Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Sun Sep 14, 2014 10:28 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
November 5, 2009: "R.I.P. Miramax" 
Author Message
Post Re: November 5, 2009: "R.I.P. Miramax"
MrGuinness wrote:
Vexer wrote:
Trying to get under skin again cause you got nothing better to do eh? didn't think i'd notice eh?


Not really, no. Trying to educate, and get you to explain your lowbrow interests beyond your default Aspergers explanation, however indirect my methods may seem.

Well then your wasting your time adn you might as well give up, cause your NEVER gonna convince me! I'll watch what I feel like watching, I don't know why people like you care so much about what films I like and don't like, I mean how the does that even affect you?


Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:16 pm
Post Re: November 5, 2009: "R.I.P. Miramax"
Vexer wrote:
Well then your wasting your time adn you might as well give up, cause your NEVER gonna convince me! I'll watch what I feel like watching, I don't know why people like you care so much about what films I like and don't like, I mean how the does that even affect you?


Certainly will never give up supporting movies who's quality deserves wider recognition.

and here is one of the specific reasons...

corpen11 wrote:
Until alot more people watch indie films instead of high Hollywood crap like Transformers 2, the indie company will always be under the big companies's foot.


Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:25 pm
Post Re: November 5, 2009: "R.I.P. Miramax"
MrGuinness wrote:
Vexer wrote:
Well then your wasting your time adn you might as well give up, cause your NEVER gonna convince me! I'll watch what I feel like watching, I don't know why people like you care so much about what films I like and don't like, I mean how the does that even affect you?


Certainly will never give up supporting movies who's quality deserves wider recognition.

and here is one of the specific reasons...

corpen11 wrote:
Until alot more people watch indie films instead of high Hollywood crap like Transformers 2, the indie company will always be under the big companies's foot.
Yeah I like those types of mindless Hollywood blockbusters, so sue me! I f enjoying those types of films is wrong then I sure as hell don't want to be right! :twisted:


Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:19 pm
Post Re: November 5, 2009: "R.I.P. Miramax"
Vexer wrote:
Yeah I like those types of mindless Hollywood blockbusters, so sue me! I f enjoying those types of films is wrong then I sure as hell don't want to be right! :twisted:


Vexer, I am 44 years old and still learning from other people every day. You should work on that attitude. Nothing wrong with enjoying crap, but not comprehending the value of the real worthy stuff and what it can sometimes mean globally, is very short sighted


Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:03 pm
Post Re: November 5, 2009: "R.I.P. Miramax"
MrGuinness wrote:
Vexer wrote:
Yeah I like those types of mindless Hollywood blockbusters, so sue me! I f enjoying those types of films is wrong then I sure as hell don't want to be right! :twisted:


Vexer, I am 44 years old and still learning from other people every day. You should work on that attitude. Nothing wrong with enjoying crap, but not comprehending the value of the real worthy stuff and what it can sometimes mean globally, is very short sighted

Word of advice, not everybody on here is gonna listen to you, so you might as well quit telling me what to do while your ahead, and besides what I like and don't like is none of your business, and I do learn something new everyday, but it's not always film related, and I do watch independent films, but most of the indepedent films I watch are horror films that never got released straight to DVD. Also something you might not understand is that because of ym ocndition, I look at movies differently then most people do, so I don't judge movies the same way you or most people on here do. Bottom line is, I think you've got better things to do then wasting your time trying to tell me what to watch, i'll watch whatever the hell I feel like watching, so just give up now.


Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:54 pm
Post Re: November 5, 2009: "R.I.P. Miramax"
MrGuinness wrote:
I am the idiot who mention the "self-serving ego-driven" sentiment. But if the shoe fits.. IMO it is a stereo-type that shows its ugly head WAY too often. Kudo's to you if you did not fall into that category, but it is a situation played out endlessly in movies, books, music, screenplays and whatnot. That being said, it is still pretty amazing some of the great movies that do get made. Unfortunately, the list of horrible movies that get made is 100x greater (see any Vexer post), be they indie or partial indie or studio.

Berardinelli wrote:
Escalating costs was an issue with Miramax (and New Line), primarily because of bad management.


Actually, I hadn't read your post so I wasn't offended by it in the least. I'm sure you are a very insightful guy (I'm not being sarcastic) but I will say that you aren't the first person to suggest that Hollywood executives are idiots.

If audiences didn't watch (nay, clamor for) "bad and derivative" movies, they wouldn't be produced. I haven't seen any of the Scary Movie films. Have you? Enough people have to justify sequel after sequel. Hollywood can hardly be blamed for attempting to make money.

I agree with you that many more bad films are made than good ones. However, the most foolish business plan in the world is the one that says "we'll just stop making the bad movies and only make the good ones that make money." It is a business defined by a few hits that pay for the many underperformers. Like oil exploration, trying to suggest you'll do it with a bigger hit ratio than the other guy is folly.


Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:08 pm
Post Re: November 5, 2009: "R.I.P. Miramax"
nvandyk wrote:
MrGuinness wrote:
I am the idiot who mention the "self-serving ego-driven" sentiment. But if the shoe fits.. IMO it is a stereo-type that shows its ugly head WAY too often. Kudo's to you if you did not fall into that category, but it is a situation played out endlessly in movies, books, music, screenplays and whatnot. That being said, it is still pretty amazing some of the great movies that do get made. Unfortunately, the list of horrible movies that get made is 100x greater (see any Vexer post), be they indie or partial indie or studio.

Berardinelli wrote:
Escalating costs was an issue with Miramax (and New Line), primarily because of bad management.


Actually, I hadn't read your post so I wasn't offended by it in the least. I'm sure you are a very insightful guy (I'm not being sarcastic) but I will say that you aren't the first person to suggest that Hollywood executives are idiots.

If audiences didn't watch (nay, clamor for) "bad and derivative" movies, they wouldn't be produced. I haven't seen any of the Scary Movie films. Have you? Enough people have to justify sequel after sequel. Hollywood can hardly be blamed for attempting to make money.

I agree with you that many more bad films are made than good ones. However, the most foolish business plan in the world is the one that says "we'll just stop making the bad movies and only make the good ones that make money." It is a business defined by a few hits that pay for the many underperformers. Like oil exploration, trying to suggest you'll do it with a bigger hit ratio than the other guy is folly.
Exactly! There's always going to be bad movies like the Saw sequels no matter what, there always has to be a balance of good and ba din the world, including films, so it's impossible for bad films to completely dissapear. And besides the so-called "Hollywood garbage" that you hate makes you appreciate independent films all the more.


Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:49 pm
Post Re: November 5, 2009: "R.I.P. Miramax"
Vexer wrote:
Exactly! There's always going to be bad movies like the Saw sequels no matter what, there always has to be a balance of good and ba din the world, including films, so it's impossible for bad films to completely dissapear. And besides the so-called "Hollywood garbage" that you hate makes you appreciate independent films all the more.



I don't see how there's a balance to the amount of good and bad films released theatricality over the last, say, ten years. The bad outweigh the good a considerable amount.

nvandyk wrote:
Actually, I hadn't read your post so I wasn't offended by it in the least. I'm sure you are a very insightful guy (I'm not being sarcastic) but I will say that you aren't the first person to suggest that Hollywood executives are idiots.

If audiences didn't watch (nay, clamor for) "bad and derivative" movies, they wouldn't be produced. I haven't seen any of the Scary Movie films. Have you? Enough people have to justify sequel after sequel. Hollywood can hardly be blamed for attempting to make money.

I agree with you that many more bad films are made than good ones. However, the most foolish business plan in the world is the one that says "we'll just stop making the bad movies and only make the good ones that make money." It is a business defined by a few hits that pay for the many underperformers. Like oil exploration, trying to suggest you'll do it with a bigger hit ratio than the other guy is folly.


