-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Has studio execs sticking their nose into a movie production ever helped?
- Thread starter Pilgrimzero
- Start date
Yeah, I couldn't remember the details, I'd have to go back and watch that documentary again. I don't know if I'd lump them in with "the studio" in the context that we're discussing, as they were producing and were much more directly involved.
Yeah, when they're putting up the money they should have some say. That's why the indie scene is so important. There's were filmmakers should have freereign and often we see some big misses there (also some brilliant work as well)
LOST was righted by studio executives. When they became hands off is when the quality started to dip.
Dead wife was cliche but i can't imagine the movie without it added so much emotional depth and stakes
Which i heard was missing from Tenet
Actors sometimes do help inform the character since they're playing and probably thought about them
Not sure about movies, but Breaking Bad would've been a much worse show if the executives hadn't stepped in to kibosh Vince Gilligan's most nihilistic tendencies.
Probably happens all the time. But no director is going to really come out & say; "you know, my idea was alright but these studio execs really fixed it up for the better."
On the other hand, you're always gonna hear a director say "my vision was a lot different but the studio had to get what they wanted, oh well."
On the other hand, you're always gonna hear a director say "my vision was a lot different but the studio had to get what they wanted, oh well."
Having a hard time finding a good source, but apparently it's talked about in the commentary for A New Hope. Anthony Daniels voiced his lines as you know them, and then Lucas was going to dub over them with his used car salesman idea, but ended up liking the way Daniels did it and stuck with it.
So yeah, not studio execs in that case afterall.
Here are some examples:
- It was the studio that pushed for Michael Gross and Reba McEntire to play the Gummers in the movie Tremors.
- Paramount Studios often had to reign in some of Gene Roddenberry's more eccentric ideas for the Star Trek franchise.
- Fox demanded Joss Whedon include a sexy female character for the show Firefly. So he created the character Inara Serra.
There is a school of thought that sometimes adversity or editors can be a great thing for art
Well, yes, because editors usually have a better grasp about what the audience thinks or wants, considering they're more experienced. Experience is essential in pretty much every other job imaginable, so there's no reason to believe it would be any different with art.
Restrictions and even censorship have also been known to stimulate creativity, since it forces the artist to consider more options than just the more straightforward way.
Batman the animated show were able to play with dark concepts because they have to get around censors like minor example instead of w suicide pill the pill instead leaves you brain dead
Every single film you've ever seen has some degree of studio input. The stories of everything going wrong tend to be from doomed productions where there's a conflict between studio/producer/directors/actors etc
Ultimately, producers are there to oversee and correct. They're also there to make sure a film is financed and if the director's vision is financial viable or if it needs to be scaled back.
Ultimately, producers are there to oversee and correct. They're also there to make sure a film is financed and if the director's vision is financial viable or if it needs to be scaled back.
Not really. The show's creators had a rough idea of where to take the show, but they were building it for less seasons than it ended up being. Execs forced them to stretch it out as long as they did because of how successful the show had turned out to be, that's where the problems began.
You only hear about it when it goes badly and somebody needs blaming (and the fault may indeed lay with the studio).
I mean the MCU is a prime example of tight studio oversight leading to immense success. Whether some of those films would be better with more control for the directors (e.g. Ant-man), who knows.
I mean the MCU is a prime example of tight studio oversight leading to immense success. Whether some of those films would be better with more control for the directors (e.g. Ant-man), who knows.
Are you sure? My understanding is that the writers wanted a deadline to finish things off but the studio wanted to stretch it out with more filler because it was such a cash-cow. The finally agreed on a six-season run during the middle of season 3. The final season didn't quite stick the landing, sure (and that's arguably because they wanted to stick with JJ Abrams' original idea for the finale), but if the "studio" wanted to just drag things out forever like what they were doing in season 3.
Yes, Roddenberry is an excellent example of what OP is asking about.
