James Gray on "the struggle of the middle-class filmmaker," or why Marvel is ruining everything

[The Diplomat]

He's not a shitty director, though.

Did you ever see We Own the Night with Joaquin Phoenix, Marky Mark and Robert Duvall? If so, that's his. Solid film.

The Lost City of Z is also good.

From what I gather, most of his movies lose money, and he's writer/director for them. Lost city of Z made $11.8 million off of a $30 million budget. The Immigrant made $5.9 million off of a $16 million budget.

 

[Guestx]

From what I gather, most of his movies lose money, and he's writer/director for them. Lost city of Z made $11.8 million off of a $30 million budget. The Immigrant made $5.9 million off of a $16 million budget.

All right, so you bring up an interesting point.

I can't speak to The Immigrant or Two Lovers, because I haven't seen them. But I have seen Lost City of Z and it's a good film. Not only do I think so but it also has an 88% on RT, or at least it did the last I looked.

So let's just focus on Lost City. If the quality is not a problem, then what is? The advertising? The genre? Why are people not going to see this film? I really have no idea because, to me at least, it's a lot more interesting than another superhero movie.

I also think we need to keep in mind that there's more money to be made on home video sales and rentals, TV rights, etc. So the studio might have a long-term plan to make their money back, I dunno.

But what I can say is that the film really SHOULD be making more money. This movie is a great refutation of what some people were saying earlier, that if you make a good film people will go see it. I look here and say, well that's simply not true.

 

[Turtlejuice]

I've actually heard about that book. Sounds like an interesting read.

It's obvious of course that Hollywood is going to keep making what people want to see. The question then is why is it that the moviegoing public isn't asking for more? Not more of the same, but more variety. It's not that I don't think people should want to go see big spectacles in general--and superhero movies in particular--but why do they want SO MUCH of them? It's almost like that's ALL anyone wants to see these days, or at least all that they want to go to the theater for.

I keep waiting for the bubble to burst but it's been growing for years now.

So far I've found it useful, I'm not that far through it though.

He kind of touches on that as well. He likens it to (before the days of online reviews and such) the way people decide what they're going to watch at the cinema on a Friday night is they'd look in the listing in a news paper where you had a few lines to tell you what the film was about. Hundreds/thousands of people submit ideas every week, and each one of them basically has a few lines to "sell" the idea (known as a logline). Apparently a large % of spec writers are not very good at that part of the process. If you can't get people interested in your original idea in a few lines, it's never going to see the light of day.

I think the reason the movie going public isn't asking for more variety is because most people don't go to the movies that often. When people do go to the movies they want to see something that entertains them. It probably doesn't matter to them that 50% of the movies they watch are superhero movies, as long as the movies are entertaining them.

So let's just focus on Lost City. If the quality is not a problem, then what is? The advertising? The genre? Why are people not going to see this film? I really have no idea because, to me at least, it's a lot more interesting than another superhero movie.

I also think we need to keep in mind that there's more money to be made on home video sales and rentals, TV rights, etc. So the studio might have a long-term plan to make their money back, I dunno.

But what I can say is that the film really SHOULD be making more money. This movie is a great refutation of what some people were saying earlier, that if you make a good film people will go see it. I look here and say, well that's simply not true.

If you look at it from the perspective of a casual viewer, you want to go to the cinema Saturday for your monthly/bi-monthly cinema trips you see 2 options.

Option 1
The Lost City of Z tells the incredible true story of British explorer Percy Fawcett, who journeys into the Amazon at the dawn of the 20th century and discovers evidence of a previously unknown, advanced civilization that may have once inhabited the region. Despite being ridiculed by the scientific establishment who regard indigenous populations as "savages," the determined Fawcett - supported by his devoted wife, son and aide de camp returns time and again to his beloved jungle in an attempt to prove his case, culminating in his mysterious disappearance in 1925.

and Option 2
Guardians of the Galaxy 2

What would you choose? Most would gravitate to Guardians simply because they know what to expect, they enjoyed the first one so they know there's a good chance they'll enjoy the second one. They know what genre its' going to be, they know what to expect in terms of story, action, production value etc... The Lost City of Z is an unknown, even reading that plot summary I don't know what the film is going to be about.

