Badmovies.org Forum

If you had the opportunity to make only ONE motion picture would you:

(A) Rather have it be a huge overnight success, but dated and forgettable?  But you'd make more money than you ever thought possible.

(B) Rather it develop a cult following that slowly grows over decades?  That also implies that it would not recoup the financial investment during the creator's lifetime.

I'd choose the cult following.  I'd much rather have a small audience watching the movie over and over than having a large portion of the population watch it and quickly forget about it.

Scott
MOTAZart.com (http://www.MOTAZart.com)

I'd take the money and eventual obscurity.  In addition to the obvious instant finacial benefits, there is the added benefit of not having film buffs hounding you with their script ideas down the road.

The first option is far more likely to get you a chance at making a second movie

I would want to make a movie that said what I wanted said in a way I wanted it said.  Given that criterion, I guess I'd take the cult following, cuz then I could at least fool myself into believe the 'cult' understood, and possibly liked, my message.

FearlessFreep wrote:> The first option is far more likely to get you a chance at making a second movie

For the sake of the argument let's just say you can't.  Maybe you screwed around with a 13-year-old boy/girl.  Or got blacklisted as an Iraqi sympathizer.  Something that prevented you from ever making another movie again.

Scott
MOTAZart.com (http://www.MOTAZart.com)

Something that prevented you from ever making another movie again.

Then in option A you at least have the cash and in option B it will probably never turn into a sleeper cult classic anyway :)

"For the sake of the argument let's just say you can't. Maybe you screwed around with a 13-year-old boy/girl. Or got blacklisted as an Iraqi sympathizer. Something that prevented you from ever making another movie again."

You haven't been watching Hollywood very closely, have you?  These two things wouldn't hurt a film career at all.  Freep, for the sake of argument, let's say you used a speaking extra without a Screen Actors Guild card in of your film - THAT would prevent you from ever making another movie again.

without a Screen Actors Guild card in of your film - THAT would prevent you from ever making another movie again.

Hasn't stopped George Lucas from using non-union Directors.

Does it stop directors from making movies in foreign countries?

Tough choice. I'd like to think I'd make a cult classic.

Fortunateyly it looks as though filmmaking will be affordable for all.

Hmm...I lost a post here somewhere

Anyway, my point was that it probably depends on whether you want to actually have a career as a movie maker or be seen as an artist with something to say.  Option A can give you a career much easier than Option B.


Option A is far more likely to get you the chance at Option B then the other way around

I didn't know directors had a union.  If they do, maybe it isn't as fascist as SAG.

I didn't know directors had a union. If they do, maybe it isn't as fascist as SAG.

Yes, they do.  One of the rules for using union directors apparently is  that their names get to be in the opening credits.  If you'll recall, none of the Star Wars movies have opening credits, and for this, Lucas has to use non-union directors

Hmmm, I think the question here is really just about values, and the hypothetical situation is complicating it. Which is better, getting rich or making your mark?

I'd like to think I'd go for the lasting recognition of a cult film.

Although, working for a newspaper, I've spent the last 15 years in a business that allows creativity, and a chance to be well known and to do good. But it doesn't pay bugger all, and the effort is really only appreciated by a small but loyal segment of the population who go out of their way to read everything I write. It changes your perspective after a while. The quick riches of a forgettable blockbuster are awfully tempting, when your evenings are spent at other people's cheque presentations, and you can't afford the best of anything.



Post Edited (01-12-04 11:34)

AndyC wrote:

> Hmmm, I think the question here is really just about values,
> and the hypothetical situation is complicating it. Which is
> better, getting rich or making your mark?
>

OT from movies, perhaps, but getting rich and making your mark are  not necessarily mutually exclusive.  Bill Gates has done both, as well as some other notable contemporaries. (You can dislike BG if you like, but you cannot argue that he hasn't affected society at large and us as individuals - so he made a mark).

Sometimes, I guess they CAN be mutually exclusive, but they are not automatically so.

i think i would have to go with choice B. simply because i would rather create a film that would be remembered and appreciated for it's quality (or something to that effect).

ulthar wrote:
> getting rich and making your mark
> are  not necessarily mutually exclusive.

True, but which is more important to you?

Consider your hypothetical film career to be over. You're ready to retire.

In one scenario, you're rich from an old blockbuster, written by committee, that made a lot of money in its day, but contributed nothing else to the art or the industry of filmmaking. These days, it's considered dated, and not even good as a cheesy movie. You were never able to repeat your brief success, but you made your fortune.

In the other scenario, you personally wrote and directed the movie you'd always wanted to make. It was hard work all the way, the budget was extremely tight, it never got much of a release, and most of the public didn't appreciate it. You never did make it big as a filmmaker. Yet, your movie is still getting screenings for a few die-hard fans who watch it again and again, and consider you a genius. Film students are studying it. You made a little money, but not much.

Which would you rather be?



Post Edited (01-12-04 11:55)

AndyC wrote:

> True, but which is more important to you?
>


Well, making a mark is more imprortant to me  :)   I often think I care too little about money.....

