Fountainhead Thread

[Tom Lowe]

On this thread I will obsess over my #2 movie for this decade, Darren Aronofsky's daring masterpiece The Fountain.

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/3204/vlcsnap70236rg8.png

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/1061/vlcsnap83622ug4.png

http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/6949/vlcsnap82709ea6.png

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/3549/vlcsnap71359rg6.png

[Tom Lowe]

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/3954/vlcsnap67948ts8.png

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/5460/vlcsnap65461dd2.png

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/7693/vlcsnap98511vw9.png

http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/4296/vlcsnap98270cp7.png

[Tom Lowe]

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/4390/vlcsnap73616ez5.png

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Just got the HD-DVD this evening in the mail. Mussttt resist urge to watch... musttt... programm...

[Petr Dvorak]

more resolution
http://nwgat.net/woot/files/2/fountain/sample.pic5.jpg
http://nwgat.net/woot/files/2/fountain/sample.pic1.jpg
http://www.freeimagehost.eu/image/608989309286
http://www.freeimagehost.eu/image/79738e309288

[jbeale]

I haven't seen it but these stills are impressive. I was interested to read the Wikipedia entry about substituting macro-photography of bacteria in solution, for some effects that would normally be CG.

[RED,BLUE&GREEN]

What was the Movie shot with???? Very nice Lighting!!!.. ie Photography.

probably 35mm.....Film

[David Mullen ASC]

35mm. Kodak Expression 500T stock, push-processed I believe, with some ProMist diffusion.

[Shawn Nelson]

"push-processed", meaning he under-exposed it and then pushed the ISO in post development?

[ChrisLyon]

*jaw drops*

"David Mullen is my hero."

[Tom Lowe]

*jaw drops*

"David Mullen is my hero."

He's a born artist and teacher.

[David Mullen ASC]

"push-processed", meaning he under-exposed it and then pushed the ISO in post development?

Yes, though the amount you underexpose doesn't have to match the amount you push. Often people underexpose a little less than they push so that the net effect is a denser negative.

I remember Matty telling me that the efx people didn't want him to push any shots that had efx in them, so those shots aren't quite as grainy (and he wanted that texture in general.)

[Russ McDonald]

The tone of the thread, I hope stays on this track. It is a beautifully shot film.

I sorry it is my number 2 worst movie ever made, over taking Howard the Duck. IMHO it is one of those self indulgent works, meant to serve the Directors ego, not the audience.

Film is not about us the filmmakers, it's about the lay audience. It sure was pretty, to bad it sucked.

[nigelsmith]

I loved the movie, and in particular the cinematography, but I have to say that as narrative cinema, I felt "Requiem.." was stronger. The 'atomography' [or whatever it's called] is breath-taking though.

[Charles Angus]

I really liked the story, and the way it was told. I don't understand why directors get dumped on for making an interesting artistic film about the human condition.

Great cinematography. One thing that bugged me, though. Near the shot of the tree that was posted, there is a CU on Rachel Weis that has distinct square bokeh. I don't know what lens does that, but it bugs me a lot. Lost had a lot of that too, in night exteriors.

Anyone know which lenses do that?

[Russ McDonald]

This bring up a new question, how do you define a successful movie?

* Total box office Gross 15,934,455 + 16,810,000 video/dvd= 32,744,455

Reported Production budget 35,000,000 not counting Print and advertising. Lets be conservative there and say, 8,000,000 worldwide. That brings it up to 43 million, resulting in a net loss of just over 10 million dollars.

Does ROI determine success?

Is a beautiful looking film that pushes the envelope, determine success?

I look forward to reading the answers, and the reasoning behind them.

*Link to numbers (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=fountain.htm).

[Poi Boy]

I was excited to see it but I couldn't get through it, got bored, maybe I was too tired. I might give it another go because it is pretty but I have my doubts.
Aloha
-A

[Shawn Nelson]

The tone of the thread, I hope stays on this track. It is a beautifully shot film.

I sorry it is my number 2 worst movie ever made, over taking Howard the Duck. IMHO it is one of those self indulgent works, meant to serve the Directors ego, not the audience.

Film is not about us the filmmakers, it's about the lay audience. It sure was pretty, to bad it sucked.

The problem is you can't even trust those numbers. In fact, you can't trust any Hollywood budget numbers, they rig it so most movies technically lose money or break even.

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

The tone of the thread, I hope stays on this track. It is a beautifully shot film.

I sorry it is my number 2 worst movie ever made, over taking Howard the Duck. IMHO it is one of those self indulgent works, meant to serve the Directors ego, not the audience.

Film is not about us the filmmakers, it's about the lay audience. It sure was pretty, to bad it sucked.
I wholeheartedly disagree. I loathed Pi but appreciated Requiem for a Dream -- I can't say I "loved" it because it was a thoroughly disturbing and upsetting experience, but it was powerful.

