Corrado Part II

Great to see the thread back! I was constantly checking the blog and had no idea it was over here again, this is a interesting read. Look forward to seeing what happens!

David.
 
I cant believe I just spent 4-5 hours reading the original locked thread til page 80 something. Guessing it would get sour somewhere later I left it there and must say: awesome! I like the blog-type reporting of Adam, the writ and wit, the honesty, and the fact that he actually got it done!!!
My congratulations for your achievement! I used to live in LA in the late 70s for some months and know the city. Its not my fav. place but sure has its pros and cons for filmmaking. I hope I can see the movie sometime!
 
This might have been asked before previos thread but I'll shoot it anyway.

-Since undertaking such a project is similar to flipping a house (since you are taking a huge loan) how much pressure is there to close the deal? Is there a certain point your expectation of a profit might be cut down to breaking even or even loosing money in the end? Also how do you think the slumping economy will effect self financed projects like yours, do you think it will be harder to get loans?

Cheers,
 
Rubbersquare said:
it just sucks to think that you've "blown it" if you don't sell it. is that what it's really all about? i know it's your career (and i commend you on what looks like an action-packed film), but it's sad how "success" is so painfully tied to profit.

i'm asking this in the most "james lipton-y" way imaginable. adam, if you could walk away from this with the money to make another film OR the praise of having made citizen kane (or some other really critically acclaimed film), which would you choose? of course, they are not exclusive of each other, but, what i'm getting at is, would you prefer notoriety as a standout filmmaker or money to buy some cool stuff and live comfortably.
Click to expand...

The thing is, Rubbersquare, I haven't created Citizen Kane or some other critically acclaimed film. It's tough to make a film like that even if you are aiming for that goal. Would I love to make deep, meaningful Oscar winners? Sure! I'd like to do nothing but that. I think you CAN make a film that has meaning, substance, and some action to boot. Think "The Departed" or Blackhawk Down"

The problem is Scorsese and Scott (in those examples) have had years to perfect their craft and weather movies that were not very successful commercially in order to get to that point.

For me, I need to make a few movies that ARE commercially successful to reach the point where making movies is viable for my investors so I can continue to make more of them.

I think that's where so many filmmakers get it wrong the first time out. They're trying to win an Oscar out of the gate while ignoring the marketability of their picture.
 
to be clear, i wasn't knocking you or the film, but i think from your answer, you'd walk away from it with the money to make another film. yes? which is cool. was just asking. :beer:
 
Rubbersquare said:
to be clear, i wasn't knocking you or the film, but i think from your answer, you'd walk away from it with the money to make another film. yes? which is cool. was just asking. :beer:
Click to expand...

Not at all, you asked a legitimate question. Corrado is a product rather than a labor of love or a passionate work you strongly believe in. I think Oscar winners tend to fall into the latter category. Hollywood also survives on commercial films as well - look at Transformers, Kung Fu Panda, Hulk, etc.
 
emretufekci said:
This might have been asked before previos thread but I'll shoot it anyway.

-Since undertaking such a project is similar to flipping a house (since you are taking a huge loan) how much pressure is there to close the deal? Is there a certain point your expectation of a profit might be cut down to breaking even or even loosing money in the end? Also how do you think the slumping economy will effect self financed projects like yours, do you think it will be harder to get loans?

Cheers,
Click to expand...

Well there is pressure of course, but alot less so now that the picture is relatively well received. Now it's just a matter of selling it and making the right money. Not sure if the economy is super relevant.....movies are still selling more or less and feature films were still produced during countless recessions and the Great Depression.
 
Going off something I read a while back, but is it true that with a film as small as Corrado, the largest advantage of having a theatrical release is simply an advertisement for the DVD release?

Or can smaller films really make significant amounts of money (relative to budget) in the theater?
 
taormina said:
The thing is, Rubbersquare, I haven't created Citizen Kane or some other critically acclaimed film. It's tough to make a film like that even if you are aiming for that goal. Would I love to make deep, meaningful Oscar winners? Sure! I'd like to do nothing but that. I think you CAN make a film that has meaning, substance, and some action to boot. Think "The Departed" or Blackhawk Down"

The problem is Scorsese and Scott (in those examples) have had years to perfect their craft and weather movies that were not very successful commercially in order to get to that point.

For me, I need to make a few movies that ARE commercially successful to reach the point where making movies is viable for my investors so I can continue to make more of them.

I think that's where so many filmmakers get it wrong the first time out. They're trying to win an Oscar out of the gate while ignoring the marketability of their picture.
Click to expand...


