What do you mean by that? "A Steven Spielberg film" or "a new film from Quentin Tarantino" or "From the director who brought you Seven and The Social Network" means something and can boost profits.
For many people, the director is just as important--if not more important--than the stars when it comes to making a decision on whether or not to see a film.
Meaningless, and again, don't get me wrong. I know what good filmmaking looks like; what I'm saying is that it's not translatable to dollars.
I'll say "priceless" if it helps with the swallowing.
I don't know if you know this but comic books are pretty popular. What you might also, or might not know is that
many people who read comics don't really look at the art. They get a sense of it in terms of following the story, but they're not really cognizant of style or sophistication of technique.
Likewise with film many audiences are content to watch inferior versions of films, whether by bootlegged copy or on a teeny tiny screen -- instances where directorship is too obscured to be appreciated. People simply do not allow themselves the opportunity to take in the craft.
Any popular director you cite: two things. 1) Calling something a "So and so Film" is not a testament to craft but to familiarity. It's the name, and yes I realize the name is built on good craft but it's the familiarity, because familiarity breeds contempt. Example: BFG was a great movie by a well-known director and it went wood. Due to bad word of mouth and poor marketing. It's all about familiarity. Not what it is, or what it looks like -- and you know that's true because there's been plenty of times you went to see a film by a director you know to be good and the film sucked shit. Your examples are proof of marketing over craft. "Remember these things? This will be like those things. We promise!" I could go on but I said "two things" and I hate when people enumerate and don't follow through. 2) The involvement of the director is a collaborative one, and that's even harder to put a dollar value on. Who's doing the work? How much faith can we put into this guy? No one knows until like a year down the line. It's too chancy. Shyamalan is a great example, it's just a matter of how much more can we watch shit go down in a house. Because once a Night film leaves the house? And the budget goes up? Rut-roh. I guess performance anxiety gets to him. I don't know.
No one can explain why a movie is good or bad. It just is. Success is due to the audience, more than the film itself or by whom it was made and how. And because of that, and inflation, no one wants to gamble on a slow returning film.
Ask anyone on this site why they don't go to the movies and they'll respond with some form of "make good films and I'll go pay to see them." That's a gamble of fifteen dollars they refuse to make. Try throwing in the cost of making, marketing, distributing (don't forget on the home market too), all the administrative duties therein, and then collecting on it and making sure everyone is paid their due. When the gamble is exponentially higher, what makes you think the level of reluctance won't following suit?
He shouldn't be complaining but this is the best level marketing his could muster, I guess. He should be making web-series and figuring out how to monetize himself. All the real filmmaking has gone to cable and streaming video.
