So the post from this morning set off a 80+ post thread discussion about the value of A-List stars in opening movies. I think I need to explain a few things that I took for granted that some people didn't understand:
1. We decided we weren't going after A-List stars very early in the process. It was a conscious decision, based on the issues I discussed in the post this morning; namely that the empirical evidence pretty clearly shows they aren't necessary to open movies, and I believed that they would distract from the material. Pretty simple.
2. Some of the confusion comes from people not understanding how film finance works. You don't first set the budget, and then go after stars (well, you can do it that way if you are a studio movie, but it's not how most indies do it, ours included). What you do is attach an actor or actors and then finance the movie based on who you got to put in your movie. So, had I wanted for the movie to have a 15 million dollar budget, I had the solution right in my face for MONTHS, and passed on it several times: Attach a big name (e.g., Dane Cook, Seth Rogen, Ryan Reynolds, etc, or someone in that league). The fact that we decided to not put a big name in and instead cast non-financeable actors meant that it made the process MUCH harder for me AND basically forced me to accept a budget of no more than ten million dollars. This movie would have been financed at least three months ago had we taken even one big name in a lead role.
3. Someone on the thread said they thought we went after A-List stars, couldn't get them, and this post was my rationalization of that failure. That just made me laugh. Never in my life have I not admitted a failure. I might try to rationalize the reason behind the failure, but I always admit the failure, and if we had gone after big stars and couldn't get them, I would admit it.
I didn't write about this because it really never crossed my mind that it was relevant or that people wouldn't believe my reasoning for not going after A-List stars, but we turned down two big "offer only" male stars for the Tucker role, stars whose attachment to the movie would have immediately financed the whole thing (in fact, we didn't even send the script to either of them. They got the scripts through their agents, who repped other smaller actors we did go after and, like agents are known to do, they instead tried to get their bigger clients who demand larger fees on the movie instead).
EDIT: 3a. I forgot about this and do want to mention it in the interest of complete transparency--we did offer ONE pretty big name actress (and this was late in the game, and only because one of the producers on the movie knew her very well). It was Brittany Murphy, for one of the female leads (the stripper role), and it was an offer contingent on reading (this means that if we didn't like her audition, we didn't have to take her). She passed on the offer because the money wasn't what she wanted. So yes, we did go after one household name, and yes, she did pass. But that's it; not one other A-List household name.
4. Then there was this, from Slash Film:
"Tucker Max explains why they didn't cast A-listers in I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell. I call bullshit: It was the low budget that restricted them, not the distraction of star value."
This fucking pissed me off. The exact email I sent him:
"You know what cracks me up about [your post]? You just pull this out of your ass. You don't even have the first clue about what happened, and the worst part is, if you weren't so lazy, you could easily find out. Forget asking me; Richard Kelly and Sean McKittrick have their office numbers posted on IMDB Pro. Same with Aaron Ray. Or ANY other producer on the movie. Or you could call the casting director, Joseph Middleton and ask him. None of this even gets to the fact that you apparently don't seem to understand even the most basic concepts of film finance. Had we cast a big star on one of the leads, it would have been much easier to raise a much bigger budget. And of course, no big stars ever do indies for scale. Nope. I should tell that to the name actors we turned down that almost begged me for the part.
At the end of the day, it doesn't really impact me if you can't do even the most basic of research. You're the one who looks stupid, and you're the one who's laziness leaves a major niche in the film blog world for someone else to come in and take all your market share by ACTUALLY doing real reporting."
His response:
"Tucker,
I have interviewed Richard in the past and have been in contact with his assistant as early as last month (about the S Darko situation) so, yeah, I think I know how it works. And I'm not sure if you noticed, but there was a pretty positive article about your film on my site a couple days back.
Thanks for reading"
That's not good enough for me:
"Well, if you know how it works, why don't you work it that way?
A positive piece yes, but dude, to be honest, I don't care if anyone writes positive or negative things about me. Opinions and assholes, etc. All I really care about is that they get the facts right. Not only did you not get the facts right, you didn't even try. You just threw out some non-sense based on nothing other than your baseless assumption, and then passed it off as fact. THAT is bullshit.
Call me an asshole, say my movie sucks, disagree with my opinions--that's all fair game and I won't get upset in the least. Your opinion is your opinion and even if I disagree, it's not a big deal. You accused me of something very different. I never lie. I may not always disclose everything and I may tell the truth as I see it, which can reasonably differ from other peoples versions of the same truth, but I never,
ever lie."
You are going to love his next email:
"Tucker,
The thing you have to understand is page 2 is a link blog. It's not a news article. The format here is a link, sometimes followed up with a snarky comment. I don't think anyone reading page 2 would read my comment and think its fact, it's obvious it is what it is - a snarky comment.
And for the record, I want to like your movie, but this whole email conversation has been oft-putting. I get contacted by filmmakers and actors all the time, and never have I gotten an email like this. Don't worry, I probably wont talk about your film again on the blog."
This whole exchange is mind boggling to me. Hollywood is like the twilight zone. Even the marginal press are fucked up and upside down. Whatever; you guys read all the emails, make up your own mind.
EDIT: I want to make a side note about movie blogs. Before the last three months, I never paid any attention to film blogs, mainly because I have never really been a movie guy. But now I kinda have to be obviously, and if there is one thing I have seen, it's that they all pretty much suck. With a few exceptions, they run the same stories, all of which they pull straight from the trades, or from other blogs. There are only about 3-4 sources that do actual reporting; the hundreds of other movie blogs do nothing more than regurgitate what's in those sources, slap on some "snark" and pass that off as news. It's bullshit.
This is a big opportunity for someone to become a major player in that world. Just like I told our buddy at Slash Film--you could probably be an elite film blogger in six months by doing three pieces of original reporting every day. You don't even need to break new stories necessarily, just be the one who does follow-up and adds real value to all the standard crap out there.
Who is the proof of concept for this idea? Nikki Finke. She only focuses on the business side of the entertainment world, but what she does is ACTUAL reporting that ADDS VALUE. I am telling you--the only niche in entertainment blogging and reporting that is done well is gossip blogs. Right now the field is wide open--when the guy writing the emails I printed above is running one of the biggest film blogs out there, there is a lot of opportunity for new players.
EDIT: Yes, if you are wondering, he did take the reference down. Gotta love those who have no problem heaping scorn on others and can't take even a little on themselves.
Digg it · del.icio.us · StumbleUpon · Fark It · Print Friendly
