name actor = wide release

Ok, is it just me or am I seeing that hollywood will put out a movie with Poor cinematography and Terrible story (Once upon a time in Mexico) in wide release just because they have a name actor???

If so, soon every tom that can afford depp will be a major hollywood player, even if he cant direct worth a darn!

Whats your take on this?
Joseph Smith
 
Whats your take on this?

What is there to say about it?

Indie filmmakers should start worrying about being able to afford Mr Depp, or other currently-popular Hollywood talent to tell a good story? :roll:

Let Hollywood do what Hollywood does... contrary to what you suggest, not every Tom can afford Depp... and even if they could, it would just mean an inflation of his worth which would essentially elevate him beyond "everyone"'s reach, and once again to those that can afford it.

It's not like us Indie-filmmakers have $20 million dollars floating about... unless it's in our imagination....

Hollywood will make some good movies. Hollywood will make some bad movies.

Indies will make some good movies. Indies will make some bad movies.

Terrible directors are everywhere, regardless of budget. Don't worry about what others are doing. Work on what you have available and take it from there.
 
I agree with Zen Steve on this.

I'm not interested in bitching about other people's work. It takes far too much hard work to make any film, whether it's good, bad or indifferent.

I think that anyone who has completed any film and then achieved any degree of commercial sucess is a winner in my books.

I've just spent the last two and a half years making my first feature "No Place" and the previous seven years making short films, studying the industry and working like a dog.

Up until February of this year (when I finally got the point where I could make films full time, without starving) I held down full time jobs and used all of my holiday time, every evening and weekend to write/plan/make films.

I believe that it is the same for every indie film maker.

What interests me, is the possibility this forum has for allowing the sharing of our combined experience, helping each other become more effective, better educated film makers.

One last thing; there is no point in complaining about the fact that name actors = wide distribution. That is the reality of certain sections of the industry. The trick is to completely understand the commercial realities of the industry and then find a way of making the most of the positive opportunities that you have as an independent.

The truth of the matter is, this is a great time to be an independent film maker; however, that is only true if you focus your energies on both the creative process and the all important understand of the business.

Personally I'm really looking forward to working with Mr Depp. (In about four to five years time) I think he's a fascinating actor, who has yet to show his full potential.
 
Take a look at our own movie going habits.

Even as "indie" filmmakers we pay money to see movies with name stars and name directors. And I bet each of us pay to see a "Hollywood" film more often that we pay to see an "indie".

Even when you're wandering through the video store looking for a weekend rental I suspect it's rare that any of us rent a movie with actors we've never heard of, made by a filmmaker we've never heard of.

If we - indie filmmakers - rarely pay to see these movies, imagine how the general public feels.
If so, soon every tom that can afford depp will be a major hollywood player, even if he cant direct worth a darn!
Soon? IMO this has already happened. And happens all the time.

Who can and cannot direct worth a darn is very subjective - but in MY opinion there are already a lot of them making huge budget films.
 
True, name actors or name directors or name premises help to sell films. Very few people will watch something that's a completely unknown quantity. This isn't new, though it seems like a new trend every time someone figures it out for themselves. There are no "good old days" in which people saw films simply because they were good, and there probably won't ever be a filmgoing culture that celebrates the new and unknown as vital rather than chancy, even though we all know it IS vital to see those kinds of films.

I myself have made a habit of renting two movies every time I head to the video store -- one that I'm familiar with and one that I've never heard of before, usually a foreign or indie film, just to make sure I'm giving myself a chance to stumble across something I wouldn't have otherwise noticed.

By the way, does anyone realize how ironic it is that Johnny Depp has now come to epitomize Hollywood stardom despite the fact that he's avoided it for twenty years?
 
Ditto to what everyone else has said. If we're gonna gripe about all the things we'd do differently if we ran the studios we'd be here a long time.

joe_smith said:
... (Once upon a time in Mexico) ...

Poor story sure, but poor cinematography? C'mon there are some great shots in that movie.

Poke
 
It's one thing to critique a film, but your holier than thou attitude sucks. Who are you? What have you done? Can you post works that are better? Do you have to knock people down to get ahead in this business? No. What's the point. Focus on yourself and your own films. This type of attitude sucks.
 
