing it for the money”. My response is usually “well what else do you think they’re doing it for”?
In this Video Blog (by the way, I have no idea if you guys like these or if they’re just a total waste of time… let me know what you think) I talk about why money is not only a major motivational factor for ALL MOVIES AND EVERYONE INVOLVED WITH THEM, but also why we shouldn’t look down on people (business people and artists alike) look down our noses at them for it.
Please note, I’m NOT saying money is the only reason people do what they do… but as I’ll explain, it is a big factor in the motivation.
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
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.
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??
Actually movies aren’t about making money. They’re about making TONS AND TONS OF MONEY.
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.”
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?
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.
I agree with you and thought I would tell you that I like your video blogs. Keep them coming.
this definitely applies a lot more to the studios then it does to director and actors.
for young film makers who dream of becoming full time directors
the odds of you actually making a living from film making are not great. If money is your main motivation then there are much easier ways to go about making money then to spend your life in the incredibly soul destroying profession of film making. You have to have a much bigger motivation than making money. there are so many struggling actors and directors out there who really do make some huge sacrifices because they love what it is they are chasing. They love to act or to tell stories first and foremost. If they are able to make a living from it all the better but their main motivation is not that one day they may become millionaires.
I mean john you just made a film. Did you make it to make money or because you would like to tell stories through film?
what was your main driving force?
Love of film or a love of money?
When I look at acting legends like Pacino and De Niro in a movie like Righteous Kill and someone says to me: “They’re just doing it for the money”, I tend to agree with them and feel disappointed because it costs them so much respect.
What do you think John?
Hi John, I just wanted to say while I don’t always agree with you I do really like your video blogs, and find they are one of the best parts of the site.
I do agree with you here though for the most part- however it seems like you’re talking more about the studios rather than the writers and directors, etc.
Frankly John, I think you’re addressing a straw man here.
When people say “they just did it for the money” they are expressing an expectation that filmmakers work for free, nor does it mean that studios should produce anything with no possibility of returns. That’s an extreme interpretation of the sentiment, and I don’t think its one anyone really has.
The emphasis on the phrase “just in it for the money” is on “just” not on “money.” Its a complaint that they’re producing something ONLY for the money. When they make compromises to the script ONLY so that they can make more money than they already were.
Consider if you will: Michael Bay and Steven Soderbergh, both are filmmakers who have made highly successful filmmakers and both are millionaires. But, while Michael Bay seems to have no ambition in film other than to exponentially increase his already huge wallet, Soderbergh clearly has more ambition then that. Soderbergh could EASILY make Ocean’s film after Ocean’s film, but he doesn’t, he’s constantly experimenting and trying to make new and interesting work. That’s why Soderbergh is more respected than Bay, because he’s not JUST in it for the money.
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.
its so depressing. : (
I can’t say this was a total waste, but I do think John is kind of preaching to the choir.
very good point. Around here you’re more likely to find a spirited discussion about which movie will have the biggest thursday night opening numbers than a debate about Jodorowsky’s use of religious imagery.
John, I wouldn’t say this was a waste of time, I’d like to see more multimedia stuff from you these days. So keep doing them.
But I don’t really get the point of an editorial like this. Movies are about money to the people who work in the industry.
Ok. I certaintly can’t argue with that.
What are movies about to you? Why are you passionate about movies? That would be a much more worthwhile editorial.
And car companies do get criticized for pursuit of profit. You may recall the ford pinto incident from the 80’s.
Their job is to make money. But to make money by building good cars. People need to make money, but they should take pride in their work as well. And if they’re knowingly putting out a shite product then they deserve criticism.
As many other people have said already, yes it is a business and the man wants to make money. But I also recall back when Metro Goldwyn Mayer was being put together and they put together the studio logo and they put the Latin phrase across the top “Ars Gratia Artis” — Art for Art’s sake.
What a fucking pipe dream.
Sly Stallone did Rocky Balboa(which I loved) because he wanted to tell the last part of his Rocky story and because he wanted to make money. He will do Rambo 5 because he wants to make money not because there’s a story to tell. Its actually pretty easy to figure out! The public can figure this out.
chuck
John, I’m a bit confused by this as I believe people do understand that films/filmaking is a ‘business’ and therefore relies heavily on the making of money.
