TiVo Community Forums Archives - Project Greenlight Movie

TiVoCommunity.com
(c)opyright 1995-2005 All rights reserved
indexcheckTC
This area is a static history of posts in the TiVo Community Forum Archive.
This archive history was made for the simple indexing of search sites like Google.

Pages:1

Project Greenlight Movie
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: hawkamer

Well, from this review in the New York Times, it looks as though Project Greenlight has produced another failure:

http://movies2.nytimes.com/2003/08/...2BATT.html?8dpc

Posted by: Animgif

I'm sorry to say, but I think the directors really f*c*e* that movie up...

Posted by: Frylock

Yes, it seems like Erika wrote a comedy, and K&E directed a drama.

Only no one wanted a drama. The only drama was Project Greenlight!

Posted by: edc

quote:
Originally posted by Frylock
Yes, it seems like Erika wrote a comedy, and K&E directed a drama.

Only no one wanted a drama. The only drama was Project Greenlight!

Go read the submitted script. It started out "drama with comedic overtones." The directors can be blamed for a *lot* of stuff, but, IMHO, the tone of the film isn't one of them.

What really killed them was the timeframe they were working in. Had this not been "Project: Greenlight," there is the outside possibility they could've had a couple days to do reshoots to strengthen the comedic end of things, and make everybody happy.

Incidentally, now that the thing is over, I think it would've been worse if directed by the woman who "really, really, really" wanted to do it. She was in love with the story, and that is what got hacked in both the filming and editing processes.

Posted by: DLiquid

I thought Kyle and Efram were a joke from the beginning. In watching some of the other director's submissions, I just didn't understand why they picked the guys with the videotapes full of corny jokes, gimmicks, and low-budget special effects, when some other director's films were very professional and impressive. I assume they thought a pair of directors would make for better TV, which it probably did.

Posted by: hawkamer

quote:
Originally posted by edc
Go read the submitted script. It started out "drama with comedic overtones." The directors can be blamed for a *lot* of stuff, but, IMHO, the tone of the film isn't one of them.

What really killed them was the timeframe they were working in. Had this not been "Project: Greenlight," there is the outside possibility they could've had a couple days to do reshoots to strengthen the comedic end of things, and make everybody happy.

Incidentally, now that the thing is over, I think it would've been worse if directed by the woman who "really, really, really" wanted to do it. She was in love with the story, and that is what got hacked in both the filming and editing processes.

I agree, the compressed time frame was a major factor in the outcome. With more time to cast, and more time to edit, I think the film would have been much better off. Remember how they re-cast the role of the father in a day? That couldn't have been good. And the rush to edit (and re-edit)? They were set-up to fail. Way to go, Chris Moore.

As for the girl that "really really" wanted to direct Shaker Heights, I'm pretty confident that she would have turned in a much better picture. Remember that Chris Moore said that here director sample was "one of the best shots I've ever seen." Of course, he then turns around and hires the guys with the cheesy special effects. The fix is in, baby!

Also, this criticism about the mix of drama/comedy baffles me just a little. Maybe the producers should have adjusted the script. Aren't these people supposed to know what they are doing? Take this into account when Chris Moore brags that he produced over 30 films (or whatever the number was). He clearly hasn't learned much about the process.

Posted by: bigcb37

Now I realize why Jeff Balis is still involved, because he can be Chris Moores fall guy when the movie fails. Chris can just say "Hey I know the movie sucked, thats why I wanted to turn it into a teen comedy (like all the other films Moore produces) but Jeff was the one who really pushed to get it made the way it ended up."

Thats why Chris was almost laughing at him when he was getting in his car and all of a sudden he was "moved" by that weak speech and decided yo put the movie in theaters...no way. The meting that happened next was at Miramax and all that was said was "we know this movie sucks but all the people who follow the show will see it so we might as well give it a shot"

Posted by: smak

Yah, but if it wasn't a Project Greenlight movie, they don't get any of those actors, and the dad is played by one of the director's uncles!

-smak-

Posted by: woyton

quote:
Originally posted by smak
Yah, but if it wasn't a Project Greenlight movie, they don't get any of those actors, and the dad is played by one of the director's uncles!

More than likely, the dad would have been played by one of the directors.

Posted by: mostman

The reviews are not THAT bad - some people really like it:

http://www.mrqe.com/lookup?isindex=battle+of+shaker

Posted by: Attack

I remember on the first day of filming, Chris Moore said something like:
I just hope Kyle and Efram don't try to turn this into a comedy. Does someone still have this episode? Could you go back and see exactly what he said?

The whole time I was watching this, I thought that the movie was going to be a drama with just a pinch of comedy.

Posted by: hawkamer

There's a good story in the Washington Post about the whole Greenlight experience this year:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2003Aug22.html

My favorite quote: "Nearly everyone has worked for, or with, a Kyle. Or an Efram. These are perfectly pleasant, handsome, funny guys, and yet you wind up wishing for pianos to fall on top of them."

Posted by: jsmeeker

One thing that confuses me... Supposedly, this is an "independent" film.. Yet the suits back a Mirimax are requesting all these changes. Some one that knows more about the movie business needs to clue me in on this.

Posted by: DLiquid

It's not an independent film, it's a studio film (Miramax). They take "independent" filmmakers and let them make a studio film. Throughout the whole series, Chris Moore kept emphasizing how this was a great opportunity for Kyle and Efram to learn how to work within the Hollywood studio system, but how they were having so much trouble doing this because they were so used to making independent films.

Posted by: Dubbadown

For those interested at how Battle of Shaker Heights did over the weekend in NY and LA, here is the info, courtesy of E Online.

"Not so successful was The Battle of Shaker Heights, the coming-of-age love story from Matt Damon and Ben Affleck's Project Greenlight machine. Also at five screens, the PG-13 Miramax release averaged $10,400 for $52,000. "

Not quite the $20,000 per screen that Miramax was asking for.

Posted by: jsmeeker

quote:
Originally posted by DLiquid
It's not an independent film, it's a studio film (Miramax). They take "independent" filmmakers and let them make a studio film. Throughout the whole series, Chris Moore kept emphasizing how this was a great opportunity for Kyle and Efram to learn how to work within the Hollywood studio system, but how they were having so much trouble doing this because they were so used to making independent films.

OK.. That is what I thought.. But I keep hearing it described as an "indepenent" film. I could not fiugre that out when the studio guys kept making lots of decisions for them..

Posted by: mchasal

If you'd like to keep tabs on how the film is doing at the box office, you can get the numbers here: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies...akerheights.htm

As Dubbadown said, its a bit short of the $20k/screen that they wanted, though I'm not sure over what period that number was expected. It will be interesting to see what happens when (if the still) go to the other 8 markets.

Mike

Posted by: edc

quote:
Originally posted by mostman
The reviews are not THAT bad - some people really like it:

http://www.mrqe.com/lookup?isindex=battle+of+shaker

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/The...eights-1124945/

Interesting. 47 isn't a terrible tomatometer score. The skew between the net reviewers (6/8 = 75%[!]) and the "professionals" (1/7 = 14%) is one of the largest I've ever seen.

quote:

It will be interesting to see what happens when (if the still) go to the other 8 markets.

Miramax is obligated to ten cities for this weekend. The real question is what happens *next* weekend. A review will appear on next weeks "Ebert & Roeper," which might help the film a bit. I would expect some of the NY/LA prints to start an unheralded trip around the country, but even that may not happen.

Whatever the result, Miramax is not making their money back strictly from the movie end of things. I haven't seen sales numbers on the SS/PG:1 DVD, but still don't expect it to have been enough to break even.

Still the losses are probably less than one Million. Pretty much chicken feed, even for Miramax. Write off the numbers as "brand building," and "keeping Matt and Ben a little in our debt," and I would expect a third Greenlight next year if LivePlanet wants to do it.

quote:

from the Washington Post article
The movie was only 78 minutes long

I guess that's what is left after the family stuff got shredded. Most of the other reviews list it as "90 minutes." I guess they were rounding up.

quote:

Kyle in the same article:
we just wanted to see it less and less. I'll watch it someday when it's all over, when the boxed-set DVD comes out. By myself, on the couch...

How much you want to bet he will be forced to watch it before then ;) I'm sure part of the deal is that they are required to compare/contrast the series and 'real life' for the DVD. Heck, Pete Jones was a good sport about it, although I'm not certain what he thinks considering the trashing he and "Stolen Summer" took in Season 2.

Posted by: smak

Goes to show it's very hard to have 2 director's unless they are brothers.

Coen, Wachowski, Hughes....

You could tell the 2 director problems on PG, they both had different ideas about scenes, and would give different direction.

-smak-

Posted by: Frylock

Wow, it's down to 5 theatres now and it only made 280K.

Not too good.

Posted by: DLiquid

Ouch! If this TV show gets another chance, I hope those in charge of the show learn from their mistake and actually pick the directors and script based on what they think will make the best film, not on what they think will make for the most dramatic TV. From the moment they picked Kyle and Efram, I wondered what the hell they were thinking. Anyone who watched their entries into the contest could see that they were FAR from the best.

Posted by: zyzzx

I think we now know that Project Greenlight is all about the HBO series and not about the finished film by the producers selection of directors.

Posted by: adunnigan

My wife and I saw this in Seattle over Labor Day weekend...we LOVE the show...the movie was EXTREMELY disappointing

Posted by: skanter

quote:
Originally posted by zyzzx
I think we now know that Project Greenlight is all about the HBO series and not about the finished film by the producers selection of directors.

It's an interesting dynamic: The documentary TV show of the film's production vs the actual film. In the two years it's aired, the former has been far more interesting than the latter.

Does Miramax get paid for letting HBO make the documentary? Does it make up for their losses? It seems to me that a popular TV series more than makes up for a failed movie...