Publicity eats itself

[Guest fstop]

Click Me and Watch!

[Guest]

Yes very very strange.

 

Is that Peter Jackson as in The Lord Of The Rings? The reason I ask is that he obviously lost a huge amount of weight. He doesn't look any thing like how he looked on Oscar night.

 

I guess he wants to be around longer to spend all that money.

 

Richard

[Jon Allen]

he was barely around to see the martini shot

[Guest fstop]

Just when you thought it couldn't be more silly

[Marcel Zyskind]

To me it looks like they had a good time on set.

 

Marcel

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Can you remember the last time you had enough time on a set to shoot all that extra drivel?

 

This is why Hollywood movies cost so much.

 

Phil

[Mark Allen]

Can you remember the last time you had enough time on a set to shoot all that extra drivel?

This is why Hollywood movies cost so much.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

They've been shooting these shorts during the entire production for their internet site. The animatic one was hilarious because I didn't figure out they were joking until the very end.

 

I think their efforts in doing this is all about publicity (which as you know gets millions and millions of dollars of leeway) and keeping their core groups excited and buzzing about the movie and I think it's working.

[Max Jacoby]

All I thought while watching this is that the New Zealand accent sounds really unsexy coming from a woman's mouth....

[Guest]

I suppose I can assume from this piece that if a stage hand kept falling asleep on set they would fly in a replacement at great expense until he woke up?

 

I'm with Phil, typical example of Hollywood style waste and extravagance.

 

The only people that can out do Hollywood film makers for flushing money down the toilet are government officials.

 

Richard

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I think Watts is Australian, actually.

 

And it's adorable!

 

Phil

[Max Jacoby]

I think Watts is Australian, actually.

 

I meant the ADs...

[Brad Grimmett]

I suppose I can assume from this piece that if a stage hand kept falling asleep on set they would fly in a replacement at great expense until he woke up?

 

I'm with Phil, typical example of Hollywood style waste and extravagance.

 

The only people that can out do Hollywood film makers for flushing money down the toilet are government officials.

 

Richard

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do some of you not get that this is a joke? I think it's hilarious and I'm sure it didn't slow down the actual shooting of the movie in any way. There is a lot of downtime on a movie set. I'm sure this stuff was shot during that downtime.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

I found it kind of strange that Peter was still on set, even though he wasn't doing anything, and they go flying in another director, I mean, surely it would just be better to cancel one day of shooting for Peter to get himself together again, at least then he'd definitely be doing his job to his full potential because he's actually half awake.

 

Entertaining video clips though, hell they should have made THAT into a movie.

Edited April 19, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Robert Hughes]

But they ARE making it into a movie, at least as much of a movie as many of us get to make. That "making of" series of video diaries is fascinating, and may be of more lasting value and interest to future audiences than the Kong movie.

[Guest]

Joke or no joke, this still applies :D

 

"The only people that can out do Hollywood film makers for flushing money down the toilet are government officials."

 

 

RDCB

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> There is a lot of downtime on a movie set.

 

So says the LA-based steadicam operator.

 

Not down here on planet Earth there isn't.

 

Phil

[Mark Allen]

I'm not sure why these are not being viewed as films themselves.

 

People thought them up, they shot them, edited them, and more people are watching these little movies than probably 99% of what is listed on IMDB. They are little documentaries and they are serving a marketing purpose. EPKs of movies have been made for years. They don't take much time from the director/actors/producers as they are usually done in moments during light set ups.

 

Now... It is true that studio productions of a grand size may move a little slower than an indie show - but there are indie movies being shots in days in "Hollywood" here in the US all the time too - you just don't hear about them because they don't get the marketing push.

 

I'm not sure why the hostility towards these shorts.

 

Speaking of which - here is a very interesting look at the future of cinema:

 

http://img-nex.kongisking.net/kong/movies/...0x270-mpeg4.mov

 

:)

[Riku Naskali]

I think these clips are the cheapest marketing in Hollywood and would guess they work wonders.

