Tweet
It occurred to me that Scott Pilgrim is Canadian, played by a Canadian and it takes place IN Canada. I don't know if Pilgrim counts as a real superhero, and I don't think the production was Canadian - but maybe that's the closest so far.
-
I remember when Super came out - but I never saw it. He was Canadian?
It occurred to me that Scott Pilgrim is Canadian, played by a Canadian and it takes place IN Canada. I don't know if Pilgrim counts as a real superhero, and I don't think the production was Canadian - but maybe that's the closest so far. -
I would love to see an Alpha Flight movie.
The team gets a lot of unwarranted flak, but I've always liked all the characters and Marvel have woefully mistreated them since Byrne finished his run on the original book.PUNY HUMANS!Comment
-
>Canadian movies almost always feel like they're made for nobody.
HAW! That's kinda funny.... Anyhoo; I find that a lot of Canadian productions straddle the line between art flick, and commercial venture; and I suspect that's where this effect originates. A true commercial production beats you over the head with who it's for; be it testosterone driven 14 year old males, estrogen driven 30 year old females, established fans of a franchaise.... whoever. Most Canadian stuff seems to just happen, and if anyone watches it then bonus. Part of that happens 'cos of the tax break rules, and the need for "Canadian content." A lot of the folks in charge have very narrow definitions of what this means.
>These are often movies who don't seem like they'd appeal to anyone getting bad critical and audience reviews and making no money - so to me, that's a real problem.
....and that's what you end up with. I had a helluva time with one of my own projects back in the day. (When I still had drive and ambition.) No commercial entity wanted to touch it 'cos it was too "experimental;" (their term) and I couldn't get backing from folks like the NFB because it was too "commercial." (Again, their words.)
>I think that devising a way to force Canadian movies onto more screens would probably generate more ticket sales,
You WILL watch "Strange Brew" at least once a year or else be executed as a traitor!
>unlike TV and radio broadcasters I don't think the government licenses movie distributers or theater owners
No; but the idea is the government funds the productions.... through direct grants, tax breaks, etc.
Don C.Comment
-
Give "Les Boys" capes and you'll have a Canadian superhero movie that people will see in the theater.Places to find PlaidStallions online: https://linktr.ee/Plaidstallions
Buy Toy-Ventures Magazine here:
http://www.plaidstallions.com/reboot/shopComment
-
I can point to Ginger Snaps and say Teens and horror fans. Passchendaele was made with a similar audience of war stories like Saving Private Ryan or Platoon. Going the Distance was sold towards the American Pie audience. this isn't all art house stuff. Takes this Waltz might not be your cup of tea, but remember there is a huge primarily female audience out there for relationship melodrama... Eat, Pray, Love as a highly successful American example of the genre.
Here is where we get all chicken and egg. Men with Brooms had an unprecedented marketing budget because they had the screens. You don't spend the bucks for a release that only gets a handful of screens.
But why do ALL Canadian films now need to be handicapped that way right out of the starting gate compared to their US brethren? (I know the answer... Block booking. Being Rhetorical. The US corporate conglomerates have the studios and distribution sewn up to favour their own product as of about a decade ago. I'll get into the nitty gritty dirty of it with you when we grab lunch this week)It seems like almost all lower budget American movies start with limited theatrical releases and the ones that stand out grow from there - so I don't see why things should be different for Canadian movies.
Part and parcel to all that is the status of any completely homegrown Canadian fare of a certain size and stature will almost always have minuscule budgets compared to their US counterparts and be partially funded by the government (which opens up an entirely other avenue of issues as you go hat in hand to justify your film's merits)
This is why I cite the heyday of the Tax shelter days... It wasn't perfect, and a ridiculous amount of unwatchable garbage came out of that period, however it is arguably the time when we had the most commercial hits rising to the top... Meatballs, Porkys, Scanners etc. Note the gulf between commercial and critical success here though (at the time). But again, there was a multitude of theatrical distributers back then and still many indie theatres as well... Plus the rise of home video to give it extra shelf life. For the most part, Canadian film survives these days as product for cable tv (cancon).
