Movie Choice of Fate

[KINGDINOSAUR]

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

[Eirik]

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.

[FearlessFreep]

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

[ulthar]

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.

[KINGDINOSAUR]

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

[FearlessFreep]

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 :)

[Eirik]

"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.

[FearlessFreep]

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?

[Scott]

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

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

[FearlessFreep]

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

[Eirik]

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

[FearlessFreep]

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

[AndyC]

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)

[ulthar]

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.

[Chopper]

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).