# Project Greenlight Season 4 spoilers for all aired episodes



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

Well they seemed to have hired the guy least interested in the job. Strange.

I half expected Effie to quit before the episode ended.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I'm definitely glad this show is back. It's a shame the other producer guy isn't there, I thought he was one of the very entertaining parts.

I even liked the first and second movies.. The third was horrible (but the Greenlight season about it was good), but I guess it's what made one of the actors well known enough to get on "30 Rock".


----------



## Jim_TV (Mar 4, 2006)

I loved this series back when it first aired on HBO & Bravo years ago and am so glad to see it brought back. I thought it was pretty amazing that they hired the director who had the least enthusiasm for the script and is going to be the most problematic to work with. Reminds me of the third season of the original series where they hired that director to direct the horror movie _Feast_ and he was a total pain in the ass with unreasonable demands the whole time.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

they hired talent, with the idea that the producers would help keep his focus on track - this should work out well (or at least be entertaining!).

hbo on demand has about 20 of the submitted videos available, their only about 2-3min each.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

zordude said:


> Well they seemed to have hired the guy least interested in the job. Strange.





NorthAlabama said:


> they hired talent, with the idea that the producers would help keep his focus on track - this should work out well (or at least be entertaining!)


Yeah. They keep doing that!

Being that it's reality TV they have a reason to go for conflict for the season. I keep having the feeling that there's a lot of off-camera background that we don't see: "HE'S the best filmmaker."

How about Pete Jones being a successful writer? When he won they were impressed at what a great _director_ he was, with the kid actors.

What was the third season Gallagher horror movie that MiraMax gave the full budget treatment to? I never noticed it being released.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

NorthAlabama said:


> hbo on demand has about 20 of the submitted videos available, their only about 2-3min each.


Awesome, thanks.. I was vaguely interested in seeing them, but likely not quite enough to watch them in a web browser..


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

zordude said:


> I half expected Effie to quit before the episode ended.


Matt Damon is getting a lot of flak for his comment about diversity.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

mattack said:


> I even liked the first and second movies.. The third was horrible (but the Greenlight season about it was good), but I guess it's what made one of the actors well known enough to get on "30 Rock".


Season three was _Feast_. They made two sequals!


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

zordude said:


> Well they seemed to have hired the guy least interested in the job. Strange.


Because it makes for more drama and a better TV show.
They'll likely make more money off this show than the movie itself.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

markb said:


> Season three was _Feast_. They made two sequals!


Feast was horrible.

This director is a d-bag.. and I never use that term.

They should have, MUCH SOONER, said "you do not get to film it."

He doesn't understand HE WON A FREAKING CONTEST, and should almost be kissing their feet.. ok, that's exaggerating. But he should be GRATEFUL, not complaining and fighting back at every turn.

(BTW, obviously people who watch know, but the "other writer" is the winner of season 1.)


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Pete Jones looks and acts like a twin of Kevin O'Connor of This Old House


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

mattack said:


> Feast was horrible.
> 
> This director is a d-bag.. and I never use that term.
> 
> ...


That's how Pete Jones was, too, but not as nasty.

Remember? Jones: "Over my dead body." 
AD: --Use another term.

"Pete Jones is the luckiest SOB ever and needs to appreciate that he should be grateful..."


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

This director guy is so intense. I laughed when they did the time lapse shots of them doing the rewrite and it didn't even look like he was moving when everyone else was. Then this guy is so friggin hung up on doing the movie on film. I am glad they finally took a hard line with that. I cracked up when that one lady at the digital studio said "get this boy a biscuit". 

I have worked with guys wound this tight before and it often doesn't end well. This director is going to either give himself a stroke or have a nervous breakdown. That was funny watching him crawl in his skin while all of those dogs were running all over the place at Pete Farrelly's house. Speaking of which I loved Farrelly's house. Where is that located, outside of LA?


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Effie, the producer is really good at her job with those, "Let's all have fun" meetings.


----------



## Squeak (May 12, 2000)

While he is coming off a little d-baggish, I don't necessarily blame the director for being as anal about getting the movie to be as close to his vision as he wants.

It will be his calling card for quite some time in the industry, and if ends up doing someone opposite of what he stands for, it could hurt him, and he would be better off not having done it at all.

My guess: they will cave and give him the extra money for film.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

mattack said:


> Feast was horrible.


Yes, but in spite of that, it's perhaps the most successful movie out of Project Greenlight to date.


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

Squeak said:


> My guess: they will cave and give him the extra money for film.


Good point. If they are still including that dialogue in the show about him using film this much, it is probably because they will cave.


----------



## Jim_TV (Mar 4, 2006)

DeDondeEs said:


> Good point. If they are still including that dialogue in the show about him using film this much, it is probably because they will cave.


It seemed from the previews that the film vs digital discussion is still ongoing in the next episode. I don't know if that means the director will get his way. I think it's just as possible that they'll show the executive producers or head of HBO finally putting their foot down on that extra expense, especially after they've compromised so much already. It will be interesting to see how it goes as they finish pre-production.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

Squeak said:


> While he is coming off a little d-baggish, I don't necessarily blame the director for being as anal about getting the movie to be as close to his vision as he wants.


I don't blame him either. In fact, I think Effie comes off as the one not really working with him. She annoys me. She got really offended toward the end of the episode when the director asked to see if they could cut 10% from the budget to shoot on film. Why?

She literally said she was offended and would never question him as a filmmaker, so he should not question her role as being a producer when she says they can't afford it. Did ya catch that? She kept calling him a _filmmaker_....then tells him he can't shoot on film.

And he's right. Shooting on film effects every single frame of the movie, and that might be his system that works for him, and he knows hands down. Everything he submitted and created was on film. And that's what led to the entries that made the judges think he's so talented. This might be his one and only shot. If I was an incredibly talented guitar player and won a contest to be in the Foo Fighters, and after using the same guitar my entire life they asked me to use a cheaper slightly different subpar guitar, I'd probably balk at it too. This is your one shot to get noticed so you want the best tools available.

All thats said, this entire series seems created to cause conflict, and feels about as real as Naked & Afraid. But then again I watch...


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

inaka said:


> She kept calling him a _filmmaker_....then tells him he can't shoot on film.


Get over it.. I'm at least as nitpicky as the next guy, but I'd say that's way more a reasonable use of a "wrong" term than someone saying they'll 'tape' a recording, even if they have a DVR... but people say that all the time.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

mattack said:


> Get over it.. I'm at least as nitpicky as the next guy, but I'd say that's way more a reasonable use of a "wrong" term than someone saying they'll 'tape' a recording, even if they have a DVR... but people say that all the time.


I think you need to calm down. I'm more than over it because I think this show is fake anyway, but entertaining. I just thought it was funny she kept calling him a filmmaker and telling him he couldn't actually shoot on film.

And I actually do side with the wierdo director. He should, and probably may end up shooting on film. Maybe Ben & Matt pony up the extra $300k, and look like good guys in the process.


----------



## Squeak (May 12, 2000)

inaka said:


> I think you need to calm down. I'm more than over it because I think this show is fake anyway, but entertaining. I just thought it was funny she kept calling him a filmmaker and telling him he couldn't actually shoot on film.
> 
> And I actually do side with the wierdo director. He should, and probably may end up shooting on film. *Maybe Ben & Matt pony up the extra $300k, and look like good guys in the process.*


If this was having a theatrical release, then I might agree (because there is potential upside of increased ticket sales). But because this is showing only on HBO -- and the correlation between a great movie and increased revenue is much harder to recoup -- I don't see Matt and Ben doing that. It will most likely have to come from HBO's coffers.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Jim_TV said:


> It seemed from the previews that the film vs digital discussion is still ongoing in the next episode. I don't know if that means the director will get his way. I think it's just as possible that they'll show the executive producers or head of HBO finally putting their foot down on that extra expense, especially after they've compromised so much already. It will be interesting to see how it goes as they finish pre-production.


The movie is a dark comedy with interior scenes in a mansion. It's not like it's The Godfather requiring low light scenes. 
Jason needs to suck it up and get to shooting. They have an impossible tight schedule that could go better if they can avoid the film processing time.


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

The average schmo probably wouldn't be able to distinguish true film vs digitally simulated film effects. Who will be the audience here? Anal purists or more average viewers? It's a ~comedy, not an art piece.


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

So is the extra $300k just for the purchasing of film and rental of equipment? 

I would also imagine shooting on film would add significant time to the project deadline due to the fact that you actually have to cut film to edit, as opposed to just using Final Cut. 

I agree that it's a comedy, that will be shown on HBO, not in theaters, so I really don't see film adding that much to the finished product.

Also this Jason Mann must come from money or something to be able to shoot all of these short films on actual film, and to have a pretty nice looking NYC apartment...


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

markp99 said:


> It's a ~comedy, not an art piece.


Disagree.

His shorts are very artistic, even though they are comedies.
Think Wes Anderson dark comedies. Highly artistic style to them.


----------



## Squeak (May 12, 2000)

DeDondeEs said:


> So is the extra $300k just for the purchasing of film and rental of equipment?
> 
> I would also imagine shooting on film would add significant time to the project deadline due to the fact that you actually have to cut film to edit, as opposed to just using Final Cut.


Almost all movies end up digital at some point -- and this one will absolutely because of being shown on HBO.

Because of that, shooting on film would be used to capture the image, and probably process it, but it would then be scanned in digitally and edited in AE or Avid, etc.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

DeDondeEs said:


> So is the extra $300k just for the purchasing of film and rental of equipment?
> 
> I would also imagine shooting on film would add significant time to the project deadline due to the fact that you actually have to cut film to edit, as opposed to just using Final Cut.
> ...


The money also goes for all of the processing and transport for the film.

They can edit film digitally, believe it or not.

I think it was Marty Scorcese who said that when his editor worked they would always lose a few frames at every splice. She was so good that the loss was minimal.


----------



## xuxa (Oct 8, 2001)

On Jason's Facebook page you get the answer on the shooting on film issue



Spoiler



no surprise, they are shooting on film. https://www.facebook.com/JasonMannOfficial


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

MikeAndrews said:


> The money also goes for all of the processing and transport for the film.


Doesn't every film copy of a movie end up costing some ridiculous amount? many thousands of dollars at least? (I have a figure about 10x that in my head, but I'm probably wrong.)


----------



## Squeak (May 12, 2000)

Efie is F'ied 

Context is always important, but that argument looked like she was not handling it appropriately and displacing her frustrations on someone who is just trying to help. Annoyed me to no end.


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

Agree. I've worked with her type. Drama all the time. Then feeling the need to remind she has worked on more than 17 features. 

However, the director is the real source of the drama. Who would ever want to work with this guy?


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

I told you guys. I called it earlier about Effie. I think the director is definitely difficult to please, but I don't think she's working with him (or the team) the way a producer should.

If her goal is to get him to shoot digital, then she should allow her ego to take a backseat as the Farrelly director was literally trying to get the director to see it that way as well. This time it would be from one filmmaker to another. Maybe the direcgtor would be more perceptive to an accomplished filmmaker telling him why digital is the way to go, instead of a producer who doesn't know actual film processing/developing, etc.

