[And yet more great stuff from Alex.]
Here's an important lesson to realise about cinema. The economics of film are predicated on you only seeing a film once. Most people go to the cinema, rent or own DVDs - not all three. Most people therefore only pay once for a film (even if you might watch it many times on DVD). What does this mean? It means the studios just need to get you to buy your ticket (or DVD), they almost don't care what happens to you once you're watching.
For small films quality is important because fewer people will walk in the door in the first place, so these films need to count on viewers convincing their friends to go and see the movie. Even for large films where the story is original, posters might not be enough. They still must have positive evangelism from viewers to go out and explain why it's worth seeing the film (even though advertising plays an important role at this level). Finally you have the "Pre-Sold Franchises", in these cases you will hear people say things like "I don't care how bad the reviews are I have to see that movie". Just look at the continued box office success of the new Star Wars films despite the critical panning. The fans still own all of the DVDs and went to the movies "just to see if they ruined it", same with Transformers, same with Spiderman.
Spiderman was interesting because it, and the first sequel, were actually good movies. I don't know how that slipped through the net, but hopefully the success of that and the new Bond film will remind execs that there is an audience out there who weren't sold on the original and they can be tapped only with quality. Two of my friends had never seen Bond until Casino Royale, by reaching out with quality the studio has been rewarded. I hope they take it to heart. Either that or they run out of cartoons to turn into movies. I've talked here about cartoons and so on, but the same is true for all adaptations. The reason that Hollywood turns so many books into film is not just because there are good stories in the books, it's because people will have already heard of the book. In the final part tomorrow I'll talk about the process of adaptation.
3 comments:
Although, it's strange how sometimes a film will be adapted from a book but the producers will almost downplay it, as if it were a bad thing. Why do you think that is?
I guess those who know will know and will go and see it. Those who haven't read the book don't want to think before they choose to go "oh great another ponderous adptation from a book". "Adapted from the novel by" sounds classy and complicated which is great if you're making "Enduring Love" or some other Merchant and Ivory style movie that would benefit from that sort of association, but if you are making James Bond now you don't want people to be reminded that there was a book involved. It makes it sound intellectual - I guess.
Goodness - the two of you are obviously totally convinced of the value of your "insights". But this is navel gazing to the power of ten. Sixth form media studies reflections on the film industry, and this wedded to the slothful activities of twenty-somethings with nothing better to do than go to the cinema every day or veg out on the sofa. Could you write it in a book instead of putting it out here where adults might come across it? Thanks.
Post a Comment