Good critical and audience reviews ( I think Rotten Tomatoes is about as close to empirical as we can get since we've really been talking anecdotal thus far)To me, this is not a case where there's all these incredible movies people are missing out on because they can't get on screens. These are often movies who don't seem like they'd appeal to anyone getting bad critical and audience reviews and making no money - so to me, that's a real problem.
Even Defendor seems to have appealed higher than average to get a fresh rating. You can turn this into a sellable product.
I honestly think the biggest problem we Canadians as a nation face is this inferiority complex... At best it's self effacing which makes for beautiful comedy (which we obviously excel at), at worst it creates this harmful meme of "Canadian <blank> sucks!". Just to pull the curtain back a little, if you've ever wondered why I am such an obnoxious Patriot, it's because I feel like we need to be in order to stand our cultural ground.Last edited by samurainoir; Jul 17, '12, 12:28 PM.Comment
-
Ha! Yup. That's a big big part of what makes most of them so unappealing - I think.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I was trying to respond to samurainoir's concerns about movie distribution. The government funds/subsidizes music and TV production too - then there's can-con regulations to make sure these projects get broadcasted to some degree. I agree that more people might see Canadian films if there were can-con quotas for screens - but I also think the bigger problems lay elsewhere - in making product with commercial viability and marketing.
Good friends of mine run a successful video game company. They get "new media" tax breaks and grants - there are stipulations in those grants that the projects be innovative and have artistic merit just like movie grants are suppose to. They have no advantage distributing their projects in Canada or anywhere else - most of their sales aren't even from Canada. They have super tiny advertising budgets, but they always manage to create interesting advertising - mostly on the web. They have quality and vision behind their projects, and have carved out enough of a niche that they can successfully grow and continue to make games.Comment
-
>I agree that more people might see Canadian films if there were can-con quotas for screens
They might. It'd be a nightmare to enforce, and rough on the theaters who're already getting gouged by the production companies. Part of the problem here comes from proximity to the US. Even without any kind of blocking, the US populace is ten times Canada's.... so even a film that's successful here doesn't get the numbers a medicore US release would, which means they don't get the hype and word of mouth either. They get drowned out by the bigger shows. Not just a problem here though.... smaller productions from the US get drowned out by the bigger ones too. It creates the problem of too few big producers/distributors, which further limits the variety of material being produced.... which limits the audience's exposure to different, which tends to coalesce their tates, which makes something different in ANY capacity less appealing....
More on THAT one here:
>the biggest problem we Canadians as a nation face is this inferiority complex
I've heard that before. There's definitely something to it, but I think part of it isn't exactly an inferiority complex, but rather a sort of inherent pacivity. We don't make the "big" movies, and we don't hype our stuff 'cos there's a kind of taste for understatement.... which leads to a crushing defeat from the voiciferous ad campaigns from the US.
Don C.Comment
-
Well, The time for any kind of Can Con protection for our film industry flew away decades ago, and yeah, cable and airwaves are a different kind of animal. The biggest difference in the past ten years or so is that the Canadians at the top of the distribution food chain were also content developers back in the day, which put homegrown product into the pipeline (like Men with Brooms). That was the incentive since they had financial stake in the product. Not so much now that the pipeline belongs to American product (which is how films like Splice and Eastern Promises find success and distribution... As coproductions)
Video games are kind of apples and oranges in that there are so many alt distribution channels available.. Particularly now more than ever with not only the net, but the wealth of mobile devices. Yeah, those distribution channels are now viable streams of revenue for filmmakers, and that needs to be embraced, but I'm a bit of a purest about wanting to sit in a theatre with an audience munching on my popcorn, rather than watching on my celphone. But I am spoiled in that Toronto is home to so many alt theatres and film festivals, I get exposed to stuff that can only be seen via the Internet or DVD elsewhere in Canada.
