comment #1

p.Vice says ...

And still we wonder why cinema is in the shitter.

comment #2

AH says ...

These sound like reasonable conversations considering that an average movie costs over $60 million.

comment #3

BurmaShave says ...

That's what he gets for trying to finance a 200 million Sci-Fi version of FRANKIE & JOHNNY with Richard Jenkins and Melissa Leo.

comment #4

actionman says ...

I remember sitting in on a development meeting at Bruckheimer's shop about six years ago and hearing a very similar conversation go down. It's always the same-old-same-old. This person's done, this person doesn't draw, under no circumstances will we work with this person, etc.

Nobody knows anything.

For example, just a week ago, everyone was burying Valkyrie and saying how it would totally flop. Wrong.

comment #5

Howlingman says ...

I worked on a film about eight years ago, and the suits biggest issue, as relayed by the foreign investors, was that we may have to re-cast a leading role because the actor we had picked was "too black." Naturally we refused -- and it turns out the film was a huge hit in the very territory that had the issue to begin with. So yeah, nobody knows anything.

comment #6

DeafBrownTrashPunk says ...

Hollywood is about MONEY, and screenwriters, directors, producers, and actors are all hustling for money, Jeff. you know that.

comment #7

Krillian says ...

Nick Nolte addressed this in a good monologue in I'll Do Anything.

It adds perspective now just how brave it was to cast Robert Downey Jr. in Iron Man. "The guy from Ally McBeal? You kiddin'?"

comment #8

Alpha Base says ...

"God, those studio guys are really friggin' brutal about this stuff!"

Really? More like clueless morons who should be forbidden to touch anything film-related.

comment #9

Phatang! says ...

The last part of this post doesn't ring true. The implication is that certain directors have a hard time casting because they care more about making a good movie than making the actors look good? I don't buy it. Actors aren't really that choosy and good parts are too rare.

comment #10

Hickenlooper says ...

Jeff, it's great you bring this up. It would be great if journalists/critics often took into account the loads of bullshit filmmakers have to endure to get anything close resembling their vision up on screen. Casting is always an issue. And what fascinates me (and somthing no one ever discusses) is the economic racism that goes on. For example, there have been a number of times I have wanted to cast African American actors in certain roles but I have been squelched because I've had executives tell me over and over that the overseas markets, especially in the Far East -- "Asians don't like black people except Will Smith," particularly when it comes to interracial relationships. It's nauseating and it's one of the reasons you keep seeing the same milk toast white actors over and over and over and over again. Thank god for Slumdog Millionaire. GH

comment #11

Hickenlooper says ...

Jeff, it's great you bring this up. It would be great if journalists/critics often took into account the loads of bullshit filmmakers have to endure to get anything close resembling their vision up on screen. Casting is always an issue. And what fascinates me (and somthing no one ever discusses) is the economic racism that goes on. For example, there have been a number of times I have wanted to cast African American actors in certain roles but I have been squelched because I've had executives tell me over and over that the overseas markets, especially in the Far East -- "Asians don't like black people except Will Smith," particularly when it comes to interracial relationships. It's nauseating and it's one of the reasons you keep seeing the same milk toast white actors over and over and over and over again. Thank god for Slumdog Millionaire. GH

comment #12

Phatang! says ...

But Hickenlooper, how do you combat that racism if it DOES reflect the realities of the market? You, for example, allowed yourself to be "squelched" by what you perceived as racism, because you wanted to get your movie made. How is that different from these producers not wanting to lose their investment by what they perceive as the demands of the marketplace?

Let's not forget the sexism as well. My agents told me early on to write scripts about men. They're assholes, but they weren't wrong.

comment #13

Hickenlooper says ...

In my experience I have come to believe that the perceptions regarding what works in the market place and what doesn't are almost completely illusory. Yes, there are known specific genres (action) that are easier to sell, but when it comes to details like casting it is my firm believe that audiences are driven by story and story alone. Consequently details like casting are never going to make or break a picture (regardless of race). These are just more excuses an executive can use to say know because it's easy to blame it on the marketplace which is always fluid and never consistent. If I had tried to pitch Slumdog Millionaire to an executive in LA two years ago I would have been laughed out of the office because no one in the foreign markets wants to see a picture about impoverished Indians. Fortunately Danny Boyle had the balls and juice to get it made -- fortunately for all of us (including the Asians). Anyway, Slumdog is a perfect example of William Goldman's greatest comment that no one in the end know shit about anything. Which takes me back to story story story. All the other stuff is subjective bullshit.

comment #14

DeafBrownTrashPunk says ...

