| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Capt. Nemo
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
630 Posts |
 Posted - 11/13/2005 : 01:03:32 AM
|
This thread is to pick up on another thread about the commodity of film entertainment.
I want this to be about three things:
1.) What costs does the industry absorb? Hiring actors, productions people and screenwriters. How do filmmakers try to lessen cost? Like making movies abroad. What are the consequences of these expenses? Like hiring a $30 million dollar actor which nessecitates having them in every scene of the movie.
2.) Do you feel gouged at the Movie Theater? Prices have been going up. Is it because Hollywood has a stranglehold over the industry? Or is this to cover the rising costs of moviemaking? Will the continuing string of flops cause Hollywood to start lowering the budgets on their films?
3.) How do feel about filmmakers who believe they should be given complete control over films they do not finance? What is your reaction to filmmakers who say film financiers should be "willing to accept a loss?" And what do you think of tax money being used to achieve this end?
|
|
|
CDiehl
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
361 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2005 : 11:26:16 AM
|
1. I think that covers the most obvious things the studio pays for. They also have to pay the director, either a salary or a share of the movie's profits. Another possible consequence of the expenses the studio covers would be paying a bunch of money to a director, and having to let him massively alter the script based on his pet ideas.
2. I don't feel particularly gouged, since my local theatre only charges 6 bucks. I don't think the increasing cost of making movies is enough to justify the cost of tickets going up as much as they do. It would be nice if the flops encouraged studios to cut back on the budget, or start putting movies out on DVD instead of in theatres, but I'm not holding my breath,
3. If I ran a studio, I'd refuse to grant such control to a director. A movie studio is not just a wallet for a director to indulge himself, it's a business. I'd love to ask directors who claim studios should be willing to lose money if they are similarly willing to forgo some or all of their money should their movies fail to turn a profit. Public money should have nothing to do with making movies or any other artistic endeavor. First of all, it's not the job of government to provide art or entertainment. It's why we have a diverse artistic community that is the envy of the world. Second, wouldn't there be a strong temptation for the government to turn such movies into propaganda, since they hold the purse strings? I would think the sort of people who might advocate such funding would be concerned about that particular risk.
You know Grand Funk, don't you? The wild, shirtless lyrics of Mark Farner? The bong-rattling bass of Mel Schacher? The ... adequate drumwork of Don Brewer? |
 |
|
|
Capt. Nemo
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
630 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2005 : 1:33:10 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by CDiehl
2. I don't feel particularly gouged, since my local theatre only charges 6 bucks. I don't think the increasing cost of making movies is enough to justify the cost of tickets going up as much as they do. It would be nice if the flops encouraged studios to cut back on the budget, or start putting movies out on DVD instead of in theatres, but I'm not holding my breath,
3. If I ran a studio, I'd refuse to grant such control to a director. A movie studio is not just a wallet for a director to indulge himself, it's a business. I'd love to ask directors who claim studios should be willing to lose money if they are similarly willing to forgo some or all of their money should their movies fail to turn a profit. Public money should have nothing to do with making movies or any other artistic endeavor. First of all, it's not the job of government to provide art or entertainment. It's why we have a diverse artistic community that is the envy of the world. Second, wouldn't there be a strong temptation for the government to turn such movies into propaganda, since they hold the purse strings? I would think the sort of people who might advocate such funding would be concerned about that particular risk.
6 bucks?
My god. Where is this theater again?
There was a nugget review of a documentary that talked about the world of 70's filmmaking. I think it was [url="http://www.Jabootu.com/netflixweek1.htm#duti"]Friedkin who put forward the idea about the "possibility of failure." [/url] Ken immediately nailed him on the point that he would be failing with somebody else's money.
|
|
|
|
John Nowak
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1017 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2005 : 1:48:57 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Capt. Nemo
1.) What costs does the industry absorb? Hiring actors, productions people and screenwriters. How do filmmakers try to lessen cost? Like making movies abroad. What are the consequences of these expenses? Like hiring a $30 million dollar actor which nessecitates having them in every scene of the movie.
This is an astonishingly complex subject and it's one I can't claim to have any special knowledge of.
However, the very best writers in Hollywood work in the accounting department. The major purpose of a master accountant is to minimize expenditures which give no return, such as taxes. A big movie does not cost $200 million because Paramount is $200 million poorer after paying for a film; it costs $200 million because there is a tax advantage to doing so, and because the books can be made to show this legally. Back in the 1980s James Garner was still getting letters saying that Rockford Files still had not made a profit.
