 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.57.37.236
In Reply to: Re: "coxy arrangement" posted by Analog Scott on December 19, 2005 at 18:31:13:
Perhaps the producers just want to make the most profitable films, and they load them up with so many special effects and costumes and all the other ecoutrements of excess simply because they think they'll get a good return on investment. And I'm no hollywood insider with any privileged knowledge. But, one has to wonder if politics isn't as big a part of movie making as anything else. If not because of any direct financial incentive, wouldn't you say that it's possible for a producer to kind of martial support for a project, and that there is a very large constituency of "special interests," like set builders and special effects shops and costume designers who could help get a picture made?And I do believe that the Academy favors movies that keep all of the special interests well fed -- after all, it's the very same people who work for these interested parties that VOTE on the oscars. Not some meritoriously selected panel of film experts and art critics.
"Blair Witch" -- an absolutely TERRIBLE movie, by the way -- is the perfect example of a low-budget movie that made scores of millions. Yet, this isn't the kind of horror movie that holly produces. They're not looking for these kind of treatments, though, conceivably, they could be made used for almost any film genre.
I'm not saying you're wrong. But, if you're 100% right, you have to conclude that there are very dumb people producing movies, with big budget flops of all kinds littering the movie theaters. Why don't they just get lean and mean?
Follow Ups:
"Perhaps the producers just want to make the most profitable films,"Actually that is mostly the studio execs that keep an eye on the bottom line. but that is how they are judged mostly.
" and they load them up with so many special effects and costumes and all the other ecoutrements of excess simply because they think they'll get a good return on investment."
That is often the case. Sort of. It almost always starts with the writer and then a director. The studios usually are there to say no based on costs but sometimes they believe the effects are the star of a show an pay the toll.
" And I'm no hollywood insider with any privileged knowledge."
I suppose I am to a degree.
" But, one has to wonder if politics isn't as big a part of movie making as anything else."It is but like politics in anything else it is rarely as simple and black and white as people like to imagine.
" If not because of any direct financial incentive, wouldn't you say that it's possible for a producer to kind of martial support for a project, and that there is a very large constituency of "special interests," like set builders and special effects shops and costume designers who could help get a picture made?"No. Producers are not subject to the preasures of the artisans. how could they be? The producers hire the artists not the other way around. politics, when you reduce it to it's simplest form, is nothing more than quid pro quo. So what do the set builders and special effects shops have to offer in return for this vast favor of un-needed work the producers are alegedly giving them?
"And I do believe that the Academy favors movies that keep all of the special interests well fed"
I don't. The "special interests' as you call them are quite powerless in the academy.
" -- after all, it's the very same people who work for these interested parties that VOTE on the oscars."
Very few. The academy is mostly made up of actors, directors and producers. The artisans are a small minority and hardly a unified one at that.
" Not some meritoriously selected panel of film experts and art critics."The artisans largely live with the scraps they get from the academy. fact is the smart ones are grateful for being involved at all. The smart ones know that more toilets flush when they are giving the oscar for best costumes and the like than when they are giving awards to actors and directors.
""Blair Witch" -- an absolutely TERRIBLE movie, by the way -- is the perfect example of a low-budget movie that made scores of millions. Yet, this isn't the kind of horror movie that holly produces. They're not looking for these kind of treatments, though, conceivably, they could be made used for almost any film genre."
1. Hollywood is not a single minded entity. 2. studios are always looking for ideas that they think will be profitable. 3 filmakers are actually far more sincere and artistically minded than the cynics realize. 4 film making is an art of compramise. Unless one is making a movie on a Blair Witch budget one has to answer to people that are concerned about the bottom line.
"I'm not saying you're wrong. But, if you're 100% right, you have to conclude that there are very dumb people producing movies, with big budget flops of all kinds littering the movie theaters."
Even large groups of smart people can make bad movies. but not everyone is smart and rarely is everyone on the same page. Movies are complicated to make and a lot can o wrong along the way.
" Why don't they just get lean and mean?"
sometimes they do.
Thanks for your spirited response, and for debunking some of the misconceptions that I think many of us share as members of the movie going public. But since your are, to a degree as you say, an insider. I'd like to ask you another question or two.Since the Academy is dominated by actors, directors, and producers who are not beholden to any of these other constituencies, why is it that so many films of obvious merit are passed over, and so many other lesser films are heaped with Oscars. Is it just some kind of group think, where everyone is mindful that they should vote for what makes commercial sense for Hollywood itself, since this is the pond they all feed in? Why didn't Hitchcock and Kubrick ever win best picture? Or even best director? Just two examples that come to mind.
"Since the Academy is dominated by actors, directors, and producers who are not beholden to any of these other constituencies, why is it that so many films of obvious merit are passed over, and so many other lesser films are heaped with Oscars."
That question makes an assumption of merit. Merit is, when all is said and done, very subjective. one person's masterpiece is another person's POS. The problem really lies in the numbers. think about it for a moment. What movie, what performance has been so oustanding as to create a concensus amoung critics, academy memebers, press, avid movie fans as can be found here on this forum and the movie going populus? Above you have a very favorable review by Victor of Million Dollar Baby. I would bet that of the nominees for best picture last year he would have voted for that movie. no doubt you will find someone else on this very forum that will tell you that movie was undeserving. With a few exceptions you will be hard pressed to find any movie or any performance in a given year that would take even 50% of the popular vote amoung critics, academy members, fans in general or fans on this forum or others like it. what does that mean? for every Oscar there is likely more than half the interested population that disagrees with it. Inevitably a lot of people will complain no matter who wins. and when there is such a concensus very few complain. we don't pay much attention to those instances we just accept them as obvious.
" Is it just some kind of group think, where everyone is mindful that they should vote for what makes commercial sense for Hollywood itself, since this is the pond they all feed in?"
You will be hard pressed to get any kind of "group think" amoung film makers on any subject. There are exceptions and there are instances of politics and "group think" but IMO and IME they are the exceptions rather than the rule.
" Why didn't Hitchcock and Kubrick ever win best picture?"
Mostly because only one wins each year. The odds are against any individual.
"Or even best director? Just two examples that come to mind."Good examples. I don't think the reasons were conspiratorial but i think from time to time enough memebers of the academy can get sucked into good PR to make a difference. I rememebr applauding Cuba Gooding Jr at the time. WTF was I thinking! That was some good PR. Some things seem quite good at the time but after further thought.... I remember back in the day thinking ET was ripped off for best picture. Boy was I wrong. If I can be so wrong in a given moment why can't any member of the academy? And then there are times when they are surprisingly right, like last year.
Thanks for sharing your informative views. It's hard for an outside observer, such as myself, to let go of the view that "the word goes out" from somewhere on how one should vote (if one know's what's good for one!) on oscar night. But your logic is undeniable.The sad thing, and perhaps the reason so many are disposed to be so cynical about Hollywood and the Oscars, is that so little of genuine merit comes out of tinsel town's celluloid sausage maker that, most years, the oscars are a travesty. But then, you put your finger on it in your earlier post: a producer's job is to make a profit. And while you're point about merit is undeniable, let's not confuse Dr. Dre with Mozart, or Sidney Sheldon with Shakespeare, or "Chicago", "Gladiator", "Braveheart", "The Sting" and other trifles to flims like "Psycho", "2001", "Citizen Kane", "Amacord", "Clockwork Orange" and, well, you know what I mean.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
