Skip

"We're not going to make you crazy old man scientist incest freakshow."
May 5, 2012 8:17 PM   Subscribe

Rejected Pitches. Back to the Future. E.T. Looking Who's Talking. The Shining. A web series about clueless studio executives rejecting classic movie scripts.
posted by crossoverman (24 comments total) 8 users marked this as a favorite

 
Kubrick wouldn't have wasted a single breath replying to people like this. The clip does him a disservice by suggesting that he would've.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:28 PM on May 5, 2012 [2 favorites]


I personally am proud to live in a society where Look Who's Talking is considered a classic movie.
posted by item at 8:31 PM on May 5, 2012 [5 favorites]


Wait. Not proud - the other thing.
posted by item at 8:32 PM on May 5, 2012 [32 favorites]


These are fantastic.
posted by figurant at 8:48 PM on May 5, 2012


HA! These are funny, and not to take any of it too seriously, but the line "Here's Johnny!" was apparently not in the script, it was ad-libbed on set.
posted by hermitosis at 9:05 PM on May 5, 2012 [1 favorite]


These remind me of the studio meetings in The Big Picture, though not nearly as funny or clever. Not to mention, Robert Zemeckis didn't write Back to the Future (at least not alone) and Steven Spielberg didn't write E.T.

And yeah, Look Who's Talking? Seriously?
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 9:07 PM on May 5, 2012


The E.T. one and the Look Who's Talking videos seem eerily plausible. Like something Charlie Kaufman would have written for Adaptation.
posted by hermitosis at 9:11 PM on May 5, 2012


Wait. Not proud - the other thing.

Someone with a Metafilter account?
posted by rough ashlar at 9:16 PM on May 5, 2012




Er, can we reject the rejected pitches scripts? Because after the... the first one, they sort of become formulaic and predictable. I was hoping for one that breaks the template they've made but... nope.
posted by alex_skazat at 9:40 PM on May 5, 2012 [2 favorites]


The Look Who's Talking one is worth it for the line, "Have you ever tried getting a camera inside a vagina? Well, I have."
posted by crossoverman at 10:16 PM on May 5, 2012


I've learned to view capital "H" Hollywood as openly, virulently hostile to anything resembling quality, with great films being accidental things that happened to slip past Those In Control. Seriously, do a little research into pretty much any classic and you'll find someone of influence fighting hard to stop it from being made.

Brazil, Godfather, Taxi Driver, Lawrence of Arabia, Chinatown, Fight Club, Apocalypse Now, Easy Rider, Midnight Cowboy, and a whole bunch more -- it's a long list.
posted by philip-random at 10:50 PM on May 5, 2012 [2 favorites]


I got about ten seconds into the first one before my "Wait, these people weren't alive when these movies came out and by display don't have any point(s) of context" alarm started going off.

That's when I could appreciate that these skits might not work the way they were intended to, but still created a level of empathy from the people who have to pitch scripts to morons and boobs. Not funny funny, but funny uncomfortable.
posted by Graygorey at 11:18 PM on May 5, 2012


These were cute, but didn't Rachel Dratch play this character on Saturday Night Live?
posted by fatbird at 11:27 PM on May 5, 2012


the people who have to pitch scripts to morons and boobs

Pornographers?
posted by XhaustedProphet at 11:34 PM on May 5, 2012


I hate to defend the indefensible, but these scripts were not sure-fire successes.

For example, ET cost 10 million to make, but needed another 10 million in advertising. Wasn't that a record at the time? Yet Spielberg had just made Jaws, Close Encounters, and Raiders, so he there was no lack of awareness. Conclusion: he knew that the plot alone would not convince anyone.
posted by EnterTheStory at 12:22 AM on May 6, 2012


I thought the advertising budgets for most big-budget flicks equaled or exceeded the costs of making them. Am I wrong on this?
posted by maxwelton at 12:46 AM on May 6, 2012


I thought the advertising budgets for most big-budget flicks equaled or exceeded the costs of making them. Am I wrong on this?

These days, that is the case. But I think it's a relatively recent phenomenon - last ten or fifteen years, maybe? It certainly was unusual in the early 80s.
posted by crossoverman at 12:56 AM on May 6, 2012


These days, that is the case. But I think it's a relatively recent phenomenon - last ten or fifteen years, maybe? It certainly was unusual in the early 80s.

My understanding of modern film marketing is that Batman was the point that the wave broke. I was already a twenty-something film geek when it came out, and I remember it was doing things in marketing that were pretty much unheard if before -- movie posters with no credits and no title, for example. Somewhere I think I still have a teaser poster for it, with an ultra-close-up of the bat symbol (so much that much of it is not visible on the poster) and the tiny words "June 23" beneath it. That would be unremarkable now, but unheard of in 1989.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 6:17 AM on May 6, 2012 [1 favorite]


This one, in fact.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 6:29 AM on May 6, 2012 [1 favorite]


The main girl in these videos is really funny.
posted by Senator at 7:37 AM on May 6, 2012


I enjoyed these.
posted by Sys Rq at 12:16 PM on May 6, 2012


Back To The Future is probably a bad choice for this, since it started out as something much darker and more absurd and still wound up being an extremely well-loved movie, either in spite of or because of executive meddling.
posted by Toby Dammit X at 12:47 PM on May 6, 2012 [2 favorites]


My understanding of modern film marketing is that Batman was the point that the wave broke.

Ah, yes, that marketing campaign was HUGE. It was certainly the first I remember being anticipated for so long before it hit cinemas. (Of course, back then worldwide releases were rare... and Australia had to wait months longer for the film to be released.)

It's amazing looking at the numbers to think the production budget of Batman was $35 million dollars. That's a small film these days.
posted by crossoverman at 11:13 PM on May 6, 2012


« Older Advertising Jingle Earworm Transmission Begins Now   |   Algebraic! Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post