Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • -3
    Posted by EconomicFreedom 5 years, 8 months ago
    Fantastic!

    Aside from AS-3, I wonder how many of those top 10 campaigns were already fully-funded.

    Aside from AS-3, I'll bet the answer is "none."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  richrobinson 5 years, 8 months ago
      You are like a bucket of cold water. Spike Lee has a net worth of 40 million dollars. Why aren't you upset about his kickstarter? He could have fully funded his project yet instead he took money from ordinary folks. Could you please explain the personal grudge you have against this project.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • -2
        Posted by EconomicFreedom 5 years, 8 months ago
        [Spike Lee has a net worth of 40 million dollars.]

        That doesn't mean his MOVIE PROJECT had any funding at all. His PERSONAL NET WORTH has nothing to do with anything. Well known, successful film directors don't fund their own movie projects out of their own pockets; unknown ones do. (I believe Spike funded his first film, "She's Gotta Have It", out of his own pocket, soon after he left NYU Film School. Once you become known, however, you look for third-parties to invest in your projects. If you cannot find third-party investors [usually because your recent past films have flopped and investors have no confidence they'll turn a profit or even break even] you can now implore the public directly for donations via crowd-sourcing sites like Kickstarter.)

        Get it?

        Gotta question for ya', richrobinson:

        How old are you? You write like a 14 year old and reason like a 12 year old.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  richrobinson 5 years, 8 months ago
          Thanks Eco. I am 49. You talk like you know a lot about the movie business. Is that your line of work?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by EconomicFreedom 5 years, 8 months ago
            [Is that your line of work?]

            I have a connection to that line of work.

            Sorry about the age thing. But where did you get the idea that rich, succesful filmmakers fund their projects with their own money? I mean, they got rich by NOT spending their own money on their own projects! The trick in filmmaking is to get OPM ("Other People's Money") to finance one's projects.

            Under the old, efficient, productive Hollywood studio system, movies were financed with bank loans, and the studios would simply make interest payments to the banks for many decades (that was fine and dandy for the banks, of course). What ended the original Hollywood studio system was anti-trust legislation from our Department of Justice. Today, only directors with solid track records, working with "bankable" stars, can get financing from what remains of the studios. Otherwise, you have to find your own investors (or spend your own money). Since the majority of films flop at the box office, it's understandable that most filmmakers would rather not use their own money for financing. The trick to getting OPM is to "pitch" the project in such a way as to make it seem that all kinds of benefits — some financial, some glamorous — will flow to those courageous enough to hand over their money. From the investor's point of view, the trick is to know something about the business, something about the director, and a lot about quality screenwriting, to be able to judge with some accuracy whether the project has merit from an aesthetic and/or commercial standpoint.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  richrobinson 5 years, 8 months ago
              No worries. Good post. With the political climate today do you think that Atlas Shrugged could have been financed using the current methods Hollywood employs? I understand that Spielberg had trouble getting a studio to release Lincoln. They thought it had too narrow of an audience.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by EconomicFreedom 5 years, 8 months ago
                The studios also gave Spielberg excuses for not wanting to release Schindler's List (too narrow an audience; too depressing; etc.).

                I don't know the specific problems Aglialoro-Kaslow might have had getting studio backing, or whether they even tried to get it. Given the "American classic" status of the novel, I think there might have been a ready-made audience for a *well made* picture. It would have required 2 very important things to make it work aesthetically: a dynamite screenplay that could compress the essentials of the story into ONE self-contained movie, not a trilogy; and a strong director with experience directing on a "large canvas." I also think the whole thing would have worked much better in terms of "resonating" with today's situtation vis-a-vis philosophy, morality, politics, and economics, had they left the entire thing in the time period in which it appears in the novel: the 1950s. Obviously, a period piece requires period wardrobe, period automobiles, special backdrops to create period skylines, etc., but this sort of thing is old hat for Hollywood. Yes, it increases the budget (often significantly), but perhaps it could have convinced studio execs to fork over more money. Studios are usually not averse to handing over big bucks IF they feel confident they'll make it back, plus a profit. That's why filmmakers today have to "package" their projects with name-brand directors and stars (known as "bankability"). It doesn't guarantee success, of course: if you remember, none of this past summer's big-budget action blockbusters turned a profit, despite major stars.

                Short of all that, I think AS would have worked much better as Miss Rand had originally conceived it for the screen: as a television miniseries. In other words, if you really must break the story into separate episodes, it's better to do it over, e.g., 10 episodes, where you can really get into some of the finer detail of the events, AND (more importantly) really develop the characters; as opposed to 3 big-screen motion pictures, where audiences have to wait over a year to connect the events they first watched with the events they're watching when they've paid for a ticket and they're in their seats.

                For me, the best choices would have been:

                1 big movie (even one that was longer than the usual one, with perhaps, an intermission. Lots of "spectacle" films from Hollywood's golden days have intermissions in them, and audiences generally had no problem with them). or,

                A longer made-for-television mini-series, with more "granularity" to the storytelling, perhaps over 10 episodes. Telling AS on screen is somewhat similar to telling a long Dickens novel on the screen: lots of characters (many of them minor, but important to the overall theme). If you go to http://Hulu.com you can watch for free an excellent BBC production of "Bleak House" starring Gillian Anderson that was done six or seven years ago. I don't remember exactly, but I think it was done over 10 episodes (though it might have been less, perhaps 6 or 7). But to tell such a complex story as "Bleak House" over 3 episodes would have required leaving out many things that help move the story along.

                In sum:

                A trilogy for AS is actually an awkward number because it doesn't give rigid enough constraints for a strong screenwriter to properly **compress** the story elements in a way that will flow over a 2-3 hour viewing. I understand that Randall Wallace (who wrote "Braveheart") wrote a standalone version of the AS screenplay. I understand from an online source who claims to have read it that it was VERY interesting and VERY intense . . . intensity and interest being two things conspicuously lacking in the screenwriting of AS-1 and AS-2 as they appeared in movie theaters.

                Just a few thoughts.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by plusaf 5 years, 8 months ago
              Your back and forth on OPM kind of struck me as funny.... since we're allegedly relating this thread to Atlas Shrugged, in which the "heroes" pretty much NEVER relied on OPM for their successes or accomplishments...

              Just thinking...
              :)
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo