Sell your videos on Vimeo ..

[squig]

Suppose guess that's what I get for no longer posting in the topic, huh?

Hehe. I was just taking the piss, I know you love it. It's a far more important topic than any other we've yapped about over the years.

Monetarily speaking crap content is generally king, but I was specifically talking in reference to trailers. How many great trailers have we seen that turned out to be really crap films? I can't count how many films I've seen where the trailer was the only bit worth watching (Blair Witch, cough), but that's precisely the kind of trailer I'm making, not because my film is crap but because that's the kind of trailer that gets bums on seats.

We're in agreement on the right amount of money thing, Hollywood has an almost unique ability for polishing turds, well maybe not unique, political parties do it just as well.

In terms of feature content I mean something of substance which means something that engages and moves an audience.

 

[Samuel H]

In terms of feature content I mean something of substance which means something that engages and moves an audience.

I wouldn't even go that far: for me "content is king", in the sense that you have to tell a story that people want to watch. Different people like different things, some like being engaged and moved, others just want to see explosions and car chases, others want light engertainment. You have to know what your audience is, and you have to give them what they want (and that "what they want" is the content which is king).

Beautifully shot boring story with great actors will go nowhere. Great story shot on a handycam with half-decent actors can make you rich (lots and lots and lots and lots of luck also required, of course).

The main thing here is knowing what your audience is, and giving them what they want. In this sense, my hero would be Robert Rodriguez, and not for the usual "El Mariachi" reasons. Instead, because of the Spy Kids movies, and in particular the 3D one. You can find as many faults on those movies as you want, but he made something kids wanted to see, once and again.

Check out Robert Rodriguez's history in terms of budget --> box office:

el mariachi: 0.007 --> 2
roadracers: 1 --> 1
desperado: 7 --> 25.5
four rooms (1/4): 1 --> 1.075
from dusk till dawn: 20 --> 26
the faculty: 15 --> 40
spy kids: 35 --> 148
spy kids 2: 38 --> 120
once upon a time in mexico: 29 --> 98
spy kids 3d: 38 --> 197
sin city (1/4): 10 --> 39.75
sharkboy lavagirl: 50 --> 70
planet terror (grindhouse/2): 26.5 --> 13
shorts: 20 --> 29
machete: 10 --> 44
spy kids 4: 27 --> 86



Now, going back to the original topic... What direct distribution (such as this vimeo thing) gives you is that you don't need to be SO lucky. You still need an insane amount of luck, but not as much as before, and everything is a bit more "on your hands" (you're in a better position to make your own luck).

 

[Gillvane]

Let me know exactly what "Content is King" means, I notice people throw it around regularly... does it mean good content is king? Entertaining content is king (entertaining is not inherently bad or good, it is just entertaining). Does it mean ugly content is king, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

This isn't to be a smartass... it's very easy to say "if your project is bad it wont' go anywhere anyway, remember content is king", that's not true at, at all. With the right amount of money, eyes, participation, etc. anything can move very very far.

For me "content is king" means first and foremost you must have a good story. Nothing will substitute for a good story (which means a good script). Doesn't matter what kind of story, romance, comedy, sci fi, drama, etc., each will appeal to a different audience, but it has to be a good story.

No amount of explosions, CGI, or big stars will help you if the story sucks. No amount of advertising can overcome a bad story, especially when anyone can look at Rotten Tomatoes on their cell phone while standing in line for tickets.

Look at Sucker Punch. Great example of awesome special effects and crap story. Or look at John Carter, advertised to death and huge budget, but again crap story.

Or take the opposite example, 28 days later. Shot in SD video, not much of a budget or advertising, but great story and 88% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Naturally when you get great story, big production, and tons of advertising all together that's when you get Blockbusters.

I suppose you can shoot a great script so badly it's unwatchable, or it can be so underground no one can find it because of total lack of exposure, but generally a good story trumps every other aspect of film making. What makes it "good" depends on the genre. A good action story is going to be different than a good drama and so on. The action story needs explosions but WHEN the explosions happen and WHY the explosions happen does make a difference.

 

[Kholi]

For me "content is king" means first and foremost you must have a good story. Nothing will substitute for a good story (which means a good script). Doesn't matter what kind of story, romance, comedy, sci fi, drama, etc., each will appeal to a different audience, but it has to be a good story.

No amount of explosions, CGI, or big stars will help you if the story sucks. No amount of advertising can overcome a bad story, especially when anyone can look at Rotten Tomatoes on their cell phone while standing in line for tickets.

