At last, Will Smith is opening up on why the infamously changed ending to I Am Legend was the fault of its own audience! Among Will Smith’s long list of film hi
The difference is perhaps that people like Wes Anderson have both faith in their vision, and a track record of success in their distinctive style that together provide the clout to resist meddling.
If Wes Anderson says “This is done, we aren’t changing a thing” then it’s done.
I can only imagine in Legend there was big pressure from execs to make changes after the test screening, not because they thought the test audience was right artistically, but because they were worried about the impact on the profit margin.
I don’t disagree, but IMO that’s where the movie crosses the threshold from art to mindless entertainment. The execs are more often than not people who don’t have years or decades of experience crafting movies, just funding them. They don’t know what works or not. Same with the target focus group as ironic as it may sound.
The execs may know that old-movie was a flop, but not why it was a flop, and are afraid that new-movie becomes a flop too. That’s understandable, but the only way to prevent this is to hire the right people with loads of experience who can say exactly what went wrong in flops and successes and apply that knowledge to new-movie. Focus groups are just too narrow to allow that to happen, so even if they identify a fault (not unlikely) they apply the wrong solution. Maybe they needed better dialogue to emphasise the twist? Lighting changes to help guide the viewer’s feelings? Instead they scrapped it at the detriment of the artistic vision which more often than not will come back to bite them in the profits anyway (like now when they are thinking of making a sequel to a movie where the main protagonist dies in the theatrical version and have to say “forget that, it isn’t canon”).
But that of course puts a huge burden on getting a good team with good experience. Mix of new people with new ideas and old people with wisdom. And most importantly, people who are open to be challenged by the other people’s expertise. That usually doesn’t happen if “profits!” is the first and last thought on your mind as an exec.
All I can say is, I agree. Legend ultimately wasn’t for art, it was for money, and the way the test screening was handled shows that.
My point was really just sad acknowledgement that creators often don’t get to follow through on the vision they want to create because the money says otherwise, and that’s disappointing.
One can hope that they learn after the umpteenth flopped Marvel movie. I’m just worried since people whose entire vocabulary is “profit!” are buying up great artistic film studios nowadays.
Hopefully we’ll see a renaissance sometime soon. And artistic minds getting together to define the next chapter that’s not “Disney or no way” but full or art. I don’t mind mindless entertainment, I watch some myself, but I do mind quality options becoming needles in a haystack.
The difference is perhaps that people like Wes Anderson have both faith in their vision, and a track record of success in their distinctive style that together provide the clout to resist meddling.
If Wes Anderson says “This is done, we aren’t changing a thing” then it’s done.
I can only imagine in Legend there was big pressure from execs to make changes after the test screening, not because they thought the test audience was right artistically, but because they were worried about the impact on the profit margin.
I don’t disagree, but IMO that’s where the movie crosses the threshold from art to mindless entertainment. The execs are more often than not people who don’t have years or decades of experience crafting movies, just funding them. They don’t know what works or not. Same with the target focus group as ironic as it may sound.
The execs may know that old-movie was a flop, but not why it was a flop, and are afraid that new-movie becomes a flop too. That’s understandable, but the only way to prevent this is to hire the right people with loads of experience who can say exactly what went wrong in flops and successes and apply that knowledge to new-movie. Focus groups are just too narrow to allow that to happen, so even if they identify a fault (not unlikely) they apply the wrong solution. Maybe they needed better dialogue to emphasise the twist? Lighting changes to help guide the viewer’s feelings? Instead they scrapped it at the detriment of the artistic vision which more often than not will come back to bite them in the profits anyway (like now when they are thinking of making a sequel to a movie where the main protagonist dies in the theatrical version and have to say “forget that, it isn’t canon”).
But that of course puts a huge burden on getting a good team with good experience. Mix of new people with new ideas and old people with wisdom. And most importantly, people who are open to be challenged by the other people’s expertise. That usually doesn’t happen if “profits!” is the first and last thought on your mind as an exec.
This is pretty much why John Cassavettes essentially created the US independent film industry
All I can say is, I agree. Legend ultimately wasn’t for art, it was for money, and the way the test screening was handled shows that.
My point was really just sad acknowledgement that creators often don’t get to follow through on the vision they want to create because the money says otherwise, and that’s disappointing.
One can hope that they learn after the umpteenth flopped Marvel movie. I’m just worried since people whose entire vocabulary is “profit!” are buying up great artistic film studios nowadays.
Hopefully we’ll see a renaissance sometime soon. And artistic minds getting together to define the next chapter that’s not “Disney or no way” but full or art. I don’t mind mindless entertainment, I watch some myself, but I do mind quality options becoming needles in a haystack.