I heard that a lot of British feature films were funded with no real regard as to whether they were any good or would get a theatrical release due to the tax breaks the wealthy backers could get. This wasn't so long ago, but I don't know if it was true or if it still applies.
Just count yourselves lucky you haven't seen any of the Slagg Brothers' movie scripts. The sound of so many embolisms occurring spontaneously would be reminiscent of a bowl of popcorn in the microwave.
Quote: James Turner @ December 28 2009, 12:00 PM GMTSomeone 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.
Have you read the original draft?
I don't know if it was the case with this script, but there can be a lot of 'tinkering' along the way - changing the script beyond recognition.
I'm not quite sure why you're getting so cross about this, and why you have such a downer on the industry.
No-one sets out to make a bad film, as they say, but sometimes it ends out that way.
And, actually, this sort of unpredictability of end result is a good thing.
It means no-one actually 'knows' what will work.
So they have to take risks.
One day you might be one of those risks.
I don't think anyone wants to lose money. Sometimes films are made knowing they won't get a theatrical release but, if they are made on a small enough budget, will recoup and maybe make a profit by going straight to DVD, especially in certain genres.
I'm not complaining about agents taking risks my point is that some of them are relying too much on who's associated with what and who's attached and using THESE things as a 'safe bet' rather than looking at the material and making an assessment.
My point is that agents are not taking enough risks by looking at the material and deciding for themselves whether the material is good or not and that some of the 'safe bets' because of who is attached sometimes end up a pile of crap.
Quote: James Turner @ December 29 2009, 4:40 PM GMTsome of the 'safe bets' because of who is attached sometimes end up a pile of crap.
Not necessarily mutually exclusive.
A "safe bet" can also be a pile of crap.
Quote: SlagA @ December 28 2009, 1:16 PM GMTJust count yourselves lucky you haven't seen any of the Slagg Brothers' movie scripts. The sound of so many embolisms occurring spontaneously would be reminiscent of a bowl of popcorn in the microwave.
Debbie does Aberystwith? Watership going down? Slags up our Fathers?
I apologize to agents out there, I mean only some agents. But I think you guys know what I mean.
Agents don't make movies James.
No that's actors playing him. In the same way Bambi was about Bambi and didn't star Bambi.
007 should really sue.
Quote: Dolly Dagger @ December 29 2009, 2:30 PM GMTespecially in certain genres.
Quote: Griff @ December 30 2009, 10:11 AM GMTF**king hell Sooty I'm still on my Christmas holidays and now you're telling me James Bond isn't real. Next you'll be telling me Vernon Kay is a real person and not a Charlie Brooker creation.
No James Bond is very real. Merely pointing out that the filmic adaption don't star the actual James Bond.
He's currently got a license to kill illegal immigrants and blew up my local minicab company last week.
Quote: sootyj @ December 28 2009, 10:39 AM GMTIt'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.
This pretty is much all you need to know. It's the same with most creative fields, I mean look at the current top 40. A load of shit but people buy it.
Quote: James Turner @ December 28 2009, 12:00 PM GMTAdmittedly 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.
I think you might be attaching a bit too much significance to the agents' role in all this James. But yes, the gist of what you're saying - that unsuccessful projects often get pushed through because of recommendation - I agree with. But that's also true in any aspect of business isn't it?. It's annoying, but it happens.
Luckily for us it's also true that great things do get made in TV. It's not a science, that's all.
James I think it's called 'the old pals act'
It's ooman nature. I had burst pipes last week and called a friend of a friend to fix them as I couldn't trust selecting a plumber advertised in the paper.
It has always been 'not what you know' but 'who you know.' That's reality