Posts

Showing posts with the label studios

CASE STUDY: Why are there so many sequels in movie theaters?

The overabundance of sequels is nothing new. But why are they in theaters instead of in the secondary markets of Direct-to-DVD or VOD? Nico Lang from Salon attempts an answer: Part of that is due to a studio system that’s grown more cautious in recent years, banking on pre-existing properties that seem like safe bets in an uncertain film market. “We have projects at six studios, and ninety per cent of their attention goes to the ones that are superhero or obviously franchisable,” director Shawn Levy (“Night at the Museum”) told the  New Yorker . “And every single first meeting I have on a movie, in the past two years, is not about the movie itself but about the franchise it would be starting.” The other reason, though, that so many theatrical sequels are being greenlit is because of the erosion of the home video market. With the disappearance of video stores, the rapid decline in DVD sales, and sluggish VOD numbers, movies are being pushed into theaters that have no business

PRODUCTION TIPS: Ending a Horrible Film/TV Industry Practice: "Paying on an Unpaid Basis"

Image
REPOSTED FROM MY OTHER BLOG: LENSATIC I have always admired the low-budget filmmaker who can make something beautiful or daring or entertaining with the tiniest budget.  Unfortunately, the low-budget filmmaker is not the rarity but the norm.  There is no shortage of filmmakers trying to create even if it means at negative cost to themselves because there is so much potential financial and personal reward in the end.  Maybe that's why the industry has been able to get away with paying nothing for highly creative and technical services and expensive equipment.  That's done more harm than good in the grand scheme of things.  That is why Charles Davis has done the industry a service by reporting on the internship abuse in the entertainment industry.  In a post for The Baffler, he  tracks and outs  the production companies that continue to perpetuate one of the worst practices of the film and TV industry: failing to pay workers a real wage by offering instead "pay on an

PRODUCTION TIPS: Avoid Using a Movie Title Already In Use (Lessons Learned from The Butler ruling)

Image
So the verdict came in and  a MPAA title registration bureau arbitration ruled Tuesday that The Weinstein Co. could not use the title  The Butler  on its upcoming film, due to be released Aug. 16, because that previously served as the title of a 1916 short film that now belongs to the Warner Bros. library .  High-powered attorney, David Boies, fresh off his Supreme Court win, issued the following statement, "The suggestion that there is a danger of confusion between The Weinstein Co.’s 2013 feature movie and a 1917 [sic] short that has not been shown in theaters, television, DVDs, or in any other way for almost a century makes no sense. The award has no purpose except to restrict competition and is contrary to public policy."  Basically, the MPAA title registration bureau decided that the market at large (meaning you and I) would confuse 2013's The Butler, a feature film about an African-American butler serving at the White House for 34 years, with 1916's The Butl