Serpico said:
It's one thing to critique a film, but your holier than thou attitude sucks. Who are you? What have you done? Can you post works that are better? Do you have to knock people down to get ahead in this business? No. What's the point. Focus on yourself and your own films. This type of attitude sucks.
C'mon Serpico. Relax.

People are entitled to their opinions even if they haven't made "works that are better".

I have never made a movie better than Star Wars Episode I and II - but I hated BOTH of them. According to you, I should never be able to knock those movies.

While your advice to focus on your own films is good - we must also pay close attention to films made by others.

Discussion and opinion are a healthy way to learn your own craft and style.
 
Sorry, I had just come from reading one of his other posts, and wondered what his story is. He talks a lot of talk. :-)

Ok ... relaxed.
 
It's a business. When you spend over $1 million, your investors are expecting to not only get their $1 million back, but profit too.

Can you guarantee that a good story will bring in the $$$? [[ FYI - no. there are a lot of good stories that never get seen because there was no name power to attract the business half ]]


Good cinematography only sells so many tickets from the precious few who can appreciate it. Seeing Johnny Depp on the screen for approx 20 minutes will sell substantially more tickets to the little (and big) girls who only care about seeing a larger than life MAN they adore.


Booking a big name star (ala Bruce Willis, Johnny Depp, et al) equates to a number of tickets sold, a number of videos rented, and cable networks interested in selling advertisements (commercials) during it's playback. Story seems to fall somewhere BELOW this in importance.

Watch Project Greenlight season 1 & 2. they cover the star power over the director & writers pretty well. It is the "business" half of "movie business".

It's about selling tickets & popcorn. A big name star in a crappy movie sells more tickets than a good movie with no name stars, at least most of the time. There are exceptions. Will an investor or distributor risk it on your story?

Still waiting to find out...
 
I agree with almost everything that's been said, but names aren't the whole story. If we look at major chain, global cinema released films then it certainly is. Hollywood owns that market

However, in many genre films names aren't as important and it's certainly possible to make very profitable films without them.

We expect to make a significant profit on our first feature, even though it's an arthouse film and it has no names in it. We'll do this because we've keep costs down to a minimum, but at the same time we've made sure that the production values are very, very high.

We've shot on High Def and are releasing just as the High Def TV market is really taking off and there is a global demand for High Def product.
We've made sure that we've not compromised on any of the key areas, script, acting ability, format, cinematography, sound, music, post production. So now we've got a film that looks like we spent $1.5 mil and yet we spent much less than that.

A film like Whale Rider has no names and yet has done great global business. The Australians have been turning our great, no name films for decades.

As indies we look too often to Hollywood for our model and yet there is a larger global market for "good films." Sure it's a TV/DVD/Arthouse cinema market, but a real one none the less.

It seems to me that there is a balance to be struck in this market. There isn't enough return in this market to recover the cost on a $6 mil, 35 mm, no name film and on the other hand, distributors are sick of being offered no budget, low end format mini dv movies.

This is the reason that I believe quality Hi-Def film making is a revolutionary tool for the indie film maker. Especially with Avid Inferno coming into the market place and driving down Hi-Def post production costs. In fact, there is already a cheaper way of doing professional post on Hi-Def; shoot on Hi-Def, transfer to digi-beta, online edit and colour correct on Avid Symphony and then copy back up to Hi-Def. You retain the Hi-Def look, the costs are much lower and you have good enough resolution for most of the primary DVD/TV markets. We haven't gone down this route, but I've seen some great results from doing this.

The point I'm trying to make is that the english speaking, American DVD TV Cinema market, is just one part of a much larger, much more complex market place. There is a place for indies turning out script driven, cinematography driven, arthouse driven products and providing we understand the realistic returns ($0.5 mil to $2mil) and budget accordingly, we can be profitable in those markets.
 
""Will an investor or distributor risk it on your story?

Still waiting to find out..."""\

Im not sure if your talking to me or not, but I'll asnwer.

I dont intend to get investors. I dont want someone elses money. I plan to fun privatly. I am a software programmer, and Im currently working on somthing That im sure I can get 100 or 200 grand out of anyway. But that Will be a while.

I think it would help to just bring in a name star for even a few minutes in the film. maybee even just a day of shotting with a big star would have to raise production value a lot.
 
You don't increase production vales by bringing in a name for one day.
You increase production values with skill, knowledge and a love for the thing that you are making. Which I think is what this forum is all about.
It's certainly that for me.
 
Back
Top