15 ms·
Tom Hanks on the rewards and reality of making movies
- bufordtwain 3y agoThe Tom Hanks episode of Desert Island discs is also very good: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b079m78n https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b079m78n
- KennyBlanken 3y ago[flagged]
- mslate 3y agoThe only piece I don’t understand: why are actuaries involved?
- denverllc 3y agoA bit dark, but maybe they're factoring in the expected lifetime of the stunt crew into the budget?
- smcin 3y agoSaves on return transportation. Like in 'Pitch Black'.
- borski 3y agoParent likely meant accountants or tax advisors / attorneys.
- kevin_thibedeau 3y agoThey have to buy insurance against events that would derail production. DeForest Kelley was denied a role in ST:Generations because he was deemed an uninsurable death risk.
- gamblor956 3y agoCompletely false. Kelley turned down appearing in ST:Generations, despite a large payday. "In The Fifty-Year Mission: The Next 25 Years oral history of Star Trek by Mark A. Altman and Edward Gross, DeForest Kelley explained that he was disappointed that Dr. Leonard McCoy and his crewmates only appeared in one scene, commenting: "When I read the script and saw we were only in the first ten minutes, I thought it was best to pass and go out with [Star Trek] VI." At that time, Kelley didn't know that Nimoy also said no and he admits, "I certainly wouldn't have done the film without him in it.""
- dragonwriter 3y ago> DeForest Kelley was denied a role in ST:Generations because he was deemed an uninsurable death risk. I’ve seen accounts that the cost of his insurance was a factor in his rejecting the film (he wasn’t denied a role), but most accounts I’ve seen focus on his (and much of the TOS cast’s) issues with the structure of the story and the roles they would have had in it, and how they were much happier having The Undiscovered Country as their last film in their roles.
- cratermoon 3y agoWhen your movie is thin retelling of another movie (think Kurosawa's "The Hidden Fortress" v Lucas' "Star Wars"), actuaries can help make sure the retelling is just enough different from the original to avoid a lawsuit.
- ok_dad 3y agoDo know what actuaries do? That’s not what they do.
- cratermoon 3y agoYeah, actuaries look at statistics and determine relative financial risks and benefits of a particular course of action. In the example I gave, the course of action is "remake 'The Hidden Fortress' as a space sci-fi fantasy movie" and the actuaries plug in various values for copyright and intellectual property lawsuit risks and costs, potential revenue from the new movie and give predictions for what level of copying (or other risky behavior) is acceptable to reduce costs below the projected revenue without risking a costly lawsuit. Or maybe they just recommend buying the rights as cheaper than the potential cost.
- goodside 3y agoI worked two years on track to be an actuary, took the first three SoA/CAS exams. I’ve never heard of anything like what you’re describing. Do you actually know an actuary that does this?
- cratermoon 3y agoDo you not asses risk/reward ratios?
- AlbertCory 3y ago[flagged]
- scoofy 3y agoThe issue is that the product is scalable, desirable, profitable, and the work can be done by almost anyone. Industries like this are natural monopolies where connections matter much more than talent. The ability to extract value out of people in these scenarios is quite sickening.
- Retric 3y agoMaking profitable movies is really really difficult. Just look at the huge list of failed studios. It’s not just getting a good script it needs to be the right scrip at the right time, which can actually be filmed on an appropriate budget. A huge issue is you need a large team of world class people that all work together, and then the movie ends in a few weeks or months and all those people need to find work on the next project. Actors, costumes, lighting, props, etc generally end up being very expensive sub contractors which you need to schedule together because a studio has trouble just paying those people year round. So now each of those subcontractors is going to be one of a handful of people/companies also need enough work to keep going etc etc. And all of that isn’t even considered actors, post production, test audiences, promotion, etc.
- scoofy 3y ago> Making profitable movies is really really difficult. Just look at the huge list of failed studios. You can make indie films for pennies. The fact that so many studios fail is exactly my point. Films are so easy to make, that you create an arms race in production costs. If there were no major studios, our theaters would still be full of fine feature films.
- Retric 3y agoThe overwhelming majority of indie films are unprofitable. You may personally enjoy many indy films more than what comes out of major studios but they’re niche products that mostly appeal to a specific and relatively small audience. If you want wide appeal costs really do spiral both for the film and just as importantly advertising it.