Look at Sucker Punch. Great example of awesome special effects and crap story. Or look at John Carter, advertised to death and huge budget, but again crap story.

Or take the opposite example, 28 days later. Shot in SD video, not much of a budget or advertising, but great story and 88% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Naturally when you get great story, big production, and tons of advertising all together that's when you get Blockbusters.

I suppose you can shoot a great script so badly it's unwatchable, or it can be so underground no one can find it because of total lack of exposure, but generally a good story trumps every other aspect of film making. What makes it "good" depends on the genre. A good action story is going to be different than a good drama and so on. The action story needs explosions but WHEN the explosions happen and WHY the explosions happen does make a difference.

With the thought that "good" is only a term that's subjective in an artistic medium, where does THE ROOM fit into the spectrum?

What about the TRANSFORMS Trilogy (soon to have a fourth installment)? FAST AND THE FURIOUS franchise?

Again, not being argumentative at all, just providing counterpoints although very lazily.

Years ago the 'content is king' diatribe seemed to make a lot of sense: it removes the cold hard truth that far more goes into creating a successful product than just "what it's about", and in ways that can help a creator move forward instead of worrying about the many facets that should be considered. The more time spent analyzing success and failure, then comparing and contrasting, the sooner it became to sound something like....


Experience is Everything.


Maybe it's old age talkin', but the experience seems to be the reason people do anything involving the arts, and that goes triple for the Motion Picture and Video Game industries. A "bad" movie can still offer a very fun experience, people rag on Michael Bay as if it's second nature yet a lot of his projects still offer a very satisfying experience for the audience. On the other side of the spectrum, and reaching for low hanging fruit -- sorry, Terrence Malick's pictures aren't exactly mind-bending spectacles, yet he too offers his own brand of experience that people consistently pay to see.

If you look at it that way, every single auteur or working professional/name provides a specific experience that they're well known for, even if some choose to tackle different types of content or even a completely different medium (Film to TV, TV to Film, or even Film to Video Game). Edit here: it probably should not have been a surprise that JJ Abrams didn't exactly hit the mark with SUPER 8, an attempt to mimick the experience of a Steven Speilberg property. But, the amount of money that went into the movie... guess money can't make everything.

Anyway, that's just my thought and it's likely way off.

 

[Razz16mm]

"content" in motion pictures is images and sound. How well these elements are used to communicate the film's concept, narrative or not, story centered or not, is what makes a film work for an audience. This implies that the quality of execution is at least appropriate to the subject matter, whether it is a "Blair Witch Project" or "life of Pi".
Too often "the content is king" mantra excuses lack of skill in the art and craft of the medium that is core to effectively communicating with an audience.

If you just want to tell a story write a novel.

 

[Gillvane]

"content" in motion pictures is images and sound. How well these elements are used to communicate the film's concept, narrative or not, story centered or not, is what makes a film work for an audience. This implies that the quality of execution is at least appropriate to the subject matter, whether it is a "Blair Witch Project" or "life of Pi".
Too often "the content is king" mantra excuses lack of skill in the art and craft of the medium that is core to effectively communicating with an audience.

If you just want to tell a story write a novel.

There is no "just" in the concept of content is king. You have to tell a good story, not "just" tell a story. Telling a good story with moving pictures is different than telling a good story with words.

The differences are pretty obvious when you look at a script versus a novel.

 

[Razz16mm]

There is no "just" in the concept of content is king. You have to tell a good story, not "just" tell a story. Telling a good story with moving pictures is different than telling a good story with words.

The differences are pretty obvious when you look at a script versus a novel.

A script is to a film what a sheet music score is to music, a rough guide to producing the final product. Audiences don't watch scripts. Films succeed or fail based on how well they embody "content" in images and sound as a finished work.

 

[Gillvane]

A script is to a film what a sheet music score is to music, a rough guide to producing the final product. Audiences don't watch scripts. Films succeed or fail based on how well they embody "content" in images and sound as a finished work.

Ok, but what's a good movie with a bad story? I mean what's your example?

I think Prometheus was pretty bad. It was because of the story. It had so many inconsitencies and plot holes it was ridiculous. Was that in the script? Or did the director throw out the script and mess it up? Or did the editors do it? However it happened the story is terrible but the execution is great. It looks pretty, there's some great performances, the CGI is good, the set design is good, etc. But lousy story, so IMO lousy movie.

If you start with a lousy script, how do you turn that into a great movie without changing the script? I don't think you can.

Dark Shadows, the recent remake, is another good example. Nice cinematography, good acting, wardrobe, etc., but lousy story. The director never had a chance to make a good movie with that script.

