Ech! Crass commercialism at it's worst.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/why-men-black-iii-started-166112?_r=true

Under better circumstances, this is a movie I would normally see, most likely in opening-week (maybe even the opening-night midnight show). I'm not ashamed to admit that I enjoy a good Summer Blockbuster.

But I'm so disgusted by this complete disrespect for what could be the MOST IMPORTANT step of the process, I think I'll have to skip this one, especially since it will very likely be a critical bomb.

I predict a huge advertising campaign, big opening weekend, and a HUGE dropoff in week 2, thanks to horrible word-of-mouth. Sadly, the studio will still turn a profit, and their money-first attitude will be rewarded.

I feel like this kid:

funny-baby-picture-angry-baby.jpg
 
I didn't even know this was in production. MIB III in 3-D! Unfortunatley, to me, that's asking for trouble right off the bat. Add to it the fact that they don't even have a script, sounds bad to me... Plus the fact that MIB II was terrible anyway. But you're right, it'll make a profit, possibly enough to warrent MIB IV, V, VI, VII...

I think they'd be better off just making a two-hour feature based on Frank the Pug. He could just sit there, doing nothing, saying nothing, and it would almost certainly be better than MIB-II. Pugs are hilarious!
 
Don't know, but sounds like Smith is the problem, not Sony or the others named. Reminds me of What Just Happened.

Sounds like the writers getting (the usual?) no respect, and a prima donna actor efing things up.
 
Last edited:
David Lynch shot Inland Empire without a script. How is shooting without a script commercialism at it's worst? It's not.

Ah, yes, I forgot about David Lynch, the master of the Summer Blockbuster. ;)

Shooting without a screenplay is incredibly stupid. And you obviously didn't read the article. They did it for tax purposes.
 
I wasn't saying Inland Empire was good. I'm pointing out that David Lynch shot a film without a script and it wasn't commercialism at it's worst. I don't need to read the article. Again, I'm simply pointing out that shooting without a script isn't commercialism at it's worst.
 
I wasn't saying Inland Empire was good. I'm pointing out that David Lynch shot a film without a script and it wasn't commercialism at it's worst. I don't need to read the article. Again, I'm simply pointing out that shooting without a script isn't commercialism at it's worst.

Shooting without a script, for the sole purpose of taking advantage of a tax break, is DEFINITELY commercialism at it's worst. Context matters. That's why it's good to read an article before commenting on it. :)
 
Sounds like an almighty clusterfuck. If you had to choose a film to shoot without a script, you wouldn't choose one involving time travel, would you? I can't really think of an apt analogy, but the whole situation sums up a complete disregard for filmmaking as anything but a production line.
 
Hmmm, if this movie somehow turns out to be even halfway decent, will you guys change your mind this is commercialism at its worst, or argue that it could've been even better with a script? Somehow I think its the latter.
 
Curious how did Lynch shoot without a script with multiple actors?

What, just on set, did he say "okay, you say this, now YOU say that"?
:hmm:


How do you direct your talent?

As per the topic-I was horribly underwhelmed By MIB II (original was fine for me). I can understand teasers, but when its either beginning or not even beginning production? I can see what they are trying to do from a marketing standpoint 'Hey, another MIB film coming out!"

Maybe they're trying to gauge reaction TO another MIB?
 
Last edited:
Just from an editing perspective, I can't imagine how horrible it would be to shoot without a script...

But what are they doing having a time travel plot anyway? Time travel is my least favourite means of travel and I've been on cross-country bus trips.
 
Hmmm, if this movie somehow turns out to be even halfway decent, will you guys change your mind this is commercialism at its worst, or argue that it could've been even better with a script? Somehow I think its the latter.

I find it really odd that we're even debating this. I don't think you read the article, either. Everyone involved with the movie thought that this was a horrible idea (because it is a horrible idea). Everyone except for the man with the money (the one who makes the decisions). And he didn't make this decision for any artistic reason, but purely for financial reason. It was purely profit-driven. How is that not commercialism at it's worst?

If the movie turns out to be good, I will admit that I was wrong. And then I'll get on my flying pig, on my way to see Hell frozen over.
 
I find it really odd that we're even debating this. I don't think you read the article, either. Everyone involved with the movie thought that this was a horrible idea (because it is a horrible idea). Everyone except for the man with the money (the one who makes the decisions). And he didn't make this decision for any artistic reason, but purely for financial reason. It was purely profit-driven. How is that not commercialism at it's worst?

If the movie turns out to be good, I will admit that I was wrong. And then I'll get on my flying pig, on my way to see Hell frozen over.





Didn't you hear? Last week, Hell got so cold, it.........meh, well, you'll see it when you get there;)



EDIT: I am not saying MIB will be good lol
 
(I didn't write this to be contentious. I wrote it to have an interesting conversation).

I for one am not arguing against the point of the thread. But even though I am not a middle child (:P), I'm typically inclined to try and see it from the other side, too. It probably -is- crass commercialism. But I still feel like supposing that Sony might -not- be the bad guy...entirely.

