#26
Posted: 3/8/14 at 11:02am
Bigger question: Do we NEED movie stars?
I would start by asking, "who is WE?" Is it the movie studios or the audience?
The studios need movie stars and pay a hefty price for them because they create a built-in audience for a film. Audiences often take a chance on a new movie simply because of the star or stars involved. They are fans of their work. If it's a project or subject they are familiar with, and it has a favorite star attached, that will help ticket sales.
Very few studios will take chances on a new film with no stars attached, unless it's a well-known project (meaning based on a popular story or character) or it has a star director involved, like Spielberg.
If you see an independent film released with no stars, no star director, and no familiar subject, and it's released by a major studio, that film was very likely made first (in its entirety) then bought by a studio for distribution during one of the indy festivals. That means the entire project had to be funded and made in advance before a studio picked it up and gave it a general release.
Sad, but true.
Does the audience "need" stars? No, not really. But they would have to start taking more chances on unknown actors in unknown stories, instead of flocking to the latest Sandra Bullock or Brad Pitt movie. Or the latest popular vampire/super-hero film. Until then, audiences will get movie stars, because they pay to see them, and studios "need' them to get the films into production.
I would start by asking, "who is WE?" Is it the movie studios or the audience?
The studios need movie stars and pay a hefty price for them because they create a built-in audience for a film. Audiences often take a chance on a new movie simply because of the star or stars involved. They are fans of their work. If it's a project or subject they are familiar with, and it has a favorite star attached, that will help ticket sales.
Very few studios will take chances on a new film with no stars attached, unless it's a well-known project (meaning based on a popular story or character) or it has a star director involved, like Spielberg.
If you see an independent film released with no stars, no star director, and no familiar subject, and it's released by a major studio, that film was very likely made first (in its entirety) then bought by a studio for distribution during one of the indy festivals. That means the entire project had to be funded and made in advance before a studio picked it up and gave it a general release.
Sad, but true.
Does the audience "need" stars? No, not really. But they would have to start taking more chances on unknown actors in unknown stories, instead of flocking to the latest Sandra Bullock or Brad Pitt movie. Or the latest popular vampire/super-hero film. Until then, audiences will get movie stars, because they pay to see them, and studios "need' them to get the films into production.
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22