Fellwanderer

I wasn't aware that capital gave a damn about its local union workers but simply chased the profits. Why else such huge investment overseas by the members of G7?

Mind you, you're probably right about Hammer's gravestone

All the best
FELL

A signature is no substitute for a life

smudge

Well you can do, can't you...? Not that I understand football at all !

I'm just arguing the toss really - 95% of the time I am watching a British film, just once in a while the economics cause me to stop and think. It would be interesting though, one day, to pick an old film and do some research to find out where the money came from and (more importantly) went.

On the new Hammer Noir DVDs there's some trivia, one element of which is about the film's funding. It seemes with these the sum of the US contribution has now been lost in the mists of time...

Smudge

Welcome to my house. Enter freely, and of your own will...

Fellwanderer

Must admit that I tend to rely on gut instinct whatever the rules are - if it feels British, it is British. Thus, Mrs Miniver and Mary Poppins never felt quite right but A Canterbury Tale and Oh, What A Lovely War did.

All the best
FELL

A signature is no substitute for a life

D Cairns

Re development: you can spend the money making the script better or making the script worse. When Andrew MacDonald got started he believed not enough time was spent on development -- he felt SHALLOW GRAVE, in spite of its success, could have used more work. But then he hired that film's sister as head of development. She wasn't a writer, had never even read a book on screenwriting...
Many development execs impose their personal taste without any regard for the needs of the script. The result is that most scripts get worse rather than better during development. Since TRAINSPOTTING, MacDonald's films have all had massive plot holes or incongruities. If you listen to the writer's commentary on TWENTY EIGHT DAYS LATER you can hear him explain how he wrote an opening scene "to get the exposition out the way", which no experienced Hollywood writer would think a good idea. Better to intrigue the audience with a question at the start than to go in and start spouting answers. As a result, that film has a dreadful opening. It picks up when our hero wakes from his coma, because then a bit of mystery comes in, although it would be a lot MORE mysterious and interesting without the info-dump opening...

samkydd

I think the cinema is a dying industry anyway. As mentioned several times in the past it is now exclusively run by accountants, and so imaginative and creative people seem to be few and far between. This is why we get so many remakes, sequels and old TV show to cinema efforts because they can make a fast buck on people craving nostalgia, and any fool can copy.

Going to the cinema has about the same appeal these days as the weekly food shopping in Tesco, more of an ordeal than a pleasure, and while cinema owners continue to treat their paying punters with the same contempt as they did back in the 1970s, then people like me will stay away.

The release to DVD accounts for 50% of revenue from films, and so the quicker they get it on DVD the quicker they can get their hands on the dosh. Consequently a lot of people will wait to see a new film on DVD rather than go to the flicks.

Whenever a new film is talked about these days it is in terms of Box Office takings rather than any proper review of the film's content. It's like football, if a player is on £130,000 per week wages then he must be fantastic, which is not true! If a film rakes in several million in the first few screenings then Joe Public thinks it must be a great film, not that the marketing hype and advertising has done its job and enticed you inside to be bored witless for two hours or more, sucking on an overpriced boiled hotdog and flat Cola!

There are still good films about, but you can probably count them on the fingers of one hand over the course of a year, whereas previous generations seemed to be spoilt for choice every week. But back in the cinema's hey-day people didn't have high tech TVs with surround sound and a host of other enhancements, so a trip to the flicks was something special, not something you could bring into your living room at home! It's sad but true that most films in my collection are well over 25 years old anyway, not much to collect since then!

If the industry is in a mess it's nobody's fault but its own.

"...the chairman of Littlewoods stores made a Keynote speech!"

ChristineCB

Absolutely. These past 2 months of theatre-going has been a total pleasure for me, but we're seeing great old films exclusively. Audiences are great and large, and come back night after night.

I want you to be wrong in your above statements, but I see far more proof when we go to the megaplexes and chat over food with others that don't go to theatres.

