Seth Paxton
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 1998
- Messages
- 7,585
Yeah, discussion is allowed and encouraged in this thread as long as you post a list first. 
I think the mistake is not that there is no difference in small or large films, but that studios CAN'T make small films. Sure they can. They can have a seperate branch that hands out small amounts of money and allows more freedom as well, with the intent of the film being a smaller release.
I never said smaller means not as good, nor does indy or small guarantee quality either. But just ask Kevin Smith how different the process becomes when big money (and with it, studio execs) gets involved.
Smaller films usually try to be something different than larger films. Riskier material, less stars usually (can't afford them), less effects, less money even for film and editing, music rights, scoring, maybe even money to purchase a big name script.
The studios are pursuing these avenues because there are good margins to be made that go with the risk. It's no different than diversifying your portfolio. They put in less money, and they give the production more freedom since they have less on the line. If you drop in $1 million to 5 films and 4 flop but the 5th makes $20 million, you just cashed in. But put $75 million in and you want to make sure you know what you are getting for that money, you can't afford it to take any chance or make any missteps.
Part of what you are arguing is that WE shouldn't MEASURE these films differently. I'm not saying we should. I'm saying we got teams from the AL and the NL and that while we may have good NL teams this season, the AL teams are below par. They all get measured by baseball rules, but one league isn't producing the quality of teams it usually does, while the other one is. So while we can still put together a good top 10, we end up much thinner in a top 30 with no big film support for the year. Normally some of these smaller films would be rounding out the various top 20-30 lists rather than pulling the wagon for the year.
Foreign, indy, and small films are still strong this year. But big films have been almost nothing but missteps or failures. Cast Away, Gladiator, Traffic and Erin B being the primary films of quality with any decent backing. And under normal years the Soderbergh films would be pushed aside to back a studio's bigger, stronger contender. This year they know their big chance lies with him, so Erin gets a rerelease and Traffic gets more ad work.
I think the mistake is not that there is no difference in small or large films, but that studios CAN'T make small films. Sure they can. They can have a seperate branch that hands out small amounts of money and allows more freedom as well, with the intent of the film being a smaller release.
I never said smaller means not as good, nor does indy or small guarantee quality either. But just ask Kevin Smith how different the process becomes when big money (and with it, studio execs) gets involved.
Smaller films usually try to be something different than larger films. Riskier material, less stars usually (can't afford them), less effects, less money even for film and editing, music rights, scoring, maybe even money to purchase a big name script.
The studios are pursuing these avenues because there are good margins to be made that go with the risk. It's no different than diversifying your portfolio. They put in less money, and they give the production more freedom since they have less on the line. If you drop in $1 million to 5 films and 4 flop but the 5th makes $20 million, you just cashed in. But put $75 million in and you want to make sure you know what you are getting for that money, you can't afford it to take any chance or make any missteps.
Part of what you are arguing is that WE shouldn't MEASURE these films differently. I'm not saying we should. I'm saying we got teams from the AL and the NL and that while we may have good NL teams this season, the AL teams are below par. They all get measured by baseball rules, but one league isn't producing the quality of teams it usually does, while the other one is. So while we can still put together a good top 10, we end up much thinner in a top 30 with no big film support for the year. Normally some of these smaller films would be rounding out the various top 20-30 lists rather than pulling the wagon for the year.
Foreign, indy, and small films are still strong this year. But big films have been almost nothing but missteps or failures. Cast Away, Gladiator, Traffic and Erin B being the primary films of quality with any decent backing. And under normal years the Soderbergh films would be pushed aside to back a studio's bigger, stronger contender. This year they know their big chance lies with him, so Erin gets a rerelease and Traffic gets more ad work.
