Going into a film it makes you wonder whether or not the final product nowadays reigns true to what the director(s) envisioned for such a movie. As with every film, all parties are trying to insure that both get what they want and both get a film not only equally indulging for the audience but also satisfying. You might get the interference though that comes along, sometimes just not liking the product that is being presented to them, fearing audiences expectation of what the film may be. Whether it be too long, too short, too dramatic, too artsy, needs more of this, needs more of that, all sorts of criticism that it need to change. So at this point, we all ask ourselves is that really always bad as so many have pointed out. Does it really hurt the film in every shape or form, or does it help the movie to try to succeed at the box office rather than die off quickly?
IT'S ABOUT F**KING MONEY!
Since we all claim to know everything that goes on in Hollywood, I will admit it is becoming harder and harder for Hollywood to belly up their secrets without reaching to the press. The biggest money maker in this scenario would be the big blockbusters, the comic book films that most nerds will see in some way. To them with their knowledge, they cater to their characters being projected onto the screen with great actors, great visual effects and a great film overall to carry the weight. This is where the idea of financial security comes into play, as it starts way back in 2000 and ends here.
I am not going to give you a history lesson, as I am strictly telling you what works for these films. See studios only care about reaping in their investment first they do not give a shit whether you like the film. It is a plus that you like it, but mainly it is due to the business prospect of investment. Meaning, if I am going to fund you $200 million dollars, it isn't your movie anymore. Your movie is now is now my movie. You want that vision out there, prove it is worth the 200 million dollars. While I am speaking hypothetical, that is affect that has taken on Hollywood today. Should we always trust the director though with his vision?
ARTISTIC INTERPRETATION V. AUDIENCE INTERPRETATION
Just to give you a better idea of how a studio is, which I am sure most of you are really know. Let me give you an example of a quote that means "dick" at this point. "Our philosophy is filmmaker-driven. A lot of it comes from the idea of "do unto others" of coarse we all know this is bullshit. A director in a big budget blockbuster is rarely going to have a film that is 100% what he wanted for the film. Filmmakers tend to have insane ideas that don't always seem to gel correctly with a studio. One idea I can think of, off the top of my head was the ending of Batman (1989), the film was in a constant flux changing scripts left and right to ensure the final product is met. The ending, had Batman kill the Joker in a vengeful rage. This ending was changed without the consent of Tim Burton, but he had to do what he was told. The ending we got was eventually a lot more optimistic and a lot more of indirect murder rather than homicidal, that small moment could of been an enormous impact. The director however still didn't like it, but if that was shown to an audience, do you think it would of been a huge success? Perfect example of looking after the audiences sense of excitement and thrill instead of directors vision that could harm an audience perception. No studio is looking for failure, they all want successful films for you to love and to cherish. It isn't about whether you appreciate the filmmakers artistic talents. Making the film is a talent within itself, of coarse there is an amazing art-form to be found in film when fully realizing a vision but sometimes that vision could be so obscure that you can lose track of what is important. Here, studio interference does help in a way for the view to fully intentionally make a great film. Whether it is a bad or good choice is totally subjective to the viewer, in this instance it is indeed in favor of good, but what about BAD
"DISAGREE TO DISAGREE
This is a moment where two parties just cannot seem to get along, they can't just figure whether they want to do this movie or not. Whether it is worth the headache and heartache to have this film made, here we have films like Fantastic Four (all four pun intended), Iron Man 2, Batman Forever. Granted the last two I mentioned aren't nearly as bad or as damaging as Fantastic Four, but most likely hurt the film from what could of been. Iron Man 2 is a perfect example, the studio wants to force the idea of Avengers to the audience, the film mainly being a set up for the sequel. Instead we got two villains who seemed cliche or just didn't really give our hero a battle worth mentioning. We are treated to a more streamlined extravaganza rather than a bigger more personal film altogether. While some of it is it is more apparent the studio gearing up for Avengers found this as a great marketing venture to install every bit of tease for that movie instead of character motivation.
Batman Forever did have Burton in mind to direct the third film. Per his interview on the documentary sold on the Batman Collection Set (1989-1997), it seemed he was more than happy to return but of coarse given the full fledged freedom Burton was given (remember the outcome of that) the studios did not even want to use his vision or even interested. He felt disrespected yet again shadowing events from the first film, to which he moved on entirely as the creative reigns were given to Schumacher who pretty much was a simple easy target for studio heads to manipulate. At this point these two films were damaged in some way due to the interference of studios, but again is to insure they meat the stands for their audience and not to go into every directors whim. Is it bad? What does my final conclusion stem from this?
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
There is no right or wrong answer for this conundrum that happens in Hollywood. Studio interference has been around in film forever. So many films have been blessed with the interference and changes of studio while others have had it harder for them. The point in all this is to get a clear headed view of what the bigger picture entails. It isn't to screw over audiences, it is to make a good film and hope it works out. Of coarse anything can happen where it may feel like the director never tried, or no one tried during production. The idea is full of it entirely given how absolute a film can be towards the end. A director's vision is almost never fully understood, only the basis but not the layers. Like a sandwich, a Cuban sandwich sure does sound great, but in the end all it has is Cuban bread, ham, roast pork, Swiss cheese, pickles and mustard. The studio likes to add the lettuce, tomatoes, black olives, ketchup, mayonnaise, all this shit could be good or horrible because you are ruining the original vision of what that sand which is. It isn't some fully loaded monstrosity, it is just simply a Cuban Sandwich, but sometimes people love the overloaded monstrosity.
I know this seems like a reaction to a very big problem when it comes to what happens behind the scenes when a director's vision is never fully realized and always is never the case if fully intentionally looked at. Like I said it is dependant on making a great film rather than making a horrible one, but you can't always win them all.
Audiences are different, while many think it is easy to figure out, they are complex with lots to learn. One day a film can open so big, an audience expects every film to have that same quality within the genre. The Dark Knight was in specific like that, where it was a monster success, and every studio wanted to emulate. The Avengers also trend settled and coined the Cinematic Universe that every studio is trying it's best to emulate, why? Not because they are running out of ideas, but
its just original ideas aren't really what is cutting it for studios. They want to continue what is relevant and make it fresh, why do you think the Joker looks so different from all these tattoos. So many inspirations from his look (Tyler Durden, Red Dragon killer, Natural Born Killers) but is that the original character look? Of coarse not.
The idea is to make it fresh and new for audiences, whether it works or not is totally opinion and subjective to an audience member. That is the hard/easy truth of an audience member. You are never going to know what exactly is it they really want.
SO HOW DO WE CONCLUDE?
So you can accept it, disagree, whatever you want. I think I really pointed out the most valid concrete reasoning behind this, which I feel something feels a little too much obscure to many users here on what studio interference is. I hope you guys enjoyed this read, and thank you for taking the time out of your day for actually doing so.