He's on her side, but her ego won't let her see that. It was the same way she approached the idea of shooting on film from the start. Nope. Not happening. Well, that guy she works with as the other producer _initially_ flipped his lid when they talked about going with the director's script, instead of the one approved for the contest. (He even said, "Are you f$#king kidding me?!") Then they watched his short, and after time to process it, they agreed that it was worth it. If he just let his ego get in the way like Effie, he would have said, "No. We've decided on the script and we're not changing it again. This is my job, I don't tell you how to do your job, blah, blah, blah..." That's NOT how you produce anything.


----------



## Squeak (May 12, 2000)

markp99 said:


> Agree. I've worked with her type. Drama all the time. Then feeling the need to remind she has worked on *more than 17 features. *


Yeah. If you have worked on 17 features, then most people would recognize after awhile that you take all the help you can get from whenever, and let your own actions speak for themselves (as opposed to reminding people how many you have done).

Poor leadership on her part.


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

Marc Joubert looks like he may not survive this show. He is completely stressed and gunshy, not wanting to ruffle feathers, but balance Effie, Jason and Peter simultaneously.

I think he needs to find a new industry.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Squeak said:


> Efie is F'ied
> 
> Context is always important, but that argument looked like she was not handling it appropriately and displacing her frustrations on someone who is just trying to help. Annoyed me to no end.




markp99 said:


> Agree. I've worked with her type. Drama all the time. Then feeling the need to remind she has worked on more than 17 features.



effie must have been too stressed to think clearly, her interaction came across as extremely unprofessional, and if anyone needed help with this director, it's her. this call should have been welcomed and the mentoring embraced.

it was a big mistake for effie to pick this battle. for the health of the project, she needs to regroup, 180º, apologize, and fast.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

Anyone want to comment on how Effie's production crew was largely female and/or minorities? Seems disproportionately swayed in the direction of minorities, rather than who might be best to handle the job. 

It's very possible she has experience working closely with the people she selected from past projects, but it definitely does seem more like a statement, especially when she brought up weighing in minority candidates at a higher curve during the director selection process.


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

inaka said:


> Anyone want to comment on how Effie's production crew was largely female and/or minorities? Seems disproportionately swayed in the direction of minorities, rather than who might be best to handle the job.


Careful. Affirmative action police may be monitoring this thread.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

I don't know if you guys heard, but Effie has done 17 features.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I hope they don't fire her. I guess I like her more than you guys do. I think she NEEDS to be a crack the whip kind of person.. that's her JOB.

The director is SUCH A JERK. FIRE HIM. He should NOT get to use film, he should pick a freaking house to film in.

Farrelly seemed like a bit of a baby.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

inaka said:


> If her goal is to get him to shoot digital, then she should allow her ego to take a backseat as the Farrelly director was literally trying to get the director to see it that way as well.


Sort of, but in actuality, the director went OVER HER HEAD, to a higher up boss(*).. When it was her choice about what they could afford.

(*) OK, I admit, he's a mentor on this, and not literally in the management chain. But I think effectively, the contest winner tried to do an end run around Effie to get someone higher up to agree with him.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

As a mentor on this, I'm not sure what else he was supposed to do. I mean, I can understand if she got pissed if he was trying to get the newbie director to shoot on film a NOT digital, but it was the other way around. He was trying to make Effie's job easier by getting the director to _creatively_ understand that digital is just as good, from a guy who also thought that film was the only way to go before shooting Dumb and Dumber Too.

When Effie and the director went the first time to see the examples film vs. digital, Effie had no clue on certain film techniques. This mentor does. That's what he's supposed to do as a mentor, no? Creatively move the project along with the producer's best interest in mind and educate the kid along the way. He was doing both.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

I don't like Effie. Every location was fabulous. As if she just wants decisions made immediately even if they aren't good for the film. Yet she holds out for diversity for the sake of diversity. (Damon actually was right about that despite the social media furor.)

However, I completely understand her reaction. Despite Farrelly being titled a "mentor," his role seems more of a super manager and he treats it that way. He didn't clear the trip with the producers but instead just said "they were welcome to come along." That is condescending. Nor did he say that he assumed the director told her as he instructed him. As a mentor he should be realizing that the director blew protocol and say so and counsel him on that. Instead, he took on her job. THAT is what she was reacting to. Not the film versus digital issue. He is a mentor not the producer. 

She needs to apologize for her emotional reaction but he needs to apologize for overstepping his bounds.


----------



## xuxa (Oct 8, 2001)

The problem with the roles is Effie views the director as a "contest winner' and not as someone who is on the film in the usual director role. Also she was out of line with Peter, in hollywood culture the ones with more money and success always trumps those below. All that being said most of these conflicts are 'scripted' and amplified for the show. The film will never be cancelled as they have to make tv show so the usual threat (canceling the project) from HBO is not in play.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

xuxa said:


> All that being said most of these conflicts are 'scripted' and amplified for the show. The film will never be cancelled as they have to make tv show so the usual threat (canceling the project) from HBO is not in play.


Yup, absolutely.

Not to mention, this is a film that HBO will control. It will appear on HBO and possibly not even in theaters, so unlike a true theatrical release, the risk is very low since they're getting a tv show out of it that adds to their unique content vs. Netfflix, Amazon, etc. Their budget for the film is $3 million dollars. It sounds like a lot for you and me, but isn't single episode of Game of Thrones like $6 million to make? They're doing this for the series of making a tv show, and if the resulting film doesn't suck, then it's simplly a bonus.

All this talk of them not making deadlines or cancelling the project is like Junior and Senior fighting over deadlines every friggin week on American Chopper. In the end? It never even mattered if they missed a deadline.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Well, there is a schedule for airing PGL, followed closely or immediately by the finished film.



inaka said:


> When Effie and the director went the first time to see the examples film vs. digital, Effie had no clue on certain film techniques.


Unless he expects to use that particular film technique I read that scene as him being a bit of a jerk and a know-it-all.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

pdhenry said:


> Unless he expects to use that particular film technique I read that scene as him being a bit of a jerk and a know-it-all.


That entire scene _screamed_ heavy editing for fake drama.
I bet the actual event wasn't anything close to how they made it seem. There were many edit jumps in that part too.


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

pdhenry said:


> Unless he expects to use that particular film technique I read that scene as him being a bit of a jerk and a know-it-all.


I'm not sure anyone has used that technique except for Gale Tattersall, once or twice (funky technique that gives everything a halo).

That scene screamed to me "Let me throw around some knowledge I learned in film school".

Yeah, there's a point to be made in that there _are_ effects that are difficult or impossible to do digitally in post-process, but unless he's planning on doing them, it's a bit ******y the way he made his point. I strongly, strongly doubt he'll do anything like stripping the anti-halation layer....


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

xuxa said:


> The film will never be cancelled as they have to make tv show so the usual threat (canceling the project) from HBO is not in play.


Why can't they cancel the film? The show would then be about what went wrong. I think it's only a remote possibility, but still a possibility.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

I had to Google it:



> An anti-halation backing is a layer found in most photographic films. It is usually a coating on the back of the film base, but sometimes it is incorporated between the light-sensitive emulsion and the base. The light that passes through the emulsion is absorbed by the anti-halation layer. This prevents any light from being reflected back through the emulsion from the rear surface of the base, or from anything behind the film, and causing a halo-like effect around bright points or edges in the image. The anti-halation layer is rendered transparent or washed out (as in K-14 films) during processing of the film.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-halation_backing


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

xuxa said:


> All that being said most of these conflicts are 'scripted' and amplified for the show. The film will never be cancelled as they have to make tv show so the usual threat (canceling the project) from HBO is not in play.


If you mean via editing, I sort of agree with you. But how literally do you mean 'scripted' and 'amplified'?


----------



## Mike10 (Mar 1, 2006)

markb said:


> Why can't they cancel the film? The show would then be about what went wrong. I think it's only a remote possibility, but still a possibility.


they already filmed the movie


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

mattack said:


> Sort of, but in actuality, the director went OVER HER HEAD, to a higher up boss(*).. When it was her choice about what they could afford.
> 
> (*) OK, I admit, he's a mentor on this, and not literally in the management chain. But I think effectively, the contest winner tried to do an end run around Effie to get someone higher up to agree with him.


Misunderstandings all around.

UNKNOWINGLY, Farrelly came in after the matter was settled and discussed digital vs. film with Jason, and Jason had no problem acting like it hadn't been settled.

Then Effie hears from Farrelly that he'll meet with Jason to show him _how well digital works_ (which is what she did) and she went off because it was an old, settled problem to her.

They do need to talk again to fix the misunderstandings, and Farrelly shouldn't quit. They need to read the riot act to Jason like they sorta did to Pete Jones. Hey, "Mr. Artist" this is a $million business. Be extremely thankful that you got what you got so far - your script, your actor.

Still, John Malkovich, Albert Brooks? Wow.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

I think it was all ego with Effie. If Jason decides to shoot on digital only after meeting with Farrelly, then im her own self-absordbed way it looks like Effie can't get things done but Farrelly can. (Since Effie already took him to a place to show the advancements of digital vs./ film.)

So rather than go toward that common goal of getting Jason to shoot digital, she knocked down Farrelly because of her own ego. Did you guys know she's made 17 films in the past? It's ego and drama trumping getting things done and making a film, and Farrelly was right to bow out. They need Farrelly to be associated with the movie/show. He doesn't need them.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

inaka said:


> I think it was all ego with Effie. If Jason decides to shoot on digital only after meeting with Farrelly, then im her own self-absordbed way it looks like Effie can't get things done but Farrelly can. (Since Effie already took him to a place to show the advancements of digital vs./ film.)


So, you have never had anyone do your job and ignore you while doing it? This is a turf war. If he had gone to Effie and told him that he was going to try to convince him as a filmmaker himself, then she probably would "greenlight" that approach. No, he went behind her back when she is actually the boss.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

Mike10 said:


> they already filmed the movie


Yeah, well, ok, there's that. But at the time they were filming the show, I don't see why they couldn't have cancelled the movie, and then still aired the show.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

TonyD79 said:


> If he had gone to Effie and told him that he was going to try to convince him as a filmmaker himself, then she probably would "greenlight" that approach. No, he went behind her back when she is actually the boss.


Farrelly was doing his job as a mentor to the filmmaker. He _was_ telling Effie that he was going to try to convince Jason to shoot film...that's why he called her. If I'm hired as a hitting coach for the Mets, and if a player wants to work on his swing, I don't clear that with the manager and say "Is that ok if we go to the batting cages tomorrow??" That's my job.

This is all about Effie's ego. "I've made 17 features in the past, don't tell me what we're doing, blah blah etc. instead of, "Good, let Farrelly deal with Jason and get a reality check on how difficult Jason is to work with, since it doesn't matter and we're shooting digital anyway." Farrelly and Effie both want him to shoot digital. They're on the same page. But her ego isn't.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

inaka said:


> This is all about Effie's ego. "I've made 17 features in the past, don't tell me what we're doing, blah blah etc. instead of, "Good, let Farrelly deal with Jason and get a reality check on how difficult Jason is to work with, since it doesn't matter and we're shooting digital anyway." Farrelly and Effie both want him to shoot digital. They're on the same page. But her ego isn't.


this, her behavior with farrelly was no better than jason's attitude. she was offered an opportunity for help, and her pride only made matters worse.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Wow.. I'm not denying that she might be tough to work with in person, but I totally think she's *doing her job*, and from what we've seen, she's usually been right.