It is entirely possible for a film company to make a profit after "losing" money on every film they issued that year. Financing at this level has the relation to a sensible household budget that quantum mechanics does to addition.
quote:
Originally posted by Capt. Nemo
2.) Do you feel gouged at the Movie Theater? Prices have been going up. Is it because Hollywood has a stranglehold over the industry? Or is this to cover the rising costs of moviemaking? Will the continuing string of flops cause Hollywood to start lowering the budgets on their films?
I don't feel gouged, no. Ticket prices are high but it's not clear to me that in real dollars they're more expensive than they were in the past. If http://www.leesmovieinfo.net/Adjuster.php can be trusted, as well as the inflation calculator at http://www.westegg.com/inflation/, then 2005 movie tickets are not significantly more expensive than they were in 1985.
quote:
Originally posted by Capt. Nemo
3.) How do feel about filmmakers who believe they should be given complete control over films they do not finance? What is your reaction to filmmakers who say film financiers should be "willing to accept a loss?" And what do you think of tax money being used to achieve this end?
I think the first part is entirely between filmmakers and their financers. If the filmmakers can swing that deal, more power to them. If they can't, tough noogies. I'd like a million dollars a year in return for doing no work, but I can't find anyone willing to take my offer. Bastards!
Any investors must by implication be willing to accept a loss. Investment is a risk by definition. On the other hand, an investor is also free to refuse to work with someone after being burned.
Tax money should not, in my opinion, be spent to produce entertainment for any medium whatsoever. There are good arguments in favor of state supported news or public service broadcasts, and the government has a legitimate stake in regulating the use of the electromagnetic spectrum, but while, say, BBC News can be defended, "Monty Python's Flying Circus" is simply not justifiable as a project funded with government money.
Good show though, I admit.
----------
We've always been united in stupidity. That's why there is no hope. But, then again, when has that ever stopped us?
-- hbrennan |
|
|
|
Ubiq
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
347 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2005 : 2:38:03 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Capt. Nemo
1.) What are the consequences of these expenses?
Some films, especially the Star Wars series, require the creation of entirely new filmmaking techniques and are more expensive than a film made using more conventional methods. Developing that technology makes it cheaper for future use by other studios.
Of course, developing that new technology can often wind up making older technology cost more simply because it's no longer in demand.
quote:
2.) Do you feel gouged at the Movie Theater?
Gouged? Depends on the film, I'm not particularly fond of paying between six and eight dollars for a movie that's only a hour and a half long, but it's a bargain for something like Return of the King.
Movie theaters are still one of the cheapest forms of entertainment; say that you go out to a film with one other person for a non-matinee showing, the tickets along with the food may well run you something along the lines of thirty to forty dollars. That's still cheaper for two people than for just the tickets to about any professional sporting event. In some cases, it's cheaper than a single ticket.
quote:
3.) How do feel about filmmakers who believe they should be given complete control over films they do not finance?
Complete control in what way?
Financially? They should adhere to the budget given; if they want to spend more, then they should cover the difference.
Artistically? Why hire somebody to make a film if you're not going to let them make it as they see fit?
quote:
What is your reaction to filmmakers who say film financiers should be "willing to accept a loss?"
That their salaries should be directly tied into the film's earnings, that or that they should directly fund their own movies.
quote:
And what do you think of tax money being used to achieve this end?
Meh, I can think of worse things to spend tax money on, especially since I doubt that eliminating such spending make any difference at all. Not just because of the miniscule percentage that was being spent on it, but because some other pork project would take it's place.
BM: I should have mentioned this at the beginning. I solve my problems with violence. |
|
|
|
Zev
Preeminent Apostolic Prelate of the Discipleship of Jabootu
USA
182 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2005 : 10:20:49 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ubiq
Meh, I can think of worse things to spend tax money on, especially since I doubt that eliminating such spending make any difference at all. Not just because of the miniscule percentage that was being spent on it, but because some other pork project would take it's place.
I hate to state the obvious, but that's a defeatist attitude. You might as well say we shouldn't prosecute corrupt politicans, because other corrupt politicans will take their place.
-------------------------
quote:
Originally posted by TheFoywonder
Now they need to make a movie where soldiers in Iraq actually find one of Saddam Hussein's secret underground chemical weapons facilities only to find it overrrun with big mutant sand spiders. And the the film will be called IRAQNID!
|
|
|
|
Ubiq
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
347 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2005 : 01:04:39 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zev
I hate to state the obvious, but that's a defeatist attitude. You might as well say we shouldn't prosecute corrupt politicans, because other corrupt politicans will take their place.