Not really. The budget wasn't high enough for any execs to really care. Lucas's friends and his wife pitched in to help at times, but the final movie is very much a George Lucas joint.
Yup. There's a famous quote from a Disney executive after the Black Friday screening. When Jeff Katzenberg asked why the movie wasn't better, since the Pixar people were clearly talented, Thomas Schumacher responded "because it's not their movie anymore."
While it's true the studios did want it prolonged, they also were very adamant that everything have a real in life explanation. The showrunners basically side stepped them, so things like the polar bear were intended by them to be things walk manifested, but also had an excuse of being studied on the island and such. There's an article from one of the writers that went into it, and then an old document leaked out which went over all the proposed plots and answered some of the questions from season 1.
But in short, the studio execs wanted things more firmly based in reality with small bits of scifi, the showrunners wanted it to be more fantasy and harder sci-fi.
I dunno, I'm still with the writers on that one. "Dharma is keeping polar bears in the fucking tropics for research purposes or whatever" was an extremely stupid reveal that added nothing.
I think that was the case. A lot of back and forth and they eventually realized, yeah three works. Whereas with the Hobbit, they parachuted Jackson in last minute and he was stuck with the three movie setup, as I understand it.
This is exactly right. The premise of this entire thread is borne out of ignorance. Do people really think every single movie would be incredible if not for those darn idiot STUDIOS getting in the way...?
The studios and execs are fixing shit fucking constantly.
Every single AAA blockbuster movie that is made is it's own little $200 million startup business that is formed, does its thing, and is then disbanded.
It was a budgetary reason but also Dan Aykroyd's original script would've been way too much for audiences back then. Like, it took place in 2012 and dealt with parallel dimensions and shit. So they thankfully brought in Harold Ramis to reign things in.
Same thing happened with Blues Brothers. Aykroyd never wrote a movie before and ended up making a 300+ page script and the studio tasked John Landis (fuck him, btw) with re-writing it into a filmable movie.
Well yes and no it was going to be 2 movies at least that was Guillermo plan but because of how hectic and messy the production is they ended up with 3 movies partly to buy time because Jackson realized he couldn't finish in time and need the weight off his shoulders iirc
The studio ending of Army of Darkness is a perfect example of this. The original ending had Ash falling asleep and growing old like Rip Van Winkle.
Instead, we got this masterpiece: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Or3okI_mad8
Instead, we got this masterpiece: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Or3okI_mad8
I vaguely recall an interview with Jason Blum where he said he begged Jordan Peele to charge the ending of Get Out to something more victorious. The original version of the ending had a real cop pull up while Chris was choking his girlfriend, and the final scene was Chris in jail.
This has always been a thing, so more often than you may expect. In the 30s studios would call certain scripts, "director-proof".
Notes are definitely neutral in most fields. It's how people interpret them that make a difference, because there's often a lot of leeway. This isn't always the case (See: Pixar and "Brave" for one of the worst examples.) but it's rarely as simple as it can be portrayed. Look at the story credits for The Lion King. Sometimes great things come out of many passes by different people. The Emperor's New Groove comes to mind as well.
Technically it's one book but the publisher told Tolkien to split it up for profit.
Wonder if that before or during filming. Very interesting nonetheless.
The proof that this happens behind the scenes where we usually never learn about it can be seen in cases when it notably *doesn't* happen, like with the Star Wars prequels.
The Exorcist III. While there was a lot of meddling with the original vision, it was for the better. The final act is so good, fantastic film.
There is no Hollywood movie where a studio exec hasn't stuck their entire face in. Movies you like, movies you hate, doesnt matter, theyve been all over that shit whether its been made public or not.
People really have a naive view of the media they consume
People really have a naive view of the media they consume
Wow, I hadn't heard of a "Black Friday screening" before, so I looked it up. Really bad. But what stands out is that Tom Hanks still gives a hell of a performance even though he was just reading for a storyboard.