[B5JMS] Specualtion and Worries on New B5 project

[b5jms at cs.columbia.edu]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: PsicopJeffG at hotmail.com (Jeffrey Gustafson)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 02:10:54 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 49

"Joseph DeMartino" <jdemarti at bellsouth.net> 

> > A studio makes a movie that they end up hating, that test audiences
> hate... <
> 
> And the fact that the test audience hates it indicates that *real* audiences
> will hate it, the word-of-mouth will suck and it will be cheaper for the
> studio to shelve the movie, sell it to cable or release it direct-to-video
> than to distribute it and advertise it in theaters.  So we're back to its
> being a business decision, in this case how to minimize losses.  And it is
> pretty much the same with all the other examples you gave - pilots are focus
> grouped and test-audienced to death, the majority of them never going on the
> air.  The exceptions that *do* go on the air are either filling dead time or
> they will live or die based on their ratings.
> 
> Most decisions about which scripts to make (for TV and movies) have less to
> do with their inherent aesthetic quality than with their perceived appeal to
> a desired audience.   Most decisions about which *books* to publish have
> less to do with quality than what is currently hot in the market.
> 
> In fact, you can almost always assume that a decision to *kill* a project is
> mostly a matter of business.  It is the rare decision to go ahead with
> something that doesn't fit the established template for success or to keep a
> series going beyond the normal cancellation point that indicates a stubborn
> (and brave) studio or network decision maker trusting his or her gut.  When
> they're right (and the project is called "Star Wars" or the series "Cheers"
> or "M*A*S*H") they can be very right.  When they're wrong - well, they're
> usually gone. <g>
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Joe
> 
> Is any of this news to you?

Of course not.  The point to my post in context, which you reaffirm
above, was that business decisions in the entertainment industry are
always made on percieved notions of quality.

Sometimes they are right, and a project is mercifully stuffed. 
Sometimes they are wrong, and a worthy project is not given its due. 
My point stands.

    -The Jeff

Sheridan:"So how did you find out all of this?"
Bester:"I'm a telepath.  Work it out." <*>



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:32:32 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 37

>Of course not.  The point to my post in context, which you reaffirm
>above, was that business decisions in the entertainment industry are
>always made on percieved notions of quality.
>
>Sometimes they are right, and a project is mercifully stuffed. 
>Sometimes they are wrong, and a worthy project is not given its due. 
>My point stands.

Your point could not possibly be more incorrect.

Movies are green-lit because the studios think they can make money from it. 
Period.  If it's a quality movie, great, but that's secondary to: will we get a
profit out of it?  Frankly, it's *harder* to ge a quality movie made these days
than ever.  It took "Secondhand Lions" ten years to get made, as just one
recent example.

But commercial movies that can get cranked out and pull in the money,
regardless of the actual quality of the product, are simplest of all to put
forth.  Freddy vs. Jason, Alien vs. Predator, the last couple of Batman
movies...80% of what gets pumped out to movie theaters is awful.  What we
remember are the stellar 20%, but those are the ones that were hardest to get
going, that took years and blood and shouting to get made...but for which
everyone subsequently takes full credit.

Your assumption, and the truth, dine at totally separate tables.

 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2004 by synthetic worlds, ltd., 
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine 
and don't send me story ideas)