 

[Organic Damage]

So far I've found it useful, I'm not that far through it though.

He kind of touches on that as well. He likens it to (before the days of online reviews and such) the way people decide what they're going to watch at the cinema on a Friday night is they'd look in the listing in a news paper where you had a few lines to tell you what the film was about. Hundreds/thousands of people submit ideas every week, and each one of them basically has a few lines to "sell" the idea (known as a logline). Apparently a large % of spec writers are not very good at that part of the process. If you can't get people interested in your original idea in a few lines, it's never going to see the light of day.

I think the reason the movie going public isn't asking for more variety is because most people don't go to the movies that often. When people do go to the movies they want to see something that entertains them. It probably doesn't matter to them that 50% of the movies they watch are superhero movies, as long as the movies are entertaining them.



If you look at it from the perspective of a casual viewer, you want to go to the cinema Saturday for your monthly/bi-monthly cinema trips you see 2 options.

Option 1
The Lost City of Z tells the incredible true story of British explorer Percy Fawcett, who journeys into the Amazon at the dawn of the 20th century and discovers evidence of a previously unknown, advanced civilization that may have once inhabited the region. Despite being ridiculed by the scientific establishment who regard indigenous populations as "savages," the determined Fawcett - supported by his devoted wife, son and aide de camp returns time and again to his beloved jungle in an attempt to prove his case, culminating in his mysterious disappearance in 1925.

and Option 2
Guardians of the Galaxy 2

What would you choose? Most would gravitate to Guardians simply because they know what to expect, they enjoyed the first one so they know there's a good chance they'll enjoy the second one. They know what genre its' going to be, they know what to expect in terms of story, action, production value etc... The Lost City of Z is an unknown, even reading that plot summary I don't know what the film is going to be about.

What's interesting is that it seems the casual viewer has become as risk-averse as Hollywood itself. You only go out for a few "movie nights" a month and with tickets, concessions etc it's costing like $50 easy for a family. And then its 2 wasted hours of your life? When you're gambling with your own time and money, I can understand wanting a sure return.

I think part of the problem is that it's easy to sell explosions, chases and gunfights. We're wired to get off on action like we're wired to like sugary fatty stuff. It's harder to sell the movie equivalent of quinoa -- ok it's intellectual or artistic food for your brain, but maybe you don't get that quick hit up front, because the value has to be digested.

 

[superpunch]

Good. Low budget movies suck. The people have spoken.

 

[slivercord]

I feel for him and his kind of right, marvel is fucking up the market with the "family" kind of structure where only the directors who blow them get the job, but also with dirty tactics they use, like threat a cinema chain with no access to their films if they don't take some movies out. Tarantino complained about that in a Interview. But in the end of the day it's the consumer fault, I almost got a hearth attack when a chick I met would rather watch transformers then a good drama.

 

[HereticBD]

It's simply supply and demand. I don't know what this guy is bitching about, other than not being rich.

 

[ReAnimator Reagan]

From what I gather, most of his movies lose money, and he's writer/director for them. Lost city of Z made $11.8 million off of a $30 million budget. The Immigrant made $5.9 million off of a $16 million budget.

Your directing skills are not based on how much money a movie makes.

Both Blade Runner and The Thing (carpenter) did shit at the box office...are RS and JC shitty directors? Are BR and The Thing shitty movies even???

It's simply supply and demand. I don't know what this guy is bitching about, other than not being rich.

Did you read the paragraph he said??? He is pissed because studios are only making super hero movies (well, and sequels and remakes and etc) and because of this, only SH movies are being shown and not the smaller movies he makes. He also says that back in the 70s he would have been rich because in the 70s the movie industry was much more different and mature---which is the truth.