I might ask Don for example, what do they get theatrically in Windsor? Is there a struggling alt theatre there? Kingston had one when I lived there, but I think it might be shut down now?Last edited by samurainoir; Jul 17, '12, 1:33 PM.Comment
-
I know this film found a niche audience on TV and DVD, but that's like a lot of low budget movies. I don't know what it's distribution was like, I remember seeing posters for it and it seemed like kiddie horror movie - like Goosebumps - not a movie that would appeal to me.
I don't know what they were thinking with this trailer. I think the music should have been something that appeals to teen girls and sounded a little gothy, for one thing. For another, I don't get a clear picture of what the movie is like from this - so my feeling is the ads went over people's heads.
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zoa1A987A_k[video]
If that's what they were going for then that's crazy, because Passchendaele seems A LOT more like more of a tragic romance than a heavy hitting war movie, and unlike those two movies audiences and critics didn't like it.
Plus, it seems like it was on a respectable amount of screens. That movie just seems like people didn't respond it it well and it ran it's course to me.
I thought you were talking about the Drew Barrymore movie for a second. Are you talking about the National Lam****'s movie?
Yeah, these movies aren't art-house movies, but NONE of those movies seem like movies with wide appeal to me.
Again, maybe I just don't know enough about the business side of things - but I thought all the movies here did respectable business for their budgets.Here is where we get all chicken and egg. Men with Brooms had an unprecedented marketing budget because they had the screens. You don't spend the bucks for a release that only gets a handful of screens.
But why do ALL Canadian films now need to be handicapped that way right out of the starting gate compared to their US brethren? (I know the answer... Block booking. Being Rhetorical. The US corporate conglomerates have the studios and distribution sewn up to favour their own product as of about a decade ago)
Part and parcel to all that is the status of any completely homegrown Canadian fare of a certain size and stature will almost always have minuscule budgets compared to their US counterparts and be partially funded by the government (which opens up an entirely other avenue of issues as you go hat in hand to justify your film's merits)
This is why I cite the heyday of the Tax shelter days... It wasn't perfect, and a ridiculous amount of unwatchable garbage came out of that period, however it is arguably the time when we had the most commercial hits rising to the top... Meatballs, Porkys, Scanners etc. But again, there was a multitude of theatrical distributers back then and still many indie theatres as well... Plus the rise of home video to give it extra shelf life. For the most part, Canadian film survives these days as product for cable tv (cancon).
Good critical and audience reviews...
Not to be difficult or overly argumentative, but I honestly don't think I have that inferiority complex. From my perspective there's lots of Canadian art and culture to enjoy - Most of my current favorite bands are Canadian, theatre and fine art all seems to be thriving. I don't personally love a lot of Canadian TV - "Life Less Kind" is a stand out to me (poor Maury Chaykin, RIP) - but at least there are a few Canadian TV shows that seem to have found an audience.Comment
-
"To Me" being the important part of that statement.
I already linked to the Rotten Tomato ratings, which is as democratic as it gets with critics and audiences to gauge appeal. You are right though, I concede that Passchaendale and Going the Distance (distributed here, sans National Lam****) are exceptions that did get on a decent number of screens. They just weren't very good, but if the quality was higher, I'd still say that there is an audience for these kind of things. Historical Drama and Teen Movie respectively, are unarguably broad marketable categories of mass appeal. Budget isn't essential for a good film, but it really helps to give the an extra cushion of time and talent involved, and that is really where we are often at a disadvantage (as Don points out... less population, less audience, less budget). That extends to the time and effort and money you have to put into getting the marketing right too.
Not theatrically domestically, and in terms of the Oscar nominated ones, they eventually got greater distribution because of the nod, despite initial critical acclaim. But again, it's just an example of how we need affirmation from the American Academy Awards before we're willing to commit to the good stuff from home.Again, maybe I just don't know enough about the business side of things - but I thought all the movies here did respectable business for their budgets.
From the long conversations I've had with peers still in the industry, whom I went to film school with (including producers on some films mentioned), the war is essentially lost with theatrical. The profit models come from all the other forms of distribution... internet, cable, dvd/bluray, overseas, and often from the grants (paying the upfront salaries/cost of living expenses for those involved... this is why it's essential you get paid on the front end in the movie biz here). I think Passchendaele put a lot of nails into that coffin too unfortunately.