Also, I think the little scene of her tripping and *totally cracking up* (at herself) shows she's not humorless.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

After reading this thread I think I need to go back and watch last week's episode because I too was thinking that she's a bit of a hardass but essentially right from a cost and schedule point of view - and she owns cost and schedule.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

inaka said:


> Farrelly was doing his job as a mentor to the filmmaker. He was telling Effie that he was going to try to convince Jason to shoot film...that's why he called her. If I'm hired as a hitting coach for the Mets, and if a player wants to work on his swing, I don't clear that with the manager and say "Is that ok if we go to the batting cages tomorrow??" That's my job. This is all about Effie's ego. "I've made 17 features in the past, don't tell me what we're doing, blah blah etc. instead of, "Good, let Farrelly deal with Jason and get a reality check on how difficult Jason is to work with, since it doesn't matter and we're shooting digital anyway." Farrelly and Effie both want him to shoot digital. They're on the same page. But her ego isn't.


Your analogy does not work. The hitting coach is assigned a task and he works under the manager. And, yes, he clears strategy with the manager. And, yes, the hitting coach verifies the schedule and clears it with the manager if needed. He doesn't just run off with the player without checking of the player is free by way of the managers schedule.

Farrelly was taking over. He did not care about the niceties of working with someone who is running the job. It was about HIS ego. More likely it was about him used to being in charge.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

i don't think Effie would act this way if she didn't consider Jason just a "contest winner"


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Effie and her assistants have plenty of HUGE nearly impossible tasks to settle to keep to a schedule that wasn't changed when they had a delay and changed the entire game plan as what script they would shoot.

"Minor detail, now Effie. We need a mansion set..."

So when an issue that she thought was settled comes back, she went off. I would have, too. Jason is a spoiled punk for not telling Farrelly that the idea of film was out.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

TonyD79 said:


> Your analogy does not work. The hitting coach is assigned a task and he works under the manager. And, yes, he clears strategy with the manager. And, yes, the hitting coach verifies the schedule and clears it with the manager if needed. He doesn't just run off with the player without checking of the player is free by way of the managers schedule.
> 
> Farrelly was taking over. He did not care about the niceties of working with someone who is running the job. It was about HIS ego. More likely it was about him used to being in charge.


I think you're watching a different show than I am if you think Farrelly was taking over. It's his job to mentor Jason, and he was doing something that Effie wanted as well.

The entire Effie ego example is clear when they showed the clip of her hearing that Farrelly quit. She smiles and says "Awesome!" because her ego won. Not what's best for the film, not concerned about potential ramifications, but glee that she wins with her ego! Yipee she won an argument that didn't need to take place! A true producer would have handled that much better to get what she ultimately wanted AND have Farrelly understand her side. She did neither, but "won" the ego war.

Oh, and since we now know by tonight's episode they actually DO end up shooting on film, she clearly wasn't doing her job either. It *was* possible to shoot on film, she just didn't want to deal with it. There was never a discussion (that we know of) of Effie going to bat for Jason and appealing to Matt & Ben (or HBO) and saying, "Is there *any way* we can shoot on film for this project? He really wants to go in this direction" and then if there's a chance you not only have Jason on your side, but he'll trust you in the future on other decisions when you say you've exhausted all options. That's how you manage. But again, her ego said that was that it was a non-negotiable...even though it obviously was. She was dead wrong.

If only someone could have predicted this a few weeks ago...



inaka said:


> *And I actually do side with the wierdo director. He should, and probably may end up shooting on film. Maybe Ben & Matt pony up the extra $300k, and look like good guys in the process.*


Bingo.


----------



## Jim_TV (Mar 4, 2006)

I don't think Effie is doing her career any favors by appearing in the Project Greenlight show. Who wants to work with a producer with that big of an ego and who wants to play the race card ("I'm not going to be portrayed as the angry black chick".) and cares as much about diversity, protecting her turf and her reputation as with the project.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

effie even admitted this week that she's usually the one responsible for any drama, unbelievable. i guess it's good that she's honest about it?


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

Jim_TV said:


> Who wants to work with a producer with that big of an ego and who wants to play the race card ("I'm not going to be portrayed as the angry black chick".) and cares as much about diversity, protecting her turf and her reputation as with the project.


I almost choked when she pulled out the race card (as a shield?). That was shocking and totally unexpected. Really, she just said that?

Either she is the ultimate drama queen, or they're are really doing some exceptional editing to tell that story that way. 

Ben was so rational when he learned of Peter's departure. That was a little surprising.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

markp99 said:


> Ben was so rational when he learned of Peter's departure. That was a little surprising.


I think Ben is acutely aware of how this show can be a vehicle to enhance his public image, and he knows cameras are rolling.

I mean, recently the only stories we've heard about him off-camera haven't been good. Off the top of my head, I know about him cheating on his wife with the nanny, and the Sony hack revealed he influenced the PBS show "Finding Your Roots" to omit their discovery that his ancestor owned slaves.

It doesn't seem an accident that this show comes along at a time when he could use to positive PR. And Jason wants to shoot on film, we'll Ben will help pony up the $100k of his fee to make it happen. Again, image re-building.


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

inaka said:


> Again, image re-building.


Yes, this was my thought too. I had pegged him as the type not to stand for people like Effie for more than a millisecond.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Jim_TV said:


> I don't think Effie is doing her career any favors by appearing in the Project Greenlight show. Who wants to work with a producer with that big of an ego and who wants to play the race card ("I'm not going to be portrayed as the angry black chick".) and cares as much about diversity, protecting her turf and her reputation as with the project.





NorthAlabama said:


> effie even admitted this week that she's usually the one responsible for any drama, unbelievable. i guess it's good that she's honest about it?


I had the same thought. The Farrelly blow up could torpedo Effie's career, even if it was a misunderstanding. Who would hire her after seeing that? She has some 'splainin to do.

Seeing her career light dimming, she did back off with "I want to help you, Jason."

Jason is not taking the business seriously. Who drives with their chin resting on the back of their hand?

How about Ben offering $100,000 and Matt's $100,000 "out of our fee." How much would the fee be? Imagine if they get $250,000 each. That's a half mil out of the $3 million budget! 16% right there! For executive producers. No wonder they have so many EPs on shows. It's a way to get them another windfall of money.

The rest of the budget is the director, producers, actors, the crew of a hundred, the sets, the costs. Wow.

We can guess that the other actors like Bruce Davison _(and holy sh!, he gets a lot of work!)_ get something like $75,000-$150,000 and there are two or three other principal actors. Jonah Hill said the scale he got for "The Wolf of Wall Street" was $60,000. Bill Murray said, "I don't' get out of my driveway for $50,000"


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

Jim_TV said:


> Who wants to work with a producer with that big of an ego and who wants to play the race card ("I'm not going to be portrayed as the angry black chick".)


Actually, the quote was "I will not be painted as the angry black woman."

To which my partner's response was, "Well, you're the one swinging the paint brush around!"


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Effie's reputation as an effective producer or an emotional witch was probably developed and communicated to the studio community throughout her body of work. It won't be made or destroyed by Project Greenlight no latter what the viewing public decide from watching it.

I thought I heard it mentioned during the episode that HBO found $300K rather than have Ben & Matt contribute from their fees. But it was hard to hear that snippet.


----------



## Squeak (May 12, 2000)

MikeAndrews said:


> How about Ben offering $100,000 and Matt's $100,000 "out of our fee." How much would the fee be? Imagine if they get $250,000 each. That's a half mil out of the $3 million budget! 16% right there! For executive producers. No wonder they have so many EPs on shows. It's a way to get them another windfall of money.
> 
> The rest of the budget is the director, producers, actors, the crew of a hundred, the sets, the costs. Wow.


My guess is their fee is outside of the $3M -- partly for their EP'ing the TV show, as well as appearing in it.



pdhenry said:


> I thought I heard it mentioned during the episode that HBO found $300K rather than have Ben & Matt contribute from their fees. But it was hard to hear that snippet.


Yes, that is what they said.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

pdhenry said:


> ...I thought I heard it mentioned during the episode that HBO found $300K rather than have Ben & Matt contribute from their fees. But it was hard to hear that snippet.


The HBO guy said he wouldn't let Ben & Matt throw in for film, but if they thought it was that important HBO would cover the $300,000. Then he said Jason could have 3 more shooting days or film, and Jason, of course, stuck with film.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

inaka said:


> Oh, and since we now know by tonight's episode they actually DO end up shooting on film, she clearly wasn't doing her job either. It *was* possible to shoot on film, she just didn't want to deal with it. There was never a discussion (that we know of) of Effie going to bat for Jason and appealing to Matt & Ben (or HBO) and saying, "Is there *any way* we can shoot on film for this project? He really wants to go in this direction" and then if there's a chance


She doesn't have the power to randomly raise the budget. The ones ABOVE her do, and that's exactly what they did (and I think they said HBO explicitly did it themselves, and didn't take Ben (& Matt's) salaries).

I forget if it was Ben or Matt in last night's episode, but it was exactly mentioned what I was saying last week -- that the director was doing an end run around Effie.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

mattack said:


> She doesn't have the power to randomly raise the budget. The ones ABOVE her do, and that's exactly what they did (and I think they said HBO explicitly did it themselves, and didn't take Ben (& Matt's) salaries).
> 
> I forget if it was Ben or Matt in last night's episode, but it was exactly mentioned what I was saying last week -- that the director was doing an end run around Effie.


The Director doesn't have the power to raise the budget either to get the $$$ to shoot on film, but guess what, he talked to Ben and it got done. A producer can do the same thing. She didn't, and never really had any intention of going to bat for the director on this. From the get go it was an attitude of "Hey, I'm the producer and this is _*my*_ job kid, and there's no way we're shooting on film. None." But, but, but, there was, and they are. So how good is she at her job if a first time director who won a contest can get it done, but she can't?


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

I noticed that she looked defeated when she learned that HBO had found money for film. At some point it clearly became about having her way.

Of course, film has risks aside from upfront budget...


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

inaka said:


> The Director doesn't have the power to raise the budget either to get the $$$ to shoot on film, but guess what, he talked to Ben and it got done. A producer can do the same thing. She didn't, and never really had any intention of going to bat for the director on this. From the get go it was an attitude of "Hey, I'm the producer and this is my job kid, and there's no way we're shooting on film. None." But, but, but, there was, and they are. So how good is she at her job if a first time director who won a contest can get it done, but she can't?


Or maybe it was understood that they were doing a contest and that everything was limited. Nah, that couldn't be it at all.

And once again the director wheedles his way around everyone to get his way while claiming he is compromising. Now he did the same thing to the location woman. She was ticked too.

Farrelly ran away like a child. Maybe what you all saw was all the Hollywood people knowing that but can't say it because he is powerful.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

inaka said:


> So how good is she at her job if a first time director who won a contest can get it done, but she can't?


ok, I guess we'll never be able to convince each other.

I say her job is to get the movie done IN THE BUDGET THAT WAS GIVEN TO HER. (Sure, I realize there can be inevitable overruns later, and no, waiting until days before the start of production to pick a house & actors isn't inevitable..)

He did the equivalent of "talking to mommy and daddy" (or tattling) to get them to change the rules they had already told the babysitter to adhere to (to continue my analogy).


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

mattack said:


> ok, I guess we'll never be able to convince each other. I say her job is to get the movie done IN THE BUDGET THAT WAS GIVEN TO HER. (Sure, I realize there can be inevitable overruns later, and no, waiting until days before the start of production to pick a house & actors isn't inevitable..) He did the equivalent of "talking to mommy and daddy" (or tattling) to get them to change the rules they had already told the babysitter to adhere to (to continue my analogy).


