Kevin Hart In Talks To Join Kevin James In ‘Valet … 
Anthony Hopkins Up For ‘Red 2′ Villain; Can … 
Cannes Conflicted Over ‘The Paperboy’ As … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘American Idol’ Posts … 
Ghost Of 2004 Hovers Over L.A. Screenings As Int’l … 
On The Road To Awards Season? Kerouac Book Finally Makes It … 
Michael Bay’s Name Pushed Paramount To Settle Injured … 
Several More New Series In Recasting Mode; Returning Ones … 
‘G.I. Joe: Retaliation’ Moving To March 2013 To … 
Directors Fortnight Says It Must “Police … 
‘Chronicle’ Helmer Josh Trank Takes On … 
Big Media Chiefs Tell Cable Operators To Speed Up ‘TV … 
Will ‘Pan Am’ Take Flight With Amazon? 
EMMYS: Showtime Launches Free Weekend Promotion Targeting … 
TOLDJA! ICM Management Buyout Complete 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Dancing With The Stars’, … 
An Olympian Effort: NBCUni Plans 5,535 Hours Of Coverage … 
Netflix Exec Denies It’s Responsible For Nickelodeon … 
DESPERATE: HuffPo & Oprah Team Up Now 
Hot Trailer: ‘The Great Gatsby’ 
How Did Women Pilot Writers Fare For 2012? 
Intensively over the next few days, extending even for the next few weeks, a gaggle of studio moguls and/or their executives have scheduled a series of meetings with top agencies in Hollywood. Yes, the movie gods are coming down off Mount Olympus in order to soak up the wisdom of the mere mortals who rep the talent. Top agencies like CAA and WME and UTA and ICM are hosting intimate confabs with 20th Century Fox (Tom Rothman and/or Emma Watts) and Warner Bros (Jeff Robinov and/or Greg Silverman) and Universal (Adam Fogelson and/or Donna Langley) and Paramount (Rob Moore and/or Adam Goodman). That’s how seriously this Summer of Discontent has unsettled the studios who are beginning to admit being relatively clueless what to greenlight next now that so many movies aren’t clicking with moviegoers. “I have three heads of studios coming into my office. They’re completely at a loss about what to do,” one top tenpercenter put it bluntly. So what are the agents going to tell the studios? Here are our writers, here are their pitches and treatments and scripts, here is the originality you should be making instead of numbing predictability. Like, duh. Could this be an opportunity for creativity? That’s what a major producer told my colleague Mike Fleming yesterday: “this sluggish summer might be a blessing in disguise for talent and producers who want to take risks but have been hamstrung for the past two years by studios that have been operating in retreat mode, and looking for the safest bets possible. The lack of originality this summer might get off this safe track and in the mindset to take some risks again, and that would be a good thing.”
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ...
I’ve said it before, but part of the problem is that Hollywood needs a new economy re-set. People do not have enough money to shell out 11.50 a movie (plus 6.00 water and 7.00 pop corn) more than a few times a month. Teens are seeing to worst job market for summer employment in 40 years. If the studios dialed it back. If above the line made less. The terms may be different for theaters, who may be able to cut the price of a ticket (the theater that actually cuts prices will have a huge marketing weapon on their hands). Go to flyover counrty and go to a mall, and ask teens how many movies they will see a month over the summer? They don’t have money to blow on anything except sure things that they already know their friends liked. Parents are getting fed up with taking a few kids to the movies and having it turn into a $75 day. What used to be perfect recession entertainment is now overpriced for working and middle class people who are late of visa payments and have cable/red box,on demand, video games etc to fill their time with.
how many years has it been since universal had a hit? i think we have to go back to winter 2008.
the obvious first step would be to look at the new york times bestseller list -what are people reading?
2.) quit making anti-american-iraq war dramas because nobody is interested.
3.) quit making movies based on obscure comic books (The Losers anyone?).
4.) create new stars and then don’t let them make s**ty films like Remember Me (robert pattinson anyone?). because johnny depp is the last movie star and he’s what like pushing 50.
Oh and the agents? nothing but nieces and nephews, oh and 20 something interns. good stuff!
MUST READ:
“…Todd McCarthy (Variety) says about Toy Story 3″
The main reason Pixar has established itself as the best film company in the world is that its top priority is story, story, story. No matter how dazzling the technique (the 3D is perfectly judged here), how funny the gags or how sly the characterizations, the narrative superstructure is as sound as the engineering for the Eiffel Tower or a 747, the plot as satisfyingly consummated as in a novel by Dickens or Hammett. There are visible formulae at work here, to be sure, especially with the emotional injections administered at the beginning and end, but they convey honest and valid sentiments lying at the heart of the attachments of characters that now have long histories, both with each other and the audience.
