Another Voice
Charter Member of The Element
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2000
- Messages
- 3,191
Jeffrey Katzenberg put together both the Pixar and Miramax deals. If executive credit goes to anyone, it goes to him. Pixar happened because Jeffrey thought their software could help Disney make its animated movies faster (giving them money for 'Toy Story' was just a tiny portion of the deal as far as Disney was concerned). Miramax happened because Jeffery really, really, really, really wanted to win a Best Picture Oscar. It sounds silly, but it's true. Its a real Hollywood disease that drives people to do a lot of strange things (look at all those "serious" films Jim Carey did
).
The only real measure of quality is time. Movies have "quality" because they affect people's emotions in meaningful ways. Since people are people, good films can do that across cultures and across time. If Shakespeare's plays can still affect people after five hundred years and four revolutions in society, certainly a quality movie should be able to do that after a mere fifty years in the same country.
There is no way to guarantee box office success. Since a lot of money is involved, most people want to find any easy shortcut that helps to tilt the odds slightly in their favor. That's why we're getting nothing but sequels, remakes, star-studded vanity pieces and the brainless three (sex, violence, and a chart topping soundtrack). Even then, more often than not, those movies fail. Worse, they are quickly forgotten.
The other way of trying to work the odds is to try for quality. It's a hell of a lot more difficult, you'll probably never know if you've really achieved it, and it will fail more often than not as well. But I also find that a "quality film" (one made because it's a story the makers want to tell well) has a better chance of success than a film simply made because someone thinks they can make a lot of money in the market place.
Look at the box office success of 'The Rookie' and 'Signs' compared to the performance of 'Bad Company' and 'Reign of Fire'. The first pair violated every rule of creating a money-making Hollywood picture; the second pair followed every instruction in the Hollywood hit making manual. The difference was the care and effort put into the pictures: the first two strived for quality, the second pair just wanted to be popular.
The hardest thing I had to learn working in the movies is to recognize the difference between what I liked and what is good. My personal tastes are not shared by the majority of the public nor does anyone have that "magic sense" either. "Good" is that which seems to please the largest amount of people over the longest period of time.
There are a lot of movies that I dislike but I know they are well made ('Chicago' I don't like musicals), a lot more movies that I like but I know are bad ('Spider-man'), bad movies I hate ('The Sum of All Fears'), popular good movies I actually like ('The Lord of the Rings') and good movies that no one else is going to like ('Frailty': be warned, most of you are going to hate this movie if you see it).
When someone runs a movie studio, they must have the ability to see quality in those projects they don't like, and they must insist that their popular movies must be good as well. Too often from Disney I get the sense that they expect most people to simply "like the bad movies" which are the easiest to make. And too often the decisions that are being made are based on personal taste instead of a judgment of quality. Sure, they might occasionally happen upon a hit but they'd do much better if they put in the extra effort to try for quality.
The only real measure of quality is time. Movies have "quality" because they affect people's emotions in meaningful ways. Since people are people, good films can do that across cultures and across time. If Shakespeare's plays can still affect people after five hundred years and four revolutions in society, certainly a quality movie should be able to do that after a mere fifty years in the same country.
There is no way to guarantee box office success. Since a lot of money is involved, most people want to find any easy shortcut that helps to tilt the odds slightly in their favor. That's why we're getting nothing but sequels, remakes, star-studded vanity pieces and the brainless three (sex, violence, and a chart topping soundtrack). Even then, more often than not, those movies fail. Worse, they are quickly forgotten.
The other way of trying to work the odds is to try for quality. It's a hell of a lot more difficult, you'll probably never know if you've really achieved it, and it will fail more often than not as well. But I also find that a "quality film" (one made because it's a story the makers want to tell well) has a better chance of success than a film simply made because someone thinks they can make a lot of money in the market place.
Look at the box office success of 'The Rookie' and 'Signs' compared to the performance of 'Bad Company' and 'Reign of Fire'. The first pair violated every rule of creating a money-making Hollywood picture; the second pair followed every instruction in the Hollywood hit making manual. The difference was the care and effort put into the pictures: the first two strived for quality, the second pair just wanted to be popular.
The hardest thing I had to learn working in the movies is to recognize the difference between what I liked and what is good. My personal tastes are not shared by the majority of the public nor does anyone have that "magic sense" either. "Good" is that which seems to please the largest amount of people over the longest period of time.
There are a lot of movies that I dislike but I know they are well made ('Chicago' I don't like musicals), a lot more movies that I like but I know are bad ('Spider-man'), bad movies I hate ('The Sum of All Fears'), popular good movies I actually like ('The Lord of the Rings') and good movies that no one else is going to like ('Frailty': be warned, most of you are going to hate this movie if you see it).
When someone runs a movie studio, they must have the ability to see quality in those projects they don't like, and they must insist that their popular movies must be good as well. Too often from Disney I get the sense that they expect most people to simply "like the bad movies" which are the easiest to make. And too often the decisions that are being made are based on personal taste instead of a judgment of quality. Sure, they might occasionally happen upon a hit but they'd do much better if they put in the extra effort to try for quality.
