$2.3 million may not have been the huge failure you are so quick to ridicule. Careful about making a point so boldly, when there could be info that you do not have that can completely change the picture.
EVERY actor in this film did it for scale pay. Even Tim Allen. That's the lowest base wage that can be earned by an actor in SAG. It's not much, especially to those used to making a few million. More and more big money actors are willing to do take cuts in pay like that, in order to work with specific directors and writers that they admire and respect, and who are in a position to make a film that is, though low budget and less accessible to the public, true to their vision.
The writers and directors of these independant films often get to make THEIR film, on THEIR terms. Good or bad, in the opinions of critics and viewers, the beauty of these types of films are that they are as pure to the directors vision as is possible in the modern world of movie-making.
Not so, with the big budget movies being cranked out by the huge film companies. The writer and director doesn't have the last say on edits and cuts, which is why there are so many "Director's Cuts" being put out on DVD. THAT is the version the director would have wanted the audience to see, if he had the power to make that happen. Unfortunately that gets taken away as the movie companies take the film upon "completion" and then incorporate changes in line with what the the "market" wants, e.g., the average movie-goes doesn't want to sit for much more than 2 hours... 2 1/2 at the most... in the theater. Chop, chop, slice. This scene isn't imperative to the story. Chop.
Directors and writers have some big battles leading up to what the audience sees, as they fight for what they feel are important pieces to the movie from the perspective of the artist's vision, where as the movie "business" people simply view it as, does it fit the mold of what people will want and expect from a particular movie. It may need 3 hours to tell the story properly, in the view of the director, but those length films are usually reserved for the "epic" tales.
One of the best examples is "Dances With Wolves". It came to audiences at right around the 3 hour mark, but Kevin Costner really felt he needed closer to 4 hrs to tell the story the way he felt it would be most effective. Not a chance that was going to happen. BUT you can buy his Director's Cut, and it's 4 hours long. And I admit it... it's long, but so much more fulfilling and enriching once you see all the parts that got cut out of the original, and that fill in so many holes that you may not have thought much about at the time, but once you watch the extra footage, you're so happy to have the extra info, background and scenes to fill in and enhance the gaps that existed.
Also, keep in mind that small, independent movies do not have huge budgets for marketing and advertising and do not get shown on thousands of screens across the nation. Here in Colorado, I'm betting it was probably shown on 2 screens. One in Denver, one MAYBE in Colo Springs.
Long live the low-budget film. They are not made for the general audiences out there. They are many times a little off-center in some way, and like I said before... good or bad in the eyes of the critics and audience, they are typically true to the creator's vision of how that particular film should be made... which means... they sometimes don't make complete sense immediately, sometimes they are poorly executed, sometimes they are brilliant in their obscureness or element of "open to interpretation."
One thing is for sure... it certainly sparks debate. And that is always a good thing. When was the last time there was intense back and forth banter (unless it's over errors typically) over movies like Spiderman, Transformers, or Die Hard.
reply
share