He needs to quit trying to make “art” and start making “ort” - as in “it ort to make it’s money back first!”

There is a formula to this - if they want to make an art film, then run the production numbers and produce it for as cheaply as possible. Don’t spend anything you don’t have to spend.

For the money that he’s spent on these dogs he could have bankrolled a whole slate of low cost, entertaining genre movies that could be developed and presold prior to production — and be profitable before a frame of film is shot.

** yes, that’s where you look to see if a movie is profitable, because DVD is where the profit is made. Theatrical releases are simply advertising that rarely pays for itself.

Some people have no conscience. Hollyweird doesn’t care how they influence our kids as long as it makes money. Kids are as knowledgeable as adults; that’s not the point. They just don’t need their young noses rubbed in bad attitude and bad morals. :p

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0454004/

He’s one of those insecure guys with no taste who reads terrible scripts thinking “The masses will find this funny,” and is easily susceptible to the hype that surrounds “important” books (The Kite Runner), or Charlie Kaufman.

He’s a 70 year old dress guy, trying to sell what he’s been told are “really cool clothes” to 19 year old girls.

And that’s why the company is a disaster.

If you can count it, it’s fewer (raindrop).

If you can’t count it, it’s less (rain).

I have been following the movie ‘Death at a Funeral’ ever since it was announced. The initial reported outlay way roughly $10 Million. I am not an insider in the “biz”, but to me, revenues of $40 million is a solid profit unless there is something else going on!

Even with promotional costs, it surely did make money! It was the number one hit for five weeks straight in Australia, did fairly well for an indie in the US and is currently at an all time high in New Zealand. It did dreadful in the UK however, which I believe from reviews there, they were a bit put off for several reasons.

Anyway, as I followed it’s progress, I was struck by the constant changing of the release dates for one. A bad strategy all around to me, and maybe that had something to do with the heavy hand of MGM, but it changed three times here in the US and left awaiting fans wondering what was up (even after it was advertised on TV). I really tried and am still trying as a fan, to give it the “old-college try” to promote the movie within my sphere, but even to an untrained eye, it looked like someone was not minding the store. Worse yet, it doesn’t help that movies are readily available online through any torrent site or that the whole of ‘Death at a Funeral’ was at one point, uploaded on Youtube!

Whatever the real story as to it’s “demise” one may never know, but claiming it was a ‘loser’ financially is just not correct and in the eyes of many moviegoers around the world. No, it’s not making hundred of millions but in relation to the reported cost, it is a winner. Mayabe Mr. Kimmel is more interested in making hundreds, not tens, of millions??

So while ‘Death at a Funeral’ is not your typical “art house” or “blockbuster” it lies somewhere in between and has relevance surely in the grand sceme of movie making. I sure hope that higher profits aren’t the reason NOT to make a movie like this. It DID make money and for a small, funny farce it was a very fun and wacky time at the movies to laugh out loud indeed.

Hollywood I beleive, has been dubbed by the glitz and glamour that is the “art house” indie favorite. Like the flavor of the month, they now try to embrace the “Sundance” set. Just look at the declining revenues from the Oscar nominations for your evidence. An Oscar nomination meant money in the good ‘ol days but that is debatable now. Why does Hollywood have to keep reinventinig it’s basic business model?? You will never force down the public’s throat the idea of art. So decide who you are, make movies and stop expecting for the next ‘Little Miss Sunshine’.

Also something low-concept can make a lot of money as long as it’s also low budget. There’s a paying audience out there for arthouse/indie fare who are bored by blockbusters.

It’s made more than $40m worldwide and it can’t have cost very much to make (no stars, no CGI).

Maybe he’s not getting a decent cut of the theatrical take after the exhibitors and distributors?

I think he need to:

1. Improve his distribution deal. MGM doesn’t seem to be cutting it when it comes to getting his films on screens.

2. Improve marketing. This goes hand in hand with the distribution. Hype the movies where they’re playing. If no one knows if the film is in town, they’re not going to see it.

3. Leaven the “art-house” material with more commercial fare. Lars & The Real Girl might make critics swoon, but it doesn’t sound like a fun date movie.

I wish Kimmel good luck. Hollywood needs producers with a little daring to shake things up.