Hickenlooper is so right about what he said in above two posts.

Anyway I have to disagree with Phatang! about Asians disliking Will Smith, or really, "racist audiences" in general.

Bollywood is always making crappy movies with famous stars in stories where you;d see them indulge in inter-caste (class, in case you dont know what that means) relationships, inter-faith relationships (Muslims dating Hindus, etc), and even interracial relationships (poor Indian guy in love with white American tourist lady), and people in India still embrace those movies with open arms.

They dont care what kind of stuff is in those stories. They want a GOOD MOVIE, period.

So I think that the claim about actors' skin colour interfering with Box Office success is bullshit. Will Smith is a big star, and people will go see him in movies as long as there's action, entertainment, and a good story. I dont think anyone in China or Korea care that he is black.

Studio executives need to realize this, wake the fuck up and stop being so goddamned racist.

and yes, good for Danny Boyle for doing Slumdog. I am so proud of him for making a movie about impoverished Indians when Bollywood wouldn't touch that shit for the most part.

comment #15

Phatang! says ...

Phatang! didn't say anything about Will Smith.

But I do think it's idealistic to think all anyone cares about is a good story. I completely agree that the business is fluid and an actor with "foreign appeal" or box office value anywhere changes from month to month, and that pretending otherwise is a desperate attempt by studio executives to exert control over what is a highly unpredictable process. But marketing departments DO need something to market around, and a star does help you there. You can turn shit into a money winner with the right cast (see: 4 Christmases).

But (back to Goldman) of course this is also not always true: if George Clooney had played Thomas Hayden Church's part in Sideways, it would've likely made less money. And so on...

comment #16

Hickenlooper says ...

In my personal view, the star system is in heavy decay. It is eroding so quickly that it will only be a matter of time before there are less than three male actors who can green light a film alone. Right now it's very close to that. There are no women left who are perceived to be able to open a movie. A number of years ago Premiere Magazine or EW (I can't remember which) wrote a very prophetic article about the erosion of the star system and how Hollywood had virtually cannibalized itself by not allowing its top stars cross genres. In the old days, even up through the early 90s, studios would make pictures in which Tom Hanks could successfully make both dramas and comedies. Thus, audiences developed an emotional investment in that particular star. By giving the star good material and range to work in, the studio was investing in the long term of that star and also its own product. When executives started getting more bottom line and corporate driven, stars were creatively given less room to the point now where, at the studio level, they are shoved into super hero costumes so in the end does the audience really care if Toby McGuire or Jake Gyllenhaal are Spider-Man? Does the audience care if Ed Norton or Eric Bana are the Hulk. Will we really care if Christian Bale remains the Dark Knight. In other words, this evolution is main stream motion picture making has deluted the weight big stars used to carry with audiences. We are now in a world where there are mainstream independents (which are really nothing more than pet projects by stars who can not get cast in studio pictures) or studio pictures which only star Will Smith and sometimes George Cloony but always a Marvel super hero. This, in the end, may be a good thing for filmmakers. As stars begin to lose there sway, story once again may be seen as the most important element in making a picture. Anyway, I'm rambling but felt worth sharing. GH

comment #17

Phatang! says ...

I agree with you to an extent -- maybe Jim Carrey put an end to the cross-genre efforts, who knows (they still seem to try with Will Ferrell). But I'm not sure how this is a good thing for filmmakers. Many movies that otherwise would never have been made secured financing on the backs of a couple of stars. If that breaks down, how will those movies get funded? They probably won't, at least not until the stories are stripped of any unique elements that might make a mainstream audience uneasy (though possibly without stars these movies will cost less and thus not need to breakthrough in the same way). Currently, my sense is that the standard for what gets made (at least in Hollywood) has been pushed significantly toward the "commercial." Not sure how this could be considered a positive development for filmmakers, but it does seem that these things end up working out counter-intuitive ways.

comment #18

Gaydos says ...

ActionMan: Regarding "Nobody knows anything."
You wrote:

"For example, just a week ago, everyone was burying Valkyrie and saying how it would totally flop. Wrong."

Not everybody!

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/could-valkyrie-be-cruises-downfall-1023114.html

comment #19

NotImpressed1Yet says ...