No worries at all, it's a good and stimulating conversation. Fortunately, we've had these kind of talks in person too (I think it makes a huge difference since the nuances of tone is conveyed better vocally and with body language)... I really enjoyed our chat about Hitchcock a few weeks ago as I drove you and Cleo home. Again, we don't always see eye to eye, but it's all friendly.Not to be difficult or overly argumentative, but I honestly don't think I have that inferiority complex. From my perspective there's lots of Canadian art and culture to enjoy - Most of my current favorite bands are Canadian, theatre and fine art all seems to be thriving. I don't personally love a lot of Canadian TV - "Life Less Kind" is a stand out to me (poor Maury Chaykin, RIP) - but at least there are a few Canadian TV shows that seem to have found an audience.
The examples you cite though, are all products of culture that has been really carefully nurtured by the Canadian institutions with a vested interest in them... the commercial and public galleries, the local live theatre venues, television and music broadcasters. I'm simply saying that Canadian Film needs that same cultivation and protection, and not just on the production side, but more importantly, the distribution side to ensure the widest possible accessible audience. Cancon regulations are the only reason why we still have a homegrown TV and music industry left over from the pre-internet days, it would have otherwise been swallowed up by more commercial US product (Simpsons reruns no doubt subsidized David Suzuki's Nature of Things). Art and theatre are things that are experienced live in person on our own front doorsteps (Aaron, book off the evening of the first Thursday in August, and I'll take you and Ossana along with me on monthly the Queen W St Art Walk Tour). On the higher end of live Canadian theatre productions, I've got my rant about how that has suffered... with Mirvish shying away from much original content than they used to in favour of importing the Broadway stuff based on popular Movies, Livent's demise years ago, and now Dancap's upcoming demise (we can dig into that on Thursday when we go to the Dog Park if you want).
The limit in distribution, limits the amount of content, which limits the amount of "good" content within that small pool of content.Last edited by samurainoir; Jul 17, '12, 2:54 PM.Comment
-
Hey, I might not be Irving Thalberg, but I like to think I have a pretty decent idea of what a movie with commercial chances looks like. I'm not taking it personally, and I concede that you know a lot more about distribution, but when a movie that looks like a flop to me flops I'm more shocked about how it got made then how it got distributed.[/QUOTE]"To Me" being the important part of that statement. I already linked to the Rotten Tomato ratings, which is as democratic as it gets with critics and audiences to gauge appeal. You are right though, I concede that Passchaendale and Going the Distance (sans National Lam****) are exceptions that did get on a decent number of screens. They just weren't very good, but if the quality was higher, I'd still say that there is an audience for these kind of things. Historical Drama and Teen Movie respectively, are unarguably broad marketable categories of mass appeal. Budget isn't essential for a good film, but it really helps to give the an extra cushion of time and talent involved, and that is really where we are often at a disadvantage (as Don points out... less population, less audience, less budget). That extends to the time and effort and money you have to put into getting the marketing right too.
I agree - if "Passchaendale" was a really well received movie I think it would have a great chance at being a hit. As an outsider it seemed that movie was an ego driven project with no accountability.
This is "Going the Distance", right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_t...ce_(2004_film) It was released as a National Lamp*on's branded movie in the US I guess.
Hang on though - award bumps are how a lot of US low-budget and indie movies find an audience too.
Oh, for sure man! I don't mean anything personal and I didn't take anything personally! I think this is a good talk, and I'm genuinely interested in what you're saying.
I honestly don't think there's some inherent lack of talent Canadians have for making movies - I think the people in charge lack vision and motivation. I think there's a lot of bureaucracy going on that muddies the process - and the people who make key decisions aren't really vested or accountable for the decisions they make. I think there's WAY too much ego-boosting going on for the "big names" even after they've done terrible work.
I would LOVE for things to go back to tax shelter days, or some version of that. Something where there's SOME accountability and SOME motivation for trying new talent.