Pixar found one writer (Michael Arndt) whose voice they resonated with – even before his first movie (Little Miss Sunshine) had been released – and stuck with him throughout the entire story-crafting process.
If you knew nothing else about either movie, that one fact alone reveals almost everything you need to know about which approach is serious about crafting a great story. As Arndt said about his experience with Pixar:
“People say that writing is re-writing,” he [Arndt] continues, “but that leaves out a crucial part of the equation: the feedback you get prior to your re-write. Pixar stories work because of the robustness of the story feedback system.” Arndt points to statements made by several key Pixar staffers who admit that, at some point in the process, every single film Pixar made was once the worst thing one might ever see. “It’s only by making the movie as a ‘reel’ seven or eight times, and failing repeatedly, and by applying the smartest and most ruthless criticism you can to the story over and over again, that the stories are able to take shape and come out feeling coherent and complete,” he says.
Arndt’s observations on his time at Pixar only confirm what many film pundits and fans have long suspected: Pixar’s films are such rousing successes because of the attention each individual at the studio dedicates to the screenplays. “Andrew Stanton’s rule of thumb is that it takes 10 man-years of labor to make a good screenplay,” Arndt explains. “Either two writers working five years or 10 guys working one year. For Toy Story 3, it was even more than that — probably the equivalent of 10 people working two or three years.”
“To me, this is what separates Pixar from almost everyone else,” Arndt concludes. “They realize how hard it is to come up with a great screenplay.”
Weird but true: we’re in the midst of a romantic comedy glut in movieland. They keep being released, and rom-com specs keep landing on my desk with weekly regularity; every studio in town has at least a few on tap. As my studio’s resident romantic comedy maven in residence, I’ve done notes on some 15 rom-com projects (i.e. scripts that have been bought and are in development) over the past year or so; three of these are presently being shot.
So how come so few of them are any good?
Clearly, it’s my fault. Seriously, though: They’re all doing decent box office, but does anyone want to make a case for the current Letters to Juliet, Sex and the City 2, or Killers (a rom-com hybrid) as being great and/or memorable romantic comedies?
The fault lies not in our stars, nor in our genre, I’d say. As we hear the buzz of this summer’s movie slate being one of the dullest in recent memory (too many sequels, not enough original ideas seems to be the theme, a We Have Met the Mediocre and It is Us pall seems to be settling over the industry.
This is not uncommon. A romantic comedy with a good concept comes into the studio. Studio execs have various ideas of what the movie could be – as opposed to what it is on the page. And soon, as casting shifts and different actors reshape their roles, and new directors pitch themselves in, and the execs pay musical chairs… you’ve now got an un-romantic dramedy-farce of mish-mashed ideas. It’s development soup.
Reader, I could weep. As a reader and a writer, it sounds like a dream: The support! The commitment! The unified vision! And above all, the respect for the screenplay. If only other studios were this savvy, and this understanding of how to get a script from good to great. The odd thing is, given the evidence that’s staring the rest of the biz in the face (i.e. nobody else, that is nobody, has produced such an unbroken string of quality hits), you’d think that Pixar’s competitors would get the hint. And yet…
No wonder your average working screenwriter is an unhappy camper. What most studios call development is ass-backwards. The operative ethos amounts to “It doesn’t work, but we can fix it… with writer after writer after writer,” so we shouldn’t be surprised by the results.
I totallly agree. Even the worst Pixar or Disney animated film is better than what most people would consider your average Hollywood studio film. That’s why I won’t be surprised when Andrew Stanton’s Princess of Mars and Brad Bird’s live action debut with MI:4 kick major ass at the box office. Both of those two men know how to fuse a solid story with blockbuster spectacle.
it’d be nice if a lot of these agents/studio execs took a basic film history/appreciation class at one point. they should stop trying to manipulate things and realize that lucrative films often require a leap of faith. even if a film doesn’t have a huge weekend, the good stuff always finds an audience.
I’m just a consumer but here’s my take: Rare are the films worth going to a theater (rude patrons, driving, parking and, lastly: cost). I wouldn’t bother driving to see most of these films if they cost $5. Far more are Netflix worthy (more convenient, better viewing experience — if you have a nice setup — and much cheaper). I virtually stopped buying DVDs when I subscribed to Netflix ($17/month for unlimited DVDs).
