Unhappy Endings:Big Studios Find Quality Films Too Often Are a Losing Proposition (Hollywood FAILS!)

The Washington Post ^ | May 7, 2003 | Sharon Waxman

[Timesink]

Unhappy Endings
Big Studios Find Quality Films Too Often Are a Losing Proposition

By Sharon Waxman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 7, 2003; Page C01

LOS ANGELES

When Amy Pascal, chairman of Columbia Pictures, gave director Spike Jonze a green light two years ago to make his offbeat film "Adaptation," she also gave him a warning: Don't go over budget, she said, or she'd have to get involved in the production.

Jonze didn't exceed the $20 million budget, and the studio didn't tinker with his vision. But "Adaptation" still ended up costing a small fortune, because Sony (Columbia's parent company) spent another $20 million to market the film. Despite Oscar nominations for screenwriter Charlie Kaufman and stars Nicolas Cage, Meryl Streep and Chris Cooper (who won), the film brought in just $22 million at the U.S. box office.

"I wish it had done better," laments Pascal. "It deserved to find a better audience."

But "Adaptation" is not the only prestigious, critic-pleasing picture from a major Hollywood studio to run into trouble at the box office of late.

[GOPJ]

They make films for each other and for sleazy foreign markets. Lots of violence, few words. Someday the world will be as disgusted with Hollywood filth as we are. It's only a question of time...

Hollywood's films are bombing like crazy!

[MattAMiller]

The studios love it when intelligent movies fail. That means they have an excuse to make more stupid movies (ones that studio execs can understand) even if those stupid movies fail as well.

[ArGee]

Sometimes I wish I understood more about movie making so I could know why! I mean, that movie had everything going for it. The story is one of the best of our age. Sophia Loren as Aldonza. James Coco as Sancho Panza. Even Peter O'Toole as Don Quixote (althouth I'm not a big fan of O'Toole, he is a good actor).

Excellent story, excellent cast ... I was so excited to share it with my children. I was flabbergast when it sucked so bad.

The movie adaptation of "Godspell" did the same thing to me.

All I can say is, it must be hard to make a good movie, even with a great story.

Shalom.

[eBelasco]

That Man of LaMancha is one of the worst film adaptations of a play/book ever made. Really terrible.

In any case, the market is never wrong. If some Hollywood movies don't make money, then they don't deserve to make money.

[Dan from Michigan]

I want to see "Unintended Consequences" made into a movie.

[L.N. Smithee]

The biggest B.O. flop of last year was The Salton Sea, starring the second big-screen Batman, Val Kilmer. Made for approximately $18 million, it grossed less than $700,000, which was certainly less than the ad budget.

If I am Kilmer (and thank God I'm not, what with his bad rep as difficult to work with and the beauteous Joanne Whalley having left him), I am making it known I am available to play Scott Peterson in the inevitable TV-movie based on the murder and trial.

[L.N. Smithee]

The movie adaptation of "Godspell" did the same thing to me.

I was disgusted by the screen adaptation of Bye Bye Birdie after working on the crew during a high school performance of the REAL stage musical.

[lawdude]

" "I wish it had done better," laments Pascal. "It deserved to find a better audience." "

They really do not have a clue, do they?

Too bad.

[carton253]

I think the problem is in the casting. I don't know why Hollywood insists on starring "box office draws" instead of Broadway actors. Hire the people who created the role... who rehearsed and performed in for 18 months.

For example: Why hire Madonna for Evita, when the best Evita is Patti LuPone. She has the voice for the role. She played Evita for 2 years and won the Tony.

[I still care]

I usually don't see art house films, not because I don't like quality movies, but because usually what they are doing is preaching to me about liberal values.

If a film talks down to traditionalists and praises liberal values, then it is considered "significant". But I never like to see those things, because once I get in the theatre I usually find I am being subjected to a lecture on how evil white nuclear families are and how wonderful deviant lifestyles/multiculteralists are.

I used to get IFC on TV and my liberal sister prevailed on me to watch it. I thought I was watching the homosexual film festival. She said I was just watching the wrong films. I told her I watched it all week, and this was what they had on.

People like big, silly pictures because so many of them are good vs. evil, and we like to see the good guys win, not the emotional struggles of drag queens.

[ScottinSacto]

$77 million as of Sunday

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=gangsofnewyork.htm

[ArGee]

I think the problem is in the casting. I don't know why Hollywood insists on starring "box office draws" instead of Broadway actors. Hire the people who created the role... who rehearsed and performed in for 18 months.

I am not an actor. Except for a brief stint in High School (over 20 years ago) I don't have any experience for what I am about to say. But on Free Republic everyone is entitled to post no matter how uninformed so let me say it anyway.

I suspect that film acting and stage acting are as different as swimming and SCUBA diving. On stage there is a continuity of the story that the actor can involve himself in. Even a poorer actor doesn't need to work to conjure up the sense of outrage Aldonza must have felt after being raped by the muleteers in a stage adaptation. But the screen actor may shoot the scene over one character's shoulder before lunch, stop to eat, then shoot the exact same scene after lunch over the other character's shoulder. The actor has to create that sense of outrage even if this was the first scene of the movie filmed and the actual rape scene is one of the last.

I remember when watching the "appendices" of "Fellowship of the Ring" one of the actors talking about what a pro Sean Bean was. They filmed his death from the perspective of looking at him before lunch, then filmed it from the perspective of looking at Viggo Mortensen after lunch, and he played the scene equally well both times. The very thought makes me want to laugh.

Anyway, that's just my thinking. Julie Andrews probably thought like you when they cast Audrey Hepburn as Liza Doolittle in "My Fair Lady" - until Andrews won an Oscar for her role as "Mary Poppins."

Shalom.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Gangs was an outstanding movie but without much chick appeal. It was the best movie I have seen in years but not for the squeamish.

[CyberCowboy777]

""Being John Malkovich" reached almost Pythonesque levels of absurdity and creativity."

Was absurdity the stated goal of the film? I would think not, its goal seem clear and par for Hollywood. Not unlike "Eyes Wide Shut", also absurd, also not deliberate.

Two of the worse films I have seen.

[CyberCowboy777]

I liked The Salton Sea.

[CyberCowboy777]

I would also say that "Being John Malkovich" and "The Crying Game" were two films where the promotions were very misleading.

I had an idea of what I was in for with "Eyes Wide Shut".

[carton253]

Acting is acting.

If you can do it before a live audience then you can do it before a camera.

Julie Andrews would have been just fine as Liza Dolittle. She was not chosen because she didn't have any box office pull while Audrey Hepburn did.

Audrey did a fantastic job. Julie Andrews would have done just as well and been able to sing Liza's songs. Something Audrey could not do. Or Natalie Woods as Maria in West Side Story.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

The Real Cancun

How much could the production costs be for this one? Following a bunch of drunken no-names around Cancun with hand-held cameras.

[xp38]

Going by Art Buchwald's experience it's hard to know exactly what is going on in the movie industry accounting wise. Direct box office figures (which only quote the US and Canadian markets) don't account for the quite large overseas market along with cable rights, broadcast rights, video/DVD sales and whatever else can be scrounged up like toys and various tie ins. These seeming losers are probably doing much better than it appears. If Hollywood really was losing as badly as it seems it would eventually stop making movies and sadly they haven't stopped. The movie industry has long had ties to organized crime through the union IATSE and it's accounting system looks like it was created by the mob.

[vollmond]

The reason quality films make no money is because they're paying the talent too much, budgets are unreasonable, and they have no real knowledge of how much a movie will make. If they were more honest with the business plan for each movie, they would almost never take a loss.

And if you believe Sony really spent $20 million on marketing you haven't been paying attention. That money gets shunted around so much, it would give former Enron CFO Andrew Fastow second thoughts.

Budgeting $20 million for the movie only meant that Sony could spend $20 million "promoting" it.