His Originality Does Not Make Money
-
steve2005 — 13 years ago(May 24, 2012 07:53 PM)
According to John August, Dov SS Simmons and other screenwriting smarty pants, all movies basically make profit. Otherwise, no one would spend so much money on movies. It's fairly complicated from my understanding, but if you find John August's talk with the guy who wrote "Hangover," they explain how movie money works, and one thing is that studios fudge the budget. Also, a majority of their money comes from post theatrical releases (i.e. video, cable, PPV, etc.).
The other thing is that studios lump movies with larger more profitable films, so that the money would even out.
Another thing I heard was that there are these smaller movies, such as "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind," that are more of the "Prestigious" films that studios hope to get Academy Awards to give them that ribbon and rerelease their films for award winners etc.
I know this is a bit simplified, but from how I hear it it's complicated and bigger than what we're told. But, yes, I'm sure movies lose money, but more often than not, they make a lot of money. That's why Executives can get so rich and Charlie Kaufman will not have to worry about being in the unemployment line. -
evil_jello_man — 15 years ago(December 29, 2010 12:51 PM)
Don't forget that there is also a lot of revenue from people watching his films on DVD and cable deals like HBO. That is not counted in Box Office Gross. He is a lot more profiatable then people think.
-
brandon1930 — 14 years ago(February 05, 2012 09:09 AM)
Sure, his movies don't make much, but most have turned SOME profit. Plus, the Academy seems to like him. Of the 6 movies he's written, 3 have been nominated for best Screenplay, as well as a few of the 'big' Oscars. Wins in those categories can often mean millions more in revenue for a studio. So maybe it's a gamble they're willing to take.
-
Norran — 13 years ago(August 29, 2012 10:27 AM)
I'm sure most of his films have made a profit by now because they cost very little to make. About $10 to $20 million. It's not like he's making $200 million movies that need to make generate half a billion dollars in ticket sales.
Most of his films if they don't make money at the box office can easily become profitable once they hit home video. -
alienjesus — 13 years ago(October 18, 2012 03:30 PM)
beep the box office. Kaufman is an amazing writer and one of the last people in Hollywood that gives me hope for the future. If he can't get a movie made that's pretty much the end of cinema in my eyes.
A black pool opened up at my feet. I dived in. It had no bottom. -
TimRohn — 12 years ago(January 20, 2014 05:10 AM)
I do not know if you still have any interest in this topic.. Considering you posted this 3 - 4 years ago. However, I thought you might be interested to know he is tagged on to write the screenplay for The Knife of Never Letting Go. I can't say when production will start, but this film is based off a book and I believe it will likely be as big as the current Hunger Games films. Charlie Kaufman may finally make it big in Hollywood, if he writes the screenplay well. (I wouldn't say Sunshine or any of his other films exactly made him big).
-
SamoanJoes — 11 years ago(February 12, 2015 10:41 AM)
It's funny how Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind had an A-list actor like Jim Carrey, an Oscar nominee at the time in Kate Winslet as its leads and musters up nothing at the box office.
You're right, his originality does not make money even with a box office draw like Jim Carrey.
I would invest my money in a Kaufman film as long as the budget was reasonable. -
keithmoonhangover — 10 years ago(October 18, 2015 11:58 AM)
They are not about making easy-money by pandering to illiterates, teens and stunted-adults, but by creating real movies that might actually make you think.
What a load of pretentious nonsense. Kaufman's made bad movies the same as everyone else.
If you get in bed with the devil, sooner or later you have to fvck. -
keithmoonhangover — 10 years ago(October 20, 2015 11:02 AM)
You make it sound like 'low IQ' movies are a recent thing. Where have you been for the last hundred years. I love Adaptation, but there' nothing 'high IQ' about it. The idea is cool, but the stories aren't challenging in the slightest.
"These latest comic book flicks are literally being hand-created for a brain-dead foreign audience with ADD." - No, they are being created to make money.
If you get in bed with the devil, sooner or later you have to fvck. -
eljefemartin — 10 years ago(January 02, 2016 05:11 PM)
I think his are very personal movies, which represent his own struggle (with writing) more than the common goal of screenwriters to produce a likeable product. Charlie Kaufman tries to appeal to the finer senses and you need a certain sensibility to look behind the mere presentation of events on screen. There are layers in his stories, which I highly approve of, in times where we are used to blunt forms of entertainment, which sum up to: what you see is what you get. If you open up to a1354 Charlie Kaufman movie, you may discover something about yourself. That is never going to happen with a Transformers movie. The sensation is of a different kind.
I think more than one type of movies are able to coexist, but his movies are like a secluded world, coded to some extent to appeal to those, who can appreciate the effort and struggle that went into the process of making them. It's a certain responsibility he has, not only for each of his movies, but for the audience. The paradox is that movies are meant to reach a large audience and Kaufman wants to be admired or at least liked by the many, but his work really lends itself only to a small group of grateful recipients. I've wondered, why he never thought about writing novels, but I believe he would not have the same impact in prose as in a movie. He's unique and so are his movies. -
theunopeneddoor-697-442391 — 10 years ago(March 06, 2016 04:54 AM)
Nothing high IQ about Adaptation? You're a moron. That film could be the inspiration for a PHD dissertation. It's literally one of the deepest American films ever made with the ideas of relationships, internal struggle, duality of people and a million other themes.
Also so you know, Summer blockbusters didn't even exist before the 1970s. Not until the 21st century did Hollywood put all it's eggs into the lowest common denominator basket. before that they would always use the money from the Summer blockbusters to finance the prestige films. Sure there were bad movies and monster movies and the likebut they were a niche thing and not mainstream like today.
Movies also weren't financed the same way back then. A studio would release ten or twenty movies with the hope one or two would make money. Back then two would play together and if they made money it wasn't always the concern. (that's what the term "B movie" comes from. It wasn't a low budget movie, it was the second most popular movie playing on the marquee)/ The Studio system allowed better movies to be made. Unfortunately people got ripped off too. Then later in the 1970s directors became kings and great movies were produced then. It wasn't until Heaven's Gate killed the idea of art in the film industry by having a ridiculous budget and bombing huge that studio heads made it the ype of business it is now with high concept and the crappy way films are made today. Don Simpson is a major reason why too.
I hope you read this because you have no idea what you are talking about.
P.S. I assure you most Of Charlie's films have made money, otherwise he wouldn't get access to the budgets he does. Synechdoche bombed though.
There is no such thing as a hipster. -
eljefemartin — 9 years ago(April 28, 2016 12:52 AM)
You should check, who you reply to, because it looks like you replied to my post and not OP. If you wish for him to read your comments you should try to post them as a reply to his original post. Thank you.