I think the phrase ‘doing it for the money’ comes up possibly out of context in this situation. The way I’ve heard it referred is when an actor clearly takes the paycheck over a decent story. The money outweighs the ‘art’ so to speak. Now granted people will do things they dislike just to get a fat pay check but when an actor does Jaws 4: The Revenge money TAKES over and the film-making takes second string.
I guess what I’m saying is that I agree with your post’s argument about money being a huge motivation but not when you say everyone thinks that the world of film is perceived by some as ‘teddy bears dancing through fields of flowers’.
The analogy to Toyota was a little hard to grasp also as I believe these two businesses are very different in the product that they deliver. If Toyota built a vehicle that looked pretty on the outside and ran like a piece of shit (because of a crappy engine) I would suggest that the company is selling out or just making a quick buck. It probably doesn’t happen that much with that kind of business because a person can always take that product back. Unfortunately after you’ve been to the movie theatre, you can’t ‘give the film back’ and so as a result the film gets the familiar ‘thats just a money grab’.
Interesting post, really liking the discussion!
Yeah thats so true, I remeber when people say that when it comes to the Star Wars prequels. I dont mind that these people are doing for the money. I just think they get too much money for doing it. How many people would want to be an actor, writer, director etc if the pay wasnt that great?
I think you miss the point John. Of course they do it for the money, but so what? That doesn’t excuse making a piece of crap. There’s a difference between putting out a quality product for the money, and pushing a poorly thought out piece of trash through because you know it will have a built in audience. There are excellent carpenters and crappy carpenters, and they both do it for the money, that goes without saying, but there’s a huge difference.
Or, sometimes a sequel is made that really lacks a compelling reason to exist. No reason to cite examples, we can all think of them. The point here is that the movie wasn’t made because there was a story to be told, or a vision yet to be fleshed out, but simply because THEY COULD, and because enough people would show up to allow a profit before word spread that’s it’s a disaster.
So, when someone says “they just did that for the paycheck” I don’t think I’d necessarily jump to the conclusion that they lack an inherit grasp of commerce and the movie industry’s relationship to it. I think more than likely they’re eluding to the points made above.
All movies are produced in the hopes of making money, but there is also something to be said for vision, integrity, and intent…something that varies quite a bit regardless of the underlying financial motivations.
Agreed.
I think John’s comparison to Toyota isn’t quite reasonable in that regard.
It’d make more sense to compare film to a manufacturer which specialises in artistic luxury sports cars… Those whose appeal isn’t in their functional use, mileage for gas, etc, but chiefly in their look, their design, their entertainment value. Film after all has no USE except to entertain.
Top end car designers: Of COURSE they’re in it to make money, but there’s also a focus on quality and beauty of design. They strike a balance of output of quality and input of profit, which in a perfect world is how films should be.
If we continue with the car analogy, a bad movie sequel is the same as if they released the “Jaguar E-type: RELOADED” and replaced the engine with a Yugo, the seats covers are on backwards and the doors fall off the moment you get in… I think its fair then to rip into them for losing that balance of profit/quality.
Hey John
when is your movie comming out…?
Tell me details about it or website..>?!!
this whole site is one of my favorite wastes of time on the web.
of course
I like your video blogs John.
They help fill the gaps in between podcasts.
Great discussion. I’d like this to be a regular thing (but don’t stress over it).
When I refer to a money-grab (which I rarely do), my definition would be a sequel made unnecessarily story-wise with no more inspiration than to make more money. Original movies usually have some kind of inspiration behind them that adds to the whole profit thing. Someone saying “This is something brilliant that I/we want the world to see.” A money-grab to me is basically a sequel with NONE of that inspiration behind it other than the want for more money. It’s basically someone looking at a film and saying “It made money before. Let’s do a sequel.” I have a very slim definition.
I’m sure I made it sound like it, but I know there aren’t any people at the top whose sole mission in life is to f*** us all over.
You just made this video for the money:P
(For the record, don’t worry about whether these v-blog entries are a ‘waste of time’. They’re one of the best -and most important- features you produce here.)
What you talk about regarding how people see films relates directly to what I’ve long referred to as the ‘proprietor’ relationship that so many people have with movies in general: films ‘belong’ to them. I don’t know of any other aspect of Life that plays the role, has the status that films do for so many people. And this attitude clouds their vision, their objectivity; I see it all the time here, on IMDb, everywhere film is discussed. Hence the negative declaration of someone in the biz doing what they do ‘just for the money’: the observer is insulted by the very notion, they take it *personally*. Go figure.
CoughHaloCough.
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.