Maybe the model isn't the same, but my friends wanted to make video games. They started a small mobile company and took jobs doing movie tie-ins. They put a lot of time and care into these underwhelming jobs and built a reputation as having above average quality. They used available government resources to eventually start making their own games, and used the small following they garnered to help sell them. They're a Canadian new media success story, but they're still just building to what they want to do - which is original console games.
Maybe Canadian film productions have to start thinking the same way. Slowly building. Maybe we use DVD, TV and Netflix to start cultivating reputations and talent until we lead up to theatrical releases?
Maybe we need to go back to tax incentives over grants - and maybe a Roger Corman will emerge - someone who can make low-budget movies that FIND an audience to cultivate a generation of Canadian filmmakers with vision and skills?
Maybe we just need to make Canadian filmmakers more accountable and have a little more scrutiny? "Men with Brooms" might have been a hit - even though I think that's somewhat debatable - but there was nothing to indicate that that guy could pull of a period drama. The guy who made "Major League" didn't follow that up with "The English Patient". There's some checks and balances that aren't working here.Comment
-
We really truly are not lacking in talent or an audience willing to engage in homegrown fare if you do use TV and music or even video games as an example. It's just that those in film end up working in the US or on US productions up here for the most part to pay the bills. A film like Ginger Snaps shows that an audience can be found already on DVD, cable and netflicks... but then what?Maybe Canadian film productions have to start thinking the same way. Slowly building. Maybe we use DVD, TV and Netflix to start cultivating reputations and talent until we lead up to theatrical releases?
Here is how it actually works in practice these days. Once top tier talent gets some clout... the best you can hope for is that you make a co-production. Which is what Vincenzo Natali and Cronenberg (filmmakers with vision and skill) have done to get their work distributed and seen (Splice and Eastern Promises being the recent examples). It's a bit of a compromise at best because you need to go the US route to get back up here into theatres via the pipeline. Better than nothing though, and better than when Reitman and co departed completely for Hollywood on the success of Meatballs once the tax shelter days dried up (not a bad thing that the tax shelter went away, given all the hucksterism and bad business that it actually cultivated), although at least he's putting back in with the TIFF lightbox (which isn't doing as well as it should be).
This is the crux of our theatrical distribution problem as it currently stands. Which is really backwards when you think about what once was before all the mergers and chains and conglomerates homogenized distribution and exhibition (I've been looking at all the photos of old theatres on Vintage Toronto and getting misty eyed).
It's not the merits or quality of Men with Brooms or Paul Gross that is important to the discussion here. It's that Robert Lantos as an example, used to control the distribution of films in Canada via Alliance releasing. He's also a producer with a vested interest in that particular production making money. THAT is how it got a major theatrical release and marketing campaign! Now the folks in charge of distribution for Canadian theatrical have only a financial interest in putting primarily American product into the pipeline because of the block booking deals that are in place that essentially fill most of the available slots contractually with Hollywood films. It comes down to Big Business, not quality, on a Macro Level way beyond what can happen via grassroots support (which is what the avenue of Internet and download now can support). Since Alliance/Atlantis was sold and split (five years back now?), those making the product, no longer have any control over the distribution. If you own both the production and distribution channels, you will make sure that product gets to potential viewers. That mechanism is now broken. (it's very telling that the Lantos produced Barney's Version was a co-production with American stars).Last edited by samurainoir; Jul 17, '12, 5:33 PM.Comment
-
Well how did the Wienstein's or Ted Hope do it? How did they start? I never thought those guys came on the scene with an advantage Canadian producers don't have. I think those guys had an eye for movies that would stand out, and had a lot of marketing savvy. So looking at how these small-time guys carved a niche I just don't get how it's impossible to do anywhere.Comment
-
Weinsteins are the perfect example of what happens... You build something up like Mirimax and then sell it out a major company like Disney, who pretty much dismantle it. The story of what happened up here in the past decade is not dissimilar.