This is agreeable in that is an inevitable byproduct of any supply-and-demand industry; the straight-forward and often dull happen to have a monopoly over the kinds of art that we see prosper in the media world. Not that I have never enjoyed a popcorn flick on general grounds; it's the people who have no standards for anything which irk me. Maybe it should not, but it does. People cannot be that oblivious... But of course, they are and I'm being an idealist.

However, people from certain corners would argue that the amount of executives displaying motivation, or 'balls, to make good work a reality has decreased greatly over the last 20 years. Alot of ideas are driven to fruition by fearless minds and can be sustained through legitimate success (such as Evan's Paramount dynasty of the 70's) and lucrative artistic partnerships. I'm not saying that modern audiences don't have themselves (and to some degree, their popcorn-brained 80's-bred parents) to blame, but blocking responsibility for any party, especially one as substantial as that of the supplier, is ill-conceived.


Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:15 pm
Post Re: November 5, 2009: "R.I.P. Miramax"
I just started reading Biskind's Down and Dirty Pictures, which so far doesn't have a lot of nice things to say about Robert Redford and Miramax; this ReelThoughts made a great companion piece to it.


Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:54 pm
Post Re: November 5, 2009: "R.I.P. Miramax"
Evenflow8112 wrote:
Vexer wrote:
Exactly! There's always going to be bad movies like the Saw sequels no matter what, there always has to be a balance of good and ba din the world, including films, so it's impossible for bad films to completely dissapear. And besides the so-called "Hollywood garbage" that you hate makes you appreciate independent films all the more.


I don't see how there's a balance to the amount of good and bad films released theatricality over the last, say, ten years. The bad outweigh the good a considerable amount.


Indeed they do. But you make this statement as though there should be a good film for every bad one. In reality, there are probably five bad films (that's being charitable if anything) for every good one, and this has been the case for decades. There's nothing natural about an even balance between good and bad films. Any more than there is something magical about there being the same number of good golfers as bad golfers in the world. I use this metaphor because the number of things that need to go right for a movie to turn out well are roughly equivalent to the number of things that need to happen correctly with a golf swing. Film seems to involve a good deal more luck, as well.

Quote:
nvandyk wrote:
Actually, I hadn't read your post so I wasn't offended by it in the least. I'm sure you are a very insightful guy (I'm not being sarcastic) but I will say that you aren't the first person to suggest that Hollywood executives are idiots.

If audiences didn't watch (nay, clamor for) "bad and derivative" movies, they wouldn't be produced. I haven't seen any of the Scary Movie films. Have you? Enough people have to justify sequel after sequel. Hollywood can hardly be blamed for attempting to make money.

I agree with you that many more bad films are made than good ones. However, the most foolish business plan in the world is the one that says "we'll just stop making the bad movies and only make the good ones that make money." It is a business defined by a few hits that pay for the many underperformers. Like oil exploration, trying to suggest you'll do it with a bigger hit ratio than the other guy is folly.


This is agreeable in that is an inevitable byproduct of any supply-and-demand industry; the straight-forward and often dull happen to have a monopoly over the kinds of art that we see prosper in the media world. Not that I have never enjoyed a popcorn flick on general grounds; it's the people who have no standards for anything which irk me. Maybe it should not, but it does. People cannot be that oblivious... But of course, they are and I'm being an idealist.


The $400 mil box office of Transformers 2 -- in spite of the first one being almost unwatchably bad and the reviews for the second being absolutely excoriating -- stands as recent evidence that you are correct in your assessment of yourself as an idealist. :)

Let's be careful, though. The SOLE purpose of a company releasing a film (as opposed to a filmmaker shooting something for his own enjoyment) is the creation of shareholder value. As we used to say, "this is show business, not show hobby." I have very, very little tolerance for "art for art's sake." Art can be good, or art can be bad. The fact that it has notionally artistic intent does not make bad art good. Nor is a bad movie created for the sake of art any more worthwhile than a bad movie created without regard for art, IMO.