So Fountain had a 50-50 chance of being great, and IMO, it made the cut. It took a conversation after the movie with my friends who had seen it with me to really work out what had happened, but after that I realized what a great job it had done telling a very simple and powerful story in a visually stunning way. I saw it a second time with that in mind and I fell in love.

And listen, I personally have a strong loathing for self-indulgent cinema. I don't like a lot of indie stuff for that reason. But I don't agree that Fountain is self-indulgent or egotistical. I think it's very much the opposite.

I can agree that it didn't cater to the audience that needs a character, at some point, to explain the movie's intentions in explicit terms -- and that may be the majority of the audience. To be honest, I'm still kind of stunned that such a film was actually made within the studio system.

But I disagree that film is about the "lay audience". It's about people who love films and want to feel something -- and maybe learn something -- when they watch them.

And second Worst Movie Ever Made? I don't think so. If you knew the stinkers out there, Fountain wouldn't even make your top 10.

[Ken K]

Ahh... another lover of The Fountan. :biggrin: It's in my top 10 favorite movies, probably even my top five. Beautifully shot, great acting, cool story, emotional, epic score... what's not to love? Every time I watch it, I pick up something new. This movie is a total treat and I'm stoked it's in HD.

While we're somewhat on the topic of these types of films, anyone else looking forward to picking up Sunshine when it hits DVD/Blu-Ray on January 8th? That felt a little similar and I really enjoyed it.

[Russ McDonald]

Lay audience, doesn't mean a stupid audience. We live and die by the choices of the ticket buyers. I have said it elsewhere on this forum, the art of film is a seamless blend of art and commerce. From it's birth in Edison's lab, to the Multiplex down the street. Film has been about entertainment first and foremost. Can films effect us deeply and change the way we see the world, sure it can.

The problem is, this art form is not act of singular creation. It takes many craftsman and allot of capital to do right. If you spend 35 million dollars of other peoples money, you better have have a good ROI. If you don't, this industry does not reward you if you consistently loose money.

What good is your artistic voice if no one hears it. What good is the beautiful vista of your vision if no one sees it.....

[Tom Lowe]

"Lay audience, doesn't mean a stupid audience."

Wong Kar Wai's In the Mood for Love made $2.7 million in US Box Office.

Big Momma's House 2 made over $70 million.

Do these numbers say anything about the quality of these films?

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

What good is your artistic voice if no one hears it. What good is the beautiful vista of your vision if no one sees it.....
And what good is making a film if neither voice nor vision find their way into it? Just because it didn't find a huge audience doesn't mean it wasn't worth making. There's no way to predict what movies will find an audience, so I'm of the opinion that it's better to make an honest film than a pandering one, and a good movie sometimes takes time. The Shawshank Redemption was also a box office failure, yet it was nominated for seven Oscars and is now on many peoples' "best movies ever" lists. It's not on mine, I personally don't see what the big deal is about it, but that's not the point. Just because some people don't "like" or "get" a movie doesn't mean it's not worth making.

True, from a business perspective that's not a great line to take, when it can mean low box office and maybe no return, but honest and visionary filmmaking trumps market-research filmmaking any day of the week. Funding a movie is a risk no matter how you slice it. Better to take a big risk for a big reward, IMO, and a big studio like Warner Bros. can afford a "small" production like The Fountain. $35 million may sound like a big loss to you and me, but between the billions of dollars they made off The Matrix and the Harry Potter films alone, it's a drop in the bucket that they'll make back on another film.

[krd]

I have said it elsewhere on this forum, the art of film is a seamless blend of art and commerce.

But in today's market there is no such thing as a "seamless blend" -- or it's so rare as to be mythical by this point, the days of Godfather I and II.

The suits constantly mistake what people want to see -- they're as incapable of identifying "commerce", beyond the crudest measure, as they are at assessing the value or appeal of "art". Why else do so many TV shows flop? And would the Godfather movies even get made today?

It may be pointless to try to make "art" in Hollywood, but the same could be said of "commerce", if it doesn't fit the formula. What attracts financing is what's made money before -- a prior film, a comic book, a Broadway show or a star. "Commerce" and "art", rigorously understood, don't really enter into it.

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

The suits constantly mistake what people want to see -- they're as incapable of identifying "commerce", beyond the crudest measure, as they are at assessing the value or appeal of "art". Why else do so many TV shows flop? And would the Godfather movies even get made today?
Yes, but only because they were based on a bestselling novel. They certainly wouldn't be the SAME movies if they were made today, as Coppola (assuming he was in the same place career- and clout-wise as he was then) would lose most of the battles he had to wage with the studios to get them made his way, and/or have been fired and replaced mid-way through.

I saw Billy West in an interview using a very apt description of the suits always chasing lightning. "It struck over there!" and they all run in that direction and huddle around it waiting for it to strike the same place twice. Then it strikes somewhere else and "Now it's over there!" and off they scurry.

[krd]

Yes, but only because they were based on a bestselling novel. They certainly wouldn't be the SAME movies if they were made today, as Coppola (assuming he was in the same place career- and clout-wise as he was then) would lose most of the battles he had to wage with the studios to get them made his way, and/or have been fired and replaced mid-way through.