Define 'make your mark'

Blockbuster films are rarely 'forgettable'.  They may not be that great, but they are usually remembered by far more people, even if for no other reason than nostalgia, and if nothing else, they spawn a slew of imitators.

Films with cult followings on the other hand rarely have imitators and are rarely remembered by anyone oustide the cult following, which by definition is pretty small.

Which one really makes a bigger mark?

Again, I think Kingdinosaur has asked a fairly straightforward question about values. What is gained by complicating it? The reality of filmmaking might not be as black and white as the question implies, but that's not the point.

Again, I think Kingdinosaur has asked a fairly straightforward question about values. What is gained by complicating it?

Because it's not a simply question about values, it's a simple question about what results you would want.

It can't be a simple question about values.  Values questions are never simple.  A lot of people have taken Option A and get no respect as real artists, but they have tremendous impact on what others do and they feed their family.  A lot of artists take Option B but in the end no one knows about them but their small group of followers and they end up loosing their spouses and alienating or disowning or never knowing their children because their 'art' is not succesful enough to actually take care of themselves or their families.  This happens a *lot* in the music field.

It doesn't always happen like that, but the values as an artist often conflict with the values as a person.  Which values, in the end, are more important to hold on to?  Not always an easy question.

But the question as it is sets up lots of interesting possbilities.  For one thing, I don't think a movie that is a huge overnight sucess and makes more money that you ever thought possible will ever really be forgotten.  Movies like that don't simply disappear.  They become famous, or infamous, or imitated, or reviled or landmarks in history or laughing stocks...or whatever.  Stuff with a cult following often doesn't maintain that following and just dies out.  Stuff that was 'big' once often disappears but then becomes big again when future generations start looking back to history to look at what was 'big' from previous eras.

I agree with most of what you're saying. It just doesn't answer the question, which offers two specific choices, realistic or not. Perhaps it would be better to ask what would motivate you more if you were a filmmaker, artistic integrity or financial gain? Broad popularity or the purity of your vision? Which way do you lean? How much of one would you sacrifice for the other?

I just find it interesting that some of us would rather find ways of having both or neither, than to choose. Reminds me of the time I asked a pacifist friend if he would kill in self-defense, assuming an opponent who was determined to kill him, no means of escape, and no means of simply incapacitating the other guy. I still remember the lengths to which my friend went to try and modify the circumstances, and argue that the situation was unrealistic and unfair. In a purely hypothetical situation, he refused to choose between killing to survive or dying for his beliefs. Seems his convictions weren't quite as strong as he liked to believe.

This question is not so different. It's a multiple choice, between ideals and personal gain. Would you be in it for the art or the money? Maybe it's a bit of both, but the proportions are not likely to be equal.



Post Edited (01-12-04 13:31)

In a purely hypothetical situation, he refused to choose between killing to survive or dying for his beliefs.

Of course, because it's a stupid question.   Personal beliefes are not so simple, and therefore simplistic questions dealing with personal beliefs are not easy to answer because the answer really makes no sense. The very situation of 'no means to escape and no means to incapitate the attacker' is very far fetched to begin with and would be difficult to determine at the point of decision.  It would be hard to say 'ok, I have no escape and no way of stopping my attacker short of killing him' Most people of even moderate beliefs would think that there would still be a chance to escape or a chance to render the attacker powerless short of killing and many people would probably try to do so and if they were wrong, would probably die as a result.  Not due to strength of conviction but simply due to being wrong.  Some people might also kill the attacker accidentally, trying to incapacitate them.  Oops.  Does that mean the convictions were weak?  No, just made a mistake.

Executing moral convictions is difficult becase the world is not so tidy as to give us easy choices where we know ahead of time the ramifications of our choices.  You can'y have a hypthetical simple question to such a serious personal conviction because what someone would *really* face with their convictions is not going to be so simple.  

Would you be in it for the art or the money?

And that's the problem with looking at the original question as a choice of values, because the person making the choice ahead of time doesn't know the results.  How many filmmakers really think "This is going to be a big hit but then disappear so I'll get lots of money but in a year no one will care" or "I love this film, it will never be a success but I know a small group of people will watch it over and over again and really love it"  You *don't* know that's what's going to happen so you *can't* make a value choice of which you would want to do and all you can really do is ask"given you make the movie you want to make, which *result* would you prefer?"  Do you think the makers of "Pearl Harbor" or "Godzilla 98" knew and wanted ahead of time that their movies would make a big splash and then be forgotten at best and ridiculed at worst?  Nobody knows that going in.

FearlessFreep wrote:> And that's the problem with looking at the original question as a choice of values, because the person making the choice ahead of time doesn't know the results.

It's not a matter of knowing the outcome, but what outcome would the individual prefer based on the two choices (limited as they are).

The two movies I was thinking about at the time when I wrote it were (A) THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, and (B) PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE.

