Wired on Hollywood's Elite Message Boards 264
superflippy writes " Wired journalist Ben Mezrich gets the scoop on the online forums that film producers and other Hollywood heavyweights use to "track" the buzz on spec scripts, actors, writers, etc. "The tracking boards are the herd mentality gone digital," says one tracker. This helps explain how dreck like Kangaroo Jack makes it to theaters."
Hollywood Execs are a bunch of Trolls (Score:5, Interesting)
As everyone knows, a certain well-known site [slashdot.org] has a similar problem. Yet with the magic of Zoo [slashdot.org], trolls can be banished [slashdot.org] with just a few mouse clicks! And as we all know, now slashdot is perfectly free of such ill-behaved creatures.
So the obvious answer is for Hollywood to use slash! Blacklist the Trolls, and we'll get better movies.
So true... (Score:5, Interesting)
Having to work around writers and executive producers and other people in the industry is a drain. You will never find a group of folks more full of shit. I completely agree with the article in that all the movers and shakers in the industry run on fear, constantly looking around to see what everyone else is doing.
That could exmplain it (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyone hack the site yet? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Buying a script != shooting a film (Score:1, Interesting)
Kangaroo Jack (Score:5, Interesting)
That said Kangaroo Jack made money. It grossed $65 million in the USA alone, which matches its budget. Add in foreign releases and DVD/VHS sales/rental and you have a profitable movie. So what was wrong with it again? Oh yes - it was crap - but you know hollywood is a business.
missunerstood problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So true... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So true... (Score:3, Interesting)
Um, try reading his book, or his older Wired article. I'm sure the people he covered in his book are crying about you calling them fools -- all the way to the bank, since many of them made millions of dollars.
Par for the course. (Score:5, Interesting)
We're discussing [fark.com] this at Fark. Here's what I had to say there:
Ben's experience matches up EXACTLY with what I've known to be standard industry practice for as long as I can remember.
We used to joke that there was one guy, who'd get drunk at a restaurant and spout out movie ideas (it changes as things go in and out of style -- in the 80s it was Spago, in the 90s I think it was the Viper Room. I have no idea what it is now, as I attempt to claw my way back up to the "b" list.) The joke went that there were execs from all the major studios, and they'd only hear flashes of the conversation, like ". . . asteroid . . . earth . . . big summer movie . .
The worst thing about this article is that Hollywood will see it, and they'll add Ben to the "we hate him because he doesn't play by our rules" list, and Bringing Down The House will never get made.
Which REALLY sucks, because I was hoping to score a part in it.
A friend of mine (who is now an indie director) worked on "Batman and Robin."
The horror stories he told me about the insane wasting of money on actor crap would make you explode.
The budget for actor garbage -- workout rooms, personal chefs, personal assistants, personal drivers, groomers, and all that useless shiat -- was THREE MILLION DOLLARS.
We made Neverland [newmediaen...nment.info] for less than 50 grand, and even THAT was a ton of money to me. (I'm not an investor, just an actor, in that picture.)
Jane White Is Sick And Twisted [janewhitemovie.com], which is coming out on DVD in just a couple of weeks, was similar in budget . . . and I'd wager that both of these movies are more entertaining, and more watchable than Batman and Robin.
Yeah, Hollywood is fucked. Royally. The big media conglomerates (you can't even call them 'studios' any longer) have co-opted "independent" as a marketing device . . . but there are some real indie studios out there, with people who love the material, love the process of bringing it to life, and create great work. It's just hard to find right now, is all.
As for Ben's movie? I'd DIE to play Kevin, but a part that big will go to someone who is currently "established," who can "open" a movie. (By "open," I mean that they can get people into the theatre based on their name alone.)
Kevin's character is asian in Real Life, IIRC, but they'll change that for the movie, and you'll see someone like Matt Damon (if Hollywood is smart, which they're not so we'll probably see someone who's a lousy actor, but on a "hot" series right now. I leave it to you to fill in the blanks on that one) in that role. Which he probably won't take, because it's too similar to "Rounders," which leaves it wide open for me!
. . . to lose out to some guy who's hot right now.
But Dealer #5 is all mine, baby!
Re:So true... (Score:2, Interesting)
Carmack [xent.com] is many things, but not a fool. Perhaps you have made a misjudgment?
Fear and AI (Score:4, Interesting)
Everyone's out to get you mother fucker!
This is why they keep making drek like "Kangaroo J (Score:4, Interesting)
Hollywood will keep making dreck as long as it makes money.
BOX OFFICE SUMMARY FOR "KANGAROO JACK"
Box Office Total: $65,708,774
Box Office Opening: $16,580,209
No. of Weeks at #1: 1
No. of Weeks in Top 10: 5
BOX OFFICE HISTORY
Week Rank Wkd. Gross Theaters Per Theater Cumulative
1 1 $16,580,209 2,818 $7,770 $21,895,483
2 2 $11,548,247 2,848 $4,055 $35,112,415
3 4 $9,048,362 2,848 $3,177 $45,886,113
4 7 $6,105,250 2,848 $2,144 $53,035,263
5 8 $3,953,199 2,535 $1,986 $58,954,899
6 13 $1,988,368 1,742 $1,141 $61,901,888
7 17 $1,363,485 1,545 $883 $63,609,564
8 19 $772,413 1,110 $696 $64,691,137
9 23 $352,060 615 $572 $65,478,341
10 44 $108,774 216 $504 $65,708,774
Box office cumulative figures also include daily grosses from Monday through Thursday (not shown).
Re:I don't believe this... (Score:5, Interesting)
Hollywood types just don't get it.
Re:Par for the course. (Score:1, Interesting)
Umm, does no one watch it because it's hard to find? Or is it hard to find because no one watches it? 99.9% of independent film is horrible, horrible crap. (Not to mention the fact that "independent" film can range from mom's home movies to The English Patient.)
But really, it's not THAT hard to find. Most major cities have film festivals. There are a million of them. Each with a Web site, so it's not hard to get information about them either. Not to mention channels like the Sundance channel, the IFC, iFilm.com and other online distributors of independently produced content.
The age of the studio's independent-film-as-marketing-tool came and went in like 1998. No one thinks of Miramax or Fox 2000 as "indie" anymore. In any event, it's just branding. If the studios are taking an interest in supporting independent film either by cofinancing or distributing, what's wrong with that? These are films that never may have reached an audience otherwise, or even worse, never been made at all without the support of someone in the studio system who wanted to help.
So I guess I'm not sure what you're saying by "Hollywood is royally fucked"?
Do you mean creatively? Do you REALLY think Hollywood is pumping out more crap now than ever before? I mean, horrible Hollywood filmmaking is nothing new-- it's just that no one talks about the really bad crap. It's just filtered out of our collective memories over time.
Do you mean financially? The entertainment industry is traditionally recession-resistant, and 2002 was a $9.5 BILLION [mpaa.org] year in theater sales alone according to the MPAA (obligatory boo, hiss!).
Do you mean morally? Well, yeah okay, maybe the MPAA are a pack of clueless weasels, but are the Hollywood films themselves of less upstanding content? People have been saying that films have corrupted the youth for generations. Somehow I don't think this is what you were getting at.
The only valid argument I can see is that Hollywood has a lot of competition now. It's easier than ever to make a movie, and independently produced films and videos have the potential to kick Hollywood's ass because they have the potential to be as good as many studio films.
And yes, the Oscar ratings keep slipping. Yes, the computer gaming industry still beats the film industry in annual profits... I don't wanna turn into Jack Valenti here, but how do you mean Hollywood is fucked exactly?
a few minor points (Score:2, Interesting)
Secondly, whatever you think of the arguably-insane power structure of Hollywood (of which this article gives only a peek), that's where the money is for performing artists and other creative types. You can rail against the idiots, neurotics, assholes and paranoids that run the system all you like (and rightfully so, if you have that kind of spare time), but I have to admit they have a heck of a counter-argument - they got the money.
Virtually all of my friends (wife included) are in showbiz in one form or another; only a few have achieved financial security outside of Hollywood, and they did so primarily by virtue of uncommon brilliance. And conversely, there are some genuinely brilliant people who ARE part of 'the system' and are not getting what they deserve, for reasons unrelated to anything under their control. But every now and then, someone good gets a break. So, it's not all bad.
But it's mostly bad. Anyone who's actually visited Hollywood knows how grimy, slimy, and generally depressing most of the city is, and anyone who Knows People in the business and has had the opportunity to listen in on gossip understands what an incredibly high proportion of people there have drug/alcohol problems, failing marriages, or both... it's darkly funny, from a distance, but sadly I'm about to move there myself. I need a drink.