Yup.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

inaka said:


> The Director doesn't have the power to raise the budget either to get the $$$ to shoot on film, but guess what, he talked to Ben and it got done. A producer can do the same thing. She didn't, and never really had any intention of going to bat for the director on this. From the get go it was an attitude of "Hey, I'm the producer and this is _*my*_ job kid, and there's no way we're shooting on film. None." But, but, but, there was, and they are. So how good is she at her job if a first time director who won a contest can get it done, but she can't?


i agree, jason wanted his vision realized, so he asked effie for help. she immediately shut him down, and instead offering assistance, she put her energy into trying to change his mind to see things her way. when talking him out of his vision didn't work, she simply banned the idea as a waste of time and money, blaming financing, even lashing out at other producers.

when jason ultimately found a way around her financing excuse, she didn't appear pleased at all (no matter what she might have said). during the entire negotiation she was condescending and patronizing...did you know she's produced 17 other projects?

why wouldn't jason put all his resources into seeing his vison through? the only problems i see are her not attempting to support him in the least, and his making an enemy of effie. she might be one to hold a grudge, and this could cause even bigger troubles for jason later on.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

As someone who has had to manage a budget, nothing would tick me off like one of my project elements asking me for a plus-up equal to 10% of my total budget for a non-essential whim on his part of the project. You'd have to cut every other element by 11% to cover it. Good producers work within budget and schedule.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

NorthAlabama said:


> i agree, jason wanted his vision realized, so he asked effie for help. she immediately shut him down, and instead offering assistance, she put her energy into trying to change his mind to see things her way. when talking him out of his vision didn't work, she simply banned the idea as a waste of time and money, blaming financing, even lashing out at other producers.
> 
> when jason ultimately found a way around her financing excuse, she didn't appear pleased at all (no matter what she might have said). during the entire negotiation she was condescending and patronizing...did you know she's produced 17 other projects?
> 
> why wouldn't jason put all his resources into seeing his vison through? the only problems i see are her not attempting to support him in the least, and his making an enemy of effie. she might be one to hold a grudge, and this could cause even bigger troubles for jason later on.


Exactly! :up:



pdhenry said:


> As someone who has had to manage a budget, nothing would tick me off like one of my project elements asking me for a plus-up equal to 10% of my total budget for a non-essential whim on his part of the project. You'd have to cut every other element by 11% to cover it. Good producers work within budget and schedule.


A director requesting to shoot on film is hardly "non-essential whim". He's a filmmaker who shoots on film. It's his film techniques that got him there in the first place. It's the overall look of the final film, it's comfort in how he will ultimately create. There might be extra time involved with him just getting up to speed with getting the film look he wants over digital, since he's never shot digitally and has to get the film effects in post.

Even Effie admitted she didn't understand the technical questions he asked at the lab when they were showing the differences between film/digital. Ben still shoots on film. Others like Farrelly originally shot on film and then switched. I'm not a film director, so I can't say definitely either way if it's non-essential, but I don't think you can either.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

pdhenry said:


> I noticed that she looked defeated when she learned that HBO had found money for film. At some point it clearly became about having her way.
> 
> Of course, film has risks aside from upfront budget...


There was a choice at that point to use film, or use get extra time to work on the movie. She knew what the director would choose film, which is the wrong choice in her opinion (and my opinion, too). So if her objective is to make the best possible movie, she is defeated.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

pdhenry said:


> As someone who has had to manage a budget, nothing would tick me off like one of my project elements asking me for a plus-up equal to 10% of my total budget for a non-essential whim on his part of the project. You'd have to cut every other element by 11% to cover it. Good producers work within budget and schedule.


artistic vision is only a non-essential whim to those without it. if making movies were only about staying within budget and schedule, the result would bring cheap, boring, unimaginative movies.

budgeting and scheduling are not her only responsibility, another important aspect of doing her job well to work with the team towards the goal, while not being dismissive of other's views by intentionally try to sabotage the director because you think you're right and know better.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

I guess my point is that she has to understand that that particular artistic vision is important for a comedy or she can't be expected to sacrifice other elements of the production to cover the increased cost, or worse, sacrifice her (in her view) reputation by failing to execute the production for the provided budget. Most of the senior executives (e.g. executive producers) on the team have a going-in assumption that digital is film's equal in quality with significant advantages in production cost & schedule. 

BUT, if she won't go after a budget increase (and she won't, for whom she considers to be a novice) he's not out of bounds for connecting with those who can approve the budget. It's not surprising that she wouldn't support it out of the gate.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

markb said:


> There was a choice at that point to use film, or use get extra time to work on the movie. She knew what the director would choose film, which is the wrong choice in her opinion (and my opinion, too). So if her objective is to make the best possible movie, she is defeated.


And that was a choice she created to give him. One option (the extra days) made her job (and maybe his) much easier, and one option made his artistic vision of shooting on film come true with no relief for her. Jason made the obvious correct choice as an artist and filmmaker.

Jason also wanted to shoot on the east coast in Connecticut too. She could have given him a choice between shooting film or using the extra $300k+ to shoot in Connecticut (or New Orleans for that matter for the tax breaks) for the exact location he wanted...but then those were two things that wouldn't make her job any easier. They might make the film better, and make the director happy, but it would be more work for her so that wasn't an option.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

inaka said:


> And that was a choice she created to give him. One option (the extra days) made her job (and maybe his) much easier, and one option made his artistic vision of shooting on film come true with no relief for her. Jason made the obvious correct choice as an artist and filmmaker.


HBO created the choice. And I don't think the director made the correct choice at all. Very few people would notice the difference that film would make, so it only has a minor impact on artistic integrity of the movie. It's got a major price tag, though. So the correct choice as an artist and filmmaker would be to spend the money where you get more bang for the buck.



> Jason also wanted to shoot on the east coast in Connecticut too. She could have given him a choice between shooting film or using the extra $300k+ to shoot in Connecticut (or New Orleans for that matter for the tax breaks) for the exact location he wanted...but then those were two things that wouldn't make her job any easier. They might make the film better, and make the director happy, but it would be more work for her so that wasn't an option.


I suspect that would have required extra per-production time, and thus was impossible given HBO's constraints.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

Pretty dull and uneventful episode.
Shocker, Jason is professional and making his days. On film no less. *yawn*

The whole "getting the signatures to shoot at night" seems like fake/edited manufactured reality tv drama, that might be much ado about nothing.


----------



## xuxa (Oct 8, 2001)

Here is the trailer for The Leisure Class = spoilerized as it might give away upcoming conflicts



Spoiler


----------



## Jim_TV (Mar 4, 2006)

inaka said:


> Pretty dull and uneventful episode.
> Shocker, Jason is professional and making his days. On film no less. *yawn*
> 
> The whole "getting the signatures to shoot at night" seems like fake/edited manufactured reality tv drama, that might be much ado about nothing.


I'm not sure why you would conclude that. In fact, L.A. County and the surrounding counties of the Greater LA area where a lot of movie and tv filming takes place, as well as other cities where a lot of tv and film production takes place have very precise rules about pulling permits (at significant cost) as well as hours of production allowed, noise levels, insurance requirements, OSHA standards and other regulations that must be adhered to under penalty of fines and even criminal liability.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

xuxa said:


> Here is the trailer for The Leisure Class = spoilerized as it might give away upcoming conflicts
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


That certainly doesn't make me want to watch the movie.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

Jim_TV said:


> I'm not sure why you would conclude that. In fact, L.A. County and the surrounding counties of the Greater LA area where a lot of movie and tv filming takes place, as well as other cities where a lot of tv and film production takes place have very precise rules about pulling permits (at significant cost) as well as hours of production allowed, noise levels, insurance requirements, OSHA standards and other regulations that must be adhered to under penalty of fines and even criminal liability.


I know. That doesn't really have anything to do it.

Just because what you said was true, doesn't mean that the drama wasn't completely manufactured and edited to make this signature problem much more difficult than it actually was. Especially with the cliffhanger at the end that the entire story will need to be rewritten to be filmed only during the day. Possible, just seemed like fake reality show cliffhanger stuff where we might see that they were able to get that last signature just in the nick of time, and we're back to shooting on schedule at night. Whew! Wow, dodged that bullet...or maybe there never was one, and it was simply edited to look that way? Again, we'll see.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Occam's razor suggests that settling on the shooting location a week before the start of production would significantly affect readiness to shoot, including obtaining necessary permits.


----------



## Jim_TV (Mar 4, 2006)

markb said:


> That certainly doesn't make me want to watch the movie.


I have always loved Project Greenlight the tv show, but I've never really cared about any of the movies that the series resulted in, other than maybe as a curiosity to see how the reality of production ended up in the finished edit.


----------



## Jim_TV (Mar 4, 2006)

inaka said:


> I know. That doesn't really have anything to do it.
> 
> Just because what you said was true, doesn't mean that the drama wasn't completely manufactured and edited to make this signature problem much more difficult than it actually was. Especially with the cliffhanger at the end that the entire story will need to be rewritten to be filmed only during the day. Possible, just seemed like fake reality show cliffhanger stuff where we might see that they were able to get that last signature just in the nick of time, and we're back to shooting on schedule at night. Whew! Wow, dodged that bullet...or maybe there never was one, and it was simply edited to look that way? Again, we'll see.


Of course it has something to do with it. A sane person doesn't just assume there's a conspiracy or intent to deceive in the absence of any evidence whatsoever when more common every day logical reasons make a lot more sense.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

Jim_TV said:


> Of course it has something to do with it. A sane person doesn't just assume there's a conspiracy or intent to deceive in the absence of any evidence whatsoever when more common every day logical reasons make a lot more sense.


You must be new to "reality" tv...


----------



## Jim_TV (Mar 4, 2006)

inaka said:


> You must be new to "reality" tv...


You must be new to film and tv production.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

Jim_TV said:


> You must be new to film and tv production.


We're watching a reality TV show. If you think we're watching the most logical and authentic means of producing a film, without any drama played up for the camera, you're misguided.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

inaka said:


> We're watching a reality TV show. If you think we're watching the most logical and authentic means of producing a film, without any drama played up for the camera, you're misguided.


Except if you have a real issue you don't have to play it up. You just use it. This is obviously a real issue as the timeline makes sense. Now, do you edit it so it gets repeated? Of course. But to assume it is fake is just making an assumption. We know that those do.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

TonyD79 said:


> But to assume it is fake is just making an assumption.


Of course it is an assumption. I never said it was fake. I said it definitely _seemed_ fake and manufactured drama through editing, and we'll see if it was much ado about nothing. Again, we will see.

That said, when it comes to "reality" tv, assuming everything you see is by default *real* is equally an assumption that is often untrue. It's entertainment, and often not really how it went down at all.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

inaka said:


> Of course it is an assumption. I never said it was fake. I said it definitely seemed fake and manufactured drama through editing, and we'll see if it was much ado about nothing. Again, we will see. That said, when it comes to "reality" tv, assuming everything you see is by default real is equally an assumption that is often untrue. It's entertainment, and often not really how it went down at all.


Fair enough. But this doesn't feel like manufactured drama. Too low key and too real.


----------



## Squeak (May 12, 2000)

I kept thinking that something looked "off" with the lighting in the previews we have seen of the movie, and now we know why.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

Ok, so it looks like I was dead wrong in my guess that they would be able to shoot at night. Seemed like fake drama to me, as a fake cliffhanger, but it turns out they really did need to shoot during the day/dusk. Bad assumption on my part.