So in a way he is lamenting about the loss of the golden age of hollywood while throwing out a warning that soon we will HAVE no choice---it will be all what the big studios throw out to be global cash machines with no artistic merit and having to play in commie shitholes like china.

/cliffs

 

[HereticBD]

Did you read the paragraph he said??? He is pissed because studios are only making super hero movies (well, and sequels and remakes and etc) and because of this, only SH movies are being shown and not the smaller movies he makes.

But that's just not true. Studios are still making all sorts of movies. Marketing might be a different story, but it's only smart business to put the most money behind movies that are practically guaranteed to sell. Make a movie people go to see, and you'll see the dollars roll in for your next film. If your film bombs, you're not going to see much. Given this guy's history, he should be thankful that he still gets any funding at all for his films.

He also says that back in the 70s he would have been rich because in the 70s the movie industry was much more different and mature---which is the truth.

He can't possibly know that. There are countless talented directors who made jack shit in the 70's. It's so arrogant to think that your awesomeness is just not being recognized, because of the era you're in.

This guy is just bitter, and making excuses. If he's a real artist, he shouldn't give a shit that his movies aren't bringing in GOTG money.

 

[Guestx]

I think the reason the movie going public isn't asking for more variety is because most people don't go to the movies that often. When people do go to the movies they want to see something that entertains them. It probably doesn't matter to them that 50% of the movies they watch are superhero movies, as long as the movies are entertaining them.

If you look at it from the perspective of a casual viewer, you want to go to the cinema Saturday for your monthly/bi-monthly cinema trips you see 2 options.

Option 1
The Lost City of Z tells the incredible true story of British explorer Percy Fawcett, who journeys into the Amazon at the dawn of the 20th century and discovers evidence of a previously unknown, advanced civilization that may have once inhabited the region. Despite being ridiculed by the scientific establishment who regard indigenous populations as "savages," the determined Fawcett - supported by his devoted wife, son and aide de camp returns time and again to his beloved jungle in an attempt to prove his case, culminating in his mysterious disappearance in 1925.

and Option 2
Guardians of the Galaxy 2

What would you choose? Most would gravitate to Guardians simply because they know what to expect, they enjoyed the first one so they know there's a good chance they'll enjoy the second one. They know what genre its' going to be, they know what to expect in terms of story, action, production value etc... The Lost City of Z is an unknown, even reading that plot summary I don't know what the film is going to be about.

I understand what you're saying but it seems to me that even for the casual viewer, their appetite for these kinds of films would eventually be satiated. I mean, that is exactly what has happened to me. When the superhero thing first started, I went and watched them all. Now I am going to see almost none of them. So it wasn't that I never had an interest, it's that I've now had my fill and am wanting something else. I mean, I enjoy a good hamburger, but if I eat nothing but hamburgers they start to not taste so good.

The funny thing is that EVEN IN THE WORLD OF BLOCKBUSTERS, the superhero and Star Wars films have taken over. I mean, one of my favorite franchises is Indiana Jones, and Indy films have ALWAYS done well financially, but we never get any big-budget adventure films in that vein. Why not? I don't understand it. So it's like, not only are the studios focused primarily on blockbusters, but also a very narrow range of these kinds of films. Sure, they're still making other kinds of big-budget films, but the ratio is skewed so heavily toward superheroes and Star Wars.

 

[Guestx]

This guy is just bitter, and making excuses. If he's a real artist, he shouldn't give a shit that his movies aren't bringing in GOTG money.

Even artists need to provide for themselves and their family, pay their bills, own some possessions, and finance the occasional vacation.

Everyone needs to be paid for their time and talents.

 

[Dr Stoppage]

Sick of superhero garbage.

God, this. I too am so fucking sick of superhero garbage. Why do so many people, grown people, LOVE that shit? Even as a kid, I never cared for superheroes.

 

[HereticBD]

Even artists need to provide for themselves and their family, pay their bills, own some possessions, and finance the occasional vacation.

The thing with being an artist, is that you're not entitled to shit. Your financial success is not guaranteed, and is solely based on the returns you get for your work. If nobody buys your shit, you ain't gettin' paid.

