Is "Papparazzi" the perfect example of movie people making a movie about something *they* care about and (without justification) expecting non-movie people to care too? Or are there other movies that are equal or better examples of this?
Any film by Michael Moore
Here's a good article that's all about how the Papparazzi work.
Very interesting...
HOW PAPPARAZZI WORK (http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/paparazzi.htm)
I tend to agree with the first posting...when I saw the ads for this I couldn't imagine anyone being interested in seeing it--it seemed like the filmmakers had some kind of axe to grind. I wasn't a bit surprised to find out Mel Gibson was involved.
However, it is interesting how in tough economic times how many people have become interested in the antics of the rich and famous [like the Hilton sisters.] Maybe the filmmakers thought the movie would play into that same interest regular people have in experiencing what it's like to be rich and famous.
E! would not exist if people weren't interested in this stuff...sad to say
I heard a review that said this movie was 'good' in the 'bad' way. It 's supposed to have the feel of a bad movie. The good decent new star has his life ripped apart so he takes revenge and frames the main guy that's out to smear him.
"Battlefield: Earth" was a dream project of John Travolta's for many years. Since it took so long to get made that he got too old to play the lead like he originally wanted, he contributed some of his own salary to the film when finances ran short, and it is based on part of a bloated L. Ron Hubbard sci-fi novel that has more of a reputation for its size than for its plot or writing, it could qualify. Travolta and the people making this seemed convinced it was an epic on the scale of the "Star Wars" films, the Tolkein "Rings" novels, or other works of grand scale fiction. They forgot, or didn't realize, for the most part only they "cared" about the book or thought much of it.
Maybe it belong more in a thread about vanity projects. But Travolta, when promoting the film, seemed to treat it so seriously, and even when it flopped kept insisting it would be seen on home video, embraced as a cult classic, and be rediscovered and talked about making a sequel anyway. Either this was the kind of self-absorbed ego stroking that could include the film here, or it was truely dishonest hyping a bad film he knew was bad to get his money back. Since Travolta is a Scientologist, and the film was based on Hubbard's work, I'm inclined to believe the first option.
My thought was that, to people in showbussiness, the Papparazzi are like these really scary monsters. Basic human fears that make for a good story: darkness, heights, and having your picture taken! Kind of like if Steven King got irritable bowel syndrome and decided to do a book about the horrors of IBS that would only even make sense to other people with IBS.
"Battlefield Earth" probably counts as something that would be of more interest to showfolk than normals, because so many of them are Scientologists.
I agree that BATTLEFIELD EARTH was more of a vanity project, a la WATERWORLD. Moviegoers do enjoy films about alien invaders, it's just that the movie was a stinker. The thing about PAPPARAZZI is that even if the movie was well-made it's unlikely most viewers would be interested in it or be able to relate to it. The first thought I had when I saw the trailer at the movies a few months ago was "Who cares?"
Did I miss something? How did this turn into a Battlefield Earth thread?
Sorry I was trying to think of other films about subjects that only the people making them cared about, that was the first potential example I could think of. That would be more of a vanity project based on a book only Scientologists like.
I can think of a few movies that use a subject mostly Hollywood people care about as a premise. Quite often the movie stunk, but at least they tried to make a commercial movie from the premise.