Roderick

All aboard the Molyneux crazy train! TOOT TOOT!

Recommended Posts

I think you have somewhat different understanding of what Molyneux meant by de-risking than Marek or Thunderpeel (or I, although I'm certainly not agreeing with everything Thunderpeel said). I think he specifically meant de-risking a project in the eyes of the investors, not de-risking the content.

Honestly, I don't even think he entirely knows what he's trying to say. You could be right. He had one actual example, and he admitted he was just kind of guessing about it in the first place. The whole thing just came off as a very wishy-washy, lame series of statements. I don't know how I allowed myself to get dragged into a big thing about the Nature of Corporations or whatever we're discussing at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I recently saw Hudson Hawk again. What a goofy movie, but entertaining in its own way!

There are many movies which I've seen parts of on TV!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What bothers me about his statements is that he's speaking in aphorisms about making games from the perspective of someone who has spent a little too long inside the video publishing world to the point where he no longer sees his job as "making a great piece of interactive entertainment for the people", and sees it as "making a piece of interactive entertainment that will not scare investors".

It is a subtle distinction to be sure. What he's proposing is not dumbing things down for the lowest common denominator (I don't think), he is proposing dumbing things down for the suits. It is like an artist talking about making art that caters—not to the buying public—but to the for-profit gallery culture, its inside jokes and fashions; art that is formatted in a way curators really appreciate, art that is packaged just right and shipped with double-spaced installation directions, etc.

People in power just don't know how to let hired professional do their jobs without meddling to the point where it probably gets hard for these underling professionals to separate their job (in this case making damn good games) from catering to these superiors.

He has obviously had to deal whit this kind of shit a lot. Perhaps as far as he is concerned selling his superiors on an idea is his End Product, because after shit is green-lit he can lean back and let the team do whatever it is they do between pre-production and going gold.

The rest of the points Molyneux tries to make in that dumbfounding interview read like random brain droppings from the middle of a more coherent, larger reflection that have sprung into an uninformed-conjecture-ridden forest of madness.

These droppings entirely live in this milieu of "games suits will not fear"—because that is his job, his primary preoccupation day-to-day. As such, these are quite disgusting to me. I'm just a layperson who primarily cares about the awesome game he is making. I may care about the process of game-making, I care about the vision, the concept, the artistic integrity, the production, the fucking human interest and the gossip behind it all—and so on—but all this talk of eliminating risk shows too much sausage-making for my taste. It shows this stupid corporate game dev culture that fucks with what I really care about, and what, at the end of the day, all right-minded creative folk in the industry should be caring about if they want to connect with me and my ilk.

Is anyone else reading this like I am, or am I completely, embarrasingly full of shit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What bothers me about his statements is that he's speaking in aphorisms about making games from the perspective of someone who has spent a little too long inside the video publishing world to the point where he no longer sees his job as "making a great piece of interactive entertainment for the people", and sees it as "making a piece of interactive entertainment that will not scare investors".

It is a subtle distinction to be sure. What he's proposing is not dumbing things down for the lowest common denominator (I don't think), he is proposing dumbing things down for the suits. It is like an artist talking about making art that caters—not to the buying public—but to the for-profit gallery culture, its inside jokes and fashions; art that is formatted in a way curators really appreciate, art that is packaged just right and shipped with double-spaced installation directions, etc.

People in power just don't know how to let hired professional do their jobs without meddling to the point where it probably gets hard for these underling professionals to separate their job (in this case making damn good games) from catering to these superiors.

He has obviously had to deal whit this kind of shit a lot. Perhaps as far as he is concerned selling his superiors on an idea is his End Product, because after shit is green-lit he can lean back and let the team do whatever it is they do between pre-production and going gold.

The rest of the points Molyneux tries to make in that dumbfounding interview read like random brain droppings from the middle of a more coherent, larger reflection that have sprung into an uninformed-conjecture-ridden forest of madness.

These droppings entirely live in this milieu of "games suits will not fear"—because that is his job, his primary preoccupation day-to-day. As such, these are quite disgusting to me. I'm just a layperson who primarily cares about the awesome game he is making. I may care about the process of game-making, I care about the vision, the concept, the artistic integrity, the production, the fucking human interest and the gossip behind it all—and so on—but all this talk of eliminating risk shows too much sausage-making for my taste. It shows this stupid corporate game dev culture that fucks with what I really care about, and what, at the end of the day, all right-minded creative folk in the industry should be caring about if they want to connect with me and my ilk.

Is anyone else reading this like I am, or am I completely, embarrasingly full of shit?

No, I feel exactly the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

molyneux.png

http://www.glorioustrainwrecks.com/files/molyneux2_0.zip

Made a quick game loosely inspired by Molyneux's interview for a Glorious Trainwrecks 2 hour game development jam. Mainly his example of being able to show a game about a red nosed clown jumping from cloud to cloud could be commercially viable.