But Coppola had NO clout when he made Godfather I, and they nearly did fire him! The producer, Robert Evans, who tried to take "credit" for the film once it became a big hit, opposed Coppola on virtually everything -- the casting, the music, the cinematography, etc. Other than that, he liked it fine.

But corporate consolidation apparently wasn't complete by the 1970s. Today, it would just fall apart, best-seller or not, so we agree on that much.

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

But Coppola had NO clout when he made Godfather I, and they nearly did fire him! The producer, Robert Evans, who tried to take "credit" for the film once it became a big hit, opposed Coppola on virtually everything -- the casting, the music, the cinematography, etc. Other than that, he liked it fine.

But corporate consolidation apparently wasn't complete by the 1970s. Today, it would just fall apart, best-seller or not, so we agree on that much.
Yes, precisely my point. Coppola was on the verge of getting booted in the 70s studio system. In today's studios, all else being equal, they'd go all the way and replace him.

[Russ McDonald]

Tom, you can't compare In the Mood For Love, and The Fountain. First it's a foreign film. I have no idea how many screens it premiered on in the US, but I'm sure it wasn't 1400 plus screens and it wasn't starring Huge Jackman. The Fountain did half the Box Office in foreign release than it did domestically. These foreign markets trend more to the avant garde, and movies that push the envelope. It tanked there too.

Why, because the Lay audience, and when I say the Lay audience. I mean everybody else who doesn't eat, sleep, and make movies. The people who spend the 10 bucks of hard earned money to escape for two hours. It is they who are the final arbiters of what we do, they did not connect with the characters in The Fountain. We can stoke ourselves with award shows and drink our mochas discussing the nature of cinematic expression. But it will never change the inescapable truth, that the audience is King.

Good Will Hunting fits my definition of the art of film. Unproven lead Actors, who were the first time writers of the piece. That film did over 225 million in worldwide Box Office alone. Why, because the audience saw themselves inside the characters. When the house lights came up and they went back to their lives, they told those around them that it was a must see. The list of small personal movies that became Block Busters is long. I'm sorry Tom The Fountain didn't make the grade.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Coppola is a straight up Bad Ass. He would of risen to the level he obtained no matter when he started, or the environment he came up in.

[David Mullen ASC]

There are so many factors that go into box office success, including what else was in the theaters at the time, the marketing campaign, what people were in the mood for that weekend, whether there was a public groundswell that turns a movie into a "must see" event, that I don't see it as much of an indication of anything actually other than a snapshot of that moment in time and what people felt like putting their money down to see.

Whether or not people felt like seeing "The Fountain" isn't much of a measurement of its artistic merit, just perhaps its commercial merit at that particular moment.

That said, its pleasures were somewhat esoteric; it seems to me to be one of those expensive art films where you need a certain amount of luck in returning a profit on. "2001" was a film like that, didn't do that well in its opening weeks, but developed a cultural importance over time that made it a "must see" for a certain generation. Unfortunately, the fast release structure of modern movies doesn't allow for a movie to sit around for months in theaters and develop a following, which then in turn makes advertizing all the more important, plus what else is in the theaters to compete becomes more of an issue.

I've always loved though those expensive art film flops (or semi-flops), maybe because I secretly like the idea of some artist conning a studio out of a lot of money to make something very personal, avant garde, esoteric. Films like "Heaven's Gate", "Baron Munchausen", "Dune", Malick's movies, "2001"... they pop up now and then and you scratch your head as to how the filmmaker ever got the money to make such an expensive but odd movie.

[Russ McDonald]

That said, its pleasures were somewhat esoteric;

That is beautifully understated, David.

[krd]

I've always loved though those expensive art film flops (or semi-flops), maybe because I secretly like the idea of some artist conning a studio out of a lot of money to make something very personal, avant garde, esoteric. Films like "Heaven's Gate", "Baron Munchausen", "Dune", Malick's movies, "2001"... they pop up now and then and you scratch your head as to how the filmmaker ever got the money to make such an expensive but odd movie.

It is something of a miracle (if you liked the movie in question) or an amazing train wreck if you didn't, but these unaccountable movies probably get made for the same reason the "other" movies, those which are supposed to have obvious commercial appeal, get financed: in the end, it's about the deal, not the material. And the deal got so far advanced that the funders forgot what movie they were making.

Just a theory, anyway.....

[Russ McDonald]

It is something of a miracle (if you liked the movie in question) or an amazing train wreck if you didn't, but these unaccountable movies probably get made for the same reason the "other" movies, those which are supposed to have obvious commercial appeal, get financed: in the end, it's about the deal, not the material. And the deal got so far advanced that the funders forgot what movie they were making.

Just a theory, anyway.....

I think that is a astute and well thought out view.

Who are you and what have you done to the real KRD. If he is hurt, I will track you down and go through you like a hot knife through butter.

Just kidding man.

