Quote:
|
Originally Posted by McMurphy "Marketable" has become a curse word for me. I feel that it has become the cowardly way of creating and has somehow been largely accepted in film and television entertainment. In truth, what is or what is not deemed "marketable" in this medium is determined by business people pointing to pie charts of racial demographics of the average Pepsi drinker. "As you can see, most Pepsi drinkers are white; therefore, it is of the best interest of this project to make all the main characters also white." |
The trouble is, marketing is what marketing does - it sells a product the best way it can. Of course, marketing doesn't always work, and sometimes even back-fires. Ultimately, though, high-brow does not sell as well as populist.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by McMurphy The mindset of "marketable" isn't necessarily the best policy. Studios need to take a chance with stories that break from their profit profile. |
They should - but someone somewhere has to justify the spending of a few million dollars. Saying it "might" sell is never going to be good enough - the bankers want evidence that a strong targeted marketing base is tapped into.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by McMurphy Shrek 2 toppled Finding Nemo's (a Pixar project back when Disney still believed they could call all the shots) record of the most successful 3D animated film ever. Why? Because Shrek 2's story was more fresh and hip than what the recycled story that Finding Nemo had to offer. |
Aaarrghh!!! You just shot yourself in the foot here, in my opniion - Shrek2 is a marketing feast run by bankers for bankers, based on realms of pie-charts and market research studies. Pixar is more concerned with innovation and story-telling, rather than being "hip".
You just showed that the marketing suits were doing their job properly.
