Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The point is also -- whether something is great content or not, depends on who's looking at it. For a 40-year-old male, "Twilight" represents horrible content -- I mean, really bad. But for the 14-year-old girl, there couldn't be anything better. So three billion dollars of success will be made off of 14-year-old girls (and their 45-year-old mothers) while they will love their time in the theater.
And not one of them would even make it through a screening of "The Godfather"...
No more untrue than "it was EXACTLY like Lord of the Rings"... I remembered it as being reported that there were some vistas and a scene with gollum. I didn't remember there being action sequences. But even so -- ten minutes of selected outtakes does not make for a three and a half hour epic, so I think my main point still stands.
So content is king, everything has content, some people may think your content is lousy while others think it is epic, and you'll always have an audience as long as someone, somewhere, thinks it is good content.
Does that sum things up?
Heck yes I would disagree with that! The praise many Hollywood films get is absolutely undeserved, while plenty of good smaller films go completely unnoticed. For example, Twilight has been praised by probably tens of millions of people (their age is irrelevant). Plenty of better films shot with lesser budgets are barely noticed.
Undeserved to you. Do you think those millions of Twilight fans would find those other films better if they watched them?
To that audience, yes.
I don't know why you're so hung up on this. First rule of marketing ANYTHING, EVER, is "know your audience." I've gotten absolutely rave reviews for all my books, hundreds of private messages from people telling me that it "saved their life" on a shoot, etc; but I wouldn't dare recommend it to a ladies book club as a literary adventure...
Which is exactly my point. They liked it, I did not. Predicting success/worth/whatever based on "crappy story" or "fantastic story" is pointless. I suppose I didn't make that clear enough.
So what then, in your opinion, is "king," if not "content"?Which is why "content is king", in my opinion, is ultimately pointless as a workable idea.
So what then, in your opinion, is "king," if not "content"?
So what then, in your opinion, is "king," if not "content"?
I came to this conclusion when I paid to watch THE ROOM in a theater full of drunk and high people throwing spoons at the screen...
I agree -- that's why I disagreed when you said a sneak preview delivered the same as the full Lord of the Rings. I'm saying they had a chance to compare them based on everything BUT the actual content...It seems unfair to compare a sneak preview to an entire three and a half hour long movie.
If it was in 24p there never would have been a news story about it at all. So yes, there was a kerfuffle established because a group of theater owners are scared to death that the biggest tentpole release of next year, may turn audiences off.So you're saying people would still be as upset if the sneak preview was in 24p?
Ah, let's not cross that grand divide, confusing "story" with "content". That's a whole different discussion.Predicting success/worth/whatever based on "crappy story" or "fantastic story" is pointless. I suppose I didn't make that clear enough.
Well, to each his own then. I would contend that making content that people want to see is the only workable idea that's worth pursuing.Which is why "content is king", in my opinion, is ultimately pointless as a workable idea.
That is what I am referring to as "entertainment". If it's a tearjerker that doesn't make you cry, then it's a failure, but if it's a tearjerker that makes you cry, then it's entertainment. If it's a comedy that doesn't make you laugh, then it's a failure, if it's a comedy that makes you laugh, it's entertainment. If it's a horror film that doesn't scare you, it's a failure. If it's a horror film (like Jaws) that terrifies you and makes you scared not only of the ocean, but of swimming pools, then it's successful entertainment.I know you asked this to Gary, sorry for butting in.
If someone DID ask me, it would be Experience. Hands down. I came to this conclusion when I paid to watch THE ROOM in a theater full of drunk and high people throwing spoons at the screen...
Twice.
Nothing beats a great experience, to me. And, nothing conjures more word of mouth than a great experience. That might just be me, though.
Transformers was technically a terrible story... but, it was pretty freakin' fun in the theater.
But surely you wouldn't dispute that if "paint drying" was released in imax, and "Lord of the Rings" (exactly as it was originally shot and made) was released on pixelvision, surely you wouldn't dispute that people would still prefer Lord of the Rings...
Well, to each his own then. I would contend that making content that people want to see is the only workable idea that's worth pursuing.
That is what I am referring to as "entertainment". If it's a tearjerker that doesn't make you cry, then it's a failure, but if it's a tearjerker that makes you cry, then it's entertainment. If it's a comedy that doesn't make you laugh, then it's a failure, if it's a comedy that makes you laugh, it's entertainment. If it's a horror film that doesn't scare you, it's a failure. If it's a horror film (like Jaws) that terrifies you and makes you scared not only of the ocean, but of swimming pools, then it's successful entertainment.
Ah, let's not cross that grand divide, confusing "story" with "content". That's a whole different discussion.
"The Three Stooges" did not have a great, grand, epic story. Neither did "Birdemic". But in both of those theaters where I saw them, the audiences laughed themselves until they nearly puked.
"story", by and of itself, does not equal "content".
If "story" was all that mattered, people would just read books. That's the essence of story without all the other elements.
A story is a good thing to have, but is not necessarily the only element required (nor, it could be argued, is it the most important element) in order for the audience to enjoy the content of the film.