[Brad Grimmett]

Hi,

 

> There is a lot of downtime on a movie set.

 

So says the LA-based steadicam operator.

 

Not down here on planet Earth there isn't.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I'm not saying that everyone has lots of downtime. But directors and actors tend to have more downtime during re-lights and in between setups. When I'm converting my rig from high to low mode or G&E are re-lighting, the higher ups are oftentimes sitting around waiting.

The last time I checked LA is still a part of earth, even though it doesn't seem like it a lot of the time.

[Brad Grimmett]

Joke or no joke, this still applies  :D

 

"The only people that can out do Hollywood film makers for flushing money down the toilet are government officials."

RDCB

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm just confused as to how they're flushing money down the toilet. I'm not saying that money doesn't get flushed, I just don't think this is one of those instances.

[Guest]

I'm talking about Hollywood waste and over spending in general.

 

The Economist ran a very interesting article on Hollywood a while back called, "Lights, Camera, No Profits!"

 

Even though the studios occasionally hit it big with a film, the amount of money that goes out the door is so great that the film barely earns a profit for the share holders.

 

Does a film really need 25 producers? What do they all do? Besides collect a big check?

 

RDCB

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm talking about Hollywood waste and over spending in general.

 

The Economist ran a very interesting article on Hollywood a while back called, "Lights, Camera, No Profits!"

 

Even though the studios occasionally hit it big with a film, the amount of money that goes out the door is so great that the film barely earns a profit for the share holders.

 

Does a film  really need 25 producers? What do they all do?  Besides collect a big check?

 

RDCB

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Obviously SOME people are getting rich or the whole system wouldn't keep going. That's the main difference between Hollywood and let's say, the U.K. industry -- has nothing do with making hit movies, it has everything to do with being able to keep making FLOPS. We have an industry built on successful failures, of failing upwards. A couple of big hits will cover several big-budget flops in Hollywood, whereas if they make one big-budget flop in the U.K., everyone (finance-wise) runs for the hills.

 

Now you can say "why doesn't Hollywood just make the successful films and not the big-budget flops" but it doesn't work that way...

 

As for having multiple producers, that's usually the result of the years-long tortuous route to getting a movie made as different people pick-up the baton and run with it for awhile.

 

I once did a movie with a budget of $100,000 where there were more producers than crew. One day all ten or so of them came to watch our tiny crew at work -- it was ridiculous. My only consolation was at least the crew was getting paid something, which wasn't true for the producers.

[Guest]

Sure the hits help cover the flops.

 

But what the Economist article was pointing out is that the stocks of the Hollywood studios are poor performers, and don't live up to the hype that surrounds the film industry in general.

 

RDCB

[Robert Edge]

I happened to watch Eric Rhomer's Pauline a la plage (Pauline at the Beach) just before I saw these clips about King Kong. There is a wonderful scene in Rhomer's film that involves a lengthy shot in which the camera dollies back as two actors approach it. Nestor Almendros, who was the photographer, explains in his book how the scene was shot. They got their hands on a Deux Chevaux, which Almendros used as a platform, and the Deux Chevaux and Almendros and his camera (an Arri BL if I recall) were pulled by a member of the crew (five people for the entire film) and some local people. If you know what a Deux Chevaux is, this is a very funny image. Peter Jackson should be so lucky as to make a film as good.

[Brad Grimmett]

I'm talking about Hollywood waste and over spending in general.

 

The Economist ran a very interesting article on Hollywood a while back called, "Lights, Camera, No Profits!"

 

Even though the studios occasionally hit it big with a film, the amount of money that goes out the door is so great that the film barely earns a profit for the share holders.

 

Does a film  really need 25 producers? What do they all do?  Besides collect a big check?

 

RDCB

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with your post. I'm sick of having 25 producers on every movie too. I just don't understand how you think it relates to the behind the scenes stuff that we're talking about.