- furyofantares 3y agoThis is just a response to the title of the article and nothing whatsoever to do with its contents, right?
- breck 3y agoYou can think the industry is a mess (I think it is because of copyright, predictably: https://breckyunits.com/a-mathematical-model-of-copyright.html https://breckyunits.com/a-mathematical-model-of-copyright.ht...) but also appreciate the article. Tom Hanks is a master at the craft and shares an enlightening and unique perspective on movie making and life.
- rgbgraph 3y agoA master of what craft? Fast entertainment? Tom Hanks is a master of perfectly playing an unbelievably dull character -- with just enough subtle quirk that a half-awake audience can project their half-baked sensibilities onto. No different than the New Yorker, that wafts on for ages -- that only someone looking too hard can find merit in.
- SoftTalker 3y agoNever cared that much for Hanks as an actor. I recognize that he's had tons of critical acclaim but he just doesn't do much for me. Of the ones I've seen, the only Hanks movie I really like is The Money Pit.
- breck 3y ago> A master of what craft? Fast entertainment? Yes. Is that not worthy of respect? I'm not saying he's a John McCarthy or Linus Torvalds. Many people can be masters, not all masters have to pivot the world.
- cratermoon 3y agoThe Simpsons episode "Radioactive Man" nailed this.
- gamblor956 3y agoI've worked on a number of Hollywood productions. Pretty much all of what you said is false. Especially the part about tax breaks, since that isn't how film tax incentives work...film tax incentives are statutory, with little to no options for negotiation, require audited records of local spending, and usually have other requirements (such as "cultural" content for French tax incentives).
- carabiner 3y agoHow is this viscous? I mean certainly we tend to rinse and wash viscous items because we don't want our things to be sticky or covered in syrupy liquid. But the rest of your comment doesn't seem to have anything to do with viscosity.
- jasonwatkinspdx 3y agoThere's usually a film production or two every summer in my neighborhood because there's a lot of iconic craftsman bungalows and such. These aren't AAA blockbusters just smaller dramas or Disney live action stuff for kids. They hire a local production company, it's usually the same company cuz they're the best here but it's a non trivial amount of money going in locally. One of the shows paid the owner of the convenience store to shoot some exterior shots at his spot. They painted a mural for the movie, then repainted his whole building after they were done along with cutting him a nice check. They definitely eat food from all the neighborhood spots. There's certainly plenty of shady BS in hollywood but I think you're painting with too broad a brush.
- newsclues 3y agoMom is an accountant for small films. I think the previous comment was to say the majority doesn't get spent locally. Sure some does, but a lot less than many would expect.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- bryanrasmussen 3y agoarchive.org: https://web.archive.org/web/20230528201546/https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-new-yorker-interview/tom-hanks-on-the-rewards-and-vicious-reality-of-making-movies https://web.archive.org/web/20230528201546/https://www.newyo...
- fractallyte 3y agoIt's a shame he distanced himself so completely from, arguably, one of his best movies: Joe Versus the Volcano (1990) (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099892/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099892/) Hanks: 'Rubicon No. 3, the critical reaction to it—which is a version of the vox populi. Someone is going to say, “I hated it.” Other people can say, “I think it’s brilliant.” Somewhere in between the two is what the movie actually is.' JVtV is extremely polarizing: people either love it, or hate it. But there's no 'in-between' here - a lot of people just don't 'get it'. John Patrick Shanley made a very personal, quirky movie, full of metaphor and wisdom - and it's great!
- detourdog 3y agoThe movie has the weird literalness that is unrealistic. I really enjoy it
- dingusdew 3y ago[dead]
- da02 3y agoAny analysis you would recommend of JVtV? Does the volcano represent that Joe has to overcome the imagined fears that is preventing him from growing in life?
- lumost 3y agoDoes it need to? The whole premise is that he hates his “relatively” cushy factory management job enough to think jumping in a volcano is a better use of his life.
- joering2 3y agoI wonder if there is a worse way to go? I mean even getting your skull crushed in car accident seems lights out in less than a second. Jumping into a volcano I can imagine you stay alive for some 10 seconds or so before you obviously pass out but not before tasting lava in your stomach.
- mixmastamyk 3y agoRead the whole piece, and while a few anecdotes are interesting, such as the underwater scene in Splash… I don’t feel like I learned anything useful. Oh, maybe that some movies aren’t appreciated immediately, but that seems rather obvious. Maybe I’m getting old, haha.
