Talk About...What Kind of Films Would You Like to See Studios Produce
In this Sunday's Shootout, Peter Bart and Peter Guber discuss the surprising success of Dreamworks, a relatively unconventional studio that has found recent success doing films like Disturbia, Norbit and Blades of Glory, as well as major blockbusters like Transformers. Meanwhile, the major studios have no plans for big sequels next summer as with last summer's Spiderman and Pirates of the Caribbean installments. So, Peter Bart says, the major studios will need to come up with new ideas to bring people into theaters. What would you like to see them produce?
I think you should try and produce a movie about Queen Elizabeths mother, Anne Boleyn. About her trip to France in her younger years, about her love Henry Percy, and about her upward clime to the throne of King Henry the 8th. And when she got her head cut off by her husband, because he wanted Jane Seymore. You should read into her, and make her seem like the real person she was, a strong woman, who died for her daughter, the greatest queen England ever had. Dont make her seem what everyone wants to see her as, a common whore, because she wasnt. She was strong enough to hold off a powerfull king for like 6 years before she even had sex with him, only because she wanted to take her revenge on Wosley, the Cardinal. And because she didnt want a kings basterd child.
I think the studios should take a look at whats happening with the EMMYS. Programs like Broken Trail, Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee and Dances with Wolves have won many EMMYS and OSCARS and yet the studios continue to do Sci. Fi's and Murder Mysteries. John Wayne made good and bad movies and they are continued to be watched 40 to 50 years after they were made and will continue to be watched in the future. Can the studios say that about their Sci. Fi's and Murder Mysteries? I believe that the Western is ready for a comeback and has been ready for sometime. If the studios don't want to make what the public wants to see then they should loose money and close their doors.
Some studio should do a re-make of if "It happens every spring" a baseball movie about the college chemical professor that discovers a substance that repels wood and he then becomes a pitcher for the St Louis Cards to win his sweetheart's father's approval. Sappy! yes, but fun!
Too many movies have been made about modern war with us as Americans getting beat up, one of us flipping to the enemy, and other ways of making us look bad.
We can have movies about war that are more uplifting, i.e. we won a battle, doesn't have to be the whole war. Like the movies made about WWII. Even the Vietnam movies were depressing. Lets encourage patriotism for our country showing more support for our troops.
Maybe movies should try to avoid having such an obvious "leftist" slant. Today Peter & Bart talked about how poorly many movies are doing in the boxoffice. It isn't just due to the subject of troubles in the Middle East. Audiences know before buying a ticket the film is going to be anti-war and even the prevailing attitude of Hollywood " If America is involved we must be screwing it up"...
Jack Olig posted before me has hit the nail on the head.
IMHO, studios simply need to cease their anticompetitive practices that are designed to impede "outsiders", i.e., the independent filmmakers with diverse stories and ideas, from accessing major distribution channels. Just like 60 years ago(U.S. v Paramount), entertainment conglomerates and mega-studios, i.e., Viacom, Sony, Time Warner are monopolizing, i.e., vertically integrating finance, production, casting, distribution and exhibition. Even so-called independent companies are just defacto major studio arms. As long as this continues to be the case, audiences will be subjected to the same formulaic, dumbed down, mind-numbing repetitive (sequels)fare that we have been getting. If no competing voices are heard, where is the incentive to challenge audiences?
Most of my favorite films have one thing in common, creative innovation.
Think about the extraordinary leap the Transformers cartoon characters went to the mind blowing 10,000 part moving, machines that looked completely real, and then that robot transforms into a fighter jet and flies off, wow.
Or the moment in the first Jurassic Park when you first see the wide shot of the herbivores grazing over the grasslands.
Or the time Trinity leaped into the air and time stood still, or Neo watched the bullets float by.
Or the original vision Baz Lurhmann put to Romeo & Juliet.
Or Zack put to 300.
Or the time in The American President, when Sydney says, so far it's just your typical first date stuff, and Shepherd says, I was hoping to be different from the other guys, and then they proclaim, Ladies and Gentleman, the President of the United States.
We could go on and on.
However, a film for example like, The Brave One, was well made, and had tremendous talent, but I don't think it was creatively innovative.
I would like to see more films that break new ground in one essential area:
Imagination.
I watched your show today with great interest. I was shocked to see that the John Cusack movie, "Grace"something, only made $36,000.
I am now retired at age 61. I grew up with the movies, and with TV. I used to go to the movies all the time. Now, because of ticket prices or inconvenient locations, I do not go nearly as often as I did when I was younger. I am handicapped, and my idea of accessible is not always the theater designers' idea.
I, for one, am appalled at the current practice of announcing that if a movie did not make a zillion dollars its first weekend, that it is a dud. I don't like decisions about how long a movie is in town, based on the same idea. We all know that lots of movies do end up making the costs back, after foreign showings and DVDs are sold. At least, I am assuming that is true. I do so love to see good computer imaging, but find it hard to believe that any movie should cost over $100,000,000 to make.
AND, I will NOT be there the first weekend. I do not want to deal with crowds that heavy. I don't need to be the first one on my block to see a movie. I can wait to see it. Some movies are $1.00 Theater movies. I enjoy them, but I am glad that I did not spend $6.50 to get in.
I have a question for you. We went to a sneak preview of 27 Dresses, which we enjoyed. It was held at 2:30 PM, and the theater sold out. People were sitting on the first row. But there had been an earlier sneak preview, a couple of weeks ago. How commmon is it to have more than one sneak preview? Did they do some editing after the 1st preview? And, really, what is the purpose of the sneak preview? Is it to build word of mouth? Is it to see audience reaction? How come no one asks me my opinion about the movie I just saw?