Jump to content

Hateful Eight Experience


Recommended Posts

Please, the whole premise is completely foolish and lacks any common sense. Even Tarantino admitted the whole idea is a film full of "guest stars" and if you don't get his "HUMOR" you won't get the film. It is a down-right funny film because everything that happens is just plain silly. In reality, the story would have ended the moment the carriage arrived at the haberdashery. But no, we spend the next 2 hours going in circles, which is fine and all, but completely unnecessary.

 

 

I saw Steve Jobs last night... it was very one sided. Knowing the Steve Jobs story very well myself, it's a real shame they made him out to be such a bully. It was well made though, Sorkin's screenplay was really fun and I really enjoyed the performances, but they were ALL over the top. The only reason why it works is because the audience has no time to sit and contemplate until after the fact.

 

 

It is a visual medium. If you wish to watch people talk at one another constantly, go to the theatre.

 

'The Revenant' doesn't really have much of a screenplay, but like 'Gravity' it a wonderful piece of adventure entertainment. It uses the visual medium in a way that not very many filmmakers have, which is why it will win a lot of awards.

 

 

I agree, he is a wizard of story structure and dialog. He also knows how to make dialog entertaining, something that a lot of filmmakers don't really know how to do.

 

 

They're main focus is entertainment, like a good showman from the vaudeville days. They are going to take you for a ride and that's what makes their movies so powerful. Cinema is in the end, just entertainment after all. So where it's awesome that guys like Quentin and Sorkin exist, it does take several viewings of their films to get the nuances that make those stories so interesting. You have to be devoted to translating what's being heard, process it and of course, pay attention to the visuals at the same time. The vast majority of people are only looking for entertainment to drag them away from their every day life.

 

 

He landed in a tree and was so effed up, he could barely move.

 

It's very difficult to talk about The Hateful Eight without giving anything away, but the story is not foolish, because every circumstance that takes place in the film is absolutely believable. So many grand personalities clash in that one little place, and you have to remember that Kurt Russell is set up as one of the baddest bounty hunters in the territory, and he has her chained up to him, so there's no way disaster can be averted as Kurt is on very high guard and extremely protective of his prisoner from the very beginning. So, it definitely works. Beyond that there's almost a Ox-Bow Incident moment, which I will not disclose involving a letter, and to me that transcended the film to something more than just entertainment. People don't go to the movies to just be entertained, it's not a circus. People go to the cinema to feel, to bond. In a screening of Creed some people were cheering, crying, and that's what it's all about. People appreciate a great film when they see one, they don't just sit down to kill boredom, they want to experience something, and perhaps connect with these characters and be inspired to overcome some of their own issues. Cinema is bigger than life, but every film must offer something that is deeply human and relatable. I'm sure so many fathers out there can relate to the relationship Steve Jobs had with Lisa, it's not just entertainment, believe it or not, cinema is a unique art form that can alter the way we think, and sometimes we can learn a little something that we didn't know before. To some effect, The Clockwork Orange incited terrible acts of violence in England, it just shows you how influential and realistic cinema can be when it is done well, perhaps it doesn't mirror our reality in a conventional sense, but it is a distorted reality that touches us in different ways. I think you're underestimating just how powerful and influential films are, if you don't believe me watch the films of Leni Riefenstahl and how they brainwashed an entire nation, or the ads ISIS is producing to influence younger people to blow themselves up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

 

 

Okay, that's fair. But there are stunning visuals in all of those films which tell their own story within the larger context of the overall film. Tarantino's films have never left much of a visual imprint on me and the story structure of his films has never been the kind that you can turn the sound off and still be able to follow what's going on.

 

 

Yes, exactly! Something all filmmakers should be learning how to do, these days.

 

There's a great film called 'The Barefoot Contessa' where Humphrey Bogart plays a film director who discovers a beautiful Spanish dancer in a club (played by Ava Gardner), and he's trying to convince her to go to Hollywood, and they have a conversation weighing the possibilities, and there's a moment when Bogart says- "there's more to talking than just words". And it's very true, when someone speaks from the heart, it becomes nothing short of poetry, something classic films did substantially well. Of course many people today won't even look that far back, because they might find the sentimentality a bit too melodramatic, but that's one of the greater aspects I love about cinema. It makes sense that The Revenant has very little dialogue since DiCaprio is all alone for 70% of the movie, it's practically a survival movie, but I felt nothing for the revenge aspect of it, because I didn't really care for his son, perhaps if his son was younger I would've cared a little more, since he;s absolutely defenseless, maybe Tom Hardy could have drowned him as Dicaprio watched helplessly, the stabbing was too swift. But that's just me, I think that aspect of the film needed to be heightened, but everyone thinks they can do better- I'm just another one of those guys.