Re:This is why they keep making drek like "Kangaro (Score:3, Interesting)
I do think that part of the reason it did so well was because it was a rather dry time for movies appealing to idiots and children and thus raked in most of the money that is usually spent on keeping the whining shit factories quiet (but not at any of the films I attend... I recall during a "House of 1,000 Corpses" trailer in front of "Willard" one precocious young fuck asked what a corpse was, a friend of mine offered to make him very well acquainted with it).
Really... most of the absolute crap is sold to children. Disney seems to have figured this out with the glut of shitty direct-to-video sequels to decades old films that weren't much more than terrible cash-cows for children to begin with (Disney movies tend to be very much like Bollywood musicals... vapid, cheery, and crowd-pleasing... but with slightly less criminal influence in the making). Still they do well and almost any parent these days has a mess of them. Children will tolerate almost anything it seems and parents are all too happy to pay for it if they don't have to watch them too closely. Sadly there are also films that are reasonably fit to offend few people other than the guy at CAPAlert. I'd suggest the (entertaining but forgettable) "Catch Me While You Can" particularly, although it seems that there isn't much being put out in this realm and not much was done in the past that isn't disgustingly saccharine.
The other major market is artistic idiots. I've often heard from people watching terrible crap that they "just want something they don't have to think about". Any attempt to appeal to intelligence is lost on them as they merely want the lowest common denominator sit-com crap. They even make a point of wanting dumb romantic comedies that are predictable and dull since they require little to no thought, but are (presumably) entertaining. Oh, and don't make it too long. People hate getting value for their money or seeing any story that can't be crammed into the short time limit they're comfortable with. No chance for story, character development, or intelligent and thought-provoking dialogue, that'll take longer than 2 hours and might make someone unhappy!
Who cares? We care. (Score:5, Interesting)
I wouldn't say that, even though, objectively its correct, but let's face it - we are obsessed with Hollywood. We complain when a bad movie gets released. Doesn't that seem a little odd? Its just taking up space at the local 20-screen cinema, its not like we're forced to watch them at gunpoint.
A movie critic is a respected international job. Why? The TV and the internet are constantly telling us who Julia Roberts is dating or what Heidi Clum wore last week in Paris.
I've divested in Hollywood long ago. I catch the occasional movie and am stunned at how many commercials I have to watch, how much I have to pay, and the how "movie people" simply act like little children when they don't get that perfect movie they were hoping for.
The best thing I did in a long time was buy a Tivo. I now have almost no connection to pop-America, have no idea who "hot" actors are, don't see commercials for crap like "Celebrity Justice," etc. Yeah, I sound like one of those, "I dont have a TV" people, but you know what, they make excellent points. You simply can't see the forest from the trees if you grew up watching TV like I did.
It would be nice if Hollywood would just make art, but it collectively decided long ago that the celebrity star system serves it well and people don't seem to complain much. Heaven forbid we see actors, musicians, and TV-people as our peers and not saints we hope someday will sign our chest with a sharpie at Barnes and Noble.
I love how concerns over real events that affect us, politics, the war, etc made the oscars look like the cheap industry backscratching it truly is. Who wore what? Who cares. Take your little statue and go home.
The nice thing about the internet is that media people have suddenly become real. Reporters have blogs and *gasp* they're trying to make their way through life too, even though they can occasionally get a quote or two from someone holding a powerful office in government. The most common thing I heard when Wil Wheaton's blog hit critical mass was, "Oh, he's just like an ordinary person. We were so mean to him." Or "I'm a dude who wrote some software, enjoy" compared to "Mega-corp announces its newest proactive and innovative product for PC consumers, this revolutionary...."
I think Hollywood's celebrity system is more or less destined to collapse due to the egalitarian aspects of cheap/free information. I'm not going to bother to provide supporting links: (im sure you've read these stories) TV time has been interrupted by internet time, the RIAA is losing sales and indie labels are experiencing a small boom, linux is in the enterprise and kicking ass, fans petition or even pay for quality TV episodes, access to lots of different news brings balance to national tunnel vision, etc.
I really hope my kids grow up in a society in which the self-important PR and other celebrity BS are seen plainly as lies. I hope they don't go crazy over the latest fads because J-Lo was seen wearing something similiar at Spago. Or even how to explain to them why adults can pay 9 dollars to see something like "Kangaroo Jack." I hope my generation looks crazy to them, because we probably are.
Re:"If the buzz is any indicator..." (Score:1, Interesting)