Where Have All the Cormans Gone? - Page 2

I feel The Tarantino/Eli Roth model is the answer.  QT not only mentored Roth, but produced his films.  Why can't a QT or someone else do this with an emerging crop of promising young (or old) filmmakers, but with much much smaller budgets distributed exclusively through youtube where ad dollars can go to support the filmmakers?  Like a Roger Corman like studio, but with everything shot digitally and micro budgets that come from some hungry cinema loving investor?  BAM, that's your entire operating right there, from idea, script, casting, production, editing, distribution...the marketing could even be some exclusive youtube coming attractions thing to show what's playing next from that outfit...you could even go crazy with product placement.  And as soon as a studio sees a film they like, they hire the young lad to helm their next actioner, or thriller or whatever, giving him a career.

I think mainstream filmmakers are afraid to do this because of possible retaliation from the studios...since they're the ones who put up their budgets.  I mean let's be honest, QT writes his own ticket, but he still needs Hollywood to fund and distribute his films.  Kind of not biting the hand that feeds you I guess.  This is why someone like Lucas would be perfect for this, because he couldn't give two fucks about the studios and has the muscle to do his own thing on his own terms without them at all.  You'd need someone brave enough to go against the studios, though it wouldn't really be going against them at all, since it would be such a small, niche operation.

Why Lucas hasn't done this for years is baffling. Especially considering his mentorship and training ground with FFC. In that line of thinking, Cameron's (who got his start with Corman) too interested in the new tech, but imagine if he invested in young film-makers and cheaper cinematic output.

I think any financing outfit would need to have a comfort level with modest profits.  That's the opposite of today's corporate model, and considering how much Lucas has had to do to maintain a high degree of "f**k you" money, I can't see him going into an endeavor with such low expectations.

On the other hand, I think Robert Rodriguez with his studio and production facilities at Troublemaker in Austin has it exactly right and has fun making movies without the promise of massive returns.  If Tarantino and Eli Roth would go in with him and figure out a distribution strategy, we could be in business. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by yt 

I think any financing outfit would need to have a comfort level with modest profits.  That's the opposite of today's corporate model, and considering how much Lucas has had to do to maintain a high degree of "f**k you" money, I can't see him going into an endeavor with such low expectations.

Which is ten tons of ironic considering he didn't think Star Wars would make any money and didn't care if it did, wanted to spend the rest of his life making documentaries with a modest living.

We live in an era of ridiculous greed.  If you don't have three houses, a fleet of cars and a staff, you're not doing it right in Hollywood.  More should aspire to be like Tom Shadyac (director of the good Jim Carrey comedies) who gave most of that up and now lives in a thousand square foot trailer in Malibu.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 

Why Lucas hasn't done this for years is baffling. Especially considering his mentorship and training ground with FFC. In that line of thinking, Cameron's (who got his start with Corman) too interested in the new tech, but imagine if he invested in young film-makers and cheaper cinematic output.

It's because Lucas and Cameron are FRAUDS. For all of their "I'm an artist" bullshit, they don't give one single fuck about cinema itself and are more fixated on their toys. Lucas has been bitching for DECADES that if it wasn't for Star Wars he could make little experimental personal films despite the fact that there's nothing stopping him. Cameron is another dickhead who likes to go on about the "art" of his films but the truth is that he's a technocrat as 3D does nothing but help put a premium on the insanely expensive movies that he makes. He's a studio movie maker through and through and couldn't care less about the state of cinema. No, we need someone who is a self-made billionaire who would finance and distribute small scale indie exploitation films, the way Corman would if he was 50 years younger and loaded.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tax Master 

It's because Lucas and Cameron are FRAUDS. For all of their "I'm an artist" bullshit, they don't give one single fuck about cinema itself and are more fixated on their toys. Lucas has been bitching for DECADES that if it wasn't for Star Wars he could make little experimental personal films despite the fact that there's nothing stopping him. Cameron is another dickhead who likes to go on about the "art" of his films but the truth is that he's a technocrat as 3D does nothing but help put a premium on the insanely expensive movies that he makes. He's a studio movie maker through and through and couldn't care less about the state of cinema. No, we need someone who is a self-made billionaire who would finance and distribute small scale indie exploitation films, the way Corman would if he was 50 years younger and loaded.

While I don't agree with you on 3D, I do feel Lucas and Cameron have lost the plot.  For all the technical innovations we've been seeing, there have been very few innovations in narrative, which is the most important aspect of movies, but Lucas and Cameron are obsessed with toys it seems...pity, the guys who are in a position to really do something, don't do it.

I mean, what was the last movie that truly took chances with narrative?  Memento?  Actually the recent Time Crimes and Primer brought something new to the table, but those were outsider films.  I would love to see an outfit that was just free to TRY THINGS, without having the fate of the entire fucking studio resting on its shoulders.  That's why Hollywood is addicted to making shit, because it pays the bills, and it's too risky for them to take chances.

Low cost, low key digital films distributed through a giant like youtube is the answer, produced by a big name to get people watching.  You could even get some name actors in there and do some kind of profit sharing thing.  The attraction for them would be the chance to play something they ordinarily wouldn't because of type casting. 