- crtified 3y agoSide note. Tom Hanks recently did a podcast interview hosted by the UK's Adam Buxton. Adam's roughly hour-long interviews tend to follow the 'friendly, rambling chat' format, and he is well liked and respected by both his listeners and those he speaks with. Anybody interested in Tom Hanks' person and opinions could do a lot worse than check it out. A source: https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/hqwed-393e3/THE-ADAM-BUXTON-PODCAST https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/hqwed-393e3/THE-ADAM-... [Also, screw it, I am shoe-horning this joke into my post: ** Now Showing: THE MAKING OF "THE BLOB" - THE VISCOUS REALITY OF FILMMAKING ** ]
- anonymousDan 3y agoIs that Adam Buxton from the Adam and Joe show? What a legend.
- treve 3y agoIs it just me or I can't seem to find the RSS feed.
- t09i209ba893 3y agoIt's subtle, but it's right under the title, https://feeds.acast.com/public/shows/18dcd5db-f898-42c6-ab31-3a1853c1a645 https://feeds.acast.com/public/shows/18dcd5db-f898-42c6-ab31...
- treve 3y agoThank you!
- johnny_reilly 3y agoAdam Buxton is brilliant! His old radio show with Joe Cornish is greatly missed - used to love "Song Wars" where they each made up spoof songs that were really funny. "I've got licenses to kill, I've got licenses to fish" https://youtu.be/iAXVeKdrDOM https://youtu.be/iAXVeKdrDOM
- photochemsyn 3y agoCharlie Wilson's War was an interesting movie... but in reality, it was William Casey's War. Which created the Taliban and Osama bin Laden as well, leading to Al Qaeda and 9/11... and then Al Qaeda became an 'ally' in the effort to overthrow Syria's government. Weird, isn' it?
- vuln 3y ago_Weird_ indeed.
- newsclues 3y agoWeird like the CIA uses Hollywood for propaganda weird?
- gary_0 3y agoThe Mujahideen were not the Taliban, which did not exist until 5 years after the Soviet-Afghan War. Some of the US-backed resistance fighters did go on to join the Taliban, but others opposed it and later sided with the US when they invaded in 2001. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_mujahideen#Relationship_with_the_Taliban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_mujahideen#Relationship... All that being said, obviously the US has failed repeatedly in Afghanistan, but the initial intervention against the Soviets was not the main factor. The Taliban's persistence is due to multiple US geopolitical blunders that happened in the decades after the Soviet-Afghan War.
- photochemsyn 3y ago[flagged]
- Convolutional 3y agoThe US backed radical Islamic jihadists to overthrow the secular government running Afghanistan. The US president invited them to the White House, then armed and funded them https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Reagan_sitting_with_people_from_the_Afghanistan-Pakistan_region_in_February_1983.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Reagan_s... . Trying to split hairs saying there was infighting and not all of them joined the Taliban does not change that. Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda also came out of all that. Now I'll go back to reading the mainstream media's encomiums to the Azov batallion in the Ukraine.
- ggm 3y agoI am heartily glad Tom Hanks has so far declined to appear in Star Wars. I think "Bridge of Spies" which co-stars Mark Rylance as Colonel Abel is a very interesting little drama. They both occupy quite quirky corners of the problem space. Hanks has to be respectful of his client to perform his legal role but also is somewhat appalled by the systems disregard for the minor US student character caught up in the east-west barriers as he negotiates the release of Gary Powers. Rylance is fantastic in that movie. his "would it help" comment about panic under duress is just awesome deadpan. Hanks being robbed for his thick winter coat in East Berlin is also a good little vignette. I think this is what Hanks excels at: small vignettes of the human experience, which make a story believable.
- nwatson 3y agoMark Rylance is excellent in the slow-moving Wolf Hall, about a no-name Thomas Cromwell's rise to influence in Henry VIII's court. I hope they go through with season 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Hall_(TV_series) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Hall_(TV_series)
- anonymousDan 3y agoFantasy actor. I have always kicked myself for not going to see him in the play Jerusalem in London, which is meant to have been the best theatrical performance for many years.