 

[Kholi]

Ok, but what's a good movie with a bad story? I mean what's your example?

(Disclaimer: this is all subjective and there will be people who see differently; please do not attack me for posting this.)

Inception

This is a very very good movie, but the story? Regardless, it's a very enjoyable movie and the Blu Ray gets played around here quite a bit.

Ghostbusters

My number one favorite movie of all time and likely a major influence on my creative, yet is the story actually good? Even as my favorite it's still something to be analyzed. Is it entertaining, successful? A good motion picture? Likely, half/most of the planet would agree.

But, yeah, it's all subjective.

"content" in motion pictures is images and sound. How well these elements are used to communicate the film's concept, narrative or not, story centered or not, is what makes a film work for an audience. This implies that the quality of execution is at least appropriate to the subject matter, whether it is a "Blair Witch Project" or "life of Pi".
Too often "the content is king" mantra excuses lack of skill in the art and craft of the medium that is core to effectively communicating with an audience.

If you just want to tell a story write a novel.

We agree... it's too broad a statement to really tell the full story.

 

[Nektonic]

Look at Sucker Punch. Great example of awesome special effects and crap story. Or look at John Carter, advertised to death and huge budget, but again crap story.

I don't know if I'd go as far as saying John Carter had a crap story. Maybe the adaptation of Edgar Rice Burroughs' A Princess of Mars was not as good as could be, but it wasn't as bad as it was made out to be. The Barsoom novels are basically where Star Wars and Avatar came from. I think John Carter just became a whipping boy for critics and film fans. No that isn't the only reason for its box office performance, but it is likely a big factor. That is one of the dangers. While it is good to get massive exposure for your film, it can also be a bad thing if you end up being one of the unlucky cases where the media and the online film forums and stuff latch onto, then you get torn to shreds.

That is part of what sours me on trying to be "professional" and "profitable" with creative endeavors these days. The audience of today seems so darn cynical and just hates everything. I guess that is why I start to think it is better to just make the stuff for the fun and adventure of it all. Creating stuff is for me, and should always be part of the reward, whether a filmmaker make money or not. But I also say don't listen to me. Ultimately none of us really know what will work in any given situation for a filmmaker. Luck and timing are IMO an important part of the equation that you can't account for. At least not to much of a degree to make any specific decisions concerning those factors.

 

[Razz16mm]

Ok, but what's a good movie with a bad story? I mean what's your example?

I think Prometheus was pretty bad. It was because of the story. It had so many inconsitencies and plot holes it was ridiculous. Was that in the script? Or did the director throw out the script and mess it up? Or did the editors do it? However it happened the story is terrible but the execution is great. It looks pretty, there's some great performances, the CGI is good, the set design is good, etc. But lousy story, so IMO lousy movie.

If you start with a lousy script, how do you turn that into a great movie without changing the script? I don't think you can.

Dark Shadows, the recent remake, is another good example. Nice cinematography, good acting, wardrobe, etc., but lousy story. The director never had a chance to make a good movie with that script.

Any weak element can bring a film down, bad writing being one of them. But story alone is not content. What about films like Baraka that aren't scripted at all? Or a comedic social satire like Jaques Tati's Playtime where the narrative is completely visual, a finely choreographed complex pantomime between camera and subject matter where sound and dialogue only serve to add texture? Playtime could only be crudely outlined in a script. It is a pure example of cinematography as poetic modern art.

 

[Gillvane]

Any weak element can bring a film down, bad writing being one of them. But story alone is not content. What about films like Baraka that aren't scripted at all? Or a comedic social satire like Jaques Tati's Playtime where the narrative is completely visual, a finely choreographed complex pantomime between camera and subject matter where sound and dialogue only serve to add texture? Playtime could only be crudely outlined in a script. It is a pure example of cinematography as poetic modern art.

When I say "content is king" I"m talking about narrative films. If there's no narrative, then obviously it doesn't apply.

I went to the Heinekin beer brewery and you watched a movie first where you pretended to be a bottle going through the bottling plant. It was fun and I really enjoyed it, but sure there was no story. I saw the IMAX footage from teh space shuttle and it was really cool. But I don't think it's instructive to compare those or Baraka to Pulp Fiction or the Life of Pi.

The point is in a narrative, the best directing, the best acting, the best lighting, the best CGI special FX, the best advertising, cannot help if you have a bad story. I.e, content is king.