If a studio executive at, say, Paramount has the opportunity to greenlight Iron Man 2, or take that same $175 million to create a slate of 10 films with subjects like the life of Robert Maplethorpe, he should be drawn and quartered by his shareholders if he doesn't greenlight Iron Man 2.

Quote:
However, people from certain corners would argue that the amount of executives displaying motivation, or 'balls, to make good work a reality has decreased greatly over the last 20 years.


They might, although I'm not sure there is evidence for this other than people wanting to demonstrate that they have better taste than the masses. You forget a lottttttt (or is that looooooot) of crappy movies used to come out. I'll demonstrate in a moment. But we remember the good ones, not the bad ones. For every Sunset Boulevard, there were 50 other movies released in 1950 that sucked and have been rightly forgotten.

Quote:
Alot of ideas are driven to fruition by fearless minds and can be sustained through legitimate success (such as Evan's Paramount dynasty of the 70's) and lucrative artistic partnerships.


Robert Evans -- a great example of precisely the type of executive you most likely would despise, in terms of a massive ego and a desire to bed starlets driving his career selection -- produced such films as Popeye, Urban Cowboy, The Two Jakes (whoring out a good movie in the name of an unneeded sequel) and the completely unneeded (and awful) remake of The Out-of-Towners. He is as guilty as anyone (other than somebody like Uwe Bolle, I suppose) of making bad films as well as good.

Quote:
I'm not saying that modern audiences don't have themselves (and to some degree, their popcorn-brained 80's-bred parents) to blame, but blocking responsibility for any party, especially one as substantial as that of the supplier, is ill-conceived.


Why is it a studio's responsibility to give the masses something they don't want? Audiences reward some risks, and they fail to reward others, even in creative success. Additionally, sometimes it's a complete crapshoot. Take the film Wonder Boys, which was produced by a major but was decidedly offbeat. I thought this was a very cool movie. Maybe not the greatest thing ever made, but it certainly wasn't garbage and it was not derivative. The movie was released and bombed. Six months later, in an effort (probably to placate Michael Douglas) to get some attention around awards time, it was re-released and re-marketed. Then it did quite well. Same movie. Same public. Different result.

Filmmaking is both art and science -- and it's rather inexact in both cases. :)


Last edited by nvandyk on Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:38 pm, edited 3 times in total.



Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:11 pm
Post Re: November 5, 2009: "R.I.P. Miramax"
neco82 wrote:
I just started reading Biskind's Down and Dirty Pictures, which so far doesn't have a lot of nice things to say about Robert Redford and Miramax; this ReelThoughts made a great companion piece to it.


If memory serves, my former boss is compared -- in three consecutive paragraphs -- to Hitler, Cancer and Satan in this book. :)


Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:12 pm
Post Re: November 5, 2009: "R.I.P. Miramax"
Evenflow8112 wrote:
Vexer wrote:
Exactly! There's always going to be bad movies like the Saw sequels no matter what, there always has to be a balance of good and ba din the world, including films, so it's impossible for bad films to completely dissapear. And besides the so-called "Hollywood garbage" that you hate makes you appreciate independent films all the more.



I don't see how there's a balance to the amount of good and bad films released theatricality over the last, say, ten years. The bad outweigh the good a considerable amount.

nvandyk wrote:
Actually, I hadn't read your post so I wasn't offended by it in the least. I'm sure you are a very insightful guy (I'm not being sarcastic) but I will say that you aren't the first person to suggest that Hollywood executives are idiots.

If audiences didn't watch (nay, clamor for) "bad and derivative" movies, they wouldn't be produced. I haven't seen any of the Scary Movie films. Have you? Enough people have to justify sequel after sequel. Hollywood can hardly be blamed for attempting to make money.