[Dominic Cochran]

I thought this thread was going to be about Ayn Rand.

The Fountain was great.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I don't think I would want to view a life changing film every day. I can handle 90 minutes of stupid/funny any day.

[krd]

Who are you and what have you done to the real KRD.

I was gonna keep quiet about Good Will Hunting, but now you really did it....

There's no reason we all have to like the same stuff, but jeez -- if [I]Good Will Hunting is art, what the hell is Shakespeare, Rembrandt and J.S. Bach?

All right, so maybe the movies aren't a highly formal art, and the desirability and/or value of trying to impose classical rigor on narrative cinema remains an unsettled question, even after 100 years. And it could well be that movies, even arty movies, need a certain trashy element, the rag and bone shop of melodrama, because it's the nature of the medium, the primal appeal of image and sound. Don't claim to know, just thinking out loud.

But if the outer limit of acceptable work is a movie that's been made, in one form or another, dozens of times before (like Good Will Hunting), what's the point? A lot of us would sooner pack it all up.

[Dean Bull]

The secret is this... The Fountain should have been made for 10 million bucks. Everybody wins.

[Tom Lowe]

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/8514/vlcsnap692661xy6.png

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/8128/vlcsnap73882ap2.png

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/3880/vlcsnap686504cp0.png

[Russ McDonald]

There's no reason we all have to like the same stuff, but jeez -- if Good Will Hunting is art, what the hell is Shakespeare, Rembrandt and J.S. Bach?



We're all remaking Shakespeare in one way or another. The point I was trying to make with the Good Will Hunting is that. It didn't have any special effects, no explosion, free of gunfire, and no one had sex with an apple pie.

Despite lacking all these elements it still grossed 226 million. In the medium in which we have chosen to express ourselves, mass appeal and acceptance is the goal. I don't mean pandering to the lowest common denominator here, I'm talking about butts in seats looking at our creation. Eye candy is great but characters that emotionally connect with the audience is way better.

The measure of that connection is Box Office and DVD sales. The Fountain failed in that regard, because it lacked a good script...

[Tom Lowe]

Sheesh. That is only your opinion that it lacked a good script. I call it a damn near perfect script - one of the best in decades, for my money. It was something original, at least. 99% of the stuff churned out by Hollywood is unoriginal.

I give Darren a ton of respect for taking a chance on a story he really believed in.

[Russ McDonald]

Sheesh. That is only your opinion that it lacked a good script. I call it a damn near perfect script - one of the best in decades, for my money. It was something original, at least. 99% of the stuff churned out by Hollywood is unoriginal.

I give Darren a ton of respect for taking a chance on a story he really believed in.

It not just my opinion, the audience hated it Tom. Not because it was above their heads, it's because they didn't give a shit about the characters. That my friend is a failure caused by a bad script.

[Tom Lowe]

It not just my opinion, the audience hated it Tom. Not because it was above their heads, it's because they didn't give a shit about the characters. That my friend is a failure caused by a bad script.

Well I know a lot of people who love it, some of them on this forum.

I can't argue with you whether is sucks. That's subjective. I personaly love it, and that's all that matters to me. :)

[Shawn Nelson]

It not just my opinion, the audience hated it Tom. Not because it was above their heads, it's because they didn't give a shit about the characters. That my friend is a failure caused by a bad script.

Perhaps some, but surely not all. My wife and I were both crying together in the theatre over several of those scenes, notably the bathtub scene and the scenes where she dies and the aftermath. The climax of this movie blew me away, just a rapturous theatrical experience really. Intellectually I had no idea what I was seeing, but emotionally it was very congruent.

That said, I watched a group of four get up and leave in the peak of the climax (right after the floating Buddha appears to the Myan priests), I was so furious I wanted to scream at them to sit back down.

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

It not just my opinion, the audience hated it Tom.
Don't presume to speak for "the audience". Tom and I are members of "the audience" and we loved it. Speak only for yourself when critiquing.

[Dean Bull]

This is a technical side note: but I remember reading in ASC that it was shot in standard 1.85 (like for a contact print) and then scanned and enlarged in the DI for the increased grain. (Similar to shooting super16mm and doing a blow-up)

I still go back to my original statement, it earned 40 million in the BO so clearly "asses" showed up, if it was a lower budgeted project handled as an indie and not marketed as a Hugh Jackman Sci-Fi Actioner the perception of the films success would be different. I think it was made by Universal who has no idea how to handle smaller projects so it was doomed from the get go!

I do sympathize with 'The Fountain", some of my early stuff (festival movies and student films) had a preponderance of visual motif's and an emphasis on art over tradition, and it suffered the same problem of not "connecting" with the larger audience.

As a connoisseur I am constantly baffled by what "The audience" connects with. I overthink it, and usually 'the audience" connects with whatever will help them feel cool in their personal or private lives.

[Russ McDonald]

Don't presume to speak for "the audience". Tom and I are members of "the audience" and we loved it. Speak only for yourself when critiquing.

