This week, Neil Calloway looks at why franchise movies seem to spawn arguments between film-makers and studios…
Rumours of a troubled production – and two differing cuts – of Suicide Squad add to a growing list of films that appear to have led to arguments and disagreements between the creative teams behind them and the studios bankrolling them.
Ghostbusters, Rogue One and of course Fantastic Four have all had difficult gestations, perhaps unusually so. It could be that these are just reported now, or it could be that studios are interfering more so that they get the film they want.
There is an increasing amount of press around to cover on set fall outs and arguments – websites and podcasts need fodder all the time – and these places just didn’t exist to cover the trouble Jaws, or Star Wars had as they were produced, so small difficulties that any major project will encounter are amplified and dissected, making them appear larger than they actually are. There are also more outlets for disgruntled crew members or directors to vent their feelings. Ridley Scott couldn’t take to Instagram and moan when the studio demanded he put a voice-over on Blade Runner.
What may be a bigger factor is the increasing pressure put on large films to succeed because of budget and scope. When you buy a chocolate bar, you don’t really think about it, when you book a holiday you’ll think about it a bit more, when you buy a house you’ll spend a long time considering the options; these big franchise films are like buying a house; a huge house that you, your family and everyone you work with are planning on living in for the next ten years. You better believe that the studio are going to want a lot of control over that.
With huge series of films planned, tying up billions of dollars of studio money and vast amounts of potential earnings, executives are going to want to protect their investment; this isn’t a small film that will make its money back eventually through home release, TV and streaming deals; they’re huge endeavours that can make a or break a studio and exist in a world with so many different competing entertainment options. It shouldn’t really be a surprise that studios are keeping a tight rein on the largely untested directors they are getting to helm these movies.
The mixed reviews may also be a by-product of this meddling; the films don’t offer a personal, singular vision that may be flawed but still says something; art by committee is never great (feel free to pop up in the comments to point me in the direction of great art made by a group), as a general rule, the more screenwriters and producers listed on a project, the worse it’ll be.
It makes you wonder why studios entrust these films to younger directors with less or a proven track record; if you’re being nice you see the studios as being generous and giving talent the chance it deserves to shine, if you’re being a little cynical it’s because more established directors know that very little good can come from taking on a big franchise where they don’t have total control, if you’re being really cynical it’s because because studios think they can easily bend less experienced directors to their will, as they are seen as more pliable and keen to impress than old hands.
Everyone loves a bit of gossip and dirt, and reading about bust ups on film sets is great fun, but if they are increasing, then it can’t be good for cinema, as it means more people are interfering and spoiling potentially great films.
Neil Calloway is a pub quiz extraordinaire and Top Gun obsessive. Check back here every Sunday for future instalments.
. url=”.” . width=”100%” height=”150″ iframe=”true” /]
https://youtu.be/b7Ozs5mj5ao?list=PL18yMRIfoszEaHYNDTy5C-cH9Oa2gN5ng
Originally published August 7, 2016. Updated April 15, 2018.