 

And I can envision The Hateful Eight as a silent film, it's a murder mystery, it can be done. The film might be 70 minutes long as a silent film, but it would work if it was presented in a proper sequential order, but talk is a part of cinema, it has been since 1930, it shouldn't be averted just because it's not visual enough, it has to be there whether people like it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

There are all kinds of movies, and some are very good and enjoyable even though barely removed from a theater play -- such as the film version of "Lion in Winter", or some of the Shakespeare movies adapted to film. If it works, it works, regardless if it is heavy on dialogue or mostly silent.

 

Though my own feeling is that the greatest movies of all time wouldn't work as well in any other medium -- movies like "2001" or "Lawrence of Arabia" or "Seven Samurai". Or "Vertigo".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

It's very difficult to talk about The Hateful Eight without giving anything away, but the story is not foolish, because every circumstance that takes place in the film is absolutely believable.

Well, I guess we didn't see the same movie. The one I saw (for the 3rd time on sat) was an over-the-top unbelievable stage play set in the old west. It's a complete work of fiction, designed specifically to entertain and a lot of it is built around absurdity to the point of the audience forcing the laughs, due to it being so over-the-top. We laugh because it's revolting, like all the N words, like a naked man sucking the dick of a black man and grotesque bloody violence. Does the audience really need to see those things in order to tell a story? No... Quentin showed us those things because they are humorous to him AND his fans. If it were realistic, it would have been over the moment they entered the haberdashery.

 

People don't go to the movies to just be entertained, it's not a circus.

Actually the mere definition of cinema is to entertain, that's why it exists.

 

If you look at box office receipts, the movies that do the best, are the one's that are pure entertainment. Some people call them "popcorn movies", but in the end, the point is to watch, be entertained and go home.

 

Look at 'Mad Max Fury Road', it's one of the top movies this year and it has almost no dialog, it's all visual story telling.

 

People go to the cinema to feel, to bond. In a screening of Creed some people were cheering, crying, and that's what it's all about.

There are absolutely groups of people who attend screenings of dramatic pieces like 'Carol' or 'Suffragette' for the emotional aspect. That is a very specific genera of cinema, but it's not the popular kind. Both of those wonderful pieces of art, did poorly in the box office.

 

People appreciate a great film when they see one, they don't just sit down to kill boredom, they want to experience something, and perhaps connect with these characters and be inspired to overcome some of their own issues. Cinema is bigger than life, but every film must offer something that is deeply human and relatable.

Man, I'm so glad you feel that way. However, it's an unrealistic point of view in the grand scheme of things. This is why the mindless drivel entertainment movies are so popular and have huge financial rewards, yet the intelligent works of art, tend to barely break even.

 

I'm sure so many fathers out there can relate to the relationship Steve Jobs had with Lisa, it's not just entertainment, believe it or not, cinema is a unique art form that can alter the way we think, and sometimes we can learn a little something that we didn't know before.

How can anyone relate to a belligerent butt who keeps everything to himself? He also doesn't grow or change during the film, he's the same butt from the open to the close. Why would anyone talk to him ever? Well, because in reality he wasn't that bad and he had more good moments then bad ones. 'Steve Jobs' showed only ONE SIDE of a very multidimensional person. Plus, everyone around him seemed to somehow accept his behavior, which is just ridiculous. It's so fabricated and over the top, it was hard to swallow and it's a real shame.

 

To some effect, The Clockwork Orange incited terrible acts of violence in England, it just shows you how influential and realistic cinema can be when it is done well, perhaps it doesn't mirror our reality in a conventional sense, but it is a distorted reality that touches us in different ways. I think you're underestimating just how powerful and influential films are, if you don't believe me watch the films of Leni Riefenstahl and how they brainwashed an entire nation, or the ads ISIS is producing to influence younger people to blow themselves up.