There's a bit of a difference between removing corrupt politicians from the system and removing pork projects. Pork is largely the reason that some politicians are even in there in the first place and removing it is political suicide.
Sure, most people say that they want rid of it, but the moment that they actually stand a chance at losing free money, their opinion quickly changes. Look at the recent attempt to roll back some of the projects to help fund Katrina reconstruction and how quickly that died. Some of it was outright refusal to kill a pet project (like Ted Steven's vehement refusal to get rid of a totally extraneous bridge), but some of it was also local pressure.
Again, if they're going to give out free money, I'd just as soon see them give it to aspiring filmmakers as, say, the oil industry, which freely admitted last week that the tax breaks provided for them in the recent energy bill weren't necessary.
BM: I should have mentioned this at the beginning. I solve my problems with violence. |
|
|
|
UnknownSubject
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Australia
212 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2005 : 01:51:23 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Capt. Nemo
1.) What costs does the industry absorb? Hiring actors, productions people and screenwriters. How do filmmakers try to lessen cost? Like making movies abroad. What are the consequences of these expenses? Like hiring a $30 million dollar actor which nessecitates having them in every scene of the movie.
I don't know enough about this question to really answer it.
quote:
2.) Do you feel gouged at the Movie Theater? Prices have been going up. Is it because Hollywood has a stranglehold over the industry? Or is this to cover the rising costs of moviemaking? Will the continuing string of flops cause Hollywood to start lowering the budgets on their films?
I don't feel gouged too much, but I also only go and see movies I really, really want to see on the big screen. Everything else can wait until it arrives on DVD.
As for a string of flops leading to reduced film budgets - probably not. As long as there is one recent example of a huge blockbuster making lots of money, then huge blockbusters will be the preferred way to go. Studios want to see huge cash cows of movies and to be associated with them, while smaller movies have a number of aspects to them that arguably make them even riskier (eg less experienced cast, more niche subjects, etc) and with a lower expected return.
However, if a major studio was to fall over due to a large number of expensive flops, well, that might slow things down for a bit.
quote:
3.) How do feel about filmmakers who believe they should be given complete control over films they do not finance? What is your reaction to filmmakers who say film financiers should be "willing to accept a loss?" And what do you think of tax money being used to achieve this end?
The balance between art and business is always a hard one to work out. There are plenty of examples of movies that suffered from having accountants stifle the creative vision of the director; there are also plenty of movies that suffer from creative excess. Making a movie is a risk, so some loss has to be expected. However, the business aim will (should?) be to minimimise that risk while also creating the best possibility of success by creating an entertaining film.
As for tax dollars in the arts - I'll bite and say that it does belong. Art arguably improves society by allowing people to escape from their ordinary lives and perhaps consider for a while some greater issues, or make them feel something they otherwise wouldn't. It can help promote issues, or to change the way people feel, or heck, even just give people something pretty to look at. Providing some sort of public subsidy to allow the creation of more art is a good thing for governments to do and can lead to benefits that far exceed the monetary cost of such a system.
Now, I don't believe that having access to public money should mean that artists should be able to spend their lives in luxury while they compose their magnum opus. Instead, the aim should be to give artists some assistance / some exposure which will allow them to create what they would otherwise have no ability (financial or otherwise) to do so.
Such a system will obviously not see every project become a success, but society will be better off for it with a greater amount of art available to a wider audience than would be otherwise possible.
Spandex Cinema
http://sc.thebeholder.org
Latest Review - "Nick Fury: Agent of SHIELD" |
|
|
|
Mr. Blue
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Papua New Guinea
648 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2005 : 06:08:56 AM
|
My take on using taxpayer money to fund films:
I'd rather use my money for anime.
Tax money = my money that I have to give the government. If part of this money is going to be used to make movies I don't want to watch, in truth I would rather have it back to buy what I want to watch.
"Because, as we all know, when it comes to saving the world, no-one gets the job done quite like a bunch of sleazy, drunken, irresponsible morons."-Lyz of AYCYAS |
|
|
|
GalahadPC
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
380 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2005 : 1:25:55 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ubiq
Movie theaters are still one of the cheapest forms of entertainment; say that you go out to a film with one other person for a non-matinee showing, the tickets along with the food may well run you something along the lines of thirty to forty dollars. That's still cheaper for two people than for just the tickets to about any professional sporting event. In some cases, it's cheaper than a single ticket.