I agree with you that many more bad films are made than good ones. However, the most foolish business plan in the world is the one that says "we'll just stop making the bad movies and only make the good ones that make money." It is a business defined by a few hits that pay for the many underperformers. Like oil exploration, trying to suggest you'll do it with a bigger hit ratio than the other guy is folly.


This is agreeable in that is an inevitable byproduct of any supply-and-demand industry; the straight-forward and often dull happen to have a monopoly over the kinds of art that we see prosper in the media world. Not that I have never enjoyed a popcorn flick on general grounds; it's the people who have no standards for anything which irk me. Maybe it should not, but it does. People cannot be that oblivious... But of course, they are and I'm being an idealist.

However, people from certain corners would argue that the amount of executives displaying motivation, or 'balls, to make good work a reality has decreased greatly over the last 20 years. Alot of ideas are driven to fruition by fearless minds and can be sustained through legitimate success (such as Evan's Paramount dynasty of the 70's) and lucrative artistic partnerships. I'm not saying that modern audiences don't have themselves (and to some degree, their popcorn-brained 80's-bred parents) to blame, but blocking responsibility for any party, especially one as substantial as that of the supplier, is ill-conceived.
I never said there was an equal amount of both good and bad films, I just meant in general. But I really don't understand why people are so surprised that Hollywood goes for Blockbuster's over more original films, Hollywood cares more about making movies that'll guranteed box-office hits then anything else, and I don't expect that to change anytime soon.


Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:16 pm
Post Re: November 5, 2009: "R.I.P. Miramax"
nvandyk wrote:
Quote:
However, people from certain corners would argue that the amount of executives displaying motivation, or 'balls, to make good work a reality has decreased greatly over the last 20 years.


They might, although I'm not sure there is evidence for this other than people wanting to demonstrate that they have better taste than the masses. You forget a lottttttt (or is that looooooot) of crappy movies used to come out. I'll demonstrate in a moment. But we remember the good ones, not the bad ones. For every Sunset Boulevard, there were 50 other movies released in 1950 that sucked and have been rightly forgotten.



These two links underline my theme with perhaps a better sense of ethos (from a thriving artistic writer, nonetheless):

http://sutterink.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-most-network-scripted-dramas-suck.html
http://sutterink.blogspot.com/2009/10/d-girl-death-wishes.html


I might be an idealist, but then again, there needs to be a few of me so that you can enlighten the world to how difficult and demanding your job is. I see this as giving you a premiere opportunity to express yourself :)


Sat Nov 07, 2009 10:20 pm
Post Re: November 5, 2009: "R.I.P. Miramax"
Evenflow8112 wrote:
nvandyk wrote:
Quote:
However, people from certain corners would argue that the amount of executives displaying motivation, or 'balls, to make good work a reality has decreased greatly over the last 20 years.


They might, although I'm not sure there is evidence for this other than people wanting to demonstrate that they have better taste than the masses. You forget a lottttttt (or is that looooooot) of crappy movies used to come out. I'll demonstrate in a moment. But we remember the good ones, not the bad ones. For every Sunset Boulevard, there were 50 other movies released in 1950 that sucked and have been rightly forgotten.



These two links underline my theme with perhaps a better sense of ethos (from a thriving artistic writer, nonetheless):

http://sutterink.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-most-network-scripted-dramas-suck.html
http://sutterink.blogspot.com/2009/10/d-girl-death-wishes.html


Well first, I am a big fan of Kansas so I actually got the guy's Cheyenne Anthem reference in the first post. :)

Second, there is more good TV now than at any time in the medium's history, the horrible slew of reality TV programming aside. How easily people forget!!! In the 1970s, there were four shows that were worth a damn. M*A*S*H, The Odd Couple, WKRP and Barney Miller. That was pretty much it. Maybe a couple of others. There was SO much crap on television! Even allowing for the bad programming which still exists today, the fact that Glee, LOST, Chuck and I would add The Office and 30 Rock and Curb Your Enthusiasm and probably House and Rescue Me and The Shield and have a dozen others...to say nothing of recent shows like The Sopranos, etc. I mean honestly, how quickly people forget the crap and remember the good stuff. My GOD there was a lot of bad television in the 1970s. The Love Boat and The Dukes of Hazzards (and holy hell, it had a spin-off called Enos!) were hits!