Ohh no doubt that SOME cinema can be highly influential, but the majority of it is mindless entertainment. Look at the action, horror and comedy genera's as a whole, they are the top three box-office genera's. Do you really think 'Jurassic World', 'Dumb and Dumber II' or 'Crimson Peak' are influential in any way? Do you think people go to those films because they are looking for character development?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

There are all kinds of movies, and some are very good and enjoyable even though barely removed from a theater play -- such as the film version of "Lion in Winter", or some of the Shakespeare movies adapted to film. If it works, it works, regardless if it is heavy on dialogue or mostly silent.

 

Though my own feeling is that the greatest movies of all time wouldn't work as well in any other medium -- movies like "2001" or "Lawrence of Arabia" or "Seven Samurai". Or "Vertigo".

Lion in Winter is one of my favorite pictures.

 

G

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lion in Winter is one of my favorite pictures.

 

G

Me too! But the one thing that really shook me when I first watched it was that it sounds like Goldsmith's OMEN score took more than just choir from the Barry music -- it is strange that Goldsmith, who deserved a half-dozen oscars, only won for something that sounds like recycled Barry, but got the shaft for TREK, WIND&THELION, PATTON, CHINATOWN and so so many others.

 

As for the adapting from theater aspect, I'm usually not in favor of 'opening up' the play, because the dynamics of character and situation often work off the enclosed feel of the stage, much like a submarine movie does. Cutting outside all the time can dilute the tension. Also, I think it puts the onus on camera to come up with compositions that work with the set and the characters as part of that landscape, so camera can actually be even more important in an adaptation where there isn't any room for an Edge Arm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I guess we didn't see the same movie. The one I saw (for the 3rd time on sat) was an over-the-top unbelievable stage play set in the old west. It's a complete work of fiction, designed specifically to entertain and a lot of it is built around absurdity to the point of the audience forcing the laughs, due to it being so over-the-top. We laugh because it's revolting, like all the N words, like a naked man sucking the dick of a black man and grotesque bloody violence. Does the audience really need to see those things in order to tell a story? No... Quentin showed us those things because they are humorous to him AND his fans. If it were realistic, it would have been over the moment they entered the haberdashery.

 

 

Actually the mere definition of cinema is to entertain, that's why it exists.

 

If you look at box office receipts, the movies that do the best, are the one's that are pure entertainment. Some people call them "popcorn movies", but in the end, the point is to watch, be entertained and go home.

 

Look at 'Mad Max Fury Road', it's one of the top movies this year and it has almost no dialog, it's all visual story telling.

 

 

There are absolutely groups of people who attend screenings of dramatic pieces like 'Carol' or 'Suffragette' for the emotional aspect. That is a very specific genera of cinema, but it's not the popular kind. Both of those wonderful pieces of art, did poorly in the box office.

 

 

Man, I'm so glad you feel that way. However, it's an unrealistic point of view in the grand scheme of things. This is why the mindless drivel entertainment movies are so popular and have huge financial rewards, yet the intelligent works of art, tend to barely break even.

 

 

How can anyone relate to a belligerent butt who keeps everything to himself? He also doesn't grow or change during the film, he's the same butt from the open to the close. Why would anyone talk to him ever? Well, because in reality he wasn't that bad and he had more good moments then bad ones. 'Steve Jobs' showed only ONE SIDE of a very multidimensional person. Plus, everyone around him seemed to somehow accept his behavior, which is just ridiculous. It's so fabricated and over the top, it was hard to swallow and it's a real shame.

 

 

Ohh no doubt that SOME cinema can be highly influential, but the majority of it is mindless entertainment. Look at the action, horror and comedy genera's as a whole, they are the top three box-office genera's. Do you really think 'Jurassic World', 'Dumb and Dumber II' or 'Crimson Peak' are influential in any way? Do you think people go to those films because they are looking for character development?

 

You can't measure a film's success by its box office revenue. I agree that films have to at least break even, it is an industry and more often than not, the art is lost, because it's impossible to please everyone. Art and money are completely incongruent to one another, and every now and then there comes a film which can merge both successfully. Hollywood is riddled with money hungry hyenas who are merely investing in films to make a profit, and more often than not they fail miserably because they either don't care or they just don't know a thing about movies. Most studios are targeting teenage audiences, and they're the cause of this inflation of mindless entertainment. I absolutely agree that to a lesser, uncaring audience, cinema is just a meaningless pass time, a form of escapism.

