 
|
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 |
69.3.232.187
In Reply to: Rude? posted by jamesgarvin on April 19, 2006 at 07:07:59:
But here's the simple answer to your question ie:"One question you have still not answered is why, if Passion was sure to be a money maker, why was there not anyone at any studio willing to front the money, given that they are in the business of making money, and presumably know a hit when they see it?"
They gravely miscalculated the appeal a film like this could have, and I'll bet they'll think a little more carefully about the next "religion" picture pitch that comes their way. It's not hard to imagine the types of preconceptions or biases someone in Hollywood might have about a project like Passion. I can honestly say that I'm not really surprised that the film has done as well as it has. Also, the notion that "they" will know a hit when they see it becomes more and more dubious. Have you noticed that all the big studios now have their little boutique brands like Fox Searchlight and Sony Classics? These exist only because of successful independent films from smaller houses like Miramax. Maybe Gibson couldn't get anybody to bite on his idea because HE IS PART of the big blockbuster-action-mulch-engine that basically shuns films like the one he wanted to make. It's like being a loud, obnoxious frat-boy who one day decides to instantly become a fey intellectual. In other words, maybe he was trying to sell his picture to the wrong people. Why would this surprise anyone?
Anyhoo, cheers to ya
Follow Ups:
Sarcasm is not humor. If sarcasm was humor, it would be called humor. Lemme see if I understand your last point: Gibson pitches this film to multiple studios, people who are paid very well to spot a money making film. All those studios make the same miscalculation? Oddly enough, though, Gibson, generally an actor, though sometimes moonlighting as a director, and occasionally as a producer, was able to see the enormous profit potential of the film where the studios could not?Did Miramax and these other so-called independent (which are not independent, but that is for another day) studios line up to contribute? The engine, as you put it, is interested in making gobs of money, and do not care what dress it wears. If explosions sell pictures, they make explosions. Look at the history of Hollywood. They have run through their gangster era, their western era, their science fiction era, their romantic comedy era, their horror era, all in the name of commerce. If Gibson comes in with an idea that will generate bucks, they do not ask whether the film contains explosions, they ante up.
The bias in Hollywood was that a religious picture cannot make money. Your argument that Gibson is part of that estalblishment only supports the argument that this was not a film designed, nor one he believed, would make gobs of money. The logic is thus: If Hollywood does not believe that a religious film can make money, and if Gibson is part of the Hollywood system, then Gibson did not believe the film would make money.
Your argument that the studios will think twice about releasing a religious film also supports that argument. Hollywood is not about crashes, explosions, or any other subject matter, except to the extent that they make money for the studios. They will willingly release religious films if they make money on them.
And not being surprised that the film has done well is not the same thing as saying that it was expected to do well. There are stocks that I am not surprised have done well, but when it came time to invest, I did not believe they would do well. Monday morning quarterbacking is always easy.
Sure it is, I mean, it CAN be humorous.It's becoming clear that you did not properly absorb the point that I'm attempting to make, so I'll make this short and sweet:
1.Mel Gibson knew that there was a market for this film.
2.Mel Gibson made the film with his own money.
3.Mel Gibson made (and is still making) shitloads of money off his film.
4.If you think Mel Gibson made this film purely as "personal sacrifice" you better think again... Why would he make a film that he believed no one would want to see?
5.If you cannot understand what I'm saying, let's call it a day.
Cheers
ROSS: Then there is this return. It would seem that God is saying, 'I will bless this thing.' Obviously, He has.
GIBSON: He doesn't always smile on you with material reward. That's not always necessarily part of it. In this case it was. But I was prepared for it to not work at all. I didn't know that it would. Fortunately, it touched a lot of people. Therefore, they went and saw it and recommended it to other people. I have to say the champion of this push was the evangelical community. They were really rock solid. It did extremely well and many people loved it, and they sent correspondence. But I got some correspondences that were on the lines of 'ah, it was great, but I wish I could have taken my Aunt Martha or Uncle Frank.' They stayed away because they had heard of the more wrenching aspects of the film. It's pretty brutal in spots – and intentionally so. But I got enough of those things, like, 'I wish I could have taken a 15-year-old,' so I thought maybe there is room to reenter the edit and find another way, keeping the impact of the film, the integrity of the film, but extracting some of the more wrenching or brutal aspects of the film, and therefore making it available to a wider audience. That's, in effect, what I've done. It didn't get a PG-13. It's still hard, but it is not as hard. It's not as big of a release as the other one. It's already been out there, but bearing in mind that it's been softened some to attract a wider audience, I think it may do all right. And if it doesn't, that's OK, too.
ROSS: Are you disappointed by the fact that you weren't recognized by the degree you might have been at the Oscars?GIBSON: No. Disappointment doesn't come into it, because I didn't expect anything.
ROSS: Really?
GIBSON: Well, if you don't expect anything, you can't be disappointed. It is exactly what I expected not to be recognized, so I didn't do the massive marketing campaign. I just put the film out there and said if they are going to judge it, then judge it on its own merits.
Everyone knows that making a religious film targeted towards believers, given that less than 50% of the American population attends church regularly, of which teenage boys have no interest in attending, much less in taking their dates to, and which offer no hope of any foreplay, together with depictions of extreme gore and violence, for lack of better words, and subtitled, requiring attendees to actually read (they do not read at home, why in a movie?) is a sure recipe for megabucks. Gibson obviously knew this. Heck, I can't quite figure out why the multiplex is not littered with Passion, Part Deaux.
According to you!;-)
nt
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 ]
