The new Star Wars movies...it's all about characters and story!

[Scott F]

Looking at all the 'Star Wars' movies and getting a feel for what even some of the early films did, combining real locations and special effects — that's something we're looking very seriously at....So we're going to find some very cool locations that we're going to use in support of Episode VII. And I think we're probably going to end up using every single tool in the toolbox to create the look of these movies."
Warwick Davis, who was moderating the discussion, asked Kennedy to clarify what she meant by this, and she explained that she wants to use models, real droids, and "artwork that you actually can touch and feel."

A huge step in the right direction. I'm fairly confident the next films will be great.

OK, back to Robin Hood, sorry!

 

[David G. Smith]

It may have been the freshest screenplay in the world, but freshness in itself doesn't have mass appeal the way familiarity does. You can't spend millions of dollars on a film and not go for mass appeal, that's suicide. ...

My point about producer is, anyone who has produced and sold a feature film will probably agree that the majority of indie films are really fresh but that doesn't help them get sold.
People want familiarity. That's what most people think is good. That's why branding, franchising, well known actors and genres are so important. With familiarity, they can connect with what they're seeing in a relaxed way so that they can focus on enjoying themselves. If freshness was what people wanted, every single studio in Hollywood would work their asses off to make all their films as different from each other as they possibly could.

Like I said, I haven't read the screenplay and it's perfectly possible that maybe Ridley Scott was just the wrong director for that material. Maybe it was great, and it had all the familiarity that was needed already. Still though, the director has to make the film he wants to make.

Jawa... I think that you may have explicitly expressed the problem. I think that the one point that you missed in the blog post about "NOTTINGHAM" is the emphasis on, "One of the things a screenwriter needs is an idea that is both unique and universal." I think that you equate the idea of a "Universal" story with your comments about "Familiarity"; which I assume means that successful movies share like characters, in like situations, achieving like results... lather, rinse, repeat. I think that it is much more complicated than that. I think that most successful movies have unique characters, in unique situations, achieving unique results THAT SPEAKS TO THE UNIVERSAL HUMAN CONDITION. You also stress the need for the commerce of movies, and what is salable. I absolutely agree that movies are a business and the commerce is the driving force, especially at the level we are discussing. I think that the problem is that too many film producers look to the box office results of this year, or last year, when comparing what they are making to what is salable. I think that might be the wrong way to look at it. For a proper perspective, IMO, I think that the best available way to look at, "Ideas that are both unique and universal" is not to look at box office results for this year, or the last 5 years but to look at the available All Time Box Office, Adjusted For Inflation.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

Here is the top 50:

1 Gone with the Wind MGM $1,648,684,100 $198,676,459 1939^
2 Star Wars Fox $1,453,455,900 $460,998,007 1977^
3 The Sound of Music Fox $1,162,109,500 $158,671,368 1965
4 E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial Uni. $1,157,531,400 $435,110,554 1982^
5 Titanic Par. $1,105,471,700 $658,672,302 1997^
6 The Ten Commandments Par. $1,068,960,000 $65,500,000 1956
7 Jaws Uni. $1,045,123,200 $260,000,000 1975
8 Doctor Zhivago MGM $1,012,945,300 $111,721,910 1965
9 The Exorcist WB $902,489,200 $232,906,145 1973^
10 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Dis. $889,440,000 $184,925,486 1937^
11 101 Dalmatians Dis. $815,324,800 $144,880,014 1961^
12 The Empire Strikes Back Fox $801,154,000 $290,475,067 1980^
13 Ben-Hur MGM $799,680,000 $74,000,000 1959
14 Avatar Fox $793,603,000 $760,507,625 2009^
15 Return of the Jedi Fox $767,524,800 $309,306,177 1983^
16 Jurassic Park Uni. $750,083,100 $402,453,882 1993^
17 Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace Fox $736,946,500 $474,544,677 1999^
18 The Lion King BV $727,434,800 $422,783,777 1994^
19 The Sting Uni. $727,405,700 $156,000,000 1973
20 Raiders of the Lost Ark Par. $722,378,500 $248,159,971 1981^
21 The Graduate AVCO $698,306,300 $104,945,305 1967^
22 Fantasia Dis. $677,634,800 $76,408,097 1941^
23 The Godfather Par. $644,008,100 $134,966,411 1972^
24 Forrest Gump Par. $640,932,200 $329,694,499 1994
25 Mary Poppins Dis. $637,963,600 $102,272,727 1964^
26 Grease Par. $628,068,700 $188,755,690 1978^
27 Marvel's The Avengers BV $626,428,700 $623,357,910 2012
28 Thunderball UA $610,368,000 $63,595,658 1965
29 The Dark Knight WB $607,555,700 $534,858,444 2008^
30 The Jungle Book Dis. $601,228,100 $141,843,612 1967^
31 Sleeping Beauty Dis. $593,036,600 $51,600,000 1959^
32 Shrek 2 DW $579,775,600 $441,226,247 2004
33 Ghostbusters Col. $577,161,800 $238,632,124 1984^
34 Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid Fox $575,752,100 $102,308,889 1969
35 Love Story Par. $571,184,900 $106,397,186 1970
36 Spider-Man Sony $566,995,500 $403,706,375 2002
37 Independence Day Fox $565,234,000 $306,169,268 1996^
38 Home Alone Fox $552,711,100 $285,761,243 1990
39 Pinocchio Dis. $550,011,200 $84,254,167 1940^
40 Cleopatra (1963) Fox $548,217,000 $57,777,778 1963
41 Beverly Hills Cop Par. $547,944,100 $234,760,478 1984
42 Goldfinger UA $541,008,000 $51,081,062 1964
43 Airport Uni. $539,468,100 $100,489,151 1970
44 American Graffiti Uni. $536,228,600 $115,000,000 1973
45 The Robe Fox $534,109,100 $36,000,000 1953
46 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest BV $527,367,500 $423,315,812 2006
47 Around the World in 80 Days UA $527,261,500 $42,000,000 1956
48 Bambi RKO $519,893,600 $102,247,150 1942^
49 Blazing Saddles WB $515,936,500 $119,500,000 1974
50 Batman WB $513,709,700 $251,188,924 1989

Nothing personal, but I don't think that your view of "Familiarity" holds up in that list, but if you study the list you can see the "Ideas that are both unique and universal". I think that you can also get a sense that the failure of a film like "Robin Hood" and the flops of this summer are symptomatic of a broader problem of group think, and the knee jerk concepts of "Film is a Director's Medium" and "Film is a collaborative medium" combined with market testing and the desire to appeal to the perceived lowest common denominator.

 

[Gord.T]

Happy to announce that I've never seen Star Wars. I've tried before but found it too immature.

 

[David G. Smith]

Happy to announce that I've never seen Star Wars. I've tried before but found it too immature.

I saw the first one when I was 15, fourth in line, first showing, first day and I loved it and the two original sequels. What I did not have any interest in is the deluge of imitator films that followed, and continue to this day. I watched the first "Prequel" and had no interest in it. Funny, but growing up does tend to change your tastes.

 

[Gord.T]

LOL. I knew I was going to get it from someone. -Cheers. Nope. Never seen it. LOL.

 

[Gillvane]

I saw the first one when I was 15, fourth in line, first showing, first day and I loved it and the two original sequels. What I did not have any interest in is the deluge of imitator films that followed, and continue to this day. I watched the first "Prequel" and had no interest in it. Funny, but growing up does tend to change your tastes.

The first Star Wars movie New Hope in 1977 has a very Indiana Jones feeling about it, adventure, mystery, fun. The prequels feel like Pee Wees big adventure, made for kids.

 

[David Jimerson]

Gillvane didn't mention the prequels. That's a whole different subject. The prequels are solely and entirely the product of, and therefore the fault of, George Lucas. They are independent films made and financed outside the studio system, conceived and directed by George Lucas. Any and all blame for them goes directly to George.

But that was not the question of this thread. The question of this thread was -- why do people start with the right intentions, and end up with such horrible schlock? And the journey of "Nottingham" is pretty much exactly why.

I'm not sure you read the same OP, Barry, because Gillvane did mention the prequels, and that wasn't his "question."

As to the Nottingham story, well, I'm willing to cut them a little bit of slack, because missions creep. It happened with all of our DVDs, too -- they're different from the original conceptions. One may say they are better (I would!), but they're definitely different. Sometimes things go the other way and it ends up not so good.

But then you also have many, many audience members who would agree with every bit of change which happens in development, so it it's not even necessarily wrong, even if a lot of people think it's bad. We've had gargantuan arguments on this site about whether or not an adaption of an existing property should be faithful -- Star Trek being an example -- where one side said the changes were terrible, they departed far too much from the source, blah blah blah, while others insisted the changes made it "fresh" an appealed to a "wider audience." Both do so based on their own perceptions of what they, personally, wanted to see. The producers can't satisfy both sides.

Developing a script is kind of the same thing. You have an original property and then change it for whatever reasons.

It's pretty easy to second-guess producers, writers, etc., after the fact, especially when something comes up in a way you don't approve of, but I think it's kind of uncharitable to suggest that there's something "wrong" with the process or that some people are at fault in some way.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

Nothing personal, but I don't think that your view of "Familiarity" holds up in that list, but if you study the list you can see the "Ideas that are both unique and universal". I think that you can also get a sense that the failure of a film like "Robin Hood" and the flops of this summer are symptomatic of a broader problem of group think, and the knee jerk concepts of "Film is a Director's Medium" and "Film is a collaborative medium" combined with market testing and the desire to appeal to the perceived lowest common denominator.

Yeah like I said, I haven't read Nottingham, or seen the film, so I can't really judge Ridley Scott for doing anything to it. I'm sure he did what he always does though, make the film he was interested in making. That's what he does, he's Ridley Scott. IMO he hasn't made a film not worth seeing.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Outside of Hollywood... in the world of venture capital there is sort of a 'rule of thumb' that for every big success, there may be ten failed companies. If that 'principle' applies to the 'movie venturs'... then it would seem that Hollywood does something similar.

There are probably a host of other analogies, such as mining... when does one 'stop'... when the vein momentarily gives out... or after some amount of 'unsuccess'... (and then in mining there are the 'tailings'... which in many cases these days are providing greater financial benefit than the original 'gold' or 'silver' that was mined in the olden days...).

I do think there will be a growth of 'small films' using the equipment that many use here, and the Internet will provide a major method of distribution for said small projects. I'm sure this is a 'duh' statement... but the methods of getting the 'message out' have not solidified well enough to really give a clear path from making a film to 'getting and audience that pays the bills'...

I think Hollywood is going more international, and will continue the 'pablum for the masses' style of production. I'd look to the Netflix style 'distribution' for the type of content that people seem to 'yearn' for here, in some sort of nostalgia for the 70's explosion of 'alternatives' to the then Hollywood slick productions.

As for 'Gone with the Wind"(1939)... in the same year there were a large number of films that are now forgotten... and not even available on syndicated movie channels... The distribution system was different, the Paramount Decision was a few years away, but even after Paramount in 1948, it took about 20 years for 'alternatives' to show up... well there was the Hays Code to consider as well... which finally went down in the early 60's... only to be replaced by PG-13 madness in modern times... but I digress...

But even in the wild and crazy late 60s early 70s... not everyone across the nation were lining up for "The Seventh Seal"(1957)... on the other hand, 'youth' did line up for "Billy Jack"(1971) and "The Trial of Billy Jack"(1974), if you want to talk about films that 'changed the world'... only to be forgotten for the most part...