George Lucas (just naming him, cause he's the best example) made the new star wars movies ALSO out of his own pocket, can you even GUESS how damn rich he got of making them himself???Ok, I said Lucas was a bad example. Wanna know why? Because he is one of the richest men in Hollywood. Why is that? Because he puts out a product that is in demand. How does he make so much money? Again, because he puts out a product that is in demand.
I ask you, why on God's green earth would Lucas want to (or need to) get studio backing for any of his movies? He has his own film company. He has his own studios. He has his own SFX company. If he finances the whole thing himself, he's got complete control. He doesn't have studio execs telling him squat because he's "the man". He doesn't have studio execs asking him to hire/fire anyone. He doesn't have to do anything he doesn't want to do. Also, that's his way of making movies and always has been. If you didn't know it, Lucas payed for the original star wars movie on his own. He didn't get studio backing because Hollywood said his idea was terrible. Obviously studio execs don't know squat because they give the thumbs up to a TON of movies that absolutely suck. Back my original comment. Lucas is a bad example. Why? Because he doesn't "need" studio backing for anything. If for some reason he did, he'd get it. Why? Because nearly everything that Lucas touches is gold.
Now, I explained my stance... why don't you clarify this:
saying he financed it himself is the biggest BS that you can give when you say "he didn't do it about the money"WTF are you talking about? I've got a mouthful of ideas, but I won't say anything until your reply.
Ok. Simple. Movies are made usually with someone backing the film (hence the money (otherwise known as budget)). Mel Gibson has wanted to make this film for years but was unable to get the backing/funding/money to do so. Gibson dug into his own pocket and made this movie which Hollywood basically thumbed their noses at. If he was in it for money, he would have shopped this movie to be a blockbuster. He would have shopped it hard and heavy until someone picked it up. After a x-number of attempts, he said fukkit, I'll do it my own way. Upon financing it himself, no one could tell him to change things, leave things out, add things in. He made the movie the way he saw fit. Most people will tell you he did a very good job with it.
Then there are people who haven't see the movie which will say stupid shit like
* "he did it for the money"
* "why would he release the film now, right before Easter" ( um.... duh 😑 )
* "from what I can tell, Mel Gibson is trying to re-write the Bible" 😮
* "there's already enough movies about Jesus. Why make another?" 😕
Now, concerning that last comment are you going to be standing on your soapbox whining about every new comic book character that comes to life on the big screen, "aren't there already enough of these?". How about the next comedy about a bunch of teens that are just trying to get laid on spring break, "aren't there already enough of these?". Maybe the next movie about fighting aliens to protect mother earth, "aren't there already enough of these?". Perhaps when the next romantic comedy about 2 people who couldn't be more opposite suddenly find themselves attracted to each other, "aren't there already enough of these?". Of course, there's the next movie about baseball, "aren't there already enough of these?". And don't forget about the next slasher flick, "aren't there already enough of these?". Hrmm, another movie about the holocaust, "aren't there already enough of these?". Another movie about an internal affairs guy trying to catch a dirty cop, "aren't there already enough of these?". The list could go on forever.
It must drive you nuts just turning on a TV and looking at the 18464 reality shows or the 7361 judge and cop shows or the 2186 talk shows (blatantly exaggerated, don't yourself worked up over the numbers).
actually, if you go to another country from time to time, you'll notice that there are barely such shows on the tv
I know we HAD 1 judge show, it flopped (was bought from the states) two cop shows, one is really late with almost no one seeing it the other one is failing too... and we had some reality shows, all got cancelled
See, him paying it out of his own pocket is NOT an act of enlightment or out of his faith. He could afford it and get more profit out of it that way, that's a FACT: you spend less money (but you're not insured if something goes wrong, cause you have to pay it yourself)
You are both wrong.
#1) First off, Lucasfilm LTD was formed in 1973, long before a script was even finished for Star Wars, much less filming and release of the blockbuster hit.
#2) Second of all, 20th Century Fox was used for one thing and one thing only... distribution.
Now yersott, please give me reasons why Mel Gibson made The Passion for money reasons only, or to re-quote you.....
this was just made to get money, not for the message
Originally posted by yerssotDo you READ what's said or just react to the parts that you want to? Gibson COULD NOT get studio backing from anyone. It's wasn't for lack of trying. Hollywood basically said "hell no". THAT is the reason that he paid for it out of pocket. This has been public knowledge since he started working on the project. Not news from the last 6 weeks or so.
See, him paying it out of his own pocket is NOT an act of enlightment or out of his faith. He could afford it and get more profit out of it that way, that's a FACT: you spend less money (but you're not insured if something goes wrong, cause you have to pay it yourself)
----
As far as the comment goes about the judge/cop/etc shows... well if you aren't in America, then you definitely wouldn't know wtf I'm talking about, at least not to the extent. Regardless, I think you get the point I was making
Originally posted by Yomammy
You are both wrong.#1) First off, Lucasfilm LTD was formed in 1973, long before a script was even finished for Star Wars, much less filming and release of the blockbuster hit.
#2) Second of all, 20th Century Fox was used for one thing and one thing only... distribution.
Now yersott, please give me reasons why Mel Gibson made The Passion for money reasons only, or to re-quote you.....
please make the difference between the OLD MOVIES where he got rich of and the NEW MOVIES which is just to get more money and fans in.
if you can't see the connection between distributing it yourself, with getting a huge hype on it and promoting (making of ... is a perfect example of it) and making MONEY than this "debate" is quite hopeless
What did he say? I'm curious.
Look...nobody picked up this movie because of its controversial subject matter. Hollywood cannot have that kind of an image when promoting movies. Lions Gate picked up "House of 1,000 Corpses" and it did well, and it is also more gory than "The Passion." But because "The Passion" related to controversial subject matter and a topic that could, and has, caused quite a stir, nobody was willing to take that risk. And for good reason. In the end this is nothing more than a matter of opinion. Mel knew that this movie would do well because controversy sells, so somewhere in his mind there was a dollar sign. I don't believe that was his main motivation, however. But anyway, I just didn't like this film.
Thats exactly what im trying to say Jeff I think the thought was in his mind because hes human but I dont think thats why he did it.I don think he made the Passion for finacial gain.When you really think about it it sounds stupid.He would go through all that trouble to make a movie for financial gain.He did it to show people Christ final hours.
Originally posted by Jeff_Atello
I hate movie theater popcorn, but I went in there with a giant soda. This movie did absolutely nothing for me and I didn't even cringe on the bad parts. It sure as hell didn't live up to the hype....but I didn't expect it to.
no i'd change that to "it didn't live up to your hype"
buddy...