Ok, as predicted, Effie is absolutely horrible at her job. She can't communicate without letting her ego get in the way of every conversation. But the diversity angle? Wow. It's tired and her constant push for this, especially in a film about an aristocratic/stuffy, elite, snobby white upper class family? Ooookay.

Now, I know I think everything is fake in reality TV, but this was the capper. She keeps complaining about how "there are no black people in the film." She first brought this up in the episode in relation to the guests at the wedding reception and how there "were no people of color as the guests." "Has anyone discussed how there are no people of color as guests??" Again, and again.

Well, the show *literally* cuts to the very next scene, and I had to pause it to snap a pic with my phone:










In that one scene alone, I see three people who definitely aren't white that are guests at the reception. So the entire "there are no people of color in the film" is complete b.s.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

inaka said:


> In that one scene alone, I see three people who definitely aren't white that are guests at the reception. So the entire "there are no people of color in the film" is complete b.s.


Or some of the extras were changed after her complaints.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

markb said:


> Or some of the extras were changed after her complaints.


Then why continue to say that "there are no black people in the film, and I'm not going to have the _only_ black person in the entire film be a servant" when it the shooting began for the scene with the driver who happened to be black?

They had already shot the wedding reception scene by then.

And she does know this is a movie about ultra rich snobby white people in an over-the-top lavish setting, right?


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

inaka said:


> Ok, as predicted, Effie is absolutely horrible at her job. She can't communicate without letting her ego get in the way of every conversation. But the diversity angle? Wow. It's tired and her constant push for this, especially in a film about an aristocratic/stuffy, elite, snobby white upper class family? Ooookay.
> 
> Now, I know I think everything is fake in reality TV, but this was the capper. She keeps complaining about how "there are no black people in the film." She first brought this up in the episode in relation to the guests at the wedding reception and how there "were no people of color as the guests." "Has anyone discussed how there are no people of color as guests??" Again, and again.


i agree with, understand, and empathize with effie's concerns. she said diversity had been taken into consideration, and had been implemented in all areas of hiring crew and staff. your picture shows there was at least scattered diversity in the wedding party (outside the film theme). now she decides to address casting concerns *during the filming of scenes*?

i can't see how someone would want to work with her after watching her behavior on the show. it's not that her concerns aren't valid or real, it's how and when she chooses to address those concerns. if only she had put the same effort into finding resources to use film, and securing the location sooner, with authorization for nighttime filming.

she has her own agenda, separate from the rest of the production team, and is willing to see it fulfilled at any cost, project and harmony be damned.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

inaka said:


> Then why continue to say that "there are no black people in the film, and I'm not going to have the _only_ black person in the entire film be a servant" when it the shooting began for the scene with the driver who happened to be black?
> 
> They had already shot the wedding reception scene by then.
> 
> And she does know this is a movie about ultra rich snobby white people in an over-the-top lavish setting, right?


People often don't speak the literal truth. I find it conceivable that she would say that there are no black people in the film, when there actually was one scene with a few black extras (in a scene with many white extras). In other words, it doesn't necessarily mean the show is fake. This could just be the way Effie actually is.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Based on what I understood about her responsibilities as (mumble mumble) producer (production cost and schedule ) I was surprised that she apparently has any authority over casting. 

And from what we were shown she clearly misinformed Jason about what they could do regarding the stunt shot.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

pdhenry said:


> And from what we were shown she clearly misinformed Jason about what they could do regarding the stunt shot.


It certainly seemed that way. The communication between those two is very bad. Effie starts to say something, Jason interrupts her repeatedly, and Effie abandons what she was going to say in order to argue with Jason.

I think what she was going to tell him in this case was: we can get close to doing the stunt your way, but here's how we're going to have to compromise. I think she was trying to put a positive spin on it the way she started the conversation, and then she never got around to the details.

It's her fault for not telling the director everything, but the director could mitigate this problem by asking the right questions.


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

I want to strangle Effie and Jason both! She absolutely wants to sabotage Jason. Jason needs to pick his battles. Of course all of this may simply be creative editing to build a little theatrical tension. 

One aspect of Effie drives me batty? Every sentence she speaks ends as a question? I heard this before with other people? Drive me batty with them too? Argh?


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

markb said:


> It's her fault for not telling the director everything, but the director could mitigate this problem by asking the right questions.


shouldn't this be where her experience compensates for his inexperience?



markp99 said:


> I want to strangle Effie and Jason both! She absolutely wants to sabotage Jason.


it's as if her goal has been to teach him a lesson and put him in his place, since the very start.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

NorthAlabama said:


> it's as if her goal has been to teach him a lesson and put him in his place, since the very start.


Exactly. I can't help but think that she thinks he's just another white privileged male kid who gets all the breaks, and won a contest no less (over some other females or constants of color) so she's going to give him a dose of reality to make his life more difficult and knock him down a few pegs.

She seems to enjoy when he doesn't get his way, not realizing that her personal win/satisfaction comes at the detriment of the project itself.

She's horrible at her job, and a terrible communicator.


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

markp99 said:


> One aspect of Effie drives me batty? Every sentence she speaks ends as a question? I heard this before with other people? Drive me batty with them too? Argh?


She's an "up-talker".

So I am not entirely familiar with the technology but are they concurrently shooting this movie on film and capturing it digitally? So if things aren't going along quick enough with the film, they can just ditch the film and work off the digital files?

It seems like when they show actual shots from the movie on the tv show they are just using digital footage, and when he went to that one studio to see if they could fix the pre and post sunset shots that was using digital footage, right?

The one thing I was thinking when Effie made the big deal about the chauffeur is that I hope that the actor who played the chauffeur got paid for his work for the day or was given another role and didn't get sent away making the poor guy miss out on getting a movie credit and some money.


----------



## Squeak (May 12, 2000)

DeDondeEs said:


> She's an "up-talker".
> 
> So I am not entirely familiar with the technology but are they concurrently shooting this movie on film and capturing it digitally? So if things aren't going along quick enough with the film, they can just ditch the film and work off the digital files?
> 
> ...


Anything you see that looks like it is being shown digital is because the film has been scanned in (telecine). That is how they look at the dailies.

Also, they will have a video assist that will capture at the same time as the film, so the director can see it on the monitors.

To answer your other question though: no, I do not thing they are also capturing this in digital as well (at least at the resolution you would want).


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

NorthAlabama said:


> shouldn't this be where her experience compensates for his inexperience?


Yes, I think so.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

markb said:


> It certainly seemed that way. The communication between those two is very bad. Effie starts to say something, Jason interrupts her repeatedly, and Effie abandons what she was going to say in order to argue with Jason.
> 
> I think what she was going to tell him in this case was: we can get close to doing the stunt your way, but here's how we're going to have to compromise. I think she was trying to put a positive spin on it the way she started the conversation, and then she never got around to the details.
> 
> It's her fault for not telling the director everything, but the director could mitigate this problem by asking the right questions.


I'm still on Effie's side.

She said, "I pulled off a miracle for you and found some money for the stunts." 
He hears, "The car rollover is ON"
That is NOT what she said.

Then he says she purposely delayed telling him until it was too late to set up the stunt. Bull! Jason was on that call where _HBO_ said the stunt budget was nil.

He said "Without consulting me. Effie made the decision to shoot in the daylight."

NO, A-H! She told you that they can't get permission to shoot at night. What the F do you you want her to do?

Jason needs to grow up.

If I was Effie I'd be walking. The other producers need to back her up. They were on those calls with Jason and know full well what conclusion Jason should have gotten through his thick skull.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

MikeAndrews said:


> I'm still on Effie's side.
> 
> She said, "I pulled off a miracle for you and found some money for the stunts."
> He hears, "The car rollover is ON"
> That is NOT what she said.


She said something along the lines of "...we can do the stunts like you wanted."


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Haven't read others' comments on the latest episode yet. (For the past two, I haven't been watching day of, and have been watching later either On Demand or on the HBO app on iOS).

I've mostly been defending Effie, but this is one of the first times where I think she was at least partially on the wrong side.. This is about the stunt segment. I do think the exact words and "what she meant" were inconsistent. That is, when she said something like "you can get what you want", which is what the director picked on later, even at the time I didn't get that as meaning he would get the car stunt EXACTLY as he had fully originally designed it, just that they wouldn't have to scale it back in the way that they were talking about. Yes, I admit, it's inconsistent, but I thought it could be read between the lines.

The director again doesn't know how to cooperate/give in AT ALL. I mean, he's forced to do a day to day-to-night change, but still fights every second.

Also, they were filming after 9 PM (to either 9:15 or 9:30, I forget). DID they get all of the neighbors' permits signed and that wasn't on screen, or did I forget it? Or maybe, because it was all on one property, they didn't need the permits? (Only for on-street filming?)

Now, as far as the "diversity" stuff. Jeez. Does she realize she caused a white guy to take a black guy's job!!! The height of irony!!! (No, I realize, they probably BOTH got paid, thus wasting more of the budget.)


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

DeDondeEs said:


> So I am not entirely familiar with the technology but are they concurrently shooting this movie on film and capturing it digitally? So if things aren't going along quick enough with the film, they can just ditch the film and work off the digital files?


No, I think they just meant that if it's not going quickly enough, they can do the REST on digital, and digitize (or possibly have to some reshoots?) the rest.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

pdhenry said:


> And from what we were shown she clearly misinformed Jason about what they could do regarding the stunt shot.


This is what I was trying to get at with my response. I don't really think it was misinformation, or at least not intentionally. I think she really meant "we can do much closer to what you originally planned", but it came out as/was interpreted as "we're going back to your exact stunt as originally planned".

I want to strangle them both too, but for me, the director far more. He doesn't just need to choose his battles, he needs to give in on SOMETHING.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

mattack said:


> Now, as far as the "diversity" stuff. Jeez. Does she realize she caused a white guy to take a black guy's job!!! The height of irony!!! (No, I realize, they probably BOTH got paid, thus wasting more of the budget.)


Pretty sure they just had the two switch roles.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

I'm sure there are hundreds of newspaper articles about this season but this one ran in my local daily today:

What 'Project Greenlight' reveals about moviemaking

tl;dr: The reporter takes Effie's side; PG is nothing like real indie movie production; Effie only got paid scale for her on-air appearance in addition to her pay as line producer and 2 points on the back end and is displeased.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

pdhenry said:


> I'm sure there are hundreds of newspaper articles about this season but this one ran in my local daily today:
> 
> What 'Project Greenlight' reveals about moviemaking
> 
> tl;dr: The reporter takes Effie's side; PG is nothing like real indie movie production; Effie only got paid scale for her on-air appearance in addition to her pay as line producer and 2 points on the back end and is displeased.


Paywalled.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

FWIW I went back and watched the conversation between Effie and Jason about finding the budget to do the car stunt:



> Effie: So good news. I see a path...
> 
> Jason: Uh-huh.
> 
> ...


Lots of places where this could have been edited to delete portions of the dialog or switch up the order to statements, but Effie seemed to telling Jason he could do the stunt as he'd envisioned although there would be production limitations on how extensively it could be filmed.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

robojerk said:


> Paywalled.


I got a signup overlay but was able to cancel through. Do you read lots of Chicago Tribune articles?