Mmm. This might be the best post you've made (or that I've read from you), Adam. I couldn't agree more and I've come to realize that I'm never going to really move forward if I keep spending so long in the writing stage trying to come up with the next life-defining "film".

Most of those life-defining films, also, are not commercially viable on their own. They have incredible talent attached in every single area and a big name to throw behind it so that people will come watch what so-and-who did. They aren't cheap movies, and they likely aren't made outside of the studios system.

I'd like to call Robert Rodriguez to the stand. Although his story is tired and nothing to really expect for yourself, the man did the smart thing: He took the money he made and made some commercially viable movies outside of the system and continued to recycle the money doing the same things. He may not win an Oscar any time soon, but boy would I love to be in his shoes right now.

Write a script in two weeks, shoot that ***** and make your money back. Once Upon a Time in Mexico, anyone?

It took me a little while, but I get it now.
 
Gohanto said:
Going off something I read a while back, but is it true that with a film as small as Corrado, the largest advantage of having a theatrical release is simply an advertisement for the DVD release?

Or can smaller films really make significant amounts of money (relative to budget) in the theater?
Click to expand...

Very true, but also such is the case on most films. The theatrical simply becomes a teaser trailer to the DVD campaign. Even a blockbuster like Dark Knight that made $500 million will make another billion on DVD, pay per view, VOD, DVD sales, and merchandise.
 
Kholi said:
likely aren't made outside of the studios system.

I'd like to call Robert Rodriguez to the stand. Although his story is tired and nothing to really expect for yourself, the man did the smart thing: He took the money he made and made some commercially viable movies outside of the system and continued to recycle the money doing the same things. He may not win an Oscar any time soon, but boy would I love to be in his shoes right now.

Write a script in two weeks, shoot that ***** and make your money back. Once Upon a Time in Mexico, anyone?

It took me a little while, but I get it now.
Click to expand...

Rodriguez is a prime example of a guy who has made viable films. I don't think he's made anything really thought provoking or life changing, but that's cool. I suppose the extreme would be Michael Bay...event films with no substance but very profitable.

Different strokes fo' different folks I guess.
 
Commercially viable movies that make money are what the studios want. Take a look at Paramount Vantage (thier low budget division) they have turned out several artsy films that were either nominated for oscar's or won oscar's but they never made money, lost a lot of money on a few. Vantage has been in the red for a while because of them.
 
But they're both riding the same [luxury] Cruise Liner. Doing it over and over again. It's nice to be recognized by your peers on enormous stages. I think I could be satisfied being recognized by my peers as someone who continues to shoot and generate audiences all over the planet.

But, first, I have to actually shoot my own stuff. =X
 
Remember too that a big plug for directors is "His movies have grossed well in excess of $2 Billion (or whatever) at the box office"

I'll tell you the main reason Ridley is my idol: He possesses the rare combination of profound storytelling, critical acclaim AND commercial viability.

Example: Gladiator - won 5 Oscars, grossed $456 million worldwide. The dude can make a movie, have it NOT be some artsy drivel, win Oscars, and make money.

That's my goal!
 
I'd take $1 billion in sales anyday over 5 oscars.

After all, money is the determining factor for success. Oscar's don't pay the bills but are nice acolades to have.
 
I like to remind myself that lots of truly great films have won Oscars and also made plenty of money. My idea would be to set that as the goal. The Coen brothers' body of work is one good example. Scorsese, Coppola, Spielberg, many others too.

I think the right place to aim is high as one can imagine. That way, if you fall short, you fall higher than if you hadn't : )
 
Ted Spencer said:
I like to remind myself that lots of truly great films have won Oscars and also made plenty of money. My idea would be to set that as the goal. The Coen brothers' body of work is one good example. Scorsese, Coppola, Spielberg, many others too.
Click to expand...


Naturally. I think it's that the gyst is that you're less likely to get to that point than you are to sell a feature and get it theatrically distributed.

Notoriety is nice. You should definitely always aim for the sky, but there's always a "in the meantime".
 
Ted Spencer said:
I like to remind myself that lots of truly great films have won Oscars and also made plenty of money. My idea would be to set that as the goal. The Coen brothers' body of work is one good example. Scorsese, Coppola, Spielberg, many others too.

I think the right place to aim is high as one can imagine. That way, if you fall short, you fall higher than if you hadn't : )
Click to expand...

Without a doubt!

I was looking at things from a "Robert Rodriguez" point of view, someone who Adam could easily follow in his footsteps and not a Spielberg $200 million dollar movie.
 
I just want to reiterate that people need to get themselves on the map and make and distribute a film rather than nursing that profound script for years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top