Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 24, 2017, 02:23:31 PM
578295 Posts in 44509 Topics by 5851 Members
Latest Member: CharlesLof Forum  |  Movies  |  Bad Movies  |  Let's Talk About Production Companies « previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Let's Talk About Production Companies  (Read 182 times)
A.J. Bauer
A German Expressionist and a
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema

Karma: 225
Posts: 2812

« on: March 30, 2017, 08:24:15 AM »

So the trailer for the new Stephen King's IT came out to moderate praise.
Others say it's standard horror schlock. What I find interesting is that supposedly the film
was supposed to be directed by a man named "Fukanaga" who wrote a script that was
very deep, dark, and cerebral. However the production company fired him because they
wanted a more standard, by the numbers, jumpscare horror film.

I don't know if this is true but it does get me thinking about the nature of production companies.
How many movies have been screwed over by production companies that were too scared to try something new?

Supposedly the Smurfs film was supposed to be "like Princess Bride meets Lord of the Rings", an epic, fantasy, comedy, adventure.
What we got were CGI abominations sharing a house with Neil Patrick Harris in an attempt to emulate the also unambitious and dogs**t
family animated picture: Alvin and the Chipmunks.

I didn't realize how f**ked up production companies could be until I watched Tim Burton's "Ed Wood".
In that film Plan 9 From Outer Space was being produced by a Christian movie company that threatened to pull funding if Wood didn't alter his script
and would later on shame him for crossdressing. Maybe that's a bad example since Plan 9 was always going to suck regardless but it did bring my attention to this.
Knowing that a production company can simply pull funding makes me wonder who's really directing the movie here.
It almost comes across as bullying to me.

What's funny is that these companies almost always shoot themselves in the foot when they don't back a good director.
They didn't go with Fukanaga's IT because they thought it wouldn't sell as well as they wanted since they've seen what's been successful in the past.
I think this kind of cowardice is the reason so many s**t movies get made. Almost all of the best movies were the ones that studios didn't interfere with.
I find it pretty disgusting that they always default to what was popular in the past since they don't know it's getting stale.

What's ironic is that if they were more brave let Fukanaga direct the film he could have made a truly amazing film that may have sold even better.
These people fail to realize the power of word of mouth.
After Earth cost Fox millions of dollars simply because there were people warning others not to watch a film so bad.
They also knew Shyamalan's name would be toxic so they omitted him from the advertising. (Which begs the question on why they'd fund the film to begin with.)

I would imagine production companies are in the right sometimes though. After seeing what happens when you don't put George Lucas on a leash it tells me
that some movies only succeeded because the studios could smell disaster a mile away. So it makes me wonder exactly what a production company's job is.
Should they just fund a movie or should they also have some creative say?

Hermit of Horror
Bad Movie Lover

Karma: 97
Posts: 589

Does ANYBODY remember this guy?

« Reply #1 on: March 30, 2017, 06:58:25 PM »

Back in the 60s and 70s, it was a tax write-off to invest money in the arts. Plus, if you were on the right side of the deal, you could pull in a profit. Double-win. Then you re-invest your profit and keep the ball rolling. They didn't give a flip what was going on as long as the money came in from both directions.

Well, government got to looking at that and said, "Well, we can't have this." They take away the generous tax write-off. If you want conspiracy, then there is the idea that the major corporations behind the major studios bought the changes in tax law to drive the independent market into the ground so the majors could step in to pick up indie films for lower percentages.

So, if they invest in stuff now, they have a much more serious stake with their money on the line. Yeah, you might hit gold with the new John Carpenter, but it is financially sound to stick to what is currently popular.

It is understandable.

Doesn't mean I don't think they are a bunch of tw*ts.
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema

Karma: 211
Posts: 3934

« Reply #2 on: April 05, 2017, 01:44:34 PM »

We'll probably never know whether the "rejected" version would have sold better than the "accepted" version, but the trailer for the "accepted" version is getting a lot of hits on, which is normally a sign of interest in the "accepted" version.

As for tax breaks, there may be no federal tax benefits for shooting a film, but there are states, including the state in which I live, and localities that still offer tax breaks for shooting a film in that state or locality. Of course, such is controversial, as there is some question as to the benefits of shooting a film in a particular state or locality = or exceeds the loss of taxes. Even if the benefits exceed the tax loss, as in my state, where it is found that for every tax $ loss, 3 $ are spent in making the film, which otherwise may be shot elsewhere. Still there are some state legislators that want to do away with the tax break, because they only see the loss of tax revenue. Of course, sometimes the state legislators are not the sharpest tools in the shed.

And there are other factors involved in shooting a film in a state or locality, other than tax breaks. For example, when the Georgia legislature passed a law, that some saw as being anti-gay, there were other opponents, the charge of the opposition was led by Pinewood/Marvel Studios/House of Mouse, who were heavily invested in the state, who went to the Georgia governor, who by the way was a Republican, and basically told him, that they had a lot of employees who were gay, and if the Governor signed the bill, they take all they had invested in the state and go somewhere else, and the Governor seeing that it was better to offend the supporters of the bill rather than the opponents, vetoed the bill, and that was that.
Pages: [1] Forum  |  Movies  |  Bad Movies  |  Let's Talk About Production Companies « previous next »
    Jump to:  

    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email

    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.