But that's certainly not the case for some people who are passionate about film, and there are production companies trying to create better films to enrich us, just look at Annapurna Pictures or the films Dana Brunetti and Michael De Luca are producing under Sony. I hope other exciting and newer filmmakers keep trying to make something different, something unique and not settle for something unoriginal for the sake of making money. it's important to care, and we have to remember that one point Hollywood was on the verge of death when a few passionate young filmmakers revitalized the movies.It was Martin Scorsese, DePalma, Francis Coppola...

 

We both have differing perspectives, I maintain some optimism, I still believe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Bringing up the box office receipts as some sort of indicator of cinematic value generally just confuses the issue. Some historical and social dramas are successful and some popcorn entertainment movies are flops, and sometimes the success or failure has little to do with the merits of the particular movie, there is an element of timing here, of being in the right place at the right time.

 

Some stories require a certain budget to get told, whether or not that budget is justified in terms of potential box office. If I were an investor, I'd shake my head sometimes at the money being put into a project that seems to me would be lucky to earn back half its costs, but as a filmgoer, I'm often grateful that some directors' grand visions get made, some of which earn a profit and others which do not. "2001" could have easily been a flop and not found its audience, but its merits would still exist whether or not it was successful financially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

You can't measure a film's success by its box office revenue.

This is show BUSINESS and in the long run, it's just a business.

 

Box office is really the only measure of a filmmakers success. You could win every single award from the Golden Bear to the Palme d'Or, but if your film doesn't make money, you won't get money to make more of them. Young filmmakers struggle to understand how the system works because it's the only business that doesn't reward for a better product.

 

I agree that films have to at least break even, it is an industry and more often than not, the art is lost, because it's impossible to please everyone.

Nobody cares about breaking even, it's all about profit. Nobody will invest in a filmmaker who barely returns their money, it's too risky.

 

Again, this is show business, art is not even relevant. You wanna make art films, get a job in France working as a waiter and apply to the government for a grants to make something that nobody will ever see.

 

Art and money are completely incongruent to one another, and every now and then there comes a film which can merge both successfully.

And most of the time, you'll find those filmmakers already had success of one kind or another and are making their "art" film for fun.

 

Hollywood is riddled with money hungry hyenas who are merely investing in films to make a profit

Yep, why else would someone let you borrow millions of dollars? Just because they're a nice guy?

 

Most studios are targeting teenage audiences, and they're the cause of this inflation of mindless entertainment.

Studios make "safe" (lower risk) movies, one's they know will make money. If you let someone borrow millions of dollars, you too would want the risk to be lower.

 

I absolutely agree that to a lesser, uncaring audience, cinema is just a meaningless pass time, a form of escapism. But that's certainly not the case for some people who are passionate about film, and there are production companies trying to create better films to enrich us.

My favorite cinematographer Roger Deakins, said something in a recent interview I find so true. He actually doesn't like going to the movies. Here is a guy who is deathly passionate about filmmaking, to the point of having his own forum where people can ask him questions about his projects. Yet, he has no interest in wasting his time going to see movies at the theater. I find this to be straight up true when it comes to living in the hub of filmmaking in the US. Most of my industry friends, don't go to the movies and were never really big fans of cinema. Yet, they're filmmakers themselves, they watch content on their television at home, but getting them out of the house to the cinema, is like asking them to change a flat tire. They'll just look at you cross eyed and forget you even asked.

 

Sure, there is a small minority of film buff's who visit the theater on a regular basis. I met one such person in all my travels and he basically lives at the theater. He doesn't pay though, he's friends with the general managers of many theaters, so he gets a free ride.

 

it's important to care, and we have to remember that one point Hollywood was on the verge of death when a few passionate young filmmakers revitalized the movies.It was Martin Scorsese, DePalma, Francis Coppola...

Ohh, I care greatly about the art and argue it to a fault. However, I know that it doesn't matter what I say, what matters is if your product is successful financially, that's all that matters. You can paint all you want, but if you can't sell the paintings to pay your bills, you're still a broke painter. This isn't the 60's and 70's either. I can't think of a modern director that just broke into the industry, who's made theatrically run art films that have been critically and financially successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you have to understand that every film is a risk, there's no such thing as a film that's destined to succeed or fail, it's impossible to tell. No one predicted a little film like Beasts of the Southern Wild would make more than 100M dollars, no one thought the new Fantastic Four movie would flop. it's like trying to predict weather, you can't do it. My point is that no filmmaker should compromise their vision and think about whether or not their movie will make money, because it's a waste of time. Francis Ford Coppola stayed true to his vision when he made Apocalypse Now, he invested his own money to finish the picture, and it was a complete gamble. In the end, no one will remember how much your movie made, if it finds a cult following, then there's an audience for it. Paul Thomas Anderson has lost money with his films, but he's still making movies because he's one of the greatest American directors of our time, it's just too bad not many people realize that. Megan Ellison helped Paul make The Master when every other studio said no. There's no such thing as making the right movie that will make hundreds of millions of dollars, no one knows such things. Every investor takes a risk, even Steven Spielberg movies have flopped.

Edited by joshua gallegos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Over time, the financial success of a work of art starts to matter less and less. Van Gogh was a failure financially as a painter, but does that really matter today? "Vertigo" and "Citizen Kane" are considered two of the greatest movies ever made, yet neither were considered to be box office successes -- "Vertigo" just sort of broke even. And there have been plenty of successes that over time have become less revered -- how many people read Booth Tarkington novels today? There have been big box office hits every decade in Hollywood that are barely watched today.

 

From Wikipedia, a list of the top-grossers for the years that "Citizen Kane" and "Vertigo" came out:

 

1941

1. Sergeant York
2. Honky Tonk
3. Louisiana Purchase
4. A Yank in the RAF
5. How Green Was My Valley
6. Babes on Broadway
7. Caught in the Draft
8. Road to Zanzibar
9. Keep 'Em Flying
10. In the Navy
11. Charley's Aunt
12. Ziegfeld Girl
13. Birth of the Blues
14. They Died with Their Boots On
15. Nothing but the Truth
16. Life Begins for Andy Hardy
17. Hold That Ghost
18. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
19. Shadow of the Thin Man
20. They Met in Bombay
21. Dive Bomber
22. Meet John Doe
(Citizen Kane was #30)
1958

1. South Pacific $16,300,000

2. Auntie Mame $9,100,000
3. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof $7,800,000
4. No Time for Sergeants $7,500,000
5. Gigi $6,700,000
6. The Vikings $6,000,000
7. Vertigo $5,306,000
8. The Young Lions $4,480,000
9. Some Came Running $4,442,000
10. The Sheriff of Fractured Jaw $4,410,000
You can see that there is no clear connection between artistic quality and audience popularity. To say that "all that matters" is that a movie make a profit would suggest that George Lucas should not have been allowed to make another film after "THX-1138" nor Spielberg after "Sugarland Express" but obviously they went on to make a second film.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Actually, those lists prove my point.

 

Francis Ford Coppola had already been a successful filmmaker before he made Apocalypse now.

Alfred Hitchcock had already made millions for the studio's before he made Vertigo.

Paul Thomas Anderson had already made a blockbuster and proved himself in hollywood, before making The Master.

Orson Wells was already a well-known figure in the theatre and radio, making plenty of money, prior to making Citizen Kane.

 

Beasts of the Southern Wild did well because there was a fantastic little girl in it. If that character was a bitter old man, nobody would have cared.

 

The new Fantastic Four movie was a disaster; switching directors, rewriting scripts, what a mess. It was only finished because there was so much money wrapped up in it, they had no choice. Everyone in hollywood knew it was going to be a disaster.

 

Yes, investors take risks... but it's getting to the point where there are fewer and fewer investors willing to risk it all for the sake of art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I can't think of a modern director that just broke into the industry, who's made theatrically run art films that have been critically and financially successful.

 

Ryan Coogler's first movie was "Fruitvale Station" and according to Wikipedia, it cost $900,000 and earned $17.4 million worldwide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Beasts of the Southern Wild did well because there was a fantastic little girl in it. If that character was a bitter old man, nobody would have cared.