Why don't the studios make more $20-$50M movies with an eye more towards quality and less towards all these variables that are probably bullshit in reality? With the smaller budget there's less downside and if just one in ten strikes chord in the U.S. and/or abroad, doesn't that provide a better return than constantly swinging for the fences with $100-$200M pictures? There are lots of great medium size pictures out there that have probably made 3-10 times their budget, right? And correct me if I'm wrong, but for a drama or comedy, $50M can get you a beautiful looking film, no? I just randomly looked up the budget for Jackie Brown - $12M back in '97. Even adjusted for inflation, that's nothing! And that picture looks fucking great! It made $40M, not a bad return. Or how about You Can Count on Me - that beautiful movie cost $1.9M and brought in $9M. Not bad either, eh? What's wrong with this business model? And when you make movies this way, who gives a fuck about whether asians are racist or how your star plays overseas.

comment #20

Cadavra says ...

Amen--it isn't just big-bucks movies. I recently sat down with a production exec for a picture that would cost $1,500,000, and gave him a list of ten actresses who could play the lead role (late 30s) and would likely be willing to work for less than their usual quote. Every single one of them had either starred in a successful TV series or had starred or co-starred in a hit movie in the past three years or both. He took one glance at the list and said none of them were acceptable. I asked him who, apart from Julia Roberts, he would consider acceptable. He had no answer. Translation: he had no interest in making the film and just needed an excuse to say no.

comment #21

lipranzer says ...

The thing is, this has been going on for years - in William Goldman's SCREEN TRADE book, he mentions trying to get a movie made with Robert Evans producing, and Evans rejecting Alan Alda and James Caan for the male lead (in a marriage comedy, I might add) because, and I quote, "no penis extension." Then there was the infamous time where Debra Winger claimed Evans wouldn't cast her because he said "I wouldn't fuck her with a ten-foot pole." The only difference between execs then and now is they're more careful about what they say publicly.

comment #22

Hickenlooper says ...

In my humble opinion, particularly in times like this when unemployment may reach as high as 20 percent by next summer, when gas will be back up to 4 dollars a gallon, when the next fiscal crisis (credit cards) will be unfolding which will ultimately mean a severe recession or even soft depression,maybe we could all wind down our ravenous appetite for weekend box office numbers??? Thirty years ago no one paid attention to them except studio executives. Now my aunt in St. Louis can tell you the number 3 movie of the last weekend. We can complain all we want about movie studios only caring about money and not movies, but when we feed that mentality with our own eyes, then we can't really bitch about how bad things are getting? I've never understood the gluttonous appetite for weekend box office (sure my own pictures don't even register), but still who cares how many people went to see Beverly Hills Chihuahua? How does that affect us? I mean do we really care how many Whoppers sold versus Big Macs the weekend of December 27th? Does it make the burger taste better? I don't know, does it?

comment #23

mutinyco says ...

Dialogue in the park scene midway through I think plays into what Hick was saying earlier...: http://mutinycompany.com/NYFF46/NYFF4603.mov

comment #24

thegreatmags says ...

Very thought provoking thread. Reminds you of how EVERYTHING, more or less, is a business. Wish it wasn't(lord knows that's not how I feel) but how everything IS. Here's hoping to a more idealistic new year.

comment #25

Gaydos says ...

Hickenlooper: Amen. Here's a short blurb I posted here last May, from an interview I published about 20 years ago in the long-gone LA Reader. (Yikes). It's suitable for tattooing.
----------------------------------------------------------
To drag out a quote from an interview I did with Jeff Lipsky a million years ago: "Unless you have stock in the company that owns the studio that released the film, who gives a shit how much money it makes?"
------------------------------------------------

comment #26

nola says ...

I few years ago we (the production company) were casting a movie that the head of a studio had greenlit in the room.

Then we could not agree on the lead. The studio decided to go to an actress we all (the director, the writer, the studio's own casting exec) thought was wrong for the role. They could have cared less what the creative team wanted. It's their money.

I'm not sure what the future holds for "movie stars". The studios only care about five or so male stars and for women it's worse.

We are going to see more and more comic book movies because the studio believe the actors are not the draw.

My manager in Hollywood also told me to write movies with male leads. I get it, it's a business.

I recently sold a project to an Italian company with a female lead. It's a completely different situation here. Women drive the domestic b.o. and without them movies flop. The boys and men go to big Hollywood action movies if any at all. Soccer is what men watch on the weekends.

I hope to work more in Europe where they still make movies about adults and even some with women over 30!