Mine isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
molyneux.png

http://www.glorioustrainwrecks.com/files/molyneux2_0.zip

Made a quick game loosely inspired by Molyneux's interview for a Glorious Trainwrecks 2 hour game development jam. Mainly his example of being able to show a game about a red nosed clown jumping from cloud to cloud could be commercially viable.

Mine isn't.

Bah, not compatible with 64-bit OS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A company is nothing but people. People are not perfect money-making machines. Why does somebody start a particular business? By that I mean, why do you start a business in one field rather than another, particularly in an entertainment field? Because you enjoy or love or have an interest in it, right? Let's take Double Fine. What does that "company" want? You think that "company" exists purely as a money-wanting entity and nothing else? Would you really care to back that up? Double Fine--that is to say, the people who comprise Double Fine, since the company itself only exists insofar as the people who make it up does--has multiple goals: to make money, to continue existing, to make video games, and beyond that to make video games its people actually care about and want to make. A company does not make decisions. The people who comprise the company make decisions.

I'm sure we have can have a calm debate about this. I totally understand where you're coming from... I used to say the same things until I started running my own company. I'm not an evil businessman and neither are the folks at Double Fine, but the goal of any business is to make money. HOW you go about that is where your ethical ideas come in, and how the decisions of the people who run the company come in, but that doesn't change the very purpose of the company itself.

Perhaps some of the folks who work at smaller companies (and are closer to the business decisions) would like to agree/disagree?

I'm not going to have this argument about banks. I can't believe you'd get on my ass about using another television example, and then start bringing up banks, which are so preposterously far from the topic of this conversation it's not even worth addressing.

Well this part of our conversation is not actually directly related to making video games... You accused me of being "so jaded" as to the nature of companies in general, so I gave you some examples. Kind of sucks you ignored them :P

Businesses run an incredible range of purposes, sizes, goals, and methods of operation, from non-profit, to privately held for-profit, to privately held for essentially vanity's sake with no expectation of profitability, to publicly-owned, and many more.

"Non-profit businesses" is an oxymoron, I think you mean charities. I wouldn't consider "vanity companies" -- whatever the hell they are -- to be businesses either. The only exception would be a state-subsidised businesses (like my country's National Health Service), but they're obviously very different to a normal company.

Molyneux has had an amazing number of both failures and successes, and has always continued to be a well-funded and prominent member of the game development community. If you don't think things like self-promotion and notoriety and reputation can be just as important as actual dollars made, you don't pay much attention to how things work.

I absolutely do think that things like that can help, definitely. Why wouldn't I? I'm not sure why you think Molyneux has had an "amazing number" of failures, though. I can only name one: The Movies. I suppose that is amazing, in it's own way...? :erm:

All you need to do is convince the investors of that. If you can convince somebody to let you make your crazy game idea, fucking do it. Maybe it doesn't end up being a hit, but fucking whatever, if you can keep the studio going and you've made an amazing thing, then great. This industry needs more of that, and less of the big focus test-fest.

I fucking hate homogenised games, TV, movies, whatever. Please don't think I'm advocating that... but I also don't think that's what Molyneux was advocating either -- in fact I think he was saying the same thing as you! Essentially: "Just convince the investors and try and make something successful so you can keep making games".

The whole point is ridiculous because there are tons and tons of things that have huge amounts of customer research that fail miserably.

Absolutely, no arguments here. But as I've said, I don't think that Molyneux was talking about removing the "creative risk", just the financial one for the investors. He used an extremely "creatively risky" TV show (Dexter) as an example of this...

I guess, by the way, you'd be chiding Terry Gilliam for making too risky a project if you could have a face to face conversation with him, based on your mention of his latest project and the arguments you've espoused in this thread?

Are you kidding me?! I fucking LOVE Terry Gilliam. FYI when he's editing his movies he pieces together a scene or two and then grabs anyone he can to watch it. He then gauges their reaction and re-edits/moves on accordingly. He also uses the feedback from test screenings -- but he hates the idea that such feedback might be used by someone else to impose their restrictions on a film. He's also said that he needs his producers to tell him "we can't do this".

I HATE the fact that the movie industry has become SO risk-adverse at the moment that they're only producing blockbuster, homogenised garbage at the moment. As Gilliam said: The current system has killed off medium-sized movies, and I certainly hope that changes soon! (I think we need a series of blockbuster sized flops -- that would be awesome!)

Also, FWIW, Gilliam has to go through the same process as Molyneux when he wants to make a film: He has to present his artistic vision in a way that those who will fund it, will want to fund it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is anyone else reading this like I am, or am I completely, embarrasingly full of shit?

Yeah, I think you kind of went of the rails a bit with that one :-/ ;P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
molyneux.png

http://www.glorioustrainwrecks.com/files/molyneux2_0.zip

Made a quick game loosely inspired by Molyneux's interview for a Glorious Trainwrecks 2 hour game development jam. Mainly his example of being able to show a game about a red nosed clown jumping from cloud to cloud could be commercially viable.

Mine isn't.

