would have been a good movie without a video crew documenting the production's every move, but I know I wouldn’t have spent so much time monitoring the varied lengths of star Balthazar Getty’s hair or whether Krista Allen’s nipples were poking through her tank top (I know that makes me sound like a perv, but honestly, it was a plot point on the the show). The filmmakers’ missteps would have remained speculative rather than being enshrined on a sitcom with no laugh track. It could be argued that without , Gulager and writers Melton and Dunstan would never have a career -- but between the series and the movie, what career would that be?
Moore has speculated that is dead at this point, not because the Weinsteins are unwilling to finance the films (masochists that they are), but because no network will air the show. This is a loss for television and a bittersweet victory for movies. Aware as I am of 's potential to harm unknown filmmakers, I could watch another 10 seasons of of Moore blowing his stack and threatening to fire the director; but as a film fan, I know this contest, in its current incarnation, will never produce a great feature (or even a good one).
I love the idea of guys like Damon and Affleck helping newcomers break into the business, and I hope 's failure won't deter them from doing so. But some things are not meant to be dissected, manipulated and repackaged for the viewing public. If filmmaking was so inherently thrilling to observe, people might actually watch those “making of” documentaries that they slap onto DVD’s.
Making a movie is hard enough without having to play to the cameras. Let’s limit reality television to less important subjects, like building houses, choosing pop singers, eating cow uteruses, and politics. posted by Andrew Dignan at 5:22 PM Unfortunately, this project's promise was thwarted the minute the production company decided to finance their talent contest/first time filmmaker scholarship fund by framing it within an unscripted TV series.
As you note, TV shows -- indeed dramas of all kinds -- need conflict, but the huckster mentality makes the false assumption that by exaggerating the conflict, you increase audience satisfaction and add to your bottom line. That's not necessarily the case -- and especially not if the onscreen drama makes you lose faith in the finished product. So the show found itself in an impossible conundrum: boring TV show equals good movie, exciting TV show equals bad movie.
Yoke the TV show to the movie and you just can't win. I watched all three series, and each time I remember thinking, "These guys clearly didn't get along very well as artists or coworkers." They rarely seemed to be on the same page, and the Miramax suits always seemed to treat the various movies as Ben and Matt's indulgence, or as a simple work duty, rather than as aspects of a vision worth getting excited about for its own sake.
To judge from what we saw on TV, even Damon and Affleck didn't believe in the project enough to do anything more than parachute in for a few hours at a time or take a phone call or two. They subcontracted their vision, and for that, they deserved to fail. And beyond that, why on earth would Miramax think that a multiweek infomercial about squabbling, petty filmmakers, few of whom seemed truly committed to the task at hand, would inspire millions of people to pay to see the finished product?
It's like asking somebody to drive a car manufactured by Laurel and Hardy. At least the TV series delivered what it promised: a workplace comedy about artists who can't stand each other. It knew why it existed.
I can't say the same for the movies. would have been a good movie without a video crew documenting the production's every move, but I know I wouldn’t have spent so much time monitoring the varied lengths of star Balthazar Getty’s hair or whether Krista Allen’s nipples were poking through her tank top (I know that makes me sound like a perv, but honestly, it was a plot point on the the show).
News RSS