Quote:
I might be an idealist, but then again, there needs to be a few of me so that you can enlighten the world to how difficult and demanding your job is. I see this as giving you a premiere opportunity to express yourself :)


:)

We're no more or less incompetent than anybody else. :)


Sat Nov 07, 2009 10:55 pm
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:40 pm
Posts: 948
Post Re: November 5, 2009: "R.I.P. Miramax"
Evenflow8112 wrote:
Yes, can you get Harvey Weinstein in here so I can ask him how much the 98' Best Picture Oscar cost?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

So true! I really despise the Weinsteins, they emulate everything that is bad with mainstream movies. "Shakespeare in Love" won Best Picture over "Saving Private Ryan?" WTF? That made the Oscars a complete joke.

The problem is that mainstream viewers flock to movies like sheep. Advertise it, and they will come. No one cares about movies anymore, and that's why we're subjected to a mass of unnecessary sequels and remakes.

_________________
My movie review site:

Mighty Mike's Raging Reviews

http://mightymikesragingreviews.blogspot.com/


Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:09 am
Profile WWW
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3145
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post Re: November 5, 2009: "R.I.P. Miramax"
nvandyk wrote:
neco82 wrote:
I just started reading Biskind's Down and Dirty Pictures, which so far doesn't have a lot of nice things to say about Robert Redford and Miramax; this ReelThoughts made a great companion piece to it.


If memory serves, my former boss is compared -- in three consecutive paragraphs -- to Hitler, Cancer and Satan in this book. :)


Sounds like one of my former bosses... :)

I had three ReelThoughts posts devoted to Biskind's book a number of years ago:

A "review" of sorts.
Using Kevin Smith's words against him.
Smith strikes back.


Mon Nov 09, 2009 6:03 pm
Profile WWW
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:09 pm
Posts: 1290
Post Re: November 5, 2009: "R.I.P. Miramax"
moviemkr7 wrote:
Evenflow8112 wrote:
Yes, can you get Harvey Weinstein in here so I can ask him how much the 98' Best Picture Oscar cost?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

So true! I really despise the Weinsteins, they emulate everything that is bad with mainstream movies. "Shakespeare in Love" won Best Picture over "Saving Private Ryan?" WTF? That made the Oscars a complete joke.

The problem is that mainstream viewers flock to movies like sheep. Advertise it, and they will come. No one cares about movies anymore, and that's why we're subjected to a mass of unnecessary sequels and remakes.


Hear, hear. I've always considered "The English Patient" the true beginning of the end for Miramax. Once Harv got the taste of Oscar nectar, that's all he seemed to want. And as a result, the studio began putting all its efforts into the slick, glossy, bloated, emotionally sterile Oscar bait that all the major studios put out -- stuff like "The Cider House Rules," "Chicago," "Gangs of New York," and "Cold Mountain," and, thus, relegating their smaller, more interesting films (the kind on which they built their empire in the first place) on the back-burner, e.g. "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind," "Rabbit-Proof Fence, "Dirty Pretty Things," etc.

I like to say that Harvey Weinstein became the George Steinbrenner of movies. :twisted:


Mon Nov 09, 2009 10:59 pm
Profile
Assistant Second Unit Director

Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:16 am
Posts: 115
Post Re: November 5, 2009: "R.I.P. Miramax"
First post on these boards. Hello all.

Working within the independent finance side of things in the film industry I have to point out that the perfect storm had less to do with market share, quality, or a consequence of home theaters and more to do with bank lending and the recent economic downturn which has been an absolute disaster to independent films. You can even trace it back to 9/11 and the reinsurance rates sky rocketing and eating into how far lenders will inherit risk. I think it goes without saying, the independent film industry has "red flag" written all over it...and that's before scratching the surface of the money laundering side of it...