- ggm 3y agoIt helps that the material they're working from is authored by Hilary Mantel. She did her homework. Thomas Cromwell historians differ on her views but she handled the material amazingly well. Her "Place of greater safety" on the french revolution and Danton is fantastic.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- troupo 3y ago> limiting inquisitive journalists to a few distant glimpses of the process The Devil's Candy mentioned at the beginning of the interview is an amazing book. The journalist had complete unimpeded access to the entire production from start to finish. Highly recommended.
- adityaathalye 3y agoI have friends and acquaintances from pretty much every department across the movie business and it never ceases to amaze me how any project ever makes it into the sunlight. The whole enterprise of filmmaking is so fraught with peril. Movies get canned at the last moment. Movies get made but never distributed because they ran out of funding. Brilliant scripts find many lovers but no takers. The weather will mess you up exactly when you only have one shot at a scene. Your multiple national awards guarantee nothing... you will still spend many years struggling to get your own film produced. And then the weather will screw you over, your producers will bail just before distribution because the political climate changed, and suddenly you will find yourself friendless and alone. Etc. etc. But then there are these flashes of brilliance... Those epic stories. Those immortal dialogues. Moments that shape a generation. Songs that move you to greatness, or get you through the hard times. And I suppose my friends and their ilk live and die for those moments. They are all mad, I tell you. Stark raving mad.
- m463 3y agosounds like startups.
- adityaathalye 3y agoYes, quite similar, if we also stipulate that the whole "company" is a single project exposed to far more mercurial risks, staffed almost entirely with a dynamically changing hodgepodge of contractors, agencies, and free agents, with a definite (albeit uncertain) completion date. Sometimes, with unicorn-level sums of cash, hustle, and ruthless market competition expended to boot. And where your first week in theaters (two if you're lucky) is where you might make back your money. Avatar, for example, is estimated to have consumed about ~500 MM USD in production, distribution, and promotion. If you spend that much, you are going to elbow out all the competition from theaters and OTT and what have you come launch time.
- jjeaff 3y agoYes, I think you get this similar climate in anything that is highly competitive but subjective. And I think it's the mix of two factors that that create the insanity. The idea that one can pick winners better than a flip of a coin could, and the fact that the pool of talent that could accomplish the goal is actually quite deep. So you have "kingmakers" trying to pretend like they can pick winners with just one weird trick from a pool that in reality is loaded with winners and maybe only a few duds.
- curiousgal 3y ago> A Man Called Otto This movie is a prime example of Hollywood's "machine" doing its thing. I've read the book and watched the original movie adaptation and if you've done that you won't help but see right through the movie's producers' attempt to "commercialize" it. In the original movie/book the woman is Indian, in the American version she's Mexican.. There's absolutely nothing wrong with an Indian woman spicing up the life of a grumpy old white man. In the original movie/book the outcast boy is gay, in the American version they're trans.. This one was absolutely tacky. Gay people are still far from accepted universally even in the US.. All in all, this just proves the fact that movie making is primarily a business trying to cater to the audience (nothing wrong with that) but any talk about "the human" or artistic aspect is pure bullshit in my book.
- b112 3y agoTo be fair, re: first point, they could have just liked the actress. Or even had a prior contract deal. And really are you going to tell anyone today, they can't play a role because of their ethnicity, unless it is key, pivotal to that role? The second seems more plausible as a marketing tactic. Re: book to script, I found I go less insane, if I just think of it this way. Two people were involved in events, one wrote a book, one a script. In as those two people would have seen different things, talked to different people, been more/less involved in events, and just interpret the world differenty, as we all do, it makes sense their output would differ. Thusly, I remain sane. Or perhaps less insane.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago> Re: book to script, I found I go less insane, if I just think of it this way. Two people were involved in events, one wrote a book, one a script. I go further than that - I explicitly prefer seeing the movie/show adaptation before going through the original books. I'm aphantasic - reading a book, I just can't picture anything in my mind. Every character and every scenery is mostly this cloud of facts, like an unresolved promise (the async programming kind), that I carry in my head 'till the last page. Seeing a movie/show, however, gives characters specific appearance, specific voice, specific cadence. Primed with those images and sounds, I find reading source material much easier and more enjoyable. And yes, as much as adaptations differ from the original, I don't mind. I can fix the inconsistencies on the fly, or separate the book reality from movie/show reality entirely. It's not a big deal. Meanwhile, having some specific images and sounds to anchor my barely-existing imagination to, is very helpful to me.