Text 3680, 113 rader
Skriven 2006-07-08 01:01:00 av Robert E Starr JR (4153.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: from jms the announce
=================================
* * * This message was from Josh Hill to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <v4gta2l625g0bu337o3vmnqo10et8kjio1@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <1151482133.783806.232840@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 01:34:30 -0400, shawn <nanoflower@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 6 Jul 2006 22:11:40 -0700, kruegerb76@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>Methuselah Jones wrote:

>>> I just learned something interesting about Hollywood logic. I was
>>> watching an interview with Terry Gilliam, about getting "Brazil" made.
>>> He'd shopped it around and got no takers. Finally, Fox said they would
>>> back it if Gilliam would direct "Enemy Mine" first. He refused, and
>>> therefore was finally able to make "Brazil".
>>>
>>> The logic goes like this: Fox had tried to get a number of A-level
>>> directors to do "Enemy", but they had all declined. But because A-level
>>> directors had been offered the film, it must be an A-level project. Thus,
>>> when it was offered to Gilliam, he naturally became an A-level director,
>>> since he was being offered an A-level project, and when he declined and
>>> said he wanted to do "Brazil", well then obviously "Brazil" must be an A-
>>> level project, since an A-level director was interested in it.
>>
>>I keep reading this and thinking "I must be reading this wrong".
>>
>>LOL
>>
>>That is simply too weird for words.
>>
>
>I think this shows part of what is wrong in Hollywood. Foremost that
>anyone could even begin to think this kind of logic might work.
>Secondly, the idea that it matters whether a director is an A-level or
>B-level. It's should be a question of is the director talented enough
>to do the job and then is he/she a good fit for the project. Then you
>consider is the money going to be right for the director. That they
>don't follow something like this amazes me, and makes it obvious why
>they keep remaking older movies since that's the safest path.

LOL. CYA, I think.

I mean, you're a Hollywood exec who's gotten where has in the
time-tested way, e.g. by starting in the shipping department and
licking the right boots.

You have to put together a movie that people will pay to see. But in
truth, you're a lot more familiar with postage meters and shoelaces
than plot points.

Since you don't want to be fired just yet -- I mean, who would pay for
those bowls of cocaine, or surgery to fix your septum? -- your best
course is to assemble a bunch of people who have already been involved
in making major movies.

I mean, other studios have used them to make major movies, and /they/
know what they're doing, right?

So looking over your shoulder to check that no one catches on to the
fact that alone among Hollywood executives, you don't know what you're
doing, you run down the A-list until someone on it agrees to come
aboard.

And sometimes things work out, and sometimes moviegoers leave the
theater shaking their heads and saying "How could they /possibly/ have
made this?" But if that happens, you can always say "Well, look, we
assembled the best people -- kids just isn't interested in stories
about robots this summer."

And since it really isn't a terrible strategy, some of the other
choices you've made the same way /will/ pay off, which wouldn't have
happened if you'd exercised your judgment, which (though you'd never
admit it to anyone other than the aspiring actress you're bedding) is
really far better at deciding whether something should go Fedex or UPS
than it is at casting. Because just as you're more likely to hit pay
dirt if you buy a random book by a successful author, you're more
likely to make a successful movie if you choose the people who have
already made successful movies.

But of course from the perspective of those who are familiar with the
talents of screenwriters, directors, and the other principals, it's a
pretty silly procedure, particularly since people can get on the
A-list by virtue of having done nothing more than make a /failed/
A-list movie.

I don't think this phenomenon is limited to Hollywood: I've seen
people go from job to job in other businesses botching things up so
royally each time that they get fired, and always getting a new job
because people figure that if they held that position in another
company they must be qualified. And conversely I've seen how hard it
is for talented but untested people to break into a business. It just
seems to be particularly prominent in entertainment, perhaps because
there are so many people trying to break in.

-- 
Josh

"I love it when I'm around the country club, and I hear people talking about
the debilitating
effects of a welfare society. At the same time, they leave their kids a
lifetime and beyond
of food stamps. Instead of having a welfare officer, they have a trust officer.
And instead
of food stamps, they have stocks and bonds."

- Warren Buffett
                                                                               
                                         
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)