I'm not speaking for the audience, the audience spoke for themselves when it died at the box office. Follow the link in the previous post, click the tab that shows it's performance by the week.

You guys are in show business, which means you're commercial artists. You are not fine artist, if you want that freedom get some paints and some canvas, or stay on youtube and make esoteric shorts.

It cost money to make you movies dreams come true. That is the unescapable reality of the profession you've chosen. If your taste is the esoteric, and your artistic voice resonates in that environment, don't spend 35 million of other people money to make it. Because the market that is willing to spend money to see it, is a very narrow one.

[Russ McDonald]

I still go back to my original statement, it earned 40 million in the BO so clearly "asses" showed up

It grossed just over 15 million in worldwide box office. when you add dvd sales it still fell short of its 35 million dollar budget.

It was marketed the way it was, because the studio gets the biggest share of the Box Office in the opening weekend. They tested that film and new they had a looser, so they hyped it as a Huge Jackman Sci-Fi action film to minimize the damage.

[Shawn Nelson]

I think the fundamental problem of the Fountain, in terms of commercial success, is that it deals with death. Not many people want to see that. I enjoyed 'Meet Joe Black' but it's also a coming-to-terms-with-death movie. That movie is well done but also tanked. Americans just don't want to pay to ponder their mortality.

[David Mullen ASC]

Though you don't want the studios though to constantly play it safe in terms of only making movies with the widest audience appeal. Then all we are going to get is more comic book adaptations and live-action versions of Disneyland rides...

In the old studio system, there was an attitude that it was OK to occasionally make some serious "prestige" movies even if they were not very profitable, sometimes to reward some director or star, or to just generate attention for the studio.

It's not like Warner Bros. who made "The Fountain", is now out on the streets begging for spare change. And there are grossly mainstream projects made by the big studios that flop despite catering to every possible audience expectation. So if aiming for the broadest appeal doesn't guarantee success, then why not take a risk now and then on something with greater artistic aims? At least you can fail with a little dignity...

There is some history regarding the project here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fountain

[krd]

So if aiming for the broadest appeal doesn't guarantee success, then why not take a risk now and then on something with greater artistic aims? At least you can fail with a little dignity...

I've been saying much the same thing for years -- not about Hollywood, but about American indie producers and funders. I wish that was a joke, but it isn't.

[Russ McDonald]

I'm not saying not to take risks, I'm just saying take calculated ones. If your making the film Shawn is talking about above. Max budget needs to be 5 million. You do that it will make money, and you'll be making depressing Shawn movies for decades.

Tom will then track me down and scream ha! You soul sucking bastard it can be done. I will rue the day

[Tom Lowe]

I love the fact that studios will support a director like Malick or Lynch or Herzog, even though they know the pictures are not commercial. They do it because they want to support art, and they probably feel guilty about 90% of their profits coming from commodities like Shrek 3.

If a studio bets on an art picture that advances cinema, and it loses money, that's cool to me. These studios spend $200 million on a "sure thing" like Evan Almighty and lose their shirts, so I doubt they are crying in their Wheaties over The Fountain. They took a chance on an art picture and maybe it lost some money. Then again, maybe 20 years from now it will be a huge HD-DVD cult movie like 2001 and they will end up making a good deal of money. I'm glad there are execs still willing to take chances.

[Shawn Nelson]

I love the fact that studios will support a director like Malick or Lynch or Herzog, even though they know the pictures are not commercial. They do it because they want to support art, and they probably feel guilty about 90% of their profits coming from commodities like Shrek 3.

If a studio bets on an art picture that advances cinema, and it loses money, that's cool to me. These studios spend $200 million on a "sure thing" like Bruce Almighty and lose their shirts, so I doubt they are crying in their Wheaties over The Fountain. They took a chance on an art picture and maybe it lost some money. Then again, maybe 20 years from now it will be a huge HD-DVD cult movie like 2001 and they will end up making a good deal of money. I'm glad there are execs still willing to take chances.

Bruce Almighty made them a ton of money, which is what then led them to greenlight the stinker 'Evan Almighty'. Somehow changing it from Jim Carrey to Steve Carell, *raising* the budget and changing it from a wish-fulfillment movie to one where the hero is constantly oppressed managed to sink the movie. Weird huh? :-)

I bet in the long run they at least break even on it. I hope enough people compliment Daren, Rachel Weisz and Hugh Jackman on it so they'll be proud of what they accomplished.

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

I'm not speaking for the audience, the audience spoke for themselves when it died at the box office. Follow the link in the previous post, click the tab that shows it's performance by the week.
A list of statistics has nothing to do with the merits of the film. Part of it is people not "getting" it, part of it was the poor-to-nonexistent advertising campaign (I barely saw ads here in Los Angeles, and if there weren't ads here, there definitely weren't ads in Podunk, Nebraska), part of it was the other things out in theatres at the time.

A movie's box office gross has little to nothing to do with the merits of the film, and again, you can't say that "the audience" hated it since, going by gross, "the audience" didn't even see it for the most part.