The industry is screwing itself over, and then crying to us about it. Sorry, I have zero sympathy for them - I see a handful of theatres that are very successful doing what they do, and I hear about hundreds of others that screw things up and complain.

Fellw's comments about capital seeking the best returns is true, but "best" is the sticky word. With incentives and tax-breaks as bait, it's sometimes very difficult to see the hook before that bait's swallowed. So "best" before the picture's done and "best" later may not be the same thing.

I also think that Greed and Laziness are factors that can alter capital's projected "best return". Sometimes "best" is also a function of "easiest", "most convenient" and "quickest with least amount of effort".

I see so much emphasis on short-term goal to the bereft of better goals that take longer to achieve.

Fellwanderer

Christine, thank goodness for some sanity from both you and Sam!

I despair for the future of culture [both sides of the pond] and I'm just grateful I'm not the only one who can see it and feels that way.

At last - I'm a GOM

All the best
FELL

A signature is no substitute for a life

harryfielder

We didn't care where the money came from (cast and crew) as long as it came.
A good script is the first thing....

Aitch,

http://www.turnipnet.com/aitch/aitch/gallery.htm

samkydd

This "grabbing" short term gains attitude is a legacy from the mid-80s, and Society seems to have lost the ability for patience. Everything has to be done very quickly and without too much thought, from producing films to making government policy.

When people buy anything from big tellies to cars it's "Got to have it now, I want it immediately, sign me up I don't care what it costs!" whereas we were always taught to be patient and save up for what we wanted. When you saved up and saw the amount of cash you'd squirreled away in your biscuit tin or wherever, nine times out of ten you'd change your mind about buying the item you were so desperate to own a few months before, and keep hold of the cash instead! If you did eventually buy the item you appreciated the effort involved in getting it, and so you looked after it!

With films it would appear that the script is an afterthought and the main emphasis is getting an idea (usually the idea to copy someone else's work) rushed into production as quickly as possible! Remakes of famous films are rarely as good as the originals, and often quoted here "Why do they keep remaking the great films? Why not remake the bad ones ‘til they get them right?" - John Huston

If I was a movie mogul and some young spaf came to see me to suggest a remake, or a TV show to big screen attempt I'd sack him on the spot! If you employ an artist you don't expect him to photo-copy the Mona Lisa and stick it in a plastic frame!

If they haven't got the wit or imagination to come up with their own ideas, or even bother to read an original screenplay then they shouldn't be working in the industry at all, they should be in television!

"...the chairman of Littlewoods stores made a Keynote speech!"

Steve Crook

I first read that as "megapixels"

Steve

Steve Crook

You are - a Grand Old Man

Steve

Steve Crook

And a good script is usually the first thing they're lacking Aitch. That's why they so often have to scrape the bottom of the barrel and do these remakes of the old classics. Then anyone who's seen both versions agrees that the remake was nowhere near as good but they sell enough tickets to teenagers that have never seen the original so that they make a bit of profit - and so keep doing it

Steve

Carmel

I'v come to the conclusion that there are no sane people on this sight except for a few and now they are all starting to argue, thank god for my world.

Cheeky Bob

Remakes make perfect economic sense, and always have done. They cost less to develop and market, because there's already a built-in recognition factor (helped enormously by people complaining about it - nothing like a bit of controversy to ensure it gets mentioned repeatedly), and so they're generally more likely to be profitable.

But there's nothing intrinsically wrong with remakes per se, any more than there's anything wrong with adapting anything from previously extant sources - artists as diverse as Shakespeare and Stanley Kubrick almost invariably worked from someone else's original material. Which is why I'll never slag off a remake until I actually see it for myself (or if it's buried under a mound of critical ordure too unanimous to ignore).

christoph404

Aye well, nothing like a good heated debate and exchange of conflicting views to get the old brain working and thinking about filmic issues, it just shows a passion for the topics in question and providing there is no bad feeling about the "arguments" it usually turns out to be quite constructive in the end....IMHO.....so ....keep on arguing and exchanging diferent views and opinions I say!!