SCREEN-L Archives

March 1994


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sun, 27 Mar 1994 14:03:24 EST
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (22 lines)
Currie Thompson's account of THE PLAGUE moving directly into video
distribution is likely more-or-less accurate.  Missing, however, is
a crucial decision point: in general, theatrical distribution costs
about as much as actual negative costs.  Any firm has to decide whether
a film is worth the additonal investment, given that production costs
might well be recouped through sale to ancillary markets.
Art and quality have nothing to do with this decision.  "How can we
sell this film?" is always the central question when deciding to go
into production (i.e., "greenlight" the production), pull the plug
during production, or finally through what channels to distribute
the finished product.
"Product" may be an inelegant and offensive way of describing what
some people call work of art.  It all depends on whose money is
being spent.  No one has an inalienable right to spend someone else's
money on what may be a private fantasy.
Cal Pryluck, Radio-Television-Film, Temple University, Philadelphia
<[log in to unmask]>  <PRYLUCK@TEMPLEVM>