You guys are in show business, which means you're commercial artists. You are not fine artist, if you want that freedom get some paints and some canvas, or stay on youtube and make esoteric shorts.
Obviously someone at Warner Bros. believed in the project. It's not like they STOLE the money out from under the studio (and given the amount of "creative accounting" studios do to cut everyone out of their piece of the pie, I'd be behind it even if they DID).

In an industry that's willing to throw $200 million at Van Helsing, forgive me if I have trouble objecting to $35 million for The Fountain.


It cost money to make you movies dreams come true. That is the unescapable reality of the profession you've chosen. If your taste is the esoteric, and your artistic voice resonates in that environment, don't spend 35 million of other people money to make it. Because the market that is willing to spend money to see it, is a very narrow one.
There are people much smarter and more experienced than either one of us who are utterly incapable of accurately predicting "the market that is willing to spend money" -- and it's their JOB to predict that.

If someone believes in a project that you want to make, who are YOU, a completely un-involved third party, to say they "shouldn't"? The Fountain could have found its niche. It didn't, but the only way to find out is by making it.

What a miserable industry this would be if everyone thought like you and only wanted to make the same movie that made money last week.

Oh wait, they do. And yet it's always the movies that nobody wanted to make and nobody thought would ever find an audience that strike the real gold (Star Wars, anyone?)

Oh, and if you think The Fountain is depressing, you definitely didn't get it.

[Russ McDonald]

You didn't advertise my movie right, or they just don't get it. is a bullshit excuse. Their are many films that get no promotion or advertising, and because they are good and they connect with the audience, grow huge week after week. Statistics as brutal as they may be are only a reflection of the merits of the film, as judged by the people you're in business to please.


Just because someone believes in something doesn't mean it's a good Idea. The Fountain speaks volumes to the reality of the preceding statement.

"Who am I" I'm the only one that really matters the audience, and collectively we turned our back on The Fountain. Just because you think your baby is beautiful, it doesn't mean it isn't ugly. I would have never green-lit that movie at that budget. Would I have given it a chance a say 10 or 15 million, you bet.

I want to make movies that always make money, like Star Wars. It did what it did, because it was a great story, with characters that the audience connected with. (Please re-read the part about no money being spend on advertising) You make my point every time you guys challenge me.

You hate what I say, because you don't want to except the truth of it. That's why guys like you, will always work for guys like me. If that pisses you off, good. Now go out and make your movie and prove me wrong...

I'll wager it will be more like Star Wars, and allot less like The Fountain. Then I'll be writing on this forum how kick ass Dorkman's film was...

[Tom Lowe]

Oh, and if you think The Fountain is depressing, you definitely didn't get it.

;)

Oh and obviously I meant to say Evan Almighty. :)

[krd]

I love the fact that studios will support a director like Malick or Lynch or Herzog, even though they know the pictures are not commercial. They do it because they want to support art, and they probably feel guilty about 90% of their profits coming from commodities like Shrek 3.

But is that in fact what's happening? Malick may be able to rely on prestige to attract financing. But Herzog uses complex financing arrangements, including ZDF and BBC. And I believe Mulholland Drive was financed by Canal+. Hollywood wouldn't touch it.

Somebody at Warner Bros. probably thought "The Fountain" was a potential blockbuster or cult hit. This idea (not Tom's) that if it only had been made for $10 million strikes me (at least) as a misapprehension. The studios aren't in the business of knowingly making art films (or aspiring art films, as the case may be) on the hope that, if they're very lucky, they'll break even or double their investment. Their business model and the distribution system obliges them to look for the big hit. It's that, or nothing. In retrospect, the Fountain was an improbable producing choice at $35 million, but it may have been even more improbable at $10 million -- at least, for a studio.

[Tom Lowe]

The Fountain's orginal budget was 70 million, at least, and then it was cut in half when Brad Pitt dropped out. (Thank god Pitt had the good sense not to attempt this role.)

I disagree with you KRD when you say that studios never go out of their way to finance pure prestige pictures. It happens. They want respect and Oscars like anyone else. Studio execs want to feel like they are creating art, and not just product. They probably figured they could at least break even with the Fountain, and maybe win Cannes or something. Who knows... ten years from now they may find themselves the owner of a cult hit.

[krd]

Yes, the studios do want prestige and Oscar winners, but that usually translates into movies with socially redeeming plot lines (for example, Crash).

I don't see them willingly sustaining an art-house tradition, apart from what select bankable stars or directors may drag them into, kicking and screaming.

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

Yes, the studios do want prestige and Oscar winners, but that usually translates into movies with socially redeeming plot lines (for example, Crash).
Oh boy, did I think Crash was awful. I'd much rather see more Fountains than more Crashes -- although we know which one got an Oscar. :\

But that just goes to show you never can tell.