It's too "creatively risky" for me... (I have absolutely no idea how you play it). Nice music though :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure we have can have a calm debate about this. I totally understand where you're coming from... I used to say the same things until I started running my own company. I'm not an evil businessman and neither are the folks at Double Fine, but the goal of any business is to make money. HOW you go about that is where your ethical ideas come in, and how the decisions of the people who run the company come in, but that doesn't change the very purpose of the company itself.

Perhaps some of the folks who work at smaller companies (and are closer to the business decisions) would like to agree/disagree?

Making money is a purpose of a business. It is not the sole purpose of every business. I have never once said that companies do not exist to make money, and if I did, it was simply poor phrasing borne out of the fact that I had no clue this discussion was going to get so preposterously technical. But they do not inherently only exist for that purpose. Again, do you disagree that the purpose of Double Fine (just as a single example) is to create video games and provide a place to work where people can create a particular type of video game?

Companies want to do a lot of things, but making money is not the only one, and in some cases it is not even the primary one--in many cases, making money is simply the means to an end. That's not to say it CAN'T be the only reason; my entire point here is that not every business is the same.

Well this part of our conversation is not actually directly related to making video games... You accused me of being "so jaded" as to the nature of companies in general, so I gave you some examples. Kind of sucks you ignored them :P

So you believe I'm unaware that business can act in unethical ways, or something? I don't know what you're trying to prove here. Yes, banks love money. Great. Good job. My argument is not that all business are altruistic, or that most are. In fact I still don't know why we're having such a far-reaching discussion, it's ridiculous. I'm saying that different companies exist for an enormous variety of reasons.

"Non-profit businesses" is an oxymoron, I think you mean charities. I wouldn't consider "vanity companies" -- whatever the hell they are -- to be businesses either. The only exception would be a state-subsidised businesses (like my country's National Health Service), but they're obviously very different to a normal company.

A charity is one type of nonprofit organization. There are also trade organizations, nonprofit companies that exist to promote the arts, and so on. They can produce products that they sell. A nonprofit organization still needs to bring in revenues, pay salaries, have a business plan, and so on. They have CEOs and CFOs and all the rest. You may consider it an oxymoron but they are legal entities that exist just as for-profit companies do, they just have different aims.

Furthermore, there are for-profit companies where profit is not the primary goal, usually ones centered around distributing art: Musicians who run companies and are happy just to make enough to pay the bills and put records out, independent comic book publishers who may make some degree of profit but who exist first and foremost to help distribute the work of artists who would not otherwise have an easy time securing distribution, etc.

There are many companies that, to satisfy their owners, only need to make enough money to keep the lights on. That's not to say, in those cases, that those same people wouldn't love to also be making more money than that--but that does not need to be their primary goal.

You also never responded to this:

Why are they running their business that way rather than a different way? Is that the only way to run a network? Are there not people at that network who see some intangible value in attempting to make a successful network that can make money operating in that fashion, rather than operating in a different fashion? Do you (personally) care about nothing but money? At your job, do you care about nothing but money and nothing else? At what point does somebody go through this transformation that the only thing that matters is money? Is it a one-step process? How many steps is it? How high up at the company do you have to be before it happens?

I am genuinely curious about this. I don't know when that switch happens. Is it just when you run the company, as you do? Is that when you turn into the single-minded money robot? For that matter, a company's actual actions in the real world are not purely dictated by its owner. And is it inconceivable to you that somebody who runs a business might decline to do something that would, in all probability, make more money for the company, if that action would

I absolutely do think that things like that can help, definitely. Why wouldn't I? I'm not sure why you think Molyneux has had an "amazing number" of failures, though. I can only name one: The Movies. I suppose that is amazing, in it's own way...? :erm:

As far as I'm aware, there were several failures in a row with The Movies, Black & White 2, and their respective expansions. I also have a strong suspicion that the Black & White series in general, including the first one, cost a vast amount of money over the years (including long development times, canceled versions, and so on) that were unlikely to have been all that profitable in the end, particularly since the second game did make so little a splash. That could be more significant in my memory than in reality at this point, however.

I fucking hate homogenised games, TV, movies, whatever. Please don't think I'm advocating that... but I also don't think that's what Molyneux was advocating either -- in fact I think he was saying the same thing as you! Essentially: "Just convince the investors and try and make something successful so you can keep making games".

That's not at all how I read his quotes. It could be that's what he meant. If what he's saying is "try to make something successful" that's fairly obvious and meaningless and not helpful or interesting to anybody. It's the overall picture he paints that I find very off-putting.

Absolutely, no arguments here. But as I've said, I don't think that Molyneux was talking about removing the "creative risk", just the financial one for the investors. He used an extremely "creatively risky" TV show (Dexter) as an example of this...

Creative risk and financial risk are basically the same as far as his statements go, to me. He's saying Dexter wasn't creatively risky, because they did all the research to make sure that concept was a safe one, and so on. His statements still to me suggest a ridiculous focus-tested creative world where, as he says, creative people don't actually go off and create.

Are you kidding me?! I fucking LOVE Terry Gilliam. FYI when he's editing his movies he pieces together a scene or two and then grabs anyone he can to watch it. He then gauges their reaction and re-edits/moves on accordingly. He also uses the feedback from test screenings -- but he hates the idea that such feedback might be used by someone else to impose their restrictions on a film. He's also said that he needs his producers to tell him "we can't do this".

Yeah, and pretty much all of my favorite game companies do incredibly heavy playtesting. That's very different to focus testing, and it's also driven by the creators.

I HATE the fact that the movie industry has become SO risk-adverse at the moment that they're only producing blockbuster, homogenised garbage at the moment. As Gilliam said: The current system has killed off medium-sized movies, and I certainly hope that changes soon! (I think we need a series of blockbuster sized flops -- that would be awesome!)

Also, FWIW, Gilliam has to go through the same process as Molyneux when he wants to make a film: He has to present his artistic vision in a way that those who will fund it, will want to fund it.

Well that's not entirely true since Gilliam essentially has to start from scratch each time knocking on doors so to speak, whereas Molyneux has a full-time job at an actual publisher that funds and distributes games itself. But yes I basically know what you mean in that both of them need to convince somebody, and obviously yes I'm aware that things need to get greenlit to be funded. But there's a difference between "de-risking" an idea, and communicating your own true idea in a compelling way.

Yeah, I think you kind of went of the rails a bit with that one :-/ ;P

Man, some people get all the luck. Kingz gets a one-sentence response, I get increasingly massive point-by-point ones that I somehow can't bring myself to stop responding to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This debate makes me schizophrenic and thus is tiring to follow : I love Kingzjester's and Chris' opinion, and still, when I read Thunderpeel stuff, it does seem naive; but then again, I'm only 25, 2 years making games professionally, no loan to pay, no family to feed yet, so I feel just dumb, retarded and lazy to consider game making under the lens of money making issue. That's definitely not why I got into making games, so why should I care?

... But I can see that I maybe should, if I want to keep on earning a living by doing stuff I love. So, ArrggargagAagrgagr:(

Anyway, for anyone who had to experience game making business with investors first hand, are they really like what we're painting them out?

Are they, in their vast majority, people who are there to make money as in : they could be investing in toothpaste for all they cared, but since video games are successfull, that's where they money go?

Is it the same for movie ? I've think I've heard that despite Gilliam's trouble with box office he always gets backing from the same handful of European investors on each of his project ... is there any similar investors in games ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This debate makes me schizophrenic and thus is tiring to follow : I love Kingzjester's and Chris' opinion, and still, when I read Thunderpeel stuff, it does seem naive;

The reality is that humans span an incredibly broad spectrum of opinions, actions, ethics, and goals, and companies are nothing but collections of humans. Companies too span an incredibly wide spectrum.

but then again, I'm only 25, 2 years making games professionally, no loan to pay, no family to feed yet, so I feel just dumb, retarded and lazy to consider game making under the lens of money making issue. That's definitely not why I got into making games, so why should I care?

... But I can see that I maybe should, if I want to keep on earning a living by doing stuff I love. So, ArrggargagAagrgagr:(

Anyway, for anyone who had to experience game making business with investors first hand, are they really like what we're painting them out?

Are they, in their vast majority, people who are there to make money as in : they could be investing in toothpaste for all they cared, but since video games are successfull, that's where they money go?

No. In the case of publishers, often yes. Activision CEO Bobby Kotick basically has a disdain for games and (I suspect) gamers. But as far as developers go, no. There's no point. Video game development is not at all lucrative or secure compared to other types of software development. It would make no sense to just be in it for the money.

Is it the same for movie ? I've think I've heard that despite Gilliam's trouble with box office he always gets backing from the same handful of European investors on each of his project ... is there any similar investors in games ?

Not really. Video game funding is still a really poorly-understood science. That kind of direct investment is pretty uncommon. There is often VC funding for independent developers, but even that is relatively uncommon, and most games are publisher-funded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. In the case of publishers, often yes. Activision CEO Bobby Kotick basically has a disdain for games and (I suspect) gamers. But as far as developers go, no. There's no point. Video game development is not at all lucrative or secure compared to other types of software development. It would make no sense to just be in it for the money.

Well, I was only talking about people who put money in games while not being a developer ... so if I got what you said, it's a pretty bleak landscape : nobody awards money based on the belief that they can be proud of what comes out of it. Depressing.

If I was completely dishonest I could say I don't understand why games don't get funding from people who invests in Gilliams' movies or well known author films ... but the game productions that would need that kind of investment are nowhere near having the kind of - for lack of more fitting words - cultural significance or artistic boldness of these.

I mean, I guess the financiers of those are either compelled by the artistic view of the author or the statement made by the final piece; and I don't see a lot of mainstream games carrying those forward. I know, I know, Grim Fandango, Braid, The Path, Passage or whichever awesome game I've not been exposed to, blablabla; but for a reason I can't pinpoint, they don't seem they have the same potential society resonance that movies do. Who's still talking about The Path, 6 months after its release?