As true as this is, simply waiting for a video release is far cheaper still, especially for a family. A couple months back, I took my four neices to see Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and it ran upward of $32 for an adult and four kids, with another $12 for one popcorn and two drinks for them to share. At least the bucket popcorn gets free refills at our local theater, which we freely took advantage of.
Last weekend, I grabbed a copy on DVD for $20. It came with a CD of the Oompaloompa songs, can be paused whenever somebody needs a potty break, can be accompanied by reasonably-priced food and drink, doesn't require dealing with an obnoxious audience, and can be watched over and over and over again.
It's one thing for grownups to pay for a true theater experence, something best enjoyed amidst an enthusiastic crowd, like with the Lord of the Rings movies or any quality comedy. But when compared to the increasingly swift rate of theater-to-video release and the sheer convenience of the disc, ticket and concession prices for more average movies or any family fare do end up feeling like price gouging.
In fact, does anybody else have the feeling that a theater release is really just advertising for the video release a few months down the road? |
Edited by - GalahadPC on 11/14/2005 1:36:09 PM |
|
|
|
Ubiq
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
347 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2005 : 1:36:22 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by GalahadPC
Theaters might not be gouging when compared to other entertainment, but when compared to the increasingly swift rate of theater-to-video release and the sheer convenience of the disc, ticket and concession prices are ridiculous.
When compared to a form of entertainment that doesn't require leaving the home except to go to the store, sure. I was comparing it to other events that require going out for the evening. If you want a budget evening, then simply rent the movie. At best, it's only about a fifth as much as buying it and you can spend the difference on food.
BM: I should have mentioned this at the beginning. I solve my problems with violence. |
|
|
|
GalahadPC
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
380 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2005 : 1:52:31 PM
|
| Being at the low end of a list of already prohibitively-priced entertainment experences might not be gouging, but it doesn't make them budget-friendly either. As a kid, my family would go to a movie every month at least, and usually a couple of baseball or football games. Nowadays, except for single people, I barely know anybody who goes to more than two or three movies a year, and I don't know anyone at all who goes to games or stage theater or any other sort of entertainment outing. Unless they were a die-hard fan or had plenty of spare cash to throw away, none of them would think it's worth the cost on a one-time experience. |
Edited by - GalahadPC on 11/14/2005 1:54:15 PM |
|
|
|
Desslar
Diocesan Ecclesiarch of the Sacred Order of Jabootu
USA
51 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2005 : 01:17:13 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by John Nowak
"Monty Python's Flying Circus" is simply not justifiable as a project funded with government money.
Good show though, I admit.
I'm hard pressed to think of a better use for tax dollars. |
|
|
|
Triviachamp
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
254 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2005 : 1:37:50 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Desslar
quote:
Originally posted by John Nowak
"Monty Python's Flying Circus" is simply not justifiable as a project funded with government money.
Good show though, I admit.
I'm hard pressed to think of a better use for tax dollars.
I suspect non-Python fans would have something completely different to say about that. |
|
|
|
twitterpate
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Canada
1026 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2005 : 3:41:53 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Triviachamp
quote:
Originally posted by Desslar
quote:
Originally posted by John Nowak
"Monty Python's Flying Circus" is simply not justifiable as a project funded with government money.
Good show though, I admit.
I'm hard pressed to think of a better use for tax dollars.
I suspect non-Python fans would have something completely different to say about that.
Let's face it, in Canada our tax dollars go to support movies celebrating "the romance of necrophilia". If we could come up with the Pythons, I'd be celebrating. |
|
|
|
BradH812
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1294 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2005 : 5:46:55 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by twitterpate
quote:
Originally posted by Triviachamp
quote:
Originally posted by Desslar
quote:
Originally posted by John Nowak
"Monty Python's Flying Circus" is simply not justifiable as a project funded with government money.
Good show though, I admit.
I'm hard pressed to think of a better use for tax dollars.
I suspect non-Python fans would have something completely different to say about that.
Let's face it, in Canada our tax dollars go to support movies celebrating "the romance of necrophilia". If we could come up with the Pythons, I'd be celebrating.
[Graham Chapman as the Colonel]
Stop that, stop that, stop that!!! This government-subsidized filmmaking is getting entirely too silly!!!
[/Graham Chapman as the Colonel]
(Couldn't resist.) |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked