New Trend?

[Umbran]

Since approximately 90% of SAG actors are unemployed (due largely to the "Reality Television" trend)

As if "reality television" takes up so many hours that those 90% would be employed without it? Sorry, but that statistic is meaningless unless you know how many SAG actors were not employed in their craft before Reality TV cropped up. My imporession was that the guild is usually mostly out of work - there are simply far more people who wnat to act than there are roles.

They wouldn't be effectively tying up actors for a single film, but rather for a series of films for which they would be receiving payment.

For those that are getting a flat payment, that works, yes. For those who work off percentage, however, there's still a big risk, in terms of lost opportunity. While working on the long flop, the actor could have made a number of conventional films, one of which could well have been a big success.

It's important to note that risk is inherent in all filmmaking but the financial risk per film is lower (as with LotR) than it would be to make each movie in a series individually.

Yes, but if they flop, they probably do so as a group - if the first dies, it takes it's siblings down with it.

I'd be interested to know what you consider a "similar production." It seems to me that the approach to making LotR was sufficiently different from the making of most other movie series that the similarities would be few. Back to the Future (whole series) and The Matrix (parts two and three, at least) both seem to have been made succesfully and somewhat in a similar way but I am not sure I can name any other film series that one could call similar.

Well, for one thing, "Back to the Future" was not done as a whole series - It was more akin to The Matrix. The first movie came out in 1985. The latter two were filmed back to back, and released in 1989 and 1990.

"Back to the Future" and "The Matrix" are the most similar examples at hand. They aren't exact in details, but we can perhaps equate the fact that these two had one majorly successful movie out as akin to LotR haveing successful books in print.

These are, I expect, reasonably similar for at least some discussion. You say they were successful. But as I recall, Back to the Future parts 2 and 3 got only mediocre reception at the box office, and the approval ratings seen on IMDB and Rottentomatoes.com seem to back this up. The Matrix sequels met with somewhat more success financially, but I haven't seen too many folks who actually think the second two are up to the promise of the first as films.

Its success is precisely the reason that it should be used as an example for almost everything that has to do with filmmaking.

Eh, I hope not. If that's the case, all we'll ever see is remakes of established properties. They'd be done in epic style, with major special effects and large ensemble casts ensuring that most characters would get minimal character development. Everything would be filmed in New Zealand, with great sweeping camera shots...

You get the idea. the LotR style worked for LotR, but it would not work for Casablanca. Rather than take something that works in a particular case as an example for everything, why not take it as an example for only sinmilar work, and allow us a little variety in our viewing, hm?

Plus, part of the success of LotR rides not in whether it was better, but merely that it was different. But if everything follows the example, it wouldn't be different,so that it wouldn't be too successful. Imitation makes good flattery, but innovation makes for better success.

Was LotR a fluke? Perhaps from the perspective that most previous films (singular or series) are not critcally outstanding or nearly as financially successful.

Yep. The same can be said for Beanie Babies and Cabbage Patch Dolls, and Magic: the Gathering. Note how imitation of same doesn't generally lead to financial success?

To summarize -

1.) Secure an excellent property.

2.) Develop the script properly.

Wow, dude. Be careful how you swing around those subjectives, like "excellent" and "properly". You'll take someone's eye out with one of them

The fact of the matter is that Hollywood (and the entertainment industry in general) has very little ability to predict what the populace thinks is "excellent" or "proper". And I think that the success of reality TV and the failure of Firefly has shown us that excellence is not directly linked to overall success.

In the original sense, there is no accounting for taste. There is no formula, no predictability. The public will like what it will like, and you won't know the opinion until you actually show it...

3.) Make sure that the contracts associated with the film compensate for involvement but only truly reward actual success. (On all levels but most prominently, tie in the best available talent without frontloading the film's budget.)

Yeah, right. Like that's going to happen

 

[Hypersmurf]

Eh, I hope not. If that's the case, everything would be filmed in New Zealand...

New Zealand Stunt Guild says "Sweet - bring 'em on!"

-Hyp.

 

[Hand of Evil]

The multi-movie is nothing new (longest running to-date BOND) but as I said two years ago the filming of them together is and has to be looked at; 1) it keeps cost down and 2) keeps the interigity of appearance, a movie maker takes a big chance that an actor will not be available for a second or third film. The other big thing to make an epic movie is that we now have the tech to do so.

I figure the awards will create a special category in a few years if they continue to do well.

Also, in the Sky Captain thread I talked about the sells of DVDs are now becoming the driving factor for what comes out on screen. But here is the new story link
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/20/eveningnews/main579020.shtml

 

[Mark]

Wow, dude. Be careful how you swing around those subjectives, like "excellent" and "properly". You'll take someone's eye out with one of them

Let's not kid ourselves, aside from the bottom line numbers, we're both posting subjectively. How you manage to believe that your opinions are fact and mine easily dismissed is beyond comprehension.

Here are some numbers of box office only, which should be noted don't include DVD sales, television contracts, and other franchise considerations such as toys and games, as well as related sales of the earlier movies in a franchise due to the subsequent films driving them.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/vs-backtothefuture.htm

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/vs-matrix.htm

Can you point to a break down of the "approval ratings" that divulges how large a sampling they represent?

 

[Kai Lord]

If I remember correctly it was actually Back to The Future 2 and 3 that first in this regard back in the early nineties. They made both sequels in one go.

Actually a full decade earlier Richard Donner shot most of Superman II while filming the original Superman. Some of it was scrapped and replaced by shots orchestrated by replacement director Richard Lester, but a fair portion of Donner's directing is still in the sequel (all of Gene Hackman's scenes, for example.)

 

[Umbran]

Let's not kid ourselves, aside from the bottom line numbers, we're both posting subjectively. How you manage to believe that your opinions are fact and mine easily dismissed is beyond comprehension.

I don't claim to have objective truth, Mark. However, I will note that Hollywood and television still make a great many things that bomb miserably. If there were some sort of real definition of what makes an "excellent property" and "proper development" of the script, there would be none such, as Holllywood would be able to avoid them.

Here are some numbers of box office only...

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/vs-backtothefuture.htm

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/vs-matrix.htm

Well, if I'm reading these right, there's something very interesting here...
The box office take on the sequels seems to take a very different pattern than the originals do. The sequels peak high and fast, but don't carry well in the long haul, whereas the originals don't peak so fast, but they linger longer with large takes.

And, let's see, The Matrix did well. Matrix 2 did better, money-wise. But the third did worse than the first. And for Back to the Future - the original did well, with a better all-time rank than the Matrix, even. But neither sequel compares well at all to the original.

Out of four sequel movies, only one surpassed it's original at the box-office. So far, not a ringing endorsement of this style of moviemaking.

Can you point to a break down of the "approval ratings" that divulges how large a sampling they represent?

Well, the IMDb specifically says it doesn't disclose it's exact rating methods. How large the sample is doesn't mean too much when you don't know what they're doing to generate their numbers. So I suppose they can be taken with a grain of salt.

Rottentomatoes.com is a compilation of the reviews of approved critics who meet certain standards. As such, the sampling size is perhaps not so relevant. However, it looks like they sample the opinion of over 2900 critics, which isn't shabby.

 

[Mark]

I don't claim to have objective truth, Mark. However, I will note that Hollywood and television still make a great many things that bomb miserably. If there were some sort of real definition of what makes an "excellent property" and "proper development" of the script, there would be none such, as Holllywood would be able to avoid them.

The problem is that you are suggesting there is only one definition. I have to use broad terms to encompass any number of possible paths, and am pointing to successes as the ones to follow as opposed to the failures.

Well, if I'm reading these right, there's something very interesting here...
The box office take on the sequels seems to take a very different pattern than the originals do. The sequels peak high and fast, but don't carry well in the long haul, whereas the originals don't peak so fast, but they linger longer with large takes.

And, let's see, The Matrix did well. Matrix 2 did better, money-wise. But the third did worse than the first. And for Back to the Future - the original did well, with a better all-time rank than the Matrix, even. But neither sequel compares well at all to the original.

Out of four sequel movies, only one surpassed it's original at the box-office. So far, not a ringing endorsement of this style of moviemaking.

I suppose the comparisons need to be made to those that don't use the model in a head-to-head comparison. I think it is safe to say that enough money was made to make them successful (in varying degrees) if not only at the box office. Perhaps also safe to say that if they had been made under a different model they would have cost more and been less successful, if not outright failures.

Well, the IMDb specifically says it doesn't disclose it's exact rating methods. How large the sample is doesn't mean too much when you don't know what they're doing to generate their numbers. So I suppose they can be taken with a grain of salt.

How large a sample speaks directly to how valid the approval ratings can possibly be. In the extreme, if the sample is of only one it is far less indicitive of an overall opinion than if the sample is of every single person who saw the films. Given the nature of the internet, and the penchant for the generally dissatisfied to take the time to chime in more regularly than the satisfied, I'd personally require a larger sampling from that method than perhaps from an "exit poll" where you catch people in the moment.

Rottentomatoes.com is a compilation of the reviews of approved critics who meet certain standards. As such, the sampling size is perhaps not so relevant. However, it looks like they sample the opinion of over 2900 critics, which isn't shabby.

As above, the nature of the internet tends to promote certain views over others. Honestly, do you think they chose the name of their URL with an objective viewpoint in mind?