EDIT : video games are awesome, they change the world as we know it and are alos a good way to have a great time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Making money is a purpose of a business. It is not the sole purpose of every business. Companies want to do a lot of things, but making money is not the only one, and in some cases it is not even the primary one--in many cases, making money is simply the means to an end. That's not to say it CAN'T be the only reason; my entire point here is that not every business is the same.

Furthermore, there are for-profit companies where profit is not the primary goal, usually ones centered around distributing art: Musicians who run companies and are happy just to make enough to pay the bills and put records out, independent comic book publishers who may make some degree of profit but who exist first and foremost to help distribute the work of artists who would not otherwise have an easy time securing distribution, etc.

There are many companies that, to satisfy their owners, only need to make enough money to keep the lights on. That's not to say, in those cases, that those same people wouldn't love to also be making more money than that--but that does not need to be their primary goal.

So, let me run your theories through my reality-o-meter: Independent comic book company (let's say Top Shelf Comix, run by the lovely Chris Staros). Chris decides to quit his job and run his own company with his friend. They're THE most ethically minded, "for the sake of art", generally cool people you'd ever like to meet. I send them a comic I want them to release and amazingly Chris loves it and wants to see it in print. He, personally, is driven by a love of comics, not money.

Now, he does some projections and, based on my (lack-of) fame, his experience, market factors, etc, he discovers that if they print over 1000 copies of my comic they're unlikely to make their money back.

What should he do? He LOVES comics. He LOVES art. He thinks everyone should be able to read my comic and is behind it 100%. He's not "unethical" or "evil" or anything. Should he print 2000 copies because that's what he believes in?

Let's say he does: He spends $5000 dollars printing and distributing 2000 copies. (Each issue cost $2.50 to print, package and distribute.) He sells them for $3 dollars each (making a tiny .50c profit on every copy), but he only sells 1000 (as he predicted).

He's just LOST $2,000. Basically, if my comic hadn't come along, he could have just flushed $2,000 down the toilet and gotten the same result... Of course, at least he got to publish a comic he really believed in.

But if he did that for every comic then his company would soon go bankrupt. So making money, even for this ultimately ethical, uber-nice person, HAS to be his PRIMARY concern. Even if he's just breaking even and making enough to live on, financial considerations still have to be the MOST important aspect to making a business decision, otherwise, over a long enough period, he WILL go out of business.

You also never responded to this:

Do you (personally) care about nothing but money? At your job, do you care about nothing but money and nothing else? At what point does somebody go through this transformation that the only thing that matters is money? Is it a one-step process? How many steps is it? How high up at the company do you have to be before it happens? I am genuinely curious about this. I don't know when that switch happens. Is it just when you run the company, as you do? Is that when you turn into the single-minded money robot?

Let's not make this personal, shall we. I think I've addressed this issue above. To answer your question, I, personally, do not really care about money... I'm certainly not driven by it. I live a very chaste lifestyle and, like most people, would only like money in order to make my life easier.

The decisions made by the company directors are where your talk of ethics come into play. The focus of any company is to make money, even if it's just to sustain itself, but the ENDS to which a company goes to do this is dictated by the greed of the people who run it: Should we run a legitimate enterprise based on our own principals? Should we try to take care of our customers, staff and environment? Or should we smuggle prostitutes out of Asia?

As far as I'm aware, there were several failures in a row with The Movies, Black & White 2, and their respective expansions. I also have a strong suspicion that the Black & White series in general, including the first one, cost a vast amount of money over the years (including long development times, canceled versions, and so on) that were unlikely to have been all that profitable in the end, particularly since the second game did make so little a splash. That could be more significant in my memory than in reality at this point, however.

Hmmm, that truly is an amazing string of failures. I guess there's no definitive source to go for sales figures, but I'm pretty sure Black & White sold well enough for somebody to think it would be worth making a sequel.

That's not at all how I read his quotes. It could be that's what he meant. If what he's saying is "try to make something successful" that's fairly obvious and meaningless and not helpful or interesting to anybody. It's the overall picture he paints that I find very off-putting.

Creative risk and financial risk are basically the same as far as his statements go, to me. He's saying Dexter wasn't creatively risky, because they did all the research to make sure that concept was a safe one, and so on. His statements still to me suggest a ridiculous focus-tested creative world where, as he says, creative people don't actually go off and create.

I guess this is where we'll just have to disagree. I see "creatively risky" and "financially risky" as two very separate things, even in Molyneux's speech.

Well that's not entirely true since Gilliam essentially has to start from scratch each time knocking on doors so to speak, whereas Molyneux has a full-time job at an actual publisher that funds and distributes games itself.

I've no idea what Molyneux's deal with Microsoft is... He used to have to start from scratch each time, before he sold Lionhead to MS in 2006, at least. God knows how it works now, though. I wonder if Lionhead are free to pursue other distribution channels if MS doesn't like a game they want to make? Hmmm. It must suck if they can't do that (and I can't imagine MS would let them :-/ ).

But there's a difference between "de-risking" an idea, and communicating your own true idea in a compelling way.

