“Once you spend more than $100M on a movie…

“Once you spend more than $100 million on a movie, you have to save the world,” explains Lindelof. “And when you start there, and basically say, I have to construct a MacGuffin based on if they shut off this, or they close this portal, or they deactivate this bomb, or they come up with this cure, it will save the world—you are very limited in terms of how you execute that. And in many ways, you can become a slave to it and, again, I make no excuses, I’m just saying you kind of have to start there. In the old days, it was just as satisfying that all Superman has to do was basically save Lois from this earthquake in California. The stakes in that movie are that the San Andreas Fault line opens up and half of California is going to fall in the ocean. That felt big enough, but there is a sense of bigger, better, faster, seen it before, done that.”

“It sounds sort of hacky and defensive to say, [but it’s] almost inescapable,” he continues. “It’s almost impossible to, for example, not have a final set piece where the fate of the free world is at stake. You basically work your way backward and say, ‘Well, the Avengers aren’t going to save Guam, they’ve got to save the world.’ Did Star Trek Into Darkness need to have a gigantic starship crashing into San ­Francisco? I’ll never know. But it sure felt like it did.”

Damon Lindelof (Lost, Prometheus, Star Trekone-time flamewar participant with George R.R. Martin) in an interview with New York Magazine’s Vulture blog on blockbuster escalation.

The full interview is well worth a read, particularly for the case study of how modern Hollywood would bring a straightforward folklore hero like John Henry to the big screen. (Spoiler alert — it’s a Jesus metaphor.)

Advertisements

How machines can help us discover overlooked films

Feeling like I’d burned through my standard sources for movie recommendations, I recently decided to turn to box office failures. I was seeking out an automated way to explore the world of such movies and find “overlooked” films that are actually very good, but were ignored in theaters and dismissed by critics.

Using Nathan Rabin’s popular “My Year of Flops” series on The AV Club and follow-up book as a starting point, I designed an algorithm to predict whether a box office failure is actually a film worth seeing. The algorithm examines multiple aspects of a movie’s cultural response to make its prediction – such as applying sentiment analysis to capture the tone of reviews, and understanding whether critics and audiences responded differently to a movie. The output is a list of 100+ movies released over the past decade with high likelihood of being quality, “overlooked” films.

Here’s how it works…

THE POWER OF “OVERLOOKED” FILMS.

In 1994, Forrest Gump made over $300M at the domestic box office, won six Oscars, and spawned a murderer’s row of pop culture references.

The Shawshank Redemption also came out that year. It had a confusing name, won exactly zero Oscars, and made only $16M in its initial run – an amount outdistanced by House Party 3, Kid ‘n Play’s capstone installment in their “living-situation-oriented festival” trilogy.

Yet flip on TNT on a random Saturday night, and you’re more likely to be greeted by Andy and Red than by Forrest and Jenny.

Because it flopped in theaters, people had to discover Shawshank organically on video. And not only did its reputation grow, but fans felt a sense of personal ownership and evangelism. Nearly everyone I know who’s seen the movie first watched it because of a recommendation, and fiercely loyal IMDb users have even rated it the best movie of all time.

One of the earliest Amazon.com customer reviews for The Shawshank Redemption.

One of the earliest Amazon.com customer reviews for The Shawshank Redemption.

Continue reading