The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > "All About the Benjamins" - the debate has changed
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 11-30-2008, 03:48 PM
MissionTrek08's Avatar
MissionTrek08 MissionTrek08 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerhanner View Post
Just to clarify: all those quotes of mine should be in the SARCASTIC font. All 4 of those directors got paid, and paid well. I was trying to make a point that ALL DIRECTORS get paid, just like all actors.

Sarcasm! That's where I was going with that. You can't seriously think I thought Hitchcock never cashed a paycheck, right?????
If it helps, I read it that way when you first posted. Also, I knew all those directors got paid well, which certainly helped.

Sometimes it pays to directly declare sarcasm, since the dry variety rarely comes off in written form as intended.

More to the point: Hitchcock was a master of his art form, AND he was always incredibly aware he was making commercial, moneymaking films. The false argument presented elsewhere that any filmmaker must choose one or the other path is naive to say the least.
__________________

MISSION:TREK's in-depth review of STAR TREK


Proud member of the Friends of Zardoz Association. Avatar courtesy of Eliza's House of Avatars with three convenient locations near you. Free balloons for the kids!
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 11-30-2008, 04:02 PM
The Saint's Avatar
The Saint The Saint is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,574
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Digginonrand View Post
. . . And for a director, not making money on a film is burning bridges. Making money on a film makes you more marketable as a director and allows you to make more movies. Pretty simple concept, really, and I don't mean that to sound rude.
Just as I said -- it's the means. And for the studio, and sure, the producer too, it's both the means and the end. But it shouldn't be so for the writers or director.

Let me clarify and reinforce this -- I'm not saying, nor have i ever said, that you can't be in it for the money. But if the money is all you're in it for, pack it up and go home.
__________________
"Now I did a job -- and got nothin' but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character, so let me make this abundantly clear: I do the job... and then I get paid. Go run your little world."
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 11-30-2008, 04:16 PM
MigueldaRican's Avatar
MigueldaRican MigueldaRican is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 765
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
Just as I said -- it's the means. And for the studio, and sure, the producer too, it's both the means and the end. But it shouldn't be so for the writers or director.

Let me clarify and reinforce this -- I'm not saying, nor have i ever said, that you can't be in it for the money. But if the money is all you're in it for, pack it up and go home.
You're right of course. The argument is whether Abrams and Orci and others are in it only for the money. Evidence shows they aren't. You own cynicism says they are.
__________________
01001110011011110010000001101101011011110111001001 10010100100000011000100110110001100001011010000010 00000110001001101100011000010110100000100000011000 10011011000110000101101000
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 11-30-2008, 04:27 PM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,257
Default

They are of course also in for future money. Reputation is an important factor for anyone who works on project-basis, which provides incentives to do more than the studio expects from you, at least if you are a young actor/producer/writer. Besides, I don't know the movie business but I am sure these folks have incentive contracts and their payment is based on how the movie performs.
Of course there exists the risk that the studio is in for a sell-out strategy, ie doing one movie which betrays Trek ideas, does a lot of money but destroys the future of the franchise.
It's a short-run long-run tradeoff and if the studio executives have poorly designed contracts based on stock options and stuff like that, this might happen.
But I doubt heavily so because a) Paramount saw what happens if you do too much Trek at one time and suck out the franchise, b) the franchise has the potential to make money for another 40 years and c) there are fans among the team at the helm of this production.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:41 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.