Try this link: http://www.ooyuz.com/geturl?aid=8796536


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

pdhenry said:


> I got a signup overlay but was able to cancel through. Do you read lots of Chicago Tribune articles?
> 
> Try this link: http://www.ooyuz.com/geturl?aid=8796536


I was not able to cancel through. But what works is to plug the URL into Google, and then visit the site from the google result. (This works for lot of paywalled site, since they don't want to reject google-referred traffic.)


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

mattack said:


> ...Now, as far as the "diversity" stuff. Jeez. Does she realize she caused a white guy to take a black guy's job!!! The height of irony!!! (No, I realize, they probably BOTH got paid, thus wasting more of the budget.)


Yeah, Effie is off there. What are the odds that on a rich white family's estate in the east, the only people of color would be employees (servants?) That's reality. ...Unless they happened to have a neighbor who worked for the NBA or NFL or NBC. Even then they wouldn't be socializing.

It looked like both actors were extras. I had no idea that you could be a background extra, then be given a (non-speaking) role.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

You can see why character actors like Bruce Davidson get so much work:

"Jason doesn't look like first-time director. I can see what he's doing. Sometimes, I wanted to scream 'TELL ME WHAT YOU WANT!' but I can see that he's getting options to use in editing."

A team player with an attitude like that, that goes along and makes the work flow easily, gets a lot of cred and future work.

Prima Donnas get to sit at home.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

pdhenry said:


> FWIW I went back and watched the conversation between Effie and Jason about finding the budget to do the car stunt:
> 
> Lots of places where this could have been edited to delete portions of the dialog or switch up the order to statements, but Effie seemed to telling Jason he could do the stunt as he'd envisioned although there would be production limitations on how extensively it could be filmed.


"Do what you want" but "No insert car." Get it, Jason! You aren't getting everything.


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

I did notice some of the dusk/nighttime clips we saw were very nicely lit. Not sure this is due to Jason or the Lighting crew. Or maybe, because it was shot on FILM.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

pdhenry said:


> Lots of places where this could have been edited to delete portions of the dialog or switch up the order to statements, but Effie seemed to telling Jason he could do the stunt as he'd envisioned although there would be production limitations on how extensively it could be filmed.




> Effie: (aside) All week I've been working on trying to get our fearless director everything that he wants. Like I am working magic so he can have his little stunt.



"fearless director". "little stunt". she's not even attempting to hide her disdain for jason (if she ever did), so why would she be expecting praise for *doing her job*? i know those comments were offline, but she has serious issues with jason.

with has access to the script, effie should know how the scene is written. isn't it her responsibility to communicate what's possible within the budget (as she did with his request to use film)? how could she not know what jason expects when she's budgeting the shot? why is jason just now hearing of this? was the failure his, hers, or is it a result of their avoiding each other?

i'm guessing it's the latter, but if she cared about the quality of the project, she would have proactively gone to jason for any info she's not getting. this looks like another attempt to sabotage jason's vision, as if she's leveraging his inexperience to give him enough rope to hang himself.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

Exactly, NorthAlabama.

I honestly think she has deep racial inequality issues she can't get past. Maybe a white male winning the contest over minorities, (especially when he wasn't overly interested in winning in the first place) and a movie about a rich white privileged east coast family may not have been the best project for her since she has personal issues she simply can't get past.

I can't help but think if they selected the team of the Asian guy and the white girl as winners, she'd be doing everything she can to make the project work since she fought for them during the selection process. But for Jason? Nah, let's knock him down a few pegs. He doesn't deserve this. He's privileged.

I just looked at her IMDB listing:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0113500/

The last few feature films she has worked on (non-shorts, no tv shows):

Forgiveness (II) (2015) 
"A beloved Pastor works to serve his 'flock' and save his 100 year old church. In his dedication and desire to do so, he crosses boundaries that are not to be crossed."
(Yes, the pastor is African-American)

Dear White People (2014)
"The lives of four black students at an Ivy League college."

Audrey (2014)
"Audrey waits and wait and WAITS for her date to show."

The Inheritance (I) (2011)
"Five ambitious cousins set out on a family reunion during the dead of winter. The purpose of the retreat is to secure their inheritance, a fortune that dates back many generations." (Yes, they're an African-American family)

One Kine Day (2011) 
"Over the mountains, hidden from the touristic beaches of Waikiki, Ralsto, a 19 year old Hawaiian skateboarder, wakes up to a day he will never forget."

I get that diversity is an issue in Hollywood, but so is someone so focused on diversity that they let it trump the overall good of a project. She's definitely doing it here. For all we know, the location manager she selected might be horrible at her job and that was the reason she couldn't get the signatures for night shoots. But hey, she's not white! You're hired!


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

She did throw the location manager under the bus when given the chance.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

NorthAlabama said:


> "fearless director". "little stunt". she's not even attempting to hide her disdain for jason (if she ever did), so why would she be expecting praise for *doing her job*? i know those comments were offline, but she has serious issues with jason.


Because she first told him that they _weren't_ able to do it the way he wanted, then she did more finagling, and at least got it _closer_ to what he wanted?

Yes, I sort of agree that's her job.. but he also does not want to give on ANYTHING until absolutely forced, and still whines (not quite literally).


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

MikeAndrews said:


> It looked like both actors were extras. I had no idea that you could be a background extra, then be given a (non-speaking) role.


I'm not exactly sure about your parenthetical description..

Because I'm almost positive I've heard in the past, but can't remember examples of, background extras being given _speaking_ roles.

So this is (IMHO) just a less extreme version of that - from a background extra to a "prominent" (have no idea what the real term would be) extra.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

I don't think the person called upon to perform the role of the driver will appear in the credits.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

mattack said:


> I'm not exactly sure about your parenthetical description..
> 
> Because I'm almost positive I've heard in the past, but can't remember examples of, background extras being given _speaking_ roles.
> 
> So this is (IMHO) just a less extreme version of that - from a background extra to a "prominent" (have no idea what the real term would be) extra.


AFAIK, if they speak they have to be in an actors union (SAG?*), and be listed in the credits...although my brother was an extra in a TV movie and does speak. I gotta ask him.

* AND being in the union, has to paid union scale.

It may be that the production my brother was in was very independent and used a non-union cast.

Now I'll see if he has an IMDB entry.  (Nope.)


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

I was had a non-speaking extra role in Moneyball (among hundreds of others) a never got my damn credit.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

mattack said:


> Because she first told him that they _weren't_ able to do it the way he wanted, then she did more finagling, and at least got it _closer_ to what he wanted?


wasn't this the first he'd heard of any budget issue with shooting the scene? granted, he should have been proactive and not waiting for her to bring it up, but that's a lot of info to process in one conversation.

he was probably still grasping the lack of funds when she had already segued into finding a little money.



> Yes, I sort of agree that's her job.. but he also does not want to give on ANYTHING until absolutely forced, and still whines (not quite literally).


sure, it's annoying, but i don't fault him for pressing hard and standing his ground, a solution has eventually been found many times before when he'd initially been told no.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Effie on this episode and some blowback on the unintentional insult in naming the episode "Hot Ghetto Mess" (which was something said that got cut.)

http://atlantadailyworld.com/2015/1...n-episode-hot-ghetto-mess-hbo-issues-apology/


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

"Jason was right about the stunt." They can make it more violent with some digital effects and sound effects.

Notice that Jason and Effie didn't hug on the wrap, or at least we didn't see it.

We never see any real scenes of the real movie. From the previews of "The Leisure Class," which you can add to record now for the preview November 1, it looks like a good movie.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

MikeAndrews said:


> "Jason was right about the stunt."


It is going to look a lot different when they are done. Quick cuts, sound. Unfinished stunts like that never look as big in person.

He was totally wrong in that he thought the parked car wouldn't move. In what world?


----------



## Squeak (May 12, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> It is going to look a lot different when they are done. Quick cuts, sound. Unfinished stunts like that never look as big in person.
> 
> He was totally wrong in that he thought the parked car wouldn't move. In what world?


He wasn't talking about the parked car moving. He hoping that the car that was being driven would "die" into the parked car at the rear, and not bounce around to the front. Almost like a rear-end crash.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

Many white people use the word "thug" in a knowingly/unknowingly racist way to describe black people.

I think Effie uses the word "entitled" much the same racist way to describe Jason.

Even during the wrap up, she spoke of how unusual the project was that a first time director get a budget of *dramatic pause* THREE MILLION DOLLARS. Not that the project was unusual, but the project that a first time director got that $$$. Yes, we get it, he's entitled and doesn't deserve it. Get over it and make the movie.

She almost seems gleeful when Jason doesn't get his way, and even if her post interviews she has big smiles when she ponders if Jason might have been hoping for those two extra shooting days after the stunt wasn't what he had hoped for. It's a really odd reaction for someone supposedly working _with_ him and not against him.

Unless of course she isn't...


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

The stunt was very very "wimpy" for a car crash.

Obviously I'll watch the movie. Can't be worst than Feast. (oh my god, they made 2 straight-to-video followups.. yeah maybe someone already told me that earlier in the thread.)


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Squeak said:


> He wasn't talking about the parked car moving. He hoping that the car that was being driven would "die" into the parked car at the rear, and not bounce around to the front. Almost like a rear-end crash.


"It moved out of position."

That is not about the moving car. He thought the parked car would not move and the other car would slam into it harder because of that. He envisioned it like a car slamming into a wall.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Ugh, Jason's d-bagness shone through yet again.

I don't remember the EXACT thing he said, but even _before_ there was the cringeworthy watching with the HBO guy, after he got the first written comments, he said something that basically seemed like "Yeah, I guess you basically HAVE to look at the comments from the higher ups, even if you're not going to do anything with them". I just mean that's the impression he got, not what he literally said.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

I haven't seen the movie yet. The final episode Jack Skellington ^Jason sounded like a film student, wanting to perfect his shots to get a better grade on his technical skills as a director, instead of repairing the story. which it sounded like a lot of people had issue with. I think a lot of viewers can forgive technical mistakes if the story draws them in. If the story doesn't make sense, or worse boring then no one will care how awesome your technical skills are. Your movie sucks bruh!

If Jason had his way he would have gotten more reshoots, a new stunt, and another month editing.

Im not sure there will be another season of this show. Len, the head of HBO, at the end was really hand holding this thing across the finish line. I doubt (I may be wrong) he does this with most projects, especially one with such a small budget. I think Len realized if this movie (& TV season) was going to get done on time and on budget he needed to step in and step over Jason's delicate toes to get a finished product. I don't think Len would want to baby sit another movie like this. I'm willing to bet though if they did do it again and soon, the director will be a minority of some sort considering how much of a prominent issue it seemed to be. However on the set and post production it seemed the crew of minorities Effie hired were professional and hiring them was not an issue that effected the movie or the TV show, well other than that spat we saw when Len visited the set.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

how dare the director be concerned with the appearance of the film.  

his priorities were off, focusing on appearance over content, understandable due to his inexperience with his first major shoot. hbo and the remaining producers were able to steer him back on track eventually (even if it took several nudges). they already knew going in he would fight for his positions, so no surprises there, it's one of the reasons he was selected to begin with.

jason should have been appreciative effie saved the money for a day of re-shoots, she rescued his behind. i suspect her motivation had nothing to do with jason, and was aimed at improving the film while saving herself in the eyes of hbo. very revealing when she picked up her toys and went home a day early. she might have thought this would look badly for jason while getting her point across, but i think it backfired and looked bad for her instead.

can't wait to watch the movie (maybe tonight).