I don't think time will be kind to TBWP.  The snowball popularity sprang from rumors that it was an authentic event.  Once the actors (if you can call them that) appeared in other movies that illusion was permanently destroyed.  I believe the director had been given a couple of shots at other films (with large budgets) and the box office results were dismal.  Looking deeply into TBWP you see much more of a gimmick than you do of actual talent.

And I'm aware that P9FOS isn't exactly the kind of movie most people would want to be known for, but it fits the scenario of (B) perfectly.  There are other movies that bombed at the box office yet went on to become well-known like the Marx Bros. DUCK SOUP, Walt Disney's FANTASIA, and Frank Capra's IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE.

A movie that is awakening from a 40 year slumber is Arch Hall, Jr.'s THE SADIST.  With it popping up on DVD from various companies due to assumed public domain status.  The film was a huge departure from the normal Hollywood "happy ending" and from Arch Hall, Jr.'s previous roles.  It had more reality mixed in than one would expect.

I admit the choices are skewed, but I thought people seeing the post had a better grasp on cult movies than your Average Joe.  They understand the desire to rewatch a movie, multiple times, that never appealed to a large portion of the population.

Listening to commentaries by actors and directors, about an old movie they worked on, you sometimes have an interviewer ask if the person involved realized they were making something special.  The vast majority respond that it was just another job to them.  Especially monster movies from the 1950s.  Julie Adams resented working on CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON at the time and only recently has come to embrace the movie.  She finally resigned herself to the fact that it will be the one movie she will be remembered for (even though she would have wanted it to have been a movie of higher artistic stature).

What can I say Freep, for me, it's not about what we would do in a real-world situation, it's about indicating a preference between two opposites, which might not mean much in practical terms, but can tell a little bit about how we like to see ourselves. It's an intellectual exercise, nothing more.

It would really mean a lot for me to think I could make something that might outlive me, even if I didn't benefit personally. However, I can't deny that a big payoff is hard to refuse, even if it meant making a movie I wouldn't personally pay money to see. If anything, thinking along these lines makes me appreciate some of the filmmakers who have become targets on this board because their latest movies, while popular and profitable, might not measure up to their earlier efforts in terms of quality fimmaking. I complain as much as anyone about a movie that seems designed solely to make money, but how would it be if I were the one getting paid?

I suppose refusing to answer, while putting a lot of effort into attacking the question, can also tell something about a person.

I suppose refusing to answer, while putting a lot of effort into attacking the question, can also tell something about a person.

Ahh, but you see you're missing the point.  I have answered the question.  If you read through all I've written, my choice is very clear about which you should at least try to do.  Nor have I attacked the original question.  I've just expanded upon the implications of the two choices as a way of pointing out why my choice would be what it is.

To be fair, you've changed the conditions to either allow yourself to have both, or to make one outcome more likely than the other, but I don't think you've really indicated your preference, all things being equal (which I know they really aren't).

To be fair, you've changed the conditions to either allow yourself to have both, or to make one outcome more likely than the other,

I haven't changed the original conditions,I've just explored the likelyhood and implications of either decision

but I don't think you've really indicated your preference

Sure I have.  Eveything I've said has been pretty much in favor of Option A  I haven't out-right said "Option A is what I would choose" but I've been putting forth that it's not a simple value decision as "money versus  art".  I certainly don't think  either option is simplistic, or for that matter realistic and I was attempting to honor the question by giving it serious thought.

One important point in KINGDINOSUAR's follow up commentary explains why.  When you look at the two movies he mentions, for awhile at least people though Blair Witch was great.  Plan 9 always sucked.  It sucked then , it sucks now.  It has a cult following, but only because it sucks and even the cult now it sucks.  People may think Blair Witch sucks, but for a while, people thought it was great.  Which would you rather have as your legacy?  Notice in the original question, he never asked about whether the movie was any good or not, just how it would be received

Honestly, movies in *either* category are rarely ever really any good.  If I made a movie, I'd prefer that for at least awhile, people thought it was great, so I could take care of my family

FearlessFreep wrote:> When you look at the two movies he mentions, for awhile at least people though Blair Witch was great.  Plan 9 always sucked.

An attitude I've noticed from people involved in low budget movies is they're more interested in entertaining the audience than creating epics.  There is a big difference between being "bad" and being "boring".  The goal of Ed Wood was to make movies and have people watch his movies.

I know there are people who love THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT.  But for the movie to work it's necessary to make it look amateurish with no cohesive script and no editing.  And that winds up being the film's undoing once the illusion of reality is removed.  It's success is more of a testament to marketing than to quality filmmaking.

I've watched thousands of movies and some I forget completely within a couple of weeks.  I've even watched and/or rented a movie twice because I didn't remember seeing it before (until a scene or two began to look familiar).  But two types of movies stay with me forever.  Those that are well crafted classics and those that are totally off-the-wall.  It's hard to find someone who had seen ROBOT MONSTER sometime during their life, but completely forgot about the space helmet on the gorilla body.  That image stays with you!  I know I've seen ISHTAR, but aside from Dustin Hoffman and Warren Beatty being in the desert I don't remember a thing about it.