Why can't...

...some people recognise good work when they see it. Why does everything have to be through recommendations and references? If the talent spotters consider themselves experts in their chosen genre you would think that they would know what they're looking for and just pick out material that they think has talent. Why do they have to have a certain amount of interest with people that they know well recommending it?

I'm not talking about myself here but it's been one of my bug bears about the industry... why people in the industry are always put off projects that they are keen on just because x production company hasn't shown an interest etc.

I remember seeing this (crap crap) film getting commissioned just because it had some celebrity attached and someone else shown an interest which led it to be commissioned a hefty whack by another company. The film was so shit it never got released and was plainly embarrassing and I just wonder why the talent spotters, the agents and the producers didn't just pull out of it (they must have known it was rubbish) instead of just continuing to commission it because someone else recommended or shown an interest in it. You would think that they would trust their own judgements.

This has always perplexed me. Could someone shine a light on this?

To put it simply...

I don't understand that because the producers and the commissioners lost loads of money for commissioniing that film I was on about. The only people that made money was the actor, the director and the agents. I'm not just criticizing the agents; why can't the commissioners and prod companies go by their own instincts.

It's a business. WHSmiths stick Jordan's latest biog out front because will buy it, Sainsbury's stock Mr Kiplings cake because people will buy them.

Yes but you would think that their judgement would stop them making dreadful mistakes rather than funding embarrassing films that they're going to lose money on. If I was a commissioner I would be more interested in the material than simply hearing that 'such and such showed an interest in it'. After all it's a business isn't it.

This film I was on about was obviously bad.

See how ever much I may dislike Miranda Hart's I have to accept millions disagree with me and watch it.

Ultimately it's a business where you have to meet the needs of millions of people you'll never meet. People you may despise and believe should be forcibly reeducated through hard labour or at least kicked up their collective arses. But they're your audience.

There's some very talented performers who avoid the limelight because they only want to perform to the audiences they respect.

Adam and Joe get 60,000 listeners on their show, Chris Moyles gets millions. He is however a massive c**t and will burn in hell for all eternity like a hairy donner kebab. Where as I believe God listens to Adam and Joe.

You're misinterpreting me. Lets put taste aside for a minute.

I understand that it's a business and that sometimes you have to cater for people who's tastes that you absolutely despise. But my main gripe is why do commissioners keep commissioning projects that are SO BAD that they'll never see the light of day. Projects that are so creatively incompetent that THEY KNOW that nobody will watch and make money from. But still continue to commission them because somebody else showed an interest while other good projects are forced into oblivion (but I must admit, the feature film category is where most of these sins are committed TV generally gets their market right even if I don't like reality shows).

The point is, I'm on about projects that nobody makes a call on either because they're too scared or too unsure of their judgements and are just in the position of relying on 'who's in with who' and 'who's showing and interest', 'who's up', 'who's down', 'who's in' and 'who's out' when they could be commissioning a piece of shit with no legs just by going by that.

Well there's money to be made from a flop even an unseen flop. Might I reccomend watching The Producers? Especially the UK with all it's government funding.

Also Adam Sandlers last dozen or so films have all been critical failures that made over a 100 million dollars.

Besides in any industry you have to prove yourself.

Quote: James Turner @ December 28 2009, 11:04 AM GMT

why do commissioners keep commissioning projects that are SO BAD that they'll never see the light of day.

View original

Because 1) they don't believe the project is as bad as you percieve it to be or 2) they believe the show will appeal to its target audience or 3) both 1 and 2.

No commissioner on earth will push a show they think is utterly without merit - unless they're angling for a career change in the near future.

You mention putting taste to the side but you can't. Taste determines why a commissioner loves a show you hate and hates a show you love. You can't remove personal biases.

Not necessarily so. Sometimes I believe that a feature film will get commissioned if tons of celebrities got together just to say the word 'hello' one after the other. Nobody would watch it, it wouldn't make any money, nobody would have to prove why the project should be funded.

Are you saying it's ok to commission ANYTHING, ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING. I'm talking about the error of funding creative incompetence (nothing to do with taste) just because such and such showed an interest and some celebrity's pal is associated with it, films that you know will be both critical and commercial disasters.

Quote: James Turner @ December 28 2009, 11:21 AM GMT

Sometimes I believe that a feature film will get commissioned if tons of celebrities got together just to say the word 'hello' one after the other.

View original

Then explain the absence of such a film. Ignoring auteurs like Ono and Warhol, natch. It doesn't exist (AFAIA).

A film can generate fanaticism, indifference or loathing. The same film can generate wide and varying reactions. And that's down to individual taste. Likewise, some scripts have been rejected many times before getting sold. It's the same script, the objective part. It's the individual readers that differ, the subjective part.

Is this a good script? Do I like it? A reader can answer yes and no to the two questions without contradiction. You can recognise a good script but not actually like it. You can see the flaws in another but prefer it over the 'better' script.

If it's down to individual taste then why does nobody make a call on these films, surely it would cater to a market even if they know them to be rubbish. I'm not mentioning the names of the films on a public forum but I've seen all manners of crap and they got a shedload of money only because of the reasons I've given (the film I mentioned before as an example), there are plenty of these films out there.

But The Postman is certainly one of them. I only like it because it's an example of the worst film ever made but it wasn't intended to be a comedy therefore I think that this money could have be used to build a hospital or something.

Is it because of the fear of disagreeing with a celebrity or a powerful producer?

Quote: James Turner @ December 28 2009, 11:33 AM GMT

If it's down to individual taste then why does nobody make a call on these films, surely it would cater to a market even if they know them to be rubbish. I'm not mentioning the names of the films on a public forum but I've seen all manners of crap and they got a shedload of money only because of the reasons I've given (the film I mentioned before as an example), there are plenty of these films out there.

But The Postman is certainly one of them. I only like it because it's an example of the worst film ever made but it wasn't intended to be a comedy therefore I think that this money could have be used to build a hospital or something.

Is it because of the fear of disagreeing with a celebrity or a powerful producer.

View original

The Postman had a top notch money making lead, a highly succesful director and was based on a hugely popular ground breaking novel. The chemistry just failed.

May I reccomend the novel the Post Man to everyone everywhere.

Quote: James Turner @ December 28 2009, 11:33 AM GMT

If it's down to individual taste then why does nobody make a call on these films.

View original

You mentioned yourself that sometimes people do pull the films before release.

Don't forget, films are as much to do with the director's vision as it is about the script. A great script can make a lousy film if the director gets it wrong, and vice versa. The director has much more of an influence in the final product than the scriptwriter. In a very real sense, the audience sees the script through the director's eyes.

Admittedly it doesn't happen often but it really makes your blood boil when it does. Big agents have went on about the film being 'great' because some celebrity is associated with it and the agent's never use their own judgement when deciding scripts are bad and good, they have to be associated with somebody or someone else influencial in the industry has said it is good.

It ends up that some agents (certainly not all of them, but the lazy ones) never read any scripts and never decide on the quality of the material but will always represent the projects because some other agent is interested or production company has showed interest. It really defeats the purpose of what they are supposed to do sometimes and it's infuriating to see that happen when it does happen.

Someone should have made a call on the postman when the script was written. I mean did the agents and producers ACTUALLY READ THE SCRIPT. They didn't make a call on it and the massive embarrassment was the result. Aren't they supposed to be the talent spotters of the industry? The directing wasn't as nearly as bad as the script.

It's infuriating because millions of money is thrown on shit when there is tons of great talent out there looking for a break but can't get in because they haven't been in the right place, at the right time hanging out with the right people.