It's the chicken and the egg syndrome. In order to secure financing, you need to jump through a series of hoops and lock in private investment, tax credits, grants etc before a bank will lend and escrow your loan. Even if you can secure some financing, banks have been jamming in more obligations to basically eliminate all risk ie: raising contingency requirements and completion bond guaranties. (Which, considering how they got into this latest mess, is insanely ironic)...but that can essentially kill a production as they are now required to pay out more to satisfy the lenders before they can borrow a dime...

When the banks start lending again and get a little more lax on the financing obligations and reduce their risk requirements the industry might be able to catch its breath...but it doesn't look good at the moment


Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:43 am
Profile
Post Re: November 5, 2009: "R.I.P. Miramax"
nologo wrote:
First post on these boards. Hello all.

Working within the independent finance side of things in the film industry I have to point out that the perfect storm had less to do with market share, quality, or a consequence of home theaters and more to do with bank lending and the recent economic downturn which has been an absolute disaster to independent films. You can even trace it back to 9/11 and the reinsurance rates sky rocketing and eating into how far lenders will inherit risk. I think it goes without saying, the independent film industry has "red flag" written all over it...and that's before scratching the surface of the money laundering side of it...

It's the chicken and the egg syndrome. In order to secure financing, you need to jump through a series of hoops and lock in private investment, tax credits, grants etc before a bank will lend and escrow your loan. Even if you can secure some financing, banks have been jamming in more obligations to basically eliminate all risk ie: raising contingency requirements and completion bond guaranties. (Which, considering how they got into this latest mess, is insanely ironic)...but that can essentially kill a production as they are now required to pay out more to satisfy the lenders before they can borrow a dime...

When the banks start lending again and get a little more lax on the financing obligations and reduce their risk requirements the industry might be able to catch its breath...but it doesn't look good at the moment


Yeah, what he said! :)

Heckuva good first post. Welcomes! :!:


Tue Nov 10, 2009 7:05 am
Assistant Second Unit Director

Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:16 am
Posts: 115
Post Re: November 5, 2009: "R.I.P. Miramax"
MrGuinness wrote:
nologo wrote:
First post on these boards. Hello all.

Working within the independent finance side of things in the film industry I have to point out that the perfect storm had less to do with market share, quality, or a consequence of home theaters and more to do with bank lending and the recent economic downturn which has been an absolute disaster to independent films. You can even trace it back to 9/11 and the reinsurance rates sky rocketing and eating into how far lenders will inherit risk. I think it goes without saying, the independent film industry has "red flag" written all over it...and that's before scratching the surface of the money laundering side of it...

It's the chicken and the egg syndrome. In order to secure financing, you need to jump through a series of hoops and lock in private investment, tax credits, grants etc before a bank will lend and escrow your loan. Even if you can secure some financing, banks have been jamming in more obligations to basically eliminate all risk ie: raising contingency requirements and completion bond guaranties. (Which, considering how they got into this latest mess, is insanely ironic)...but that can essentially kill a production as they are now required to pay out more to satisfy the lenders before they can borrow a dime...

When the banks start lending again and get a little more lax on the financing obligations and reduce their risk requirements the industry might be able to catch its breath...but it doesn't look good at the moment


Yeah, what he said! :)

Heckuva good first post. Welcomes! :!:


Thank you sir

I think it's fair to say it's a mystery to many that a guy sitting in a financial veal fattening pen cubicle has more to do with killing a indie production and the industry as a whole, like determining a delivery date (usually making it razor thin, and even that's an understatement) and slamming high interest reserve penalties if it's missed then a lack of interest by distribution companies..although, it all plays a role in the slump, or gutter this industry is in...

Maybe they should package a bunch of indie film loans together and sell em to wall street. Or all indie film-makers can pitch in for a lobbyist to march up to the FED and beg for a credit allocation...at least it will create jobs


Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:10 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr