|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Miscellaneous / Verschiedenes » alt.fan.james-bond » Revisiting the Unwanted Topic
| Revisiting the Unwanted Topic [message #228038] |
Do, 02 März 2006 00:21 |
|
Some time ago, and it really wasn't too far back, things got pretty
heated over the subject of "creative rights." No one here has to
revisit this discussion, so don't bother if it's not something you want
to get sucked into again. But it seems like everyone but me didn't get
the gist of what I was saying. So I just viewed this documentary
called Shurtleff on Acting [2002] on the life and teachings of famed
casting director Michael Shurtleff, who has cast classic films like The
Graduate and over 60 hit Broadway shows. In it he says that when it
came time to casting for The Graduate it was Mike Nichols who insisted
on getting Dustin Hoffman "over the wishes of the producers and the
studio" and, as we all know, he got his way. So, you see, the people
who hold the moneybags don't necessarily call the shots on casting when
push comes to shove. It all depends on who they're dealing with and
under what circumstances, and for The Graduate it seems it was
important enough for the producers and the studio to appease Mike
Nichols so as to retain him for the project. That's where the "nuance,"
if not the contractual terms, of who ultimately holds creative rights
falls. This example is exactly the point I was trying to make when it
came to my describing EON's "nuanced," if not contractual with
UA/MGM/Sony, stranglehold on the Bond property. When push comes to
shove as to who is really going to get it their way when it comes to
something they really want, EON will always win - they are Mike Nichols
in the case of Bond. But please, let's not get this started again
unless we're all ready for a real black-and-blue-bruised battering.
|
|
|
| Re: Revisiting the Unwanted Topic [message #228040 ] |
Do, 02 März 2006 00:53 |
|
"WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
news:1141255267.965914.242790 [at] z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Some time ago, and it really wasn't too far back, things got pretty
> heated over the subject of "creative rights." No one here has to
> revisit this discussion, so don't bother if it's not something you want
> to get sucked into again. But it seems like everyone but me didn't get
> the gist of what I was saying. So I just viewed this documentary
> called Shurtleff on Acting [2002] on the life and teachings of famed
> casting director Michael Shurtleff, who has cast classic films like The
> Graduate and over 60 hit Broadway shows. In it he says that when it
> came time to casting for The Graduate it was Mike Nichols who insisted
> on getting Dustin Hoffman "over the wishes of the producers and the
> studio" and, as we all know, he got his way. So, you see, the people
> who hold the moneybags don't necessarily call the shots on casting when
> push comes to shove. It all depends on who they're dealing with and
> under what circumstances, and for The Graduate it seems it was
> important enough for the producers and the studio to appease Mike
> Nichols so as to retain him for the project. That's where the "nuance,"
> if not the contractual terms, of who ultimately holds creative rights
> falls. This example is exactly the point I was trying to make when it
> came to my describing EON's "nuanced," if not contractual with
> UA/MGM/Sony, stranglehold on the Bond property. When push comes to
> shove as to who is really going to get it their way when it comes to
> something they really want, EON will always win - they are Mike Nichols
> in the case of Bond. But please, let's not get this started again
> unless we're all ready for a real black-and-blue-bruised battering.
That is one example, and I'm sure it's accurate. But I am virtually certain
that the exact same dynamic is not present in all situations of creative
control. One only need read examples of who Cubby Broccoli wanted to cast
as Bond in the mid-1980's to see that. (And only one example.)
Tom Zielinski
"...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay this
particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands' three
ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
that he's liked surprisingly few of Nichols' directorial efforts ..."
|
|
|
| Re: Revisiting the Unwanted Topic [message #228047 ] |
Do, 02 März 2006 02:09 |
|
'The Graduate' is a messy example anyway. (I'm sure many of you know
the possibly apocryphal story, so apologies for repeating it yet
again). Hoffman had been cast as Liebkind in 'The Producers' and asked
for time off to audition for the role of Braddock in 'The Graduate'.
Since Anne Bancroft had already been cast as Mrs Robinson, Mel Brooks
was familiar with the novel, and he let Hoffman go to the audition,
confident in the knowledge that he was completely wrong for the role...
As for Michael Shurtleff, yeah, well - a certain amount of his advice
to actors is useful and pertinent, but an awful lot of it is 'dreams
*can* come true', 'you *go*, girl' motivational BS. He has a
regrettable tendency to choose hugely atypical examples of actors
making it against the odds and then present those as if they were the
norm.
Best
Phil
|
|
|
| Re: Revisiting the Unwanted Topic [message #228049 ] |
Do, 02 März 2006 02:33 |
|
Tom Zielinski wrote:
> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
> news:1141255267.965914.242790 [at] z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Some time ago, and it really wasn't too far back, things got pretty
> > heated over the subject of "creative rights." No one here has to
> > revisit this discussion, so don't bother if it's not something you want
> > to get sucked into again. But it seems like everyone but me didn't get
> > the gist of what I was saying. So I just viewed this documentary
> > called Shurtleff on Acting [2002] on the life and teachings of famed
> > casting director Michael Shurtleff, who has cast classic films like The
> > Graduate and over 60 hit Broadway shows. In it he says that when it
> > came time to casting for The Graduate it was Mike Nichols who insisted
> > on getting Dustin Hoffman "over the wishes of the producers and the
> > studio" and, as we all know, he got his way. So, you see, the people
> > who hold the moneybags don't necessarily call the shots on casting when
> > push comes to shove. It all depends on who they're dealing with and
> > under what circumstances, and for The Graduate it seems it was
> > important enough for the producers and the studio to appease Mike
> > Nichols so as to retain him for the project. That's where the "nuance,"
> > if not the contractual terms, of who ultimately holds creative rights
> > falls. This example is exactly the point I was trying to make when it
> > came to my describing EON's "nuanced," if not contractual with
> > UA/MGM/Sony, stranglehold on the Bond property. When push comes to
> > shove as to who is really going to get it their way when it comes to
> > something they really want, EON will always win - they are Mike Nichols
> > in the case of Bond. But please, let's not get this started again
> > unless we're all ready for a real black-and-blue-bruised battering.
>
>
> That is one example, and I'm sure it's accurate. But I am virtually certain
> that the exact same dynamic is not present in all situations of creative
> control. One only need read examples of who Cubby Broccoli wanted to cast
> as Bond in the mid-1980's to see that. (And only one example.)
>
--- Sure it's just one example and that the exact same dynamic isn't
present in all situations, in fact maybe only few, but when it comes to
clout, whether it belongs to a director, producer or studio, or even an
actor, I believe that the "nuance," or weight, of creative rights will
generally shift in that direction, to the one with the implied or
implicit clout. I'm not sure what specifically you're referring to in
the Cubby situation of the mid-80s, unless it has to do with not being
able to get Brosnan the first time around due to his Remington Steele
stint, but that's the way it goes sometimes when you're dealing with
someone already under contract to another project. I never said it
works every time, just that when it does, it does.
>
>
>
> Tom Zielinski
> "...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay this
> particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands' three
> ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
> delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
> that he's liked surprisingly few of Nichols' directorial efforts ..."
|
|
|
| Re: Revisiting the Unwanted Topic [message #228052 ] |
Do, 02 März 2006 02:33 |
|
WQ wrote:
> --- Sure it's just one example and that the exact same dynamic isn't
> present in all situations, in fact maybe only few, but when it comes to
> clout, whether it belongs to a director, producer or studio, or even an
> actor, I believe that the "nuance," or weight, of creative rights will
> generally shift in that direction, to the one with the implied or
> implicit clout. I'm not sure what specifically you're referring to in
> the Cubby situation of the mid-80s, unless it has to do with not being
> able to get Brosnan the first time around due to his Remington Steele
> stint, but that's the way it goes sometimes when you're dealing with
> someone already under contract to another project. I never said it
> works every time, just that when it does, it does.
>
Oh, for Pete's sake... the closest they had to creative control is when
they don't show the studio the early screentests. They can kind of
stack the deck if the execs don't get wise. Glen says they did that in
the 80's.
In Glen's book he says they didn't want Brosnan but the studio did, and
Cubby gave in and tested him. Glen thought he was too young at the
time. After the Brosnan thing fell apart, it says they met with Dalton
at his house and Tim talked about reinvigorating the role and getting
back to the Fleming books, and they hired him without a screentest. It
doesn't say if any MGM execs were present at the meeting.
Glen also says MGM told Cubby to fire him as director. That may have
been Cubby shifting the blame when he let Glen go, who knows.
But EON can't tell MGM and Sony how they're going to make the movie. If
Sony doesn't like it, they won't hand over the financing. If Sony
didn't approve of Craig, there'd be a different actor right now.
|
|
|
| Re: Revisiting the Unwanted Topic [message #232363 ] |
Do, 02 März 2006 08:25 |
|
phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
>As for Michael Shurtleff, yeah, well - a certain amount of his advice to
>actors is useful and pertinent, but an awful lot of it is 'dreams *can*
>come true', 'you *go*, girl' motivational BS. He has a regrettable
>tendency to choose hugely atypical examples of actors making it against
>the odds and then present those as if they were the norm.
Good point.
However, any actor who gets enough movie and tv work to live a comfortable
existence and support a family has beaten the odds, though.
|
|
|
| Re: Revisiting the Unwanted Topic [message #232366 ] |
Do, 02 März 2006 11:25 |
|
Adam wrote:
> However, any actor who gets enough movie and tv work to live a comfortable
> existence and support a family has beaten the odds, though.
Of course, which is why I think Shurtleff and his ilk, for all their
genuinely good advice about how to succeed in the acting business,
should ultimately be treated as sceptically as anybody else who claims
to have come up with a system that shows you how to win at gambling :-)
Best
Phil
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Fr Mai 25 10:31:52 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,02290 Sekunden |
