Ech! Crass commercialism at it's worst.

[Cracker Funk]

Love ya CF, but.. I must point out.

all movie making is crass and commercial, if not, there would be no industry.

taking advantage of tax law to make money IS the way its SUPPOSED to work. Its incentive-ising commercial pursuits. Its a GOOD thing when governments do this.

Look at it this way.. if I gave you $100,000 to make a movie, and said simply, you can finish the movie when every you want but you must start shooting in the next three days. Could you not find "something" to do with a camera and crew within that time?... chances are itd be crap, chances are it wont ever make it into the final film. But even if you WASTED half of that, $50,000 down the drain playing with your new RED ONE for a few weeks, youd still have $50,000! FREE MONEY! Dont be daft, take the money!

Of course, the Hollywood studio system is a business, and therefore -- commercial. However, as a paying customer, I would hope that they would at least try to deliver a solid product. Also, not all commercialism is crass. If you deliver a solid product that I am happy to pay your asking price for, that's win-win for everybody. But if you trick me into paying for your product (by using a recognizeable franchise and a big-name actor), but don't make any effort to deliver a product that I will be satisfied with, that's crass.

I think it would be hugely concensus, between basically all narrative filmmakers, that having a solid screenplay in place is a very important step-1, and you cannot move onto step-2, until you've nailed down a solid script. I think we can all agree that this makes for a better movie.

So, by deciding to shoot a large chunk of the movie, without having a solid script in place, what the producers have done is decided to do something that all rational minds would agree will very likely lead to a lesser product. But the producer doesn't care, because he'll save money.

I think it's very fair for me (paying customer) to be upset when a business makes a decision that will make for a worse product, strictly so that they can make more profit. And that is why I won't be giving them my money. If you want my money, you should at least try your best to make a good movie -- in this case, the producer is basically openly admitting that he doesn't care about the final product, and only about his bottom-line. So F him.

 

[wheatgrinder]

all your comment are true, but none address the question of practical reality. The choice was take the money and start shooting NOW, or leave the money on the table and start shooting later. I would expect any sane human to take the money.

 

[Jack Lynt]

Something did occur to me today (yeah, I do think about such things while I'm at my crappy job. Call me "loser," if you feel it appropriate...though, I don't).

I was thinking how correct CF was calling it "crass commercialism."

I was thinking how right-on CF was about that characterization because it's so clear that MIB III is going to be made not because anyone really cares about it nor because anyone has any passion about getting it made but because those involved simply want to cash in on the franchise.

Hey, I don't mean to get on my high horse. Just, there is something sad about that.

 

[directorik]

Of course, the Hollywood studio system is a business, and therefore -- commercial. However, as a paying customer, I would hope that they would at least try to deliver a solid product.

I submit that they always try to deliver a solid product. And that
they often fail. And often when one person feels they have failed, others
feel they succeeded. I believe the writers, producers and director of MIB2
tried to make a solid movie - I find it difficult to believe they didn't even try.

I think it would be hugely concensus, between basically all narrative filmmakers, that having a solid screenplay in place is a very important step-1, and you cannot move onto step-2, until you've nailed down a solid script. I think we can all agree that this makes for a better movie.

But then we read stories like the production of "Casablanca"...

It's rare that any screenplay ends up in the editing room unchanged from
its "final" draft. Many times the changes made after production starts
actually makes the final product better. We rarely hear those stories, but
we sure hear the stories when changes are made that make the product
worse. How often to we read interviews in which the writer says, "I knew
the script was solid when they started shooting, but the new writer the
producer brought in and the director and the actors made it so much better."?

 

[David.rhsc]

Inland Empire was pretty horrible. I wouldn't use that movie to defend shooting without a script.

IIRC:

Wasn't Inland Empire the one that he started making as a TV series pitch and it went no where so he shot some more stuff and cut it into a movie?

IL is pretty unintelligible, but I wouldn't call it horrible. By way of example, "Body Parts" is a horrible movie. "Inland Empire" is just an unintelligible ride through a confusing landscape about which Lynch is extremely cynical. That said, I wouldn't call IL all that great either.

I wouldn't use David Lynch as a way of defending not using a finished script though. David Lynch does what he does and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't - but he doesn't care because to him the film just grows and becomes what it becomes.

Apples and Oranges in this instance.

 

[NickClapper]

I actually agree with what richy says. Cracker nailed it when he called it 'crass' commercialism.

There's nothing wrong with commercialism, it's the building blocks of capitalism, democracy and our beloved film industry, but this is a particularly crass example of putting money before art. Pragmatically speaking I'm sure there are sensible enough reasons for this move and I'm sure that the makers won't be trying to deliver a turkey- but it just looks for old the world like the worst kind of godless profiteering.

 

[Cracker Funk]

I submit that they always try to deliver a solid product. And that
they often fail. And often when one person feels they have failed, others
feel they succeeded. I believe the writers, producers and director of MIB2
tried to make a solid movie - I find it difficult to believe they didn't even try.

I agree with this. But I feel like what they're doing with MIB3 is a whole new bag of chips. Sure, it's common for rewrites to happen after production has begun. I suppose that's similar to what's going on here, but I don't think it's the same. If I remember correctly, the article stated that only the 1st act has really been hammered out, and that's what they shot. Wow -- that's a lot of script that they're missing.

Another difference between your example of rewrites after production has begun, and with this, is that in your example, the rewrites are taking place because they feel like it will improve the movie. They are part of an attempt to make for a better final product. But in the case of MIB3, the fact that production began before a script was finalized had everything to do with money, and nothing to do with making for a better movie. Worse yet, in this particular instance, saving more money will probably lead to a worse final product.