I think Molyneux's point was that it was just easier to de-risk the idea from a financial point of view, rather than trying to capture the imaginations of money-men (do they even have an imagination to capture?). I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Edited by ThunderPeel2001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I was completely dishonest I could say I don't understand why games don't get funding from people who invests in Gilliams' movies or well known author films ... but the game productions that would need that kind of investment are nowhere near having the kind of - for lack of more fitting words - cultural significance or artistic boldness of these.

I mean, I guess the financiers of those are either compelled by the artistic view of the author or the statement made by the final piece.

Then you would guess wrong! Just go and read "Battle for Brazil" or "Losing the Light: The Munchaussen Saga" (which is what I'm reading now), or watch The Hamster Factor or Lost in La Mancha. The financiers work for a company... If they make movies that lose money, they lose their jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then you would guess wrong! Just go and read "Battle for Brazil" or "Losing the Light: The Munchaussen Saga" (which is what I'm reading now), or watch The Hamster Factor or Lost in La Mancha. The financiers work for a company... If they make movies that lose money, they lose their jobs.

I've watch all the documentaries your mention but what you say here doesn't quite match up : if the companies only cared about money then why, given Gilliam's record of poor box office performances, his tastes for expensive sets, the troubles he gives in the editing room - would they bet their money on him rather than, say, a straight or romantic comedy, which are far safer bets. And it's not like any of Gilliam's movie has had the 10x profit ratio of surprise hits Pulp Fiction, Good Will Hunting and Blair Witch.

The only rationale is that they are attracted by the vision or the project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, let me run your theories through my reality-o-meter: Independent comic book company (let's say Top Shelf Comix, run by the lovely Chris Staros). Chris decides to quit his job and run his own company with his friend. They're THE most ethically minded, "for the sake of art", generally cool people you'd ever like to meet. I send them a comic I want them to release and amazingly Chris loves it and wants to see it in print. He, personally, is driven by a love of comics, not money.

Now, he does some projections and, based on my (lack-of) fame, his experience, market factors, etc, he discovers that if they print over 1000 copies of my comic they're unlikely to make their money back.

What should he do? He LOVES comics. He LOVES art. He thinks everyone should be able to read my comic and is behind it 100%. He's not "unethical" or "evil" or anything. Should he print 2000 copies because that's what he believes in?

Let's say he does: He spends $5000 dollars printing and distributing 2000 copies. (Each issue cost $2.50 to print, package and distribute.) He sells them for $3 dollars each (making a tiny .50c profit on every copy), but he only sells 1000 (as he predicted).

He's just LOST $2,000. Basically, if my comic hadn't come along, he could have just flushed $2,000 down the toilet and gotten the same result... Of course, at least he got to publish a comic he really believed in.

But if he did that for every comic then his company would soon go bankrupt. So making money, even for this ultimately ethical, uber-nice person, HAS to be his PRIMARY concern. Even if he's just breaking even and making enough to live on, financial considerations still have to be the MOST important aspect to making a business decision, otherwise, over a long enough period, he WILL go out of business.

This is ridiculous. No one is suggesting he should haemorrhage money for art. A better analogy to what Molyneux's saying would be going back to the artist and telling him to put more lesbian vampires in the comic because that is what Marvel, the umbrella owner of Top Shelf Comics (let's say for the sake of the scenario) thinks would sell well enough to warrant a 2000-copy run. What Remo is suggesting is that the other Chris should print enough copies to break even and get the comic out there. If this dude believes in this comic enough to bet the whole basket of eggs on it, so be it. But no one expects him to do this with every comic he does. Why would they? Why would he?

You seem to think that Remo is advocating some sort of business model that defies the laws of economics, for art and the greater good. This is a weird way to read what he's saying. He is saying that sometimes aiming to break even is a lofty enough a goal. Sometimes people make things to make things. Sometimes making art doesn't mean that your team will end up begging for bread crusts on the street once you're done. Maybe they decide to work for a fraction of what they're worth or for uncertain payout because they like what they're contributing to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've watch all (both) the documentaries you mention but what you say here doesn't quite match up : if the companies only cared about money then why, given Gilliam's record of poor box office performances, his tastes for expensive sets, the troubles he gives in the editing room - would they bet their money on him rather than, say, a straight or romantic comedy, which are far safer bets. And it's not like any of Gilliam's movie has had the 10x profit ratio of surprise hits Pulp Fiction, Good Will Hunting and Blair Witch.

The only rationale is that they are attracted by the vision or the project.

Terry Gilliam is only one aspect of "his" movies! An excellent script, having big stars, etc., even the theme of the movie could make you think it could make money. Likewise Gilliam is seldom to blame for poor box-office returns... Brazil and Munchaussen did well for the amount of money that was spent on promoting them (the average per-print return in 1989 was $9,000 -- Munchaussen made $66,000 per-print(!), but there were only 120 made by Columbia!). Likewise many people felt sympathy with Gilliam regarding the final cut of Brazil. The reason Munchassen went over-budget was because Thomas Schuley was an imbecile (not because of "expensive sets").