I would love that but there would have to be some kind of theatrical experience.  Everything online is so temporal.  It's nearly impossible to make a youtube debut an event.  Even videogames have a product. 

But it is so hard to string together independent distribution, and it's like filmmakers have to reinvent the wheel every time out.  If someone or a group of people got together to do some kind of roadshow circuit for truly indie movies, that would be amazing.

I have to also stick up for George Lucas.  He wouldn't be the first guy who had dreams of doing something he never ended up doing.  He's not super-human.  Still, I love what he has managed to achieve, even the "bad" Star Wars movies count in my opinion.  But he's not the guy to godfather independent genre movies. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 

Why Lucas hasn't done this for years is baffling. Especially considering his mentorship and training ground with FFC. In that line of thinking, Cameron's (who got his start with Corman) too interested in the new tech, but imagine if he invested in young film-makers and cheaper cinematic output.

But Lucas has helped films get made. Coppola's Tucker, Kurosawa's Kashuma, and a really crap animated film that I forget the name of were financed, and made because of his involvement. Sure  he's not operating at the volume we would like (and now that I think of it, all those films date from the 80's), and he's chosen to work with people he knows, but the man has made contributions. One could also consider the current Star Wars series and the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles as ways Lucas has brought in/up new talent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yt 

I think any financing outfit would need to have a comfort level with modest profits.  That's the opposite of today's corporate model, and considering how much Lucas has had to do to maintain a high degree of "f**k you" money, I can't see him going into an endeavor with such low expectations.

 

On the other hand, I think Robert Rodriguez with his studio and production facilities at Troublemaker in Austin has it exactly right and has fun making movies without the promise of massive returns.  If Tarantino and Eli Roth would go in with him and figure out a distribution strategy, we could be in business. 

I somehow think that it is that element of FUN that we're all really looking for. You watch a John Carpenter film from the 70's and 80's there is an infectious sense of fun that the film makers communicate. You just know that cast and crew had a blast making those flicks, and it somehow comes through (osmosis?) onto the screen. Same with Battle Beyond the Stars.

When I see 99% of the films being released now, what I see is souless product. You watch or read interviews with the Producers and Directors today, you realize they could just as easily be selling insurance or baby wipes or crack. But those later professions don't offer the huge pay, cocaine, sex and ego boost that film making does (well maybe the Drug Lord thing).  When someone describes their film as a "product". "Unit", or "property" you are not dealing with someone who gives a rat's ass about film as such.
 

Cylon, so true.  Carpenter's role models were all from the '40s and '50s.  He wasn't looking at what was selling at the time for inspiration -- he was trying to make the kind of movies he loved with the tools and collaborators he had available to him.  It was a process of discovery. 

Even the Max Max movies -- f***ing George Miller taking all those actors and cars out into the outback and just going nuts.  These were guys who grew up watching movies, and then got the tools and learned how to use them by playing with them, experimenting to see what they could do.  Even the original Texas Chainsaw must have been a complete WTF moment for Tobe Hooper when this crazy movie he made has such an incredible effect on audiences.  I think it's this spirit of discovery, adventure and "what the hell" that has been manufactured out of filmmaking.  But I do think that's what Robert Rodriguez has -- he loves doing it.  He doesn't have bosses breathing down his neck all the time.  He has set himself up to be able to make scrappy movies using what he has at hand. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by yt 

But it is so hard to string together independent distribution, and it's like filmmakers have to reinvent the wheel every time out.  If someone or a group of people got together to do some kind of roadshow circuit for truly indie movies, that would be amazing.

That's a pretty good idea.  Kevin Smith did it with Red State, and Coppola is doing it with Twixt...in a new and innovative way by putting the entire movie on an ipad and showing different versions in each city.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby 

 

When I see 99% of the films being released now, what I see is souless product. You watch or read interviews with the Producers and Directors today, you realize they could just as easily be selling insurance or baby wipes or crack. But those later professions don't offer the huge pay, cocaine, sex and ego boost that film making does (well maybe the Drug Lord thing).  When someone describes their film as a "product". "Unit", or "property" you are not dealing with someone who gives a rat's ass about film as such.
 

 

EXACTLY...that's basically what gutted movies and it's why 80-90% of them a terrible nowdays.  Back in the day the moguls cared more about making good movies and THEN worrying about how to sell them.  Today it's the other way around, they try and fit the film into a style that would sell the most tickets.  These clowns could be selling vacuum cleaners and it would the same pitches.  It's enough to make a film fan want to stop watching movies altogether...at least me, because I've seen what film can be, it's so not like that anymore.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by yt 

Cylon, so true.  Carpenter's role models were all from the '40s and '50s.  He wasn't looking at what was selling at the time for inspiration -- he was trying to make the kind of movies he loved with the tools and collaborators he had available to him.  It was a process of discovery. 