Besides, I don't buy his "I live in a tiny apartment above a bowling alley, and below another bowling alley" bullshit.
This guy is given tens of millions of dollars to make a movie. You think he got paid like $20,000 to make a $30,000,000 movie? Yeah, not bloody likely.

Everyone needs to be paid for their time and talents.

And he is. He just thinks because he's a director of Hollywood movies, he's entitled to be wealthy. Not how it works.

 

[Guestx]

The thing with being an artist, is that you're not entitled to shit. Your financial success is not guaranteed, and is solely based on the returns you get for your work. If nobody buys your shit, you ain't gettin' paid.

Besides, I don't buy his "I live in a tiny apartment above a bowling alley, and below another bowling alley" bullshit.
This guy is given tens of millions of dollars to make a movie. You think he got paid like $20,000 to make a $30,000,000 movie? Yeah, not bloody likely.

From a purely Darwinian way of looking at things, you are of course right. But I think that any decent person would shiver at the thought of the next Transformers movie doing gangbusters at the box office while lesser known, but much better, films fail, and along with them the filmmakers also fail.

Also, look at the mass of artists in various fields who lived in poverty and obscurity, only to have their work finally recognized and appreciated after they were dead. You don't feel like there's something tragic about that? Should Van Gogh really have died penniless?

 

[HereticBD]

From a purely Darwinian way of looking at things, you are of course right. But I think that any decent person would shiver at the thought of the next Transformers movie doing gangbusters at the box office while lesser known, but much better, films fail, and along with them the filmmakers also fail.

It's not exactly a new trend. Fluff sells. That trend is not changing anytime soon.

Also, look at the mass of painters who lived in poverty and obscurity, only to have their work really recognized and appreciated after they were dead. You don't feel like there's something tragic about that?

It is what it is.

 

[Guestx]

It is what it is.

You're right, it is what it is. So is cancer. What it is is shitty.

 

[HereticBD]

You're right, it is what it is. So is cancer. What it is is shitty.

No offense, but I wouldn't hold your nose so high in the air, considering your history. Let's not pretend like you're the bastion of good taste, and only like high art. You've defended a good portion of those "fluff" films from Micheal Bay, and will go to bat for M. Night Shyamalan no matter what shit he pumps out.

 

[Guestx]

No offense, but I wouldn't hold your nose so high in the air, considering your history. Let's not pretend like you're the bastion of good taste, and only like high art. You've defended a good portion of those "fluff" films from Micheal Bay, and will go to bat for M. Night Shyamalan no matter what shit he pumps out.

I'm not against fluff films--or popcorn films, as I prefer to call them--at all. But I am against shitty ones (we may disagree on what that means) and more than that, I am against the cinema landscape all looking the same.

I think my post earlier, where I posted the Top 10 highest grossing films from 1993 and the Top 10 from 2013 is very telling. There is much more variety in the chart from 1993.

I watch all kinds of movies, personally. I don't restrict myself to any one genre.

 

[HereticBD]

I'm not against fluff films--or popcorn films, as I prefer to call them--at all. But I am against shitty ones (we may disagree on what that means) and more than that, I am against the cinema landscape all looking the same.

I think my post earlier, where I posted the Top 10 highest grossing films from 1993 and the Top 10 from 2013 is very telling. There is much more variety in the chart from 1993.

That's not the cinema landscape though. That's the blockbuster landscape. It doesn't impede other types of films from getting made. There is still a vast variety of films in all genres getting made today. We probably have more options as an audience than ever before. What do you care how much money they make?

 

[Guestx]

What do you care how much money they make?

I like to see talent rewarded, for one. If you make a good movie, you should profit more than the director who made a poor one.

Also, from a practical perspective, I know that if the kinds of movies I like make a lot of money, then the studios will make more movies I like. On the other hand, if the kinds of movies I dislike are the ones pulling in all the cash, then the studio is going to put the lion's share of their money and effort into making THOSE kinds of movies, which obviously doesn't work out well for me.