The Fisher King and 12 Monkeys both did very well.

Gilliam created a fantastic adaptation of Fear and Loathing, but nobody wanted to watch an adaptation of Fear and Loathing. The Weinsteins paid Gilliam to make The Brothers Grimm for them (Gilliam didn't even like the script -- god knows why he did it) and it didn't do great (not that it bombed). None of that is because of Gilliam... he did his job perfectly.

Are you actually trying to argue that, if you worked for Paramount and you greenlit three movies that all bombed, you wouldn't be out of the job?

Edited by ThunderPeel2001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is ridiculous. No one is suggesting he should haemorrhage money for art.

We weren't talking about Molyneux... We were discussing businesses in general (read what I quoted from Chris).

You seem to think that Remo is advocating some sort of business model that defies the laws of economics, for art and the greater good.

You haven't read what Chris has been saying, have you? Again, please look at what was quoted. There are two conversations going on here: One about the idea that a business can have a higher concern than money and another one about what Molyneux meant.

Edited by ThunderPeel2001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Terry Gilliam is only one aspect of his movies! An excellent script, having big stars, etc., even the theme of the movie could make you think it could make money.

Then explain to me why Gilliam was rejected as a director for Harry Potter? At the time, you couldn't find a bigger financial safety net for a movie than this brand and he had the support of Rowling, right ?

My opinion is that he was rejected because Warner is concerned about investment return and, as a money making machine, Terry Gilliam does not perform as well as Columbus.

Hence my point that people who did put money in his more recent movies cared far more about the final product than the possible financial profit it'd create.

If you worked for Paramount and you greenlit three movies that all bombed, you would be out of the job... Are you seriously saying that wouldn't be the case?

I haven't made any statement regarding this topic! And to answer you, if my mission statement was to make money yes, and if it was to shop for movies that would boost Paramont's artistic or street credibility and the movies were critically acclaimed; then no.

Anyway, my sole and unique point was to say that you're wrong when you state that money making is the major incentive in the mind of people investing in Gilliam's or Gaspard Noé's movies .

On that, I'm dropping the ball, I'm not pugnacious enough to debate a topic that's going in 1000 directions at once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hence my point that people who did put money in his more recent movies cared far more about the final product than the possible financial profit it'd create.

So, the Weinsteins paid him to direct The Brothers Grimm because they cared more about the final product than the money they'd make. The Weinsteins...!

Anyway, my sole and unique point was to say that you're wrong when you state that money making is the major incentive in the mind of people investing in Gilliam's or Gaspard Noé's movies.

That's absurd. I'm not saying that there aren't patrons of arts who will fund an artist they like, but to say that people who INVEST money in a movie are not looking for a RETURN...? Okaaay...

It's interesting to note that Gilliam has never invested his OWN money in a movie... (He actually fell out with Arnon Milchan when he discovered that some of his own money was being used to fund pre-production on Munchaussen.) With that in mind, do you really believe that there are people who say to him, "Go on, Mr. Gilliam, here's some money to make one of your wonderful movies... Oh, and don't worry about paying me back!".

Edit: I guess I was wrong, here they are!

Edited by ThunderPeel2001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but to say that people who INVEST money in a movie are not looking for a RETURN...?

Rarg, I didn't mean they weren't looking for return, I meant that I think that the people putting money in Gilliam's movies certainly haven't the same requirement about investment return that the guys financing, say "Meet the Fockers" have. And that between a pedestrian movie that's going to make a good bit of money and a creative movie that's going to break a little more than even, I'll bet they'd chose the latter.

Makes you wonder why Gilliam has never invested his OWN money in a movie, doesn't it?

But he did put his money in The Piano Tuner Of Earthquake , didn't he ?

About Gilliam's involvement with the Potter franchise, the story is all over the place on the Internet and I remember quote from the New Yorkers, but I'm still looking for a good initial source (not wikipedia or imdb, that do mention it), so disregard this for the time being. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the Potter thing is weird. I'm sure I read quote from Warners saying "Gilliam was never actually considered for Potter"... but then I couldn't find it. Then I found a quote from Gilliam talking about after the meeting... So I think you were right afterall -- he was considered!

Still, they obviously took him quite seriously as director... they did have a meeting with him.

And that between a pedestrian movie that's going to make a good bit of money and a creative movie that's going to break a little more than even, I'll bet they'd chose the latter.

I doubt they'd be given the opportunity to invest in movies like "Meet the Fockers" (studio film) and, if they were, I'm sure they'd be asked for a LOT more money.

According to the documentary on the Tideland DVD, getting the money together for the movie was "agony".

But he did put his money in The Piano Tuner Of Earthquakes, didn't he ?

Nope. He only put his name on it/"executive produced" it. I found an interview where he said "Keith Griffiths got the money together from a variety of sources". (Linky)

Edited by ThunderPeel2001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We weren't talking about Molyneux... We were discussing businesses in general (read what I quoted from Chris).