Why does Canadian film have to be considered small time in the first place amongst Canadians? you don't think it's odd to settle on a position of inferiority in what essentially is a huge expensive medium and industry? Why not shoot for the big screen distribution as film is ideally intended and optimally viewed, rather than settle for secondary markets like cable and downloads? It's one thing if it struggles as you suggest in the US marketplace amongst indie fare, but why handicap it here where it should be afforded the advantages of the home field?
that is the problem of an uneven playing field. Any film from a Hollywood studio gets screens in this country and a marketing push, no matter how good or bad, but our homegrown product has to earn it and prove it's merits via the american studios and their distribution system, just like their indies? That is really backwards to throw larger hurdles at our own stuff in favour of what is essentially foreign product, and then subject it to an America filter of approval on top of that before it's allowed more screens. the ladder they climb should be here, not down there. Otherwise our talent goes elsewhere as we see time and again... Entertainment industry brain drain
The huge hope of the original Alliance/Atlantis merger was that they would become a major Power player... Commercial production capability, coupled with the distribution network they built. The fallout of their sellout and dismantling was truly a huge blow.Last edited by samurainoir; Jul 18, '12, 12:28 AM.Comment
-
>Most of my current favorite bands are Canadian, theatre and fine art all seems to be thriving.
Killer Dwarfs rule! WOOOO!!!!
....anyhoo; a lot of Canadian stuff thrives IN CANADA.... which is cool, ‘cos you still get your stuff done but it’s tougher to break into a larger world market. I suspect a big part of that is ‘cos the wider distribution systems are increasingly controlled by big conglomerates headed out of the US or Japan. (Who are content to push their local stuff ‘cos, hey; it’s there.)
>I already linked to the Rotten Tomato ratings, which is as democratic as it gets with critics and audiences to gauge appeal.
Well.... kinda; although the internet hate machine biases the reporting to the negative, or the slavishly fannish.... Sadly, people often get the movie they want, and not the movie they need.
>but if the quality was higher, I'd still say that there is an audience for these kind of things.
....which is where I was going with the last statement. Quality.... however you measure it.... isn’t necessary for success either. Audiences respond to a lot of set stimulus; hence the number of sequels, reboots and remakes. People are more likely to watch a movie featuring a story they’re familiar with. They’re also more likely to be favourably inclined towards a name they’re familiar with; hence every film featuring at least one of a handful of actors, directors, etc. I think that holds Canadian stuff back as well; we don[‘t have the many known names except for the folks who moved on to US productions.... and they’re often seen AS US stars, which doesn’t help the local productions.
So even if someone would absolutely love a certain film, if it doesn’t feature something they’re familiar with they won’t see it.
>Budget isn't essential for a good film, but it really helps to give the an extra cushion of time and talent involved
And is IN ITSELF a protective point. “They spent 5 gazillion dollars making it. It MUST be good!”
>I think the people in charge lack vision and motivation
HAW! I know folks who work in tv, and THIS is a common theme. The people in charge couldn’t care less about content. It’s all about distribution.... having something to put out there, good or not. I think this is common throughout entertainment though (hence my expressed distaste in many comic conversations here towards “mainstream” comic by committee stuff) and really good stuff happens mostly by accident.
>Particularly now more than ever with not only the net, but the wealth of mobile devices. Yeah, those distribution channels are now viable streams of revenue for filmmakers,
....which is why the big companies keep pushing for greater control of the internets.... like them new laws they tried pushing in the US a year or so back. It’d let them shore up against the possibility of smaller independents getting some audience exposure. I remember when the filesharing scare hit back in the 90's, and the big companies said it was killing CD sales. My buddy Rob did some research and discovered it did the exact opposite: CD sales OVERALL went up, but that was because the smaller labels were seeing boosts. The bigger companies.... who were the ones raising the stink over the whole thing.... saw losses.
I think that scared the big companies really bad; they know the internets are out there, they don’t quite understand them (“they’re like tubes!”) but they feel something must be done, else they become a threat.
>what do they get theatrically in Windsor? Is there a struggling alt theatre there?
We used to have a bunch of small theaters showing all sorts of stuff; but most of them disappeared in the last decade or so. Nowadays it’s almost entirely big budget, mainstream stuff.
Don C.Comment
Comment