 

 

Yes, and if "Jaws" was about three old men in a rowboat chasing a trout, I'm sure it would have been less successful too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Tyler, we all know this is a profit-driven business and moviemaking is a financial risk, but Joshua and I are trying to define "success" as more than merely financial success, but you seem to think it's the only thing that matters. We don't. And I don't think Hitchcock, Lean, Kurosawa, Kubrick, Welles, Spielberg, Scorsese, Fincher, Nolan, etc. think that "box office is really the only measure of a filmmakers success" any more than they think that a person's only measure of success in life is how much money they make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And really it's nearly impossible for indie films to lose money, seeing that they're usually made for 1 million dollars or less. Lena Dunham made Tiny Furniture with 50k dollars, Ana Lily Amirpour funded 'A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night' on Kickstarter and made it for thousands of dollars, Juno was another indie that made over 100M dollars. Indie film producers are always looking to find interesting projects, and they usually make these films because they believe in the story the filmmakers are telling, that's not the case for major studios, since they lean toward established franchises or best selling novels. So the true original voices will always emerge from nothing, they don't have to worry about how much money their film will make, I think they feel deep satisfaction in a work well done, and believe it or not some of them invest their own money to make their films better. And there's a lot of these young filmmakers like Zal Batmanglij (Sound of My Voice), Mike Cahill (Another Earth). Stanley Kubrick's first film 'Fear and Desire' wasn't even released, it played in one theater and made no money, but he was wise enough to make a feature that cost him 10,000 dollars, which gave him credibility as a filmmaker. I think the point has been established that you don't have to be JJ Abrams to make movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Oh, indie movies lose money all the time, Joshua -- production costs might only be 1 million, but distribution and ads can add another 2 million to that, and many indie movies don't make more than 3 million at the box office, though in the long run, they might turn a profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, indie movies lose money all the time, Joshua -- production costs might only be 1 million, but distribution and ads can add another 2 million to that, and many indie movies don't make more than 3 million at the box office, though in the long run, they might turn a profit.

 

I suppose, but what matters is that most of them get a shot of making another film, which is everything. I think as long as any filmmaker is able to make more movies, that's being successful. I don't think anyone should ever expect for their films to become commercially successful, at best a cult classic would be ideal. Guys like Richard Linklater never found mainstream success, but they're still hanging on and making movies. I guess we're the few who believe that money isn't everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The thing is that even if financial success is the only measurement that Hollywood cares about, it's still not as black and white as merely looking at how much your last project earned at the box office. There is still a bit of the black arts involved here, the concept or script being seen as having "x" potential for box office returns combined with "y" actor, and that calculation might trump the director's track record if that director is firmly attached to the project for whatever reasons. Directors, actors, writers, ideas, etc. all carry values that go beyond mere box office performance.

 

As for Orson Welles, he was not a big moneymaker before he made "Citizen Kane" (and not afterwards either) -- his financial success on Broadway and radio was modest, so it wasn't like RKO said "your voodoo 'MacBeth' made this amount of money and your 'War of the Worlds' broadcast made that amount of money so we feel that a movie you make for us will make a certain amount of money based on our calculations"... it was more that Welles' notoriety and fame generated excitement in the world of radio and theater, and that had the potential of being converted into box office success at RKO. And even when it didn't work out that way, there was always the recognition of his talent, which is why he could keep raising money or why he could get hired to direct "Touch of Evil" after getting the job of acting in it. Even today, a talented director may have a flop but that isn't necessarily the end of his career because there is a recognition that the director has useful skills that may lead to an eventual success.

 

Yes, Joshua, to me, the real success is to manage to keep doing what you love doing, even if it doesn't always mean making a lot of money. There are plenty of working people in the film industry who have career highs and lows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Ohh, I care greatly about the art and argue it to a fault. However, I know that it doesn't matter what I say, what matters is if your product is successful financially, that's all that matters. You can paint all you want, but if you can't sell the paintings to pay your bills, you're still a broke painter.

 

If you're so pessimistic about filmmaking, Tyler, then why are you doing this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

If you're so pessimistic about filmmaking, Tyler, then why are you doing this?

I'm pessimistic about pretty much everything because honestly, I'm tired of getting beat down for being overly naive and optimistic.

 

Teaching people the technical side of filmmaking on celluloid, seems like a lot more fun then beating my head in the sand constantly trying to get productions off the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Well, I can certainly relate to the pessimism myself but it shouldn't start clouding everything.

 

In terms of what constitutes success, I like this quote by Winston Churchill:

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...