I grew up in a small Oregon town where a year elapsed between a blockbuster’s release and being shown at our lone theater (two screens: drive-in and walk-in). We watched whatever cruddy movie was being shown because there was hardly anything else to do. This was the 1970s, pre-VHS, let alone DVDs. No cable in our area. Three network TV stations and one independent. Not much competition for crummy movies. Today there is vastly more competition in entertainment and in how consumers can consume the films that are made. No longer will I endure the hassle of a theater to see a mediocre film, let alone a cruddy one. It amazes me how “Hollywood” can squander so much money and talent on churning out mediocrity. There are jewels, but they are too few.
The most constructive action clueless execs can take would be to fire themselves. They — and the agencies — have presided over the demise of what was a glorious business. America’s premier art form has been turned into velvet Elvis paintings for the knuckle-dragging masses. Sure it’s in 3D, but it’s still a picture of dogs playing poker — and it’s a sequel.
Having execs like Tom Rothman make creative decisions is like asking Cal Worthington to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Yeah, it’s a business, but it doesn’t have to be MacDonalds and if you don’t have the vision or guts to do more than maneuver past corporate weasels and hang onto your job…go run KMart.
Would letting the lunatics run the asylum for a while result in nothing but hits? Of course not, but the success ratio couldn’t be any worse and you might get some of us excited about seeing movies again.
Stop letting the marketing drones dictate your slates and take some real chances.
Bad choice of Tom Rothman as an example, of all the studio heads he is the most informed on the history of film, the most in love with the creative and artistic sides of it. The fact that FOX is cheap is not Rothman’s fault and if anything it allows new writers and directors to get some credits since they’ll do it for less money.
I liken this to the guy that sold me down the river to the guy he sold me down the river to getting together to plot how they’re both gonna sell me down the river yet again.
New blood, new ideas, new era. Want to be successful? Time to take some risks.
And let’s include higher standards in writing, storytelling and acting. The mediocre crap we continue to see in theatres is ridiculous.
True Blood premiere was better than any theatrical release I saw this year so far.
Couldn’t agree more. The agents ARE the problem. I know who a writer who was told by agents at three big agencies that the two latest scripts he wrote were “inaccessible” and “not what the market wants…they’re not Four Quarter, Brand Name entertainment”. He went out and set both up with the first two companies he went to, FIRST day.
The agency and studio systems have become nepotistic and incestuous, run by the outdated and cookie-cutter blandness perpetuated by screenwriting guru tutors like McKee, who wouldn’t know — ore encourage — originality if they fell over it.
Basically, we have the cycle that happens about every 20 or so years, with studios right across the board being staffed by numbskulls. A purging of the houses is in order, and “Reverse Ageism” should take place…don’t hire any more screenwriters UNDER 40. Maybe then we’ll start to see the kind of mature entertainment that challenged audiences of decades ago.
i disagree that all agents are as bad as executives. there are a lot of smart, creative reps out there with taste (i’m not saying all but SOME) and i hope they voice their opinions when these big wigs come calling. it’s hard for me to believe that anything will change that fast…but if this is even the prequel to the beginning of the decline of the worst era this business has ever known, then that’s very encouraging.
and although there are (occasionally) some positive development experiences to be had with executives, for the most part they feel more like calling a psychic hotline than engaging in a creative collaborative process…
them: uh, i think what my boss will say is that we need more pops here, no, wait… Uh, maybe move everything up so the guy gets killed on page two…um, maybe, we should just sleep on it and the answer will come to me in a dream…
me: let me ask you a question. how do YOU feel about the script?
them: I don’t know. Nobody has ever asked me that question.
God, please help us!
yours,
Hollywood
the joke is: “I don’t know, I’m the only one who’s read it.”
My theory is this: The studios push the retreaded tent poles HARD and shaft the more original films like Splice, Winter’s Bon, Don McKay, the Jonses, Mother and Child, Micmacs, etc.
Ever wonder what happened to the erotic thriller? Compare slow boilers like Body Heat and Fatal Attraction to newer fare such as Obsessed. The new films are made for an ADD generation with patience for story telling or real character development, depending on pumped up scores and cheap theatrics to get the story across rather than, say, the meticulous story telling of a Pixar film.
Hollywood needs to go back to basics.
Just had this conversation a few weekends ago – HBO/Cinemax as well as the internet killed the erotic thriller. No need to go pay to see Sharon Stone flash her beaver when you can find something equally titillating within ten seconds on the internet…
the erotic thriller, along with all films made for “grown ups” is what i miss the most with all the crap the studios are offering lately.
studios claim that the dumbed down re-tread is what audiences want to see now when in fact it’s all they’re offering.
instead of asking the agents for advice, why don’t they ask the damn writers?
Here’s the problem:
MONOPOLY.
We have a business that doesn’t encourage competition- which would in turn spark innovation.
The agencies may be the ones to be smart enough to actually start innovating (see MRC and some of the biz/dev stuff being proffered at WME and CAA).
When the town WORKED, NBC was owned by NBC. Universal was owned by UNIVERSAL. Networks weren’t in the PRODUCTION BUSINESS. And btw… there was great product, more innovation and it was healthy.
Break up the monopoly.
Save the town.
Bravo. Really good post that’s onto something. A good post introducing a broad topic of discussion is like a lead paragraph intended to open a can of worms as an on-going story…like series television that starts with a pilot…
First of all bring the movie busines back to LA. Secondly start hiring American actors and stop dragging over any Australian who can stay sober long enough to finish a scene.
Of course Americans don’t want to see this crap. The movie business is, in part, still about an art form. And if that art does not reflect the lives, dreams, hopes, truth of the viewers they will tune out and turn off. I’m not saying everything has to be all doom and gloom and SERIOUS DRAMA but the art needs to be made by, with and for the people who will be viewing it.
I really doubt these meetings are going to be about the unsold stacks of specs in agency libraries.
Studios have stacks of already paid for scripts on their shelves that are probably better than the one’s that didn’t sell.
I think what’s going to happen are the agents and studio heads are going to figure out how to restructure the business model together to make things more profitable.
The days of paying any one actor 20 million to be in a movie should be over. Sorry Will Smith. Upfront creative fees kill so many projects it’s not funny.
The Studios would love to make 30-40 million dollar budgeted movies. The only problem is they would like some name talent in those kind of movies to ensure profits.
A compromise needs to be made.
What the studio heads need the top agents to do is be real with their clients and tell them their quotes are no longer set in stone.
On the flip side studio executives are going to have to give a bigger piece of the profits to the creatives AND be willing to let outside accountants in on the finances of the film. There somehow needs to be trust established between creatives and executives.
When a client is willing to slash their fees for a project they love to get it made, they shouldn’t get screwed out of the back end.
Todd Phillips gave up part or all of his fees to get Hangover made the way he wanted and he’s wiping his ass with thousand dollar bills now.
If a movie is made for $40 million, which can go a long way if the actors and directors aren’t hogging up the budget, films stand a better chance of making profits.
I also think the studio heads and the agents need to be real with one another about one other thing.
The age of the remake is over.
The studios needs to stop depending on branding to sell a movie. Just because everyone has played the game Battleship doesn’t mean anyone is going to go see a movie called Battleship.
I was seriously approached about writing Magic 8 Ball the movie and my response was, “You’re joking”.
Go to the average person on the street and ask them if they would see Magic 8 Ball the movie and they look at you like you’re a moron.
Stop the TV remakes and movies based on popular culture and get back to telling stories people can relate to in addition to the comic book fantasy spectacles.
The business is in a rut and if something isn’t fixed soon, the studios will be destroyed and people will just be making short films on the internet hoping something goes viral.
It doesn’t have to be that way. They have a chance to save the business if they just look at the mistakes they are all making and change them now.
McGruber had a huge group of fans who wanted to see the film…all under the age of 15. Movie is rated R. There have always been crap movies, and those who love them. What studios should do is find a way out of the home video relase trap. With a 12 week window, few types of films can build an audience and studios cannot re-tool marketing. Thus any built-in name recognition pre-sells the film, which has until Sat. Night on opening weekend to prove itself worthy. That theatrical window is the noose around this industry’s neck. Fix that and you can make fewer remakes, sequels and re-boots.
Hey, I finally subjected myself to MacGruber and know immediately why it failed – the “dick” jokes weren’t at all funny or uncomfortable. They were awful. Just like the movie.
H’wood at some point forget that friends and families go to the movies. Not necessarily to be bored to death with pablum or seizure inducing CGI, but to great stories that friends and families love. Friends went in groups to see Hangover and the first Sex in the City, and families went to see Karate Kid and Up. If you can’t copy well then don’t try; Marmaduke isn’t Marley and Me, and The Forty Year Old Virgin has been cloned into dreck.
