166
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by ooli3@sopuli.xyz to c/movies@piefed.social
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] tiramichu@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] VonReposti@feddit.dk 4 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] prole 3 points 2 days ago

This is pretty much why John Cassavettes essentially created the US independent film industry

[-] tiramichu@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] VonReposti@feddit.dk 5 points 2 days ago

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.

this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2026
166 points (100.0% liked)

movies

3229 readers
102 users here now

A community about movies and cinema.

Related communities:

Rules

  1. Be civil
  2. No discrimination or prejudice of any kind
  3. Do not spam
  4. Stay on topic
  5. These rules will evolve as this community grows

No posts or comments will be removed without an explanation from mods.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS