[lbo-talk] why movies suck

[magcomm]

Hitchcock wanted to make "Mary Rose" even without 
Hedren.  He had a deal with Universal that he could 
make any movie he wanted if it cost no more than (I 
think) $3 million dollars.  Wasserman would not let 
him make it even under those terms, and then balked 
at FRENZY which AH then assumed responsibility for 
himself.

Not even Spielberg has the kind of power today that 
he can make whatever he wants if he stays under a 
certain budget (and Spielberg really did not want to 
make a 4th Indiana Jones movie and it shows).

Terry Gilliam gets to make movies, but he has only been 
able to make 4 in the last eleven years.  John Ford 
used to make 4 in a year and most often they were ones 
he wanted to make (studio heads were happy when Ford 
would do a film for them as a favor).

That is really the big difference: directors in the studio 
system could amass enough power to make the films they 
wanted to make.  Now directors are brought in as part of a 
package, and the stars are the major attraction.

One director who has been smart is Soderbergh.  He makes his 
studio films to finance his more personal work -- in the mold 
of Hawks and Preminger.  
Nowadays directors