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

I think the final episode was a clinic in how reality television can frame a narrative through editing. 

The majority of notes we heard from Effie, the head of HBO and a couple people from the focus group was all surrounding the character of Fiona. The reality Tv editing could literally make this seem like a big deal. But in the reviews I've read of the film, not one even mentioned the character of Fiona, and most just said the film was boring and not funny.

I have a feeling the screening yielded a lot of responses that the film wasn't really that funny and there was nothing they could do about that. But if they showed that, then no one would watch the film on HBO. So instead they took the Fiona angle and ran with it. They did other reshoots as well, and I'm guessing most had nothing to do with Fiona as well, but the reality show needed to frame this as a Jason vs. Effie sparring match again.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

I think Effie not showing up is arguably the best thing she did for the re shoots, other than having the money to do them. Her presence could have been a huge distraction for Jason who did actually have to be there, so by having the other producer Jeff handle it was probably for the better.

I really don't think the show has painted a lot of people in a good light.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

robojerk said:


> I really don't think the show has painted a lot of people in a good light.


I think the only person aside from Matt & Ben that was presented very well was the other producer Marc.

It's no surprise that Marc was not only a producer on the film, but also the executive producer for the reality tv series. Effie, for example, was not. So again, no wonder Marc didn't come off as a complete a-hole on the show he made.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

inaka said:


> I think the final episode was a clinic in how reality television can frame a narrative through editing.
> 
> The majority of notes we heard from Effie, the head of HBO and a couple people from the focus group was all surrounding the character of Fiona. The reality Tv editing could literally make this seem like a big deal. But in the reviews I've read of the film, not one even mentioned the character of Fiona, and most just said the film was boring and not funny.
> 
> I have a feeling the screening yielded a lot of responses that the film wasn't really that funny and there was nothing they could do about that. But if they showed that, then no one would watch the film on HBO. So instead they took the Fiona angle and ran with it. They did other reshoots as well, and I'm guessing most had nothing to do with Fiona as well, but the reality show needed to frame this as a Jason vs. Effie sparring match again.


i'm not saying your viewpoint is right or wrong, but in promotional interviews i believe it was ben affleck that insisted:



Spoiler



they were purposely not filming and editing this series as a reality tv show, but as a docudrama/documentary on making a film. if true, the editing should more accurately showcase the conflict (within time constraints and film availability).


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

Gotcha, it seems like parsing words. What's really the difference in changing the label from "Reality TV" to "Docudrama". Both are not real.

I'll withhold judgement until I see the film, but it sure looks like they were making this with a priority toward the reality series and not the film.
Just for reference, reviews are still coming in, but of the 8 critics who have reviewed the film on rotten tomatoes, all 8 gave it a ZONK. It has a 0% rating:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_leisure_class/

Yikes.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

inaka said:


> Gotcha, it seems like parsing words. What's really the difference in changing the label from "Reality TV" to "Docudrama". Both are not real.
> 
> I'll withhold judgement until I see the film, but it sure looks like they were making this with a priority toward the reality series and not the film.
> Just for reference, reviews are still coming in, but of the 8 critics who have reviewed the film on rotten tomatoes, all 8 gave it a ZONK. It has a 0% rating:
> ...


ouch! can you imagine them going with the other script which most agreed was worse?

i was never expecting to like the finished product, i generally loathe comedies (especially, it seems, ones that appeal to wide audiences), but since this was also described as a dark comedy, i was holding out a little hope.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

NorthAlabama said:


> ouch! can you imagine them going with the other script which most agreed was worse?
> 
> i was never expecting to like the finished product, i generally loathe comedies (especially, it seems, ones that appeal to wide audiences), but since this was also described as a dark comedy, i was holding out a little hope.


Here's a non-critic review from Reddit:

*So I watched the final product of the Project Greenlight film, 'The Leisure Class' tonight on HBO and...*



Spoiler



..dear God that was awful.

I'm usually a sucker for documentaries about how Things Go Wrong in the movie industry (FULL DISCLOSURE: I'm working on a couple of scripts myself) and I see the value in these docs in how they show you how tough it is to go from page to screen. But Jason Mann seemed as though he was horrified at the entire process to the point where he was just fighting his producers to look like a True Artist.

Also producer Effie White was seriously vindicated with the terrible-ness of the final movie because EVERY thing she fought for and lost to just pulled the final result into ridiculous drivel.

I get the feeling you won't be seeing Jason Mann do another studio film for a while--if ever. Maybe he should stick with internet shorts?




__
https://www.reddit.com/r/projectgreenlight/comments/3rbr88

Yikes again. It'll be interesting to hear what people here at TCF have to say about the final film. I have it set to record and I likely comedies, especially dark comedies. So we'll see.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

inaka said:


> Here's a non-critic review from Reddit:
> 
> *So I watched the final product of the Project Greenlight film, 'The Leisure Class' tonight on HBO and...*
> 
> ...


I recorded it but am in no rush to watch it. From the trailer, it is not a movie I would likely watch and am only going to do so because I sat through the "drama" of PGl.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Do we do a separate thread for the movie or continue here?

I will put in spoiler just in case.

I watched the movie.



Spoiler



Wow. It wasn't awful but it wasn't anywhere near good. There is no universe in which it would be considered a comedy. Not one laugh at all. I assume the people laughing were laughing at the impending doom of their careers for being involved with this.

As an indie drama, it wasn't bad. Just boring but many indie dramas are that. But as a drama their was no depth to anyone.

Weeks character has more depth in the Mindy Project than his character does here. Fiona doesn't grow at all. Suddenly she is a different person at the end. The brother is just an idiot for no reason. The father is a stereotype politician. The only character that had any depth was the cheap hooker.

The plot was completely stupid. No way the story would end that way. And no way would a con artist be so sloppy as Charles/William.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

I flipped on the movie and gave up about 25 mins. It was utterly boring with no laughs at all. And I'm one of those people who never stops watching a movie and never walks out of a theater. For this one, I just couldn't do it. 

It was terrible.
It may have gotten better after the 25 min mark, but I'll never know. Wow.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

robojerk said:


> Im not sure there will be another season of this show. Len, the head of HBO, at the end was really hand holding this thing across the finish line.


Even though, as I've said, I liked the first Greenlight movie (despite it being all about religion), and the 2nd was at least "ok", even though I remember it was kind of choppy editing-wise (that was covered in the season).. and the 2nd is the first thing I think of when I think of Shia Labeouf... (The 3rd was horrible, and the only good to come out of it besides the Greenlight season was the guy who ended up on 30 Rock...)

But I've had WAY more entertainment watching these episodes, almost despite what style of movie they make (but changing that again would be good too). I hope they keep making the series.


----------



## Jim_TV (Mar 4, 2006)

I just watched _The Leisure Class_ movie as well. I mean, it looked like a real movie because they had a competent crew and substantial budget, not to mention some decent actors. But without the _Project Greenlight_ series that allowed the director to blow his short film up into this feature you have to figure that a movie like this would never have gotten made.

The two male leads has good chemistry and seemed like they had fun making it, but it wasn't funny or intrinsically interesting. I dislike the overused trope of the zany person crashing a social engagement who just acts nutty for no reason. And it ended kind of weird, kind of without a real point. So essentially, the woman gets one over on her controlling father and marries the con man that had wooed her? That's it? I was mildly entertained watching it only because I knew it was the culmination of the behind the scenes show I had just finished watching. In any case, I love Project Greenlight itself and hope it continues.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

And interview with Jason:

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/10/29/project-greenlight-jason-mann-leisure-class-interview

An excerpt:



> If the apparatus of making this particular film weren't the way that it was, everything would have gone so smoothly. If someone had just handed me and my producer friends the budget of this film and said, "Go off and make a movie," it would have been the smoothest thing imaginable. The nature of the show&#8230; it's hard to know what elements were put in place in order to create drama. Sometimes it really felt like, "God, the only reason that this could be happening to us right now in this production is in order to create drama for the show." It's just kind of crazy to have such a short pre-production and such a short writing period, everything. I really feel that making a feature film is not really all that different from making shorts. It's really just taking more time. In a production sense, it's usually pretty similar.


I don't think he's aware of how real jobs work in the real world.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

it wasn't terrible, it wasn't great - just...flat. funny moments, with little character development, and even less story arc. the production quality was great, and like it or not, never remotely approached "made for tv" quality.

the nytimes sunday tv review was an interesting read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/02/arts/television/project-greenlight-gives-rookie-director-a-hollywood-education.html​


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Jim_TV said:


> ...without the _Project Greenlight_ series that allowed the director to blow his short film up into this feature you have to figure that a movie like this would never have gotten made...


i was under the impression when watching the series the movie originally started as a full script, was i wrong?


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

NorthAlabama said:


> i was under the impression when watching the series the movie originally started as a full script, was i wrong?


They started with a full script for a completely different movie. They made the decision to ditch that script and develop Jason's short script into a feature-length script.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

markb said:


> I don't think he's aware of how real jobs work in the real world.


He may have a point though. This is being billed as a behind the scenes "documentary" on how a movie is made. Well, for this particular release, it wasn't going to be seen in theaters. It's was a made for HBO tv movie. And no one will hear about even care about this project, until the show is released. (This isn't Game of Thrones, people.)

So I don't really think you have anywhere near the same time constraints as you would a typical filmmaking project, nor do you need it to meet mass theatrical appeal for a theater-going public (younger demo), etc.

They ramped up production to create drama, not necessarily to meet a theatrical release date. Again, it just reminds me of the fake drama of American Chopper where every build was behind schedule and they were always acting like they weren't going to make it on time before the deadline. Well, if that's the case, pad the deadline on the next order to it's smooth sailing. But if it was smooth sailing, there wouldn't be a show.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

You don't think HBO had a deadline to complete the series and air the feature?


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

pdhenry said:


> You don't think HBO had a deadline to complete the series and air the feature?


I do, however I think they are given months of time to prepare. Jason was given days? a week to write and on op of that do director type thingies.

As for the original script, I think it needed a rewrite too.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

In expect that we all know pretty much the same about how much lead time HBO needs before airing a program and why, which isn't much. We also don't know when the final episode of PG was shot.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

markb said:


> They started with a full script for a completely different movie. They made the decision to ditch that script and develop Jason's short script into a feature-length script.


Actually, I was under the impression he had already had a full length version of the script.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

inaka said:


> He may have a point though. This is being billed as a behind the scenes "documentary" on how a movie is made. Well, for this particular release, it wasn't going to be seen in theaters. It's was a made for HBO tv movie. And no one will hear about even care about this project, until the show is released. (This isn't Game of Thrones, people.)
> 
> So I don't really think you have anywhere near the same time constraints as you would a typical filmmaking project, nor do you need it to meet mass theatrical appeal for a theater-going public (younger demo), etc.
> 
> They ramped up production to create drama, not necessarily to meet a theatrical release date. Again, it just reminds me of the fake drama of American Chopper where every build was behind schedule and they were always acting like they weren't going to make it on time before the deadline. Well, if that's the case, pad the deadline on the next order to it's smooth sailing. But if it was smooth sailing, there wouldn't be a show.


But how do you pay the people and pay for the facilities that would be needed for longer time? The budget was more the issue. Besides, if HBO says they want the movie for November, November it is. They don't just play fast and loose with deadlines for a director's whim.

Most places consider artificial deadlines as real. Otherwise you cannot plan anything else or everything just keeps going long.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

pdhenry said:


> You don't think HBO had a deadline to complete the series and air the feature?





robojerk said:


> I do, however I think they are given months of time to prepare. Jason was given days? a week to write and on op of that do director type thingies.


This. Exactly.



TonyD79 said:


> But how do you pay the people and pay for the facilities that would be needed for longer time? The budget was more the issue. Besides, if HBO says they want the movie for November, November it is. They don't just play fast and loose with deadlines for a director's whim.


I'm not talking about extra shooting days. The script was the main thing. Costs would be minimal for allowing Pete Jones and Jason and extra week or more, let's say to really iron out the script. Maybe by doing so, they also don't need that extra day of pickups at the end because the story wouldn't need it.

As for the deadline of November set by HBO, they obviously wanted it to coincide with the finale of the reality show. I get that. But there's little to no impact if this series starts weeks later because again, it's wholly part of the HBO ecosystem. You rush, rush, rush, and then it's on HBO Go for years and years to come. Again, not hitting theaters, owning the tv network it will be broadcast in, and also not having to even sell advertising for this TV movie really means that the tight deadline HBO placed on this was to tighten the screws for reality show drama. Honestly, if the entire series started a month later, who cares? But then it makes for less interesting reality TV. I just wish HBO would be honest and say that they care about the reality TV show first and the film second. The constant display that the film is the primary concern is sooo false, and the end result proves that season after season. It's simply a bonus if they don't make a garbage film.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

And I'll reiterate my assumption that you really don't know anything about how this particular business runs.

To change the subject, from the movie credits it looks like Effie's production company is called Duly Noted, Inc.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

pdhenry said:


> And I'll reiterate my assumption that you really don't know anything about how this particular business runs.


Kind of sad then that none of us really know anything about how this particular business runs after watching multiple seasons of a "reality" show that is supposed to show you how the entire process runs.

Again, it's entertainment. It's not real or factual.

I don't believe these deadlines were put in place _solely_ for business reasons as they have been discussed. And if you're implying that, then you really don't know anything about how this particular business (reality tv) runs either.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Were the deadlines reasonable or unreasonable? When did they edit the film? When did they do the test screening? There was one mention that suggested the entire project was over a year from outset to editing down the movie. Is that a lot of time, or barely enough?

I don't know. Do you?


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

inaka said:


> Kind of sad then that none of us really know anything about how this particular business runs after watching multiple seasons of a "reality" show that is supposed to show you how the entire process runs.
> 
> Again, it's entertainment. It's not real or factual.
> 
> I don't believe these deadlines were put in place _solely_ for business reasons as they have been discussed. And if you're implying that, then you really don't know anything about how this particular business (reality tv) runs either.


I still assume it's pretty close to real. The deadlines certainly seems true to real life. Movie industry or not, everyone deals with deadlines, and many times those deadlines are inflexible.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

pdhenry said:


> Were the deadlines reasonable or unreasonable? When did they edit the film? When did they do the test screening? There was one mention that suggested the entire project was over a year from outset to editing down the movie. Is that a lot of time, or barely enough?
> 
> I don't know. Do you?


I'm commenting on exactly what the director was saying, and what we saw.

"Sometimes it really felt like, "God, the only reason that this could be happening to us right now in this production is in order to create drama for the show." It's just kind of crazy to have such a short pre-production and such a short writing period, everything. I really feel that making a feature film is not really all that different from making shorts. It's really just taking more time. In a production sense, it's usually pretty similar."

We saw this in the show. Pete and Jason went with a new script entirely from the one that was going to be created from the contest. And they were given what, a few DAYS to massage Jason's leisure class script into a feature film. Then they were also given days, yes days, to get the entire cast/crew. Pre-production was on steroids. Again, Affleck even made references to how ridiculous deadlines were for this compared to his features he's worked on. Granted those are big budget films, but in no way is anyone saying that all deadlines are meaningless. I'm saying it seems pretty obvious that the rapid fire facing of the pre-production deadlines in particular were there to create a frenzy and to create drama. And it sure did work as every cutaway interview from Effie and others were almost gleeful responses that this kid has no idea what's he's in for.

This article pretty much sums up my option as well, and is a really good read:

*'Project Greenlight' Set Up Rookie Director As Fall Guy*

Ends with...



> To be fair, Mann might be every bit as myopic as portrayed. But the truth is reality shows seldom offer an unalloyed view of reality, in much the same way that this series wasn't produced or cast with an eye on what was best for the movie. So while one can understand why novice filmmakers would eagerly jump at such an opportunity, even a cursory viewing of this fourth edition of "Project Greenlight" should provide a big flashing warning sign - alerting any future participants to the potential trap into which they're walking.


http://variety.com/2015/tv/columns/...leck-matt-damon-the-leisure-class-1201631383/


----------



## Jim_TV (Mar 4, 2006)

One thing I wonder about is Jason the film maker's choice of movie to make. I know it was based on a short that he had written and directed, but I guess what I'm pointing out is I wonder why he decided to make a movie of that type. Who gets excited about a somewhat farcical drama with comedic elements about a wealthy family? Was that his passion project? I see that as being a bland choice compared to a film maker who has something a little more juicier or fun.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

inaka said:


> I'm commenting on exactly what the director was saying, and what we saw.


The problem with that is before Mann "won a contest" he knew about as much about for-profit movie production as you and I do.

And judging from some of his comments in this week's episode he didn't learn as much as he could have.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Yes. By all means. HBO should change their business model because all successful companies ignore schedules and deadlines. 

This was supposed to be something of a real project not some fantasy that a small budget movie gets to play havoc with schedules and resources. You only do that with important projects, not throwaway movies like this one. 

As for the writing. It wasn't just that they couldn't afford more of Jones's time. He had other commitments because he was scheduled for a certain amount of time.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

I think it's obvious that the amount of time given to Jason to make his movie is going to be very short. Not only is HBO footing the bill for the movie, but also footing the bill for the "docudrama". Every day the film needs to be worked on is another day the crew for the docudrama needs to be there. I'm sure some accounts at HBO calculated what is a reasonable price for the show and the movie. I'm sure HBO was also taking into account that the odds for the movie coming out of the docudrama wasn't likely to be "good".

Yes it's break neck speed. However everyday Jason is working on that movie is burning money.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

TonyD79 said:


> Yes. By all means. HBO should change their business model because all successful companies ignore schedules and deadlines.


If a "business model" was the motivation for this _*film*_, it would have never been made. No studio is going to make John Carter 2 after the first one was box office poison. Every _*film*_ from project greenlight has been meh and a box office flop. If making $$$ on the film was the motivation, then you've failed business 101. The money is in the reality show, not the film.

No one is saying anyone could just ignore deadlines. I'm saying, that for example _*if*_ they gave him a one _*HOUR*_ deadline to rewrite that new entire "Leisure Class" script he pitched to HBO, we'd all agree that's an absurdly short amount of time and blatantly unrealistic, right? Well, I personally think giving a few days to come up with an entire script rewrite and complete 180 from the script the contest winner was _supposed_ to film, is absurdly short. You may disagree. But the end result was that the film was technically not bad. I mean, it looked like a real movie. But before flipping it off after 30 mins, it was boring as hell and frankly, the story and script sucked. But I liked the trainwreck that is this reality tv show.

I think the show obviously wanted there to be pressure on Jason during pre-production, because pressure creates friction, and friction creates reality TV drama. That's where the $$$$ is! So insert absurdly short deadlines! Even Affleck kept talking about how Jason had absurd conditions to work under, etc.

This project isn't something you can compare to most films. Most films don't have a reality TV show built around them. It's why every end resulting film has essentially been a financial flop, but they keep doing the series. Why? Because the show itself is the economic engine creating a profit and not the film itself. Thus, the priority for these deadlines is the _reality show_, not the "business model" for the film, especially in a project that will never see a theater, needs no advertising, and will appear on the same network that funds it.

So any _film_ deadlines you imply that were created for a "business model" are complete guesses on your part and your opinion. And comparisons to actual real theatrical releases are absurd. My opinion too is equally a guess. But if you want to act like the business model is the sole purpose for deadlines and the bottom line means everything, then they'd never make another film. They've all been box office flops. BUT, they've been reality tv gold.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Deja Vu all over again.

"I saved some money so we can do your reshoots."
....
"We can only afford to do the reshoots you had planned when we talked."
"BUT YOU SAID I COULD DO MY RESHOOTS!"

Effie should have walked before this.

Didja notice that Jason did his $%^&* _prohibited_ reshoot of the shot that was "underexposed, and he was squinting"

Cry baby primadonna.

From the beginning when he said, "I don't care if you pick me or not," they should have thrown him out.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

I don't know what the hell you are talking about. He had a full script that he already wrote. They worked rewrite for weeks. AND. He thought there was nothing wrong with the script. He kept pushing off on making any changes at all. He blew most of his writing time crusading for film over digital. Just because the fool can't budget his time and work in a team/corporate environment doesn't mean HBO should bend over for him.

And, no, the idea wasn't to make a moneymaker but to play within the normal rules. That is what the premise of PG is. So, blow the rules that you are trying to show in PG so they can make a bad movie marginally better?

And also set precedent and screw up everyone else's schedules for a throwaway movie?

By all means, make a crappy movie the thing that drives decisions and eat up resources at HBO. Talk about failing business 101.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> I don't know what the hell you are talking about. He had a full script that he already wrote. They worked rewrite for weeks. AND. He thought there was nothing wrong with the script. He kept pushing off on making any changes at all. He blew most of his writing time crusading for film over digital. Just because the fool can't budget his time and work in a team/corporate environment doesn't mean HBO should bend over for him.
> ...


Nah. The script was supposed to be the one that all of the contestants shot the scene for, written by Pete Jones with Peter Farrelly.

Jason only had the "The Leisure Class" short. He showed that and said wanted to turn that into feature length movie.

He got the OK to throw out the idea of a Farrelly/Jones script and worked with Pete Jones to write a full The Leisure Class script.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

TonyD79 said:


> And, no, the idea wasn't to make a moneymaker but to play within the normal rules. That is what the premise of PG is. So, blow the rules that you are trying to show in PG so they can make a bad movie marginally better?


They blew the rules by selecting the guy who least wanted the job.
They blew the rules by allowing the guy who won the contest to not have to shoot the script that was setup for the contest.

They did these things because they helped the reality show, not the film. They financially hurt the production _of the film_. Remember they spoke during the show that they spent lots of time and $$$$ on the _original_ script that was supposed to be shot? Marc even thought they were joking when Pete and Jason pitched the idea of using jason's script.

Where's the precedent there?
The answer is that it _economically_ made no sense and actually hurt the film, but benefited the reality show greatly.

So yes, talking about a "business model" for this *film*, is completely failing business 101. The film isn't going to make money as they never do, but the reality show will and will reside in HBO's proprietary archive for decades. Content providers like HBO, Netflix, Amazon need unique content. The show provides this. The film? Not so much. It's a bonus if the film is good.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

MikeAndrews said:


> Nah. The script was supposed to be the one that all of the contestants shot the scene for, written by Pete Jones with Peter Farrelly. Jason only had the "The Leisure Class" short. He showed that and said wanted to turn that into feature length movie. He got the OK to throw out the idea of a Farrelly/Jones script and worked with Pete Jones to write a full The Leisure Class script.


Nope. He had already written a full script. Not polished but had one. About a year earlier.


----------

