Saturday, June 23, 2007
Sunk Costs and Storytelling
Went to the cheap movies last night. I left in awe and in question. I had heard that Spiderman 3 wasn't that great. But the people that take a not that great movie and make trailers for it do an amazing job. Plus it was the cheap theater. So, here are some questions:
1. In a day when amazing storytellers abound, how does a company or individual allow such a story to be told? I'm no expert, but I find it unusual that the producers took the director of Spiderman and Spiderman 2 and had he and his brother write the story for Spiderman 3. Just a little IMDB background, Sam may have done a descent directing job in the past, but his screenplay abilities are centered on Hercules and Xena princess warrior. I'm not trying to critique him, I'm just asking how does a story like that actually sound appealing to a group of seasoned producers? Do they not listen to stories anymore? Were they so emotionally involved or thinking that Spiderman 3 had to come to market no matter the story that they were willing to accept anything? I'd really be interested to know how that all took place
2. Here's an economics lesson. It doesn't matter how much you've invested in a certain decision or path. What you've spent on that decision is already spent. You can't get it back. It's called a 'sunk cost.' When you're deciding whether or not to move forward with the remainder of the decision you began, don't take those sunk costs into consideration. They're gone. Only take the further investment and return into consideration. For example, if you have been in a relationship for a long time and are not happy and now looking at the possibility of marriage, don't say, "I've been with him/her for so long. I feel like I need to keep moving forward with this and see how it goes." It doesn't matter how long you've been with that person. Will it be worth the continued investment? Same with business decisions. Yeah, you've already spent $300,000 developing this new facility. Then you find out that it's not going to have the return you thought it would. Do you continue with construction? It doesn't matter how much you've already spent. So now, no matter how much you've spent producing a movie, when you see the final product on your desk and it is Spiderman 3, don't say, "We've spent so much on this, we have to continue and release it." You've already spent the money. It's gone. Is it worth the embarrassment to release such a picture from here on out? That's the question.
3. How did my friend, who had already seen this movie and said that he didn't really like it, actually go with me a second time and allow me to spend 2.5 hours and $3 dollars on the film? How did he not physically restrain me from continuing? What kind of a friend does that to someone? How did all of my other friends that had seen it and said, "I didn't really like it," not describe just how horrible it was? How could they be content with allowing me to think that it was cheap theater acceptable, just not big theater acceptable? I know that misery loves company, but please, we're friends. Have some class.
1. In a day when amazing storytellers abound, how does a company or individual allow such a story to be told? I'm no expert, but I find it unusual that the producers took the director of Spiderman and Spiderman 2 and had he and his brother write the story for Spiderman 3. Just a little IMDB background, Sam may have done a descent directing job in the past, but his screenplay abilities are centered on Hercules and Xena princess warrior. I'm not trying to critique him, I'm just asking how does a story like that actually sound appealing to a group of seasoned producers? Do they not listen to stories anymore? Were they so emotionally involved or thinking that Spiderman 3 had to come to market no matter the story that they were willing to accept anything? I'd really be interested to know how that all took place
2. Here's an economics lesson. It doesn't matter how much you've invested in a certain decision or path. What you've spent on that decision is already spent. You can't get it back. It's called a 'sunk cost.' When you're deciding whether or not to move forward with the remainder of the decision you began, don't take those sunk costs into consideration. They're gone. Only take the further investment and return into consideration. For example, if you have been in a relationship for a long time and are not happy and now looking at the possibility of marriage, don't say, "I've been with him/her for so long. I feel like I need to keep moving forward with this and see how it goes." It doesn't matter how long you've been with that person. Will it be worth the continued investment? Same with business decisions. Yeah, you've already spent $300,000 developing this new facility. Then you find out that it's not going to have the return you thought it would. Do you continue with construction? It doesn't matter how much you've already spent. So now, no matter how much you've spent producing a movie, when you see the final product on your desk and it is Spiderman 3, don't say, "We've spent so much on this, we have to continue and release it." You've already spent the money. It's gone. Is it worth the embarrassment to release such a picture from here on out? That's the question.
3. How did my friend, who had already seen this movie and said that he didn't really like it, actually go with me a second time and allow me to spend 2.5 hours and $3 dollars on the film? How did he not physically restrain me from continuing? What kind of a friend does that to someone? How did all of my other friends that had seen it and said, "I didn't really like it," not describe just how horrible it was? How could they be content with allowing me to think that it was cheap theater acceptable, just not big theater acceptable? I know that misery loves company, but please, we're friends. Have some class.