[David Mullen ASC]

All of this just reminds me of William Goldman's famous quote. From Wikipedia entry on his book, "Adventures in the Screen Trade":

"Nobody Knows Anything"

Perhaps the most famous quotation from the book. It is one of his two "Roman numeral I's" and is repeated throughout the book. Now widely quoted, it is often inaccurately used to suggest that Hollywood executives are stupid, but in fact refers to Goldman's strong belief that, prior to a movie's release, Hollywood has no real idea how well a film will do.

[Tom Lowe]

"Nobody Knows Anything"

Lol, it's great to be in a business where this is the motto. :)

[Russ McDonald]

I know everything!

The sooner you except that fact, the better your lives will be both personally and professionally. :)

Please make all checks payable to " God, I'm glad Adobeone knows everything" you will receive a mp3 player key chain with a recording of me saying, "I told you so"

Good night my brothers, best to all of you.

[Shawn Nelson]

A pertinent article:

"Do the Film Critics Know Anything?"
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1693300,00.html?imw=Y

[krd]

"Nobody knows anything" is hard to top, but one irony here is that the kind of "art" we're talking about (Malick, Herzog, Lynch, Aronofsky, etc.) -- or films with artistic pretensions, if you don't happen to like what you're seeing -- would have to be considered mainstream and accessible, even "commercial" in a limited sense, compared to much of the stuff, some of it grand, which screens in competition at Cannes or is selected for the NY Film Festival.

And virtually nobody sees these films.

[Dominic Cochran]

You hate what I say, because you don't want to except the truth of it. That's why guys like you, will always work for guys like me. If that pisses you off, good. Now go out and make your movie and prove me wrong...



It doesn't piss me off, but it sure made me laugh!

Reminds me of the time someone actually said to me, in all seriousness, "Do You Know Who I Am?"

Good times

[chuck colburn]

It doesn't piss me off, but it sure made me laugh!

Reminds me of the time someone actually said to me, in all seriousness, "Do You Know Who I Am?"

Good times

LOL

Someone once said the same to me and then told me her name. I looked at her for a few seconds and replied "Do I need to know anything else besides your name?"

[Dominic Cochran]

LOL

Someone once said the same to me and then told me her name. I looked at her for a few seconds and replied "Do I need to know anything else besides your name?"

I know, before it happened to me I didn't know that people actually said this in real life. Classic.

[Russ McDonald]

Obviously Dominic, you don't know who I think I am....

If you had any brains in that mellon of yours, you would do something with it. Like start your own Post Production facility, with a really cool website.... Oh wait never mind.

[Dominic Cochran]

Obviously Dominic, you don't know who I think I am....

If you had any brains in that mellon of yours, you would do something with it. Like start your own Post Production facility, with a really cool website.... Oh wait never mind.

Heh, thanks man, glad you liked it.

And like I said, it didn't piss me off, just got a laugh that's all! :-)

[Russ McDonald]

Heh, thanks man, glad you liked it.

And like I said, it didn't piss me off, just got a laugh that's all! :-)

I don't take things on this form personally. Most forums are full of talkers and very few doers. When it comes to filmmaking it is even more so (not this one), the problem is most don't do anything, not because they don't have the talent or the passion. It's because they fear failure.

So I like to goad them when I can, make them take action. So when Dorkman wins an Oscar, I can take credit for their hard work and dedication. Which I will do....

PS Your key chain is on the way.

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

So when Dorkman wins an Oscar
Oh man, THAT'LL be the day.

[Russ McDonald]

Oh man, THAT'LL be the day.

No more stinking thinking, you will achieve damn it. I have a plans for you my kids need someone to pay for collage and that's you.

[david farland]

Glad to see my Donkey-kong bitch is in such fine fettle.

Hey Abalone...how much you earn last year....doing whatever you do?

Dave,

ps: forget the kids...we'll chip in for your night collage

[Eren Ozkural]

The Fountain just has to be one of my favourite films of all time. I know it's a little early in it's shelf life to talk about it in such a way but it's like Marmite; you seem to either get it or not. Watched it 3 times in the cinema, each time with a different group of people. I noticed that the vast majority were speecless and stunned as we walked out of the cinema. 2 people in 20 thought the film was "okay, not bad".

Clint Mansell's score still gives me chills.

I think I remember reading in one of David Mullen's posts about Matt Libatique being really displeased about the lack of grain in the FX shots.

[Russ McDonald]

Glad to see my Donkey-kong bitch is in such fine fettle.

Hey Abalone...how much you earn last year....doing whatever you do?

Dave,

ps: forget the kids...we'll chip in for your night collage

I'm glad to see you made parole, now that your out. You can't stop taking the pills this time.

I have a Wife, 3 kids, 2 dogs, and a girls school in South Africa. I never make enough. It's not about the Money with me it's about the Art.

Happy holidays, my friend

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

Watched it 3 times in the cinema, each time with a different group of people. I noticed that the vast majority were speecless and stunned as we walked out of the cinema.
I saw it twice, and both times I laughed when the credits came up to dead silence. You could just hear everyone thinking "...what just happened."

[david farland]

It's not about the Money with me it's about the Art....