Here's a narrative that can be taken directly from the article that, I think, paints Smith as the villian, and not necessarily Sony:

Scene I:
There -is- a script. It is written by Etan Cohen (see second quote below). The ducks are in a row, if shakily. Sony thinks, damn, we better kick it while the kickin's good.

But several observers suspect the studio moved ahead with production largely because all of the key players -- including Smith, Jones and director Barry Sonnenfeld -- were finally ready to go, and a delay might have jeopardized that.


Scene II:
But wait, Smith isn't happy. It seems he's taken an interest in screenwriting, himself. In fact, he expects to have hands-on participation, and his box office pull damn well says he will. But hey, who knows...maybe he is a better writter than Etan Cohen. And, he must also know better than the studio, Sonnenfeld, and Parkers (see quote below) --he is Will Smith, you know.

Smith and the others agreed to reunite based on a script from Tropic Thunder writer Etan Cohen. But though that version found favor with the studio, Sonnenfeld and producer Walter Parkes, Smith wanted changes. "He's become very enamored with aspects of screenwriting," says a source involved with the production. The source believes Smith has earned the right to weigh in on the script, but he says the actor's process "takes a long time."


Scene III:
Oops, Smith won't be satisfied. Sony brings in another writer. Still, Smith knows best, and production is in jeopardy. But what can be done? Smith more-or-less is MIB. The project needs his star power if it's to move anywhere, at all. If I'm the producer, I'm starting to lose sleep, if I wasn't already. (Yeah, the article points out that Parkers may be a villian. I have no idea. I won't touch that).

One former studio chief is not surprised that Sony did not come up with a script that passed muster with Smith in the time allotted. "If he wasn't satisfied after it's been years in development, how are you going to fix that at Christmas?" this person asks. And though the prolonged pause in production is costing Sony millions, Smith is under no pressure to approve a script that is not 100% to his liking.

A key player on the film explains that the nature of the project has made it difficult to get the screenplay right.

In other words, Smith is being a prima donna bitch and has sent the whole thing into a tailspin. I think this article's contents have pretty adequately established this --though, it seems, against its will or its intention.


Scene, er, IV:
So, what a pretty mess we have here. Maybe the tax break wasn't the initial goal. Maybe it's just (in this situation, uneviable) Sony trying to salvage what they can and do some damage control. Though, yeah, it doesn't sound like much of a silver lining.

Now the hiatus has been extended until March 28, and a new writer, David Koepp, who did uncredited work on the first MIB, has been brought on board to work out complex script issues involving time travel. Although the delay is costing millions, Sony says those expenses will be more than offset because the studio started shooting in late 2010 -- in time to save millions thanks to New York state tax breaks.

But the decision to start filming a complicated, effects-driven tentpole without a finished script has some in Hollywood baffled. The top executive at one production company expressed skepticism that "the tax break is covering the chaos cost," adding, "There isn't any tax break that would convince me to do [what Sony did] -- ever!"


So the article, of course, doesn't give us all sides of the story. I'm certainly not trying to say with any kind of authority that it's Smith's fault for putting the mess into motion. How could I? I'm just looking at the contents of the article, and, based upon those, thinking that it is far from clear that Sony is the villian. Smith does seems like a nice guy. Unlike the other six billion people on this planet, I am not in love with him. I do not particularly love his movies. Maybe that gives me some perspective. Despite the evidence trail that is presented by this article -in black and white- its conclusion and sentiment seem to have been formed in willful blindness of that evidence. Of course I'm not a decision maker in Hollywood. But if anything, I think, and based solely upon the information provided by this article!, if I was such a decision maker, I think I might be incline towards putting Smith on my Difficult to Work With, Becareful About Committing Big Money Attached to Him List. I'm sorry to say. That's, of course, without benefit of hearing his side of his story from him...or from his agent.

Anywayyyyyys. I agree about the time travel thing. Why?! Maybe the only films that pulled that off well were the Back to the Future movies.




(Oops, an apology. Maybe it's not the best choice of how to spend one's time...writing a long post on a forum, that is, heheh. But who's to say. Eh, I got caught up in it, I guess. But the work is done, so...). Sigh.
 
Last edited:
Errr, but on the other hand, if the timeline is:

1) Smith said no to the original script.
2) Smith would not okay any new script.
3) Sony knew that Smith was still unsatisfied before starting production but still started production anyway, then, yeah, it's on Sony. That was very dumb, no way around that. Sorta like, you made your bed kind of a thing.


Ah, I was trying to think of this movie that didn't have a script but that was still good. I was thinking of Secrets & Lies. Damn, it's amazing what you can find by googling with only the sparest of details in this day and age...pretty wonderful, really.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117589/trivia

It was a long time ago, but I remember it being a good film. But, apparently it wasn't entirely scriptless, either. And, Secrets & Lies turning out good sure doesn't prove that MIB III could be made well without one.
 
Last edited:
(I didn't write this to be contentious. I wrote it to have an interesting conversation).

Fair enough. And, you make some good points. Regardless of who is to blame, I hope my prediction is wrong, and that the movie is worth watching. Though he's made some stinkers, I really like Will Smith, and I enjoy this particular franchise.

Cheers!
 
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!
 
Back
Top