 

[squig]

Looks like I've opened a big can of content. I meant "story of substance is king" and by that I mean an active immersive experience. Too many films don't even come close to having the right ingredients to engage an audience. There's a lot of reasons for that: profit franchises, self indulgence, clueless filmmakers etc. I started out as a DJ and if I didn't engage my audience I would have been out of a job. Directors and producers should have to sit at the front of every screening to see for themselves whether they've done a good job, but I guess that's what rotten tomatoes is for. I don't care how much money my film makes, I don't give a damn what the critics say (those who can't do *****) what I do care about is the audience reaction.

Sorry but even mentioning John Carter and Star Wars in the same paragraph is blasphemy! I had to switch it off about 20 minutes in, same goes for Inception. Prometheus was the most painful cinema experience of my life, I would have rather spent the 2 hours having all of my teeth extracted!

Ghostbusters! lol Kholi, I'm not even gonna touch that one. After I saw Star Wars (A new hope) when I was 7 all the other kids wanted to be Han Solo or Luke Skywalker, not me, I wanted to be George Lucas! Now that I'm almost a grown up I'm more of a Kubrick, Coppola, Scorsese, Tarkovsy, Lumet guy.

"Old age" lol Kholi, you're still a punk.

 

[Kenneth Fisher]

I agree with Gillvane. If we want to be precise: "In narrative film, story is king".

The reason is that if you don't have a good story, the rest doesn't help that much. All the good cinematography, soundtracks, and performances may ease the pain, but a bad story (almost) always equals a bad movie.

Of course we can all come up with movies that we have enjoyed that have poor stories. I think OLD SCHOOL is a good example for me. The story was reheated, and badly executed. Yet I enjoyed parts of it and found it watchable, because it had some good gags.

I think that is one part of the "enjoyable, but not necessarily good" equation. If you can come up with "events" that people like, they will forgive some poor storytelling. And I guess if you really look at it, these events in a movie are still part of the story.

The most reliable way to make a bad story more enjoyable is humor, but the big fallback these days is gratuity: gratuitous special effects, or violence, nudity (One of my faves), profanity, etc.

I recently watched KING OF NEW YORK. I really liked that movie back in '90. Upon re-watching I noticed it had no story to speak of.

I sure hope DEEP COVER holds up when I give it another watch.

 

[Kholi]

It always feels like the truth when people say that Feature Films is a Director's Medium, and Television is the Writers.

If that's the reality, and surely "story" is always often changed in the final edit, where does that leave the story in general, or the script?

 

[David Jimerson]

It always feels like the truth when people say that Feature Films is a Director's Medium, and Television is the Writers.

If that's the reality, and surely "story" is always often changed in the final edit, where does that leave the story in general, or the script?

It's one of the problems I have with "long arc" television series. The writers almost never have the whole story figured out when they begin, and often shift gears abruptly in the middle of it when they decide they want to go in a different direction (sometimes when new writers take over), because they never really had a final destination in mind. Or they changed it. The result is often very dissatisfying.

When you're a novelist, if you want to change the story, you can rewrite earlier chapters, but you can't with a TV series.

 

[David G. Smith]

It always feels like the truth when people say that Feature Films is a Director's Medium, and Television is the Writers.

If that's the reality, and surely "story" is always often changed in the final edit, where does that leave the story in general, or the script?

The proverbial nail on the head.

 

[Gillvane]

If we want to be precise: "In narrative film, story is king".

I think that boils it down succinctly. Well said.

I agree that a film without much story can be watchable if there's some really good humor. I really couldn't tell you what Bruno was about but I can tell you I laughed until my stomach hurt.

 

[Kenneth Fisher]

It always feels like the truth when people say that Feature Films is a Director's Medium, and Television is the Writers.

If that's the reality, and surely "story" is always often changed in the final edit, where does that leave the story in general, or the script?

The way I see it, the story is not the script. The story is the movie we watch.

The director is going to take the script and interpret it the way he or she wants to.

The editor will interpret the footage.

Executives may change the story for their own reasons.

In the end, the story is whatever we get to see, regardless of how it was rejiggered, stepped on, or enhanced by whoever touched it in between the script and the release.

 

[squig]

It always feels like the truth when people say that Feature Films is a Director's Medium, and Television is the Writers.

If that's the reality, and surely "story" is always often changed in the final edit, where does that leave the story in general, or the script?

Even Ridley couldn't polish a turd. Unless the director is also a talented writer and is allowed to do a rewrite a crap script is doomed. I recently watched a film with a good script and good performances that was badly cut and scored, I just wanted to grab the footage and redo it myself!

The script is a blueprint, a score can tell a story as much as cine or dialogue.