Whoa there my friend....I feared you'd take it badly...
I'm asking how much does a producer thingy make in your woods. Art or no fuckin art, $$'s are just something you pick up that's lying around your work space and I'm just asking what's lying around. As for the sensitive bit....you ol' bear you, think i'm just gonna have to put you in front of the camera more often.
I'll send you a xmas greet.
Cheers,

[Tom Lowe]

The Fountain just has to be one of my favourite films of all time. I know it's a little early in it's shelf life to talk about it in such a way but it's like Marmite; you seem to either get it or not. Watched it 3 times in the cinema, each time with a different group of people. I noticed that the vast majority were speecless and stunned as we walked out of the cinema. 2 people in 20 thought the film was "okay, not bad".

Clint Mansell's score still gives me chills.

Yes indeed. When I first saw it, I think I had it ranked as my #4 for the decade, right away. I was trying to be cautious, but since then, it has continued to climb up my best of the decade list, until now it's at #2. I have to admit that the movie is even better in HD when you can rewind and rewatch certain scenes, especially after a bowl or two. ;)

[Tom Lowe]

BTW, is anyone else as baffled as I am that Clint Mansell did not even get an Oscar nod for his amazing score? Babel won? WTF.

[Russ McDonald]

Tom now I get why you like the story of The Fountain so much. If you do enough rippers, anything can seem good. (again I agree it was a beautifully shot movie)

[Tom Lowe]

Tom now I get why you like the story of The Fountain so much. If you do enough rippers, anything can seem good. (again I agree it was a beautifully shot movie)

Not sure what you mean by "If you do enough rippers" but lol.

I think most Fountain disciples are smoking about a pound of weed before firing up this movie in HD. It's the ultimate. :)

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

I think most Fountain disciples are smoking about a pound of weed before firing up this movie in HD. It's the ultimate. :)
Movies are my anti-drug. :innocent:

I think it's selling the movie short to imply that you have to alter your mind to enjoy it. The film's mind-altering enough on its own. :tongue:

Although if I ever DO get high for a film, I'll probably do 2001. I hear that IS the only way to enjoy that behemoth.

[Tom Lowe]

It might be selling the pic short to imply you must be blazed for maximum enjoyment. But then again, the movie is awesome when you view it blazed.

hahha

[Russ McDonald]

Not sure what you mean by "If you do enough rippers" but lol.

I think most Fountain disciples are smoking about a pound of weed before firing up this movie in HD. It's the ultimate. :)

A ripper is a large bong hit, it was my college major. I was an honor student

Just say no, kids

[Shawn Nelson]

I always feel so out of place in the artistic communities given that I've never tried it. :-)

[Russ McDonald]

You ain't missing nothing, my friend. Stick to wiskey, or go for a run they feel the same. Pot was fun, but I would have been were I am 10 year sooner, if I would have said no......

[Shawn Nelson]

Cool, well I hope so :-).

I'm the total square in that regards. When I was 13 I was starting college then graduating 2 weeks after turning 20. Sometimes the skipping the bud & accompanying party life seems pointless, especially hearing Judd Appatow, Seth Rogan and Co talk about constantly getting stoned and now making millions doing what I'd die to be doing. Not saying I'm stupid enough to think pot contributed to that, just that it's a certain outlook that sometimes I double guess.

[Russ McDonald]

Cool, well I hope so :-).

I'm the total square in that regards. When I was 13 I was starting college then graduating 2 weeks after turning 20. Sometimes the skipping the bud & accompanying party life seems pointless, especially hearing Judd Appatow, Seth Rogan and Co talk about constantly getting stoned and now making millions doing what I'd die to be doing. Not saying I'm stupid enough to think pot contributed to that, just that it's a certain outlook that sometimes I double guess.

Did you say 13, in college. You can smoke yourself stupid. For every Seth Rogan, there are 1000 loosers, probably most are smokeing right now before their shift at the tasty freeze

[Shawn Nelson]

Yep, college at 13. Took 1.5 years off from 16 to 18 to be a paid software engineer then went back to college from 18 to just after turning 20. All that time being a kick ass software engineer, when all I really wanted to do was write and direct movies. Senior year of college I couldn't take it anymore and wrote and directed a 30 min short, that was 5 years ago, been making movies on evening/weekends ever since. If I don't make it I will die.

my life in a freakin nutshell :-)

[Tom Lowe]

I always feel so out of place in the artistic communities given that I've never tried it. :-)

Really? The Fountain is awesome after some weed. I only smoke about once a month, and it's either at a party or sitting in front of my computer watching HD movies in a state of total rapture. :)

[Tom Lowe]

Oh, man, I just got a 1080p version of this... beautiful.

[Ace]

Oh, man, I just got a 1080p version of this... beautiful.

Really? I recall you saying that the bluray version was grainy and it stuck to my head since.. as this is one of my fave films too. What format did you get it on?

Id have this movie projected on repeat on a canvas on a wall if i could. Gorgeous movie.