We need more beautiful risks like Ondine, District 9, Tell No One and Let The Right One In.
Go to the source….the talent. The question is: who’s to say who’s talented? The Execs? The agents? How about peers. Why not ask the veterans to mentor the newbies. Ask them to weed out those who they think have talent and give everyone a piece. There’s enough pie to go around. Why not go back to the old studio system of contract players? Contract writers. Cut down budgets drastically. Offer a living wage to those who haven’t had a shot. The future is in youth. Hire a talent pool. Too many up and comers and never beens have been shut out of the traditional system. Cut out all middle men. It gluts up and greeds up the system which is in finding great stories. Not giving gold parachutes to agents and executives. Technology is not the answer. Great story tellers are. An audience will listen to a great story. Use the world wide web to generate interest in log lines and plot lines. Let those with the money build it with the bricks of the talent layers. They will come. But what do I know….
Here’s a clue or two…
Stop remaking everything. Try some originals. Stop listening to the marketing idiots who tell you that they don’t remember how to market originals.
It isn’t that freaking difficult to understand. Make good movies.
Well acted, produced, and accurately marketed movies.
The folks above screaming about being original and risk takers are missing the forest for the trees. The craft of making a good 90-120 minute movie is pretty well dead. It doesn’t matter how original or risky it is, shit is shit.
Look at Pixar’s history, once they broke through the “oh neato” barrier of an entire movie made on a computer, why have they succeeded? They make good movies.
Not epics that hope to change the world as we know it, but a good movie that you will perhaps watch again at the theatre and probably buy on DVD when it comes out and you think about it again.
Get that right, then go for the originality and risk.
Probably the most sensible comment here. In the end, it’s not even about if the story is original or a remake…it’s about the story. Just because a story is original doesn’t mean it will be great.
Here’s my best piece of advice for the studio folks – STOP WASTING MONEY BY HIRING JENNIFER ANISTON. She is NOT a good return on the investment in solo projects and has proven that time and time again. Put her with a big male comedic star – HE is the draw, not her. Put her in an ensemble movie and sometimes the movies succeed despite her presence. Otherwise nobody wants to pay $15 to see “Rachel Green” in a movie when they can watch Friends re-runs at home for free.
Aside from needing new and original ideas, jettisoning actors who just ain’t bankable or past their box office prime would be a stellar idea. Yes, Russell Crowe, I’m talking about you and the last 5 non-Denzel co-starring movies you’ve been in. And actually, I’m going to add Denzel to that list, too. He’s making way too much money for these midling box office movies he’s churning out. And I love Matt Damon to bits, but dude, take a break, ‘kay?
Wow, that is a really simple and easy formula; very smart, Stacy!
Jennifer Aniston = box office poison. Also the stop trying to make the following happen:
Gerard Butler Romantic Comedy = box office poison (did Sly Stallone have any successful romcoms? No? Then stick to putting Butler in action fare, por favor.
Romcoms by Bradley Cooper, Kate Hudson, Cameron Diaz or Matthew McConaughey = epic box office disaster
Leave the romance to the young uns like 500 Summers or to talented scribes like Nancy Myers, or to the French who have always known how to do it better.
Better yet, promote fresh faces to the romcom; worked for 500 Summers and Nick and Nora’s Infinite Playlist.
They can all start by considering the moviegoers who love films, not product. I used to be excited about seeing a particular movie, now I’m prepared to be disappointed. There used to be a sense of striving for truthfulness in a film, now it’s more about getting away with things. There’s so many holes in most films now. Huge gaps in logic, continuity or believable motives or situations. Suspense is nearly dead, replaced by in your face action. For all the money to be made, at the end of the day it’s still a creative world and a crap shoot. Hedge your bets with some creative and intellectual integrity. That’s across the board, too, in any genre. I think even the juvenile crowd they pander to now knows things could be better.
Wake up people. Agencies talk to Nikki the most. This is a sell job by the agencies to keep themselves relevant. Studios would NEVER admit that they are unsure of what audiences want. Their whole internal psychology and power structure is steeped in “I know what works which is why I am president…why I get paid X amount…why we are making these movies..”. Wake up people- studios are killing it. Agencies are sinking. These meetings are more for the agencies kissing ass and trying to gain market share because they have been killing each other lately. Great spin though.