 

Even the Max Max movies -- f***ing George Miller taking all those actors and cars out into the outback and just going nuts.  These were guys who grew up watching movies, and then got the tools and learned how to use them by playing with them, experimenting to see what they could do.  Even the original Texas Chainsaw must have been a complete WTF moment for Tobe Hooper when this crazy movie he made has such an incredible effect on audiences.  I think it's this spirit of discovery, adventure and "what the hell" that has been manufactured out of filmmaking.  But I do think that's what Robert Rodriguez has -- he loves doing it.  He doesn't have bosses breathing down his neck all the time.  He has set himself up to be able to make scrappy movies using what he has at hand. 

Rodriguez probably has the best game in town right now.  Totally independent, but with his own big tools and worldwide distribution.

You don't have to love his movies, but you gotta admire the guys nous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

 

EXACTLY...that's basically what gutted movies and it's why 80-90% of them a terrible nowdays.  Back in the day the moguls cared more about making good movies and THEN worrying about how to sell them.  Today it's the other way around, they try and fit the film into a style that would sell the most tickets.

I haven't really worked for the Hollywood machine, but spent 8 years in interactive. It's the same with the bigger video game companies. I can't tell you how many meetings I attended that were strictly for "discovering the target demographic" and "competitive product analysis" and "how/where/why are we going to market this thing. because that will determine the greenlight?" And I wasn't even IN marketing. I was on the creative development teams.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yt 
On the other hand, I think Robert Rodriguez with his studio and production facilities at Troublemaker in Austin has it exactly right and has fun making movies without the promise of massive returns.  If Tarantino and Eli Roth would go in with him and figure out a distribution strategy, we could be in business. 

Assuming RR's Quick Draw Productions hits the ground running within the next few years, I can easily see his pals and collaborators* jumping in and making a film or two with him.

* - Quentin Tarantino, Eli Roth, Scott Spiegel, Michael Biehn, Jason Eisener, Ethan Maniquis, Rob Zombie, Edgar Wright, Frank Miller, Nimrod Antal, Greg Nicotero, etc.  Hell, maybe even Guillermo Del Toro.  Rodriguez has A LOT of friends in the industry and I imagine many would jump at the chance to do a quick fun little film for him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

 

Rodriguez probably has the best game in town right now.  Totally independent, but with his own big tools and worldwide distribution.

100% agreed, which is why he is my #1 choice to take on the "Corman mantle".  He has the resources, the attitude, and the right sensibilities for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken 

 

Assuming RR's Quick Draw Productions hits the ground running within the next few years, I can easily see his pals and collaborators* jumping in and making a film or two with him.

 

 

* - Quentin Tarantino, Eli Roth, Scott Spiegel, Michael Biehn, Jason Eisener, Ethan Maniquis, Rob Zombie, Edgar Wright, Frank Miller, Nimrod Antal, Greg Nicotero, etc.  Hell, maybe even Guillermo Del Toro.  Rodriguez has A LOT of friends in the industry and I imagine many would jump at the chance to do a quick fun little film for him.

 

100% agreed, which is why he is my #1 choice to take on the "Corman mantle".  He has the resources, the attitude, and the right sensibilities for it.

Hell yes.  That would be so awesome.  I'd add Frank Henenlotter, Joe Dante, maybe even John Carpenter to the mix.  Get Rob Bottin out there.  We can dream, can't we?

I was looking at that Visual FX promo for the John Adams Mini-series and it fucking ASTOUNDS me that they were able to make an 8 hour mini-series, shot on film no less, for 100 million. That's 25 mill for each two hour patch. Can you imagine Hollywood getting a two hour historical drama made for 25 million? Most likely they'd end up spending 100 million plus on such a project.

I was thinking about it and if I was a billionaire, I'd buy HBO and just finance Direct To TV features along with the programs that they already do. There's a number of benefits from avoiding theatrical releasing; One - you can get more bang for your budget with TV production .; Two - Digital tech has made it that you can compete with features.; Three - You don't have to squeeze everything into a two hour time frame because you worry that people can't sit through a three + plus hour production.; Four - you don't have to spend insane amounts of money just to advertise and distribute your project.; Five - There's no need to worry about the fucking M.P.A.A. which means that you can produce projects with an adult subject matter and graphic content without fear that you're going to be censored.; and most importantly, TV has always been a writers medium. This is because you HAVE to keep the audience interested because they can change the channel.

Now, I love seeing a movie in a theater as much as everyone else here but, let's be realistic, there just isn't the audience for really original and creative work, especially in the malls of America. Most of the best stuff I've seen has been Produced for TV and in LARGE QUANTITIES unlike the occasional great flick that gets released in a theater. I don't want theatrical distribution to disappear but when you consider how much fucking bother it is to see a movie from the cost of the tickets to snacks, assholes on their cellphone, children, blah blah blah, I prefer to sit and wait to see most movies these days on Blu-ray's as they're usually out within three to four months, if not sooner for some movies, and I can enjoy them in the comfort of my home theater along with whatever snacks I like and can pause for bathroom breaks.

Anywho, the point is that by producing for TV, you can avoid multiple issues with theatrical releasing while retaining cost control and artistic integrity.

Just some thoughts.....