You haven't read what Chris has been saying, have you? Again, please look at what was quoted. There are two conversations going on here: One about the idea that a business can have a higher concern than money and another one about what Molyneux meant.

Dude, I've addressed both. I'm saying your scenario is kinof crappy. The reason Top Shelf Comics exists is not getting a single individual independent comic book in front of 2000 people, it is getting as many such small independent comics in front of as many people as possible—funding permitting. Their business model is a constraint that Chris isn't choosing to ignore—but you seem to refuse to acknowledge that they could be doing what they're doing because they want these little comics to have a venue, rather than simply making money. If they make money, great, if they don't, too bad, they tried. They have to hedge their bets, but it would probably be a far easier existence for them from the business standpoint to make and sell superhero comics, rather than whatever niche crap they do. They stay solvent because that allows them to continue doing what they love, it is not that they see solvency as the only fucking goal.

I think there is some sort of fundamental truth about the nature of enterprise somewhere along the way that you're refusing to acknowledge... :erm:

In the abstract, why is it ok for a patron of the arts to give 20,000 dollars to some painter, but not reasonable for one to give 20,000,000 to Terry Gilliam? Because businesses don't work that way, is a really stupid reason. David Lynch, for example, funds all his shit from largely independent artsy fartsy channels. People who invest in his films don't expect to make mad money off them. They just want to see him making more films.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, let me run your theories through my reality-o-meter: Independent comic book company (let's say Top Shelf Comix, run by the lovely Chris Staros). Chris decides to quit his job and run his own company with his friend. They're THE most ethically minded, "for the sake of art", generally cool people you'd ever like to meet. I send them a comic I want them to release and amazingly Chris loves it and wants to see it in print. He, personally, is driven by a love of comics, not money.

Now, he does some projections and, based on my (lack-of) fame, his experience, market factors, etc, he discovers that if they print over 1000 copies of my comic they're unlikely to make their money back.

What should he do? He LOVES comics. He LOVES art. He thinks everyone should be able to read my comic and is behind it 100%. He's not "unethical" or "evil" or anything. Should he print 2000 copies because that's what he believes in?

Let's say he does: He spends $5000 dollars printing and distributing 2000 copies. (Each issue cost $2.50 to print, package and distribute.) He sells them for $3 dollars each (making a tiny .50c profit on every copy), but he only sells 1000 (as he predicted).

He's just LOST $2,000. Basically, if my comic hadn't come along, he could have just flushed $2,000 down the toilet and gotten the same result... Of course, at least he got to publish a comic he really believed in.

This hypothetical comic situation is silly. You are again thinking of everything as a short term investment. Hardly anyone's first 32 page comic is going to sell at all.

Usually what an independent comic publisher does is expects you to make a series that you will follow through on or to make more original work for them to publish so that they can start branding you as an artist. Either way leads to the notoriety of the artist and will have more buyers as each issue comes out (unless it REALLY sucks). Word of mouth and self advertisement is what independent artists live on.

You are also putting a time frame on when those 2000 issues need to be bought and aren't taking into factor where they will be sold. If Diamond is distributing your issues, you could have tons of comic stores order your stock and sell none of them, all of which covers your costs up front anyway, because then it becomes the comic stores bad investment. If you sell the 1000 issues directly, who says the other 1000 aren't going to be completely bought up in the oncoming years as the artist puts out more work, gains more fans, and becomes more in demand? Comics, especially independent ones, are in no way a "take the money and run" type business.

People tend to buy things they can rely on, including art, they are attracted to serials and artists who produce constant work. Someone with a strong back catalogue of varying quality will be more interesting than an artist who has made just one amazing comic. I always hate failed comic artists who run around upset because they made one 24 page mediocre comic and no one bought it and they quit. Well then that's their call to not give up and produce more work and get better. No one starts on top in comics.

The Weinsteins paid Gilliam to make The Brothers Grimm for them (Gilliam didn't even like the script -- god knows why he did it) and it didn't do great (not that it bombed). None of that is because of Gilliam... he did his job perfectly.

In the commentary for the film and in various interviews, Gilliam is not reluctant to say that he did the Brothers Grimm movie for the money, which is not necessarily a bad thing. He still probably would have had fun with it if he were not in a situation to battle with what the Weinstein's wanted as opposed to what he wanted. That's just him not knowing the Weinsteins before working with him.

A lot of directors tend to switch between movies that are commercial and will make a lot of money back to pet projects. They fund eachother. Pet projects help gain notoriety and commercial projects give moolah. It's a nice day when they do both.

That's where The Fisher King was born out of, as he allowed himself to take on someone else's script for the first time because he was so beaten down with working with the Hollywood machine. The Fisher King is one of his bests as well (or I would say).

Also, Gilliam said he did not like the script for Brothers Grimm, but he also said he liked the story, part of why he took on the project. You left that part out. He also did a director's rewrite of the script so it would suit his tastes, as director's often do, but could not get the writers credit, which is a whole different story. But that's why Gilliam and Tony Grisoni (his partner) are credited as "Dress Pattern Makers."

Edited by syntheticgerbil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.