>Of course not. The point to my post in context, which you reaffirm
>above, was that business decisions in the entertainment industry are
>always made on percieved notions of quality.
>
>Sometimes they are right, and a project is mercifully stuffed.
>Sometimes they are wrong, and a worthy project is not given its due.
>My point stands.
Your point could not possibly be more incorrect.
Movies are green-lit because the studios think they can make money from it.
Period. If it's a quality movie, great, but that's secondary to: will we get a
profit out of it? Frankly, it's *harder* to ge a quality movie made these days
than ever. It took "Secondhand Lions" ten years to get made, as just one
recent example.
But commercial movies that can get cranked out and pull in the money,
regardless of the actual quality of the product, are simplest of all to put
forth. Freddy vs. Jason, Alien vs. Predator, the last couple of Batman
movies...80% of what gets pumped out to movie theaters is awful. What we
remember are the stellar 20%, but those are the ones that were hardest to get
going, that took years and blood and shouting to get made...but for which
everyone subsequently takes full credit.
Your assumption, and the truth, dine at totally separate tables.
jms
(jmsatb5@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2004 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas) |
|
