A great example of how you never know what will stand the test of time: on one weekend during the summer of 1987, "Spaceballs" and "Dragnet" were released head-to-head, and the winner by a landslide was..."Dragnet." "Spaceballs" wasn't a flop, exactly, but it underperformed during its theatrical run.
Fast forward to 2022, and "Spaceballs" is iconic, while "Dragnet" - despite Tom Hanks and arguably Dan Ackroyd's greatest ever performance - is almost completely forgotten.
The copyright snafu certainly helped (something similar happened to the original "Night of the Living Dead") but "It's a Wonderful Life" might have found its audience anyway. *Many* beloved movies flopped in theaters but went on to become classics. (And then again, some never do. I'm still waiting for people to rediscover "Quick Change" and "The Hard Way," two of the funniest movies of the early nineties and largely unknown.)
Dan, I have enjoyed all your posts, but this one is extra special. It encapsulates so many of the themes you have been educating us all about. You unpack little-known historical 'gaps in the curtain' that, unlike the John Buchan novel of that title, reveal insights about the past, rather than the future. And yet those insights are as timely and universally relevant as possible. Plus you have provided, in time for putting it on my Christmas wish list, an intriguing book to read. Thank you so much. P.S., you remind me of how often we hear that a hugely successful movie, (Casablanca?) boasts a crew of cast members who, at least in hindsight, seem perfect for their roles. Nonetheless, these films frequently feature back stories about decisions by other, famous actors who turned down an invitation to participate, often because they knew it wouldn't succeed.
Don’t we always need to have an explanation for why something is a success or is important? And in coming to such decisions we focus on the easy and immediate.
I’m sure many have foregone a day off or begged off participating in something fun we wanted to do, because we believed there was an important and serious activity requiring urgent action. Then, looking back on that decision in 10 days, 10 months or 10 years, we realize that it was not as crucial as it seemed. Pausing for a moment of self-reflection to consider such a future impact can be difficult though if others do not value such an approach or if our own sense of duty/obligation (and hubris) prevents it.
Famously, the first choices for "Casablanca" were Ronald Reagan and Anne Southern. Bogart and Ingrid Bergman were the ones who said yes after the others turned it down. And at the time it was being made, "Casablanca" was seen as a "B" movie. Julius Rosenberg, who wrote it with his brother Philip, told me they were "sometimes only hours ahead" of a scene being shot when they were writing.
As screenwriter William Goldman famously wrote, the three rules of Hollywood are "Nobody. Knows. Anything." Because if they did, they'd all be billionaires. As a producer I once worked with told me, if he had said "yes" to everything he said "no" to and vice-versa, "the overall result would probably have been the same."
Or a favorite of mine: "Band of Brothers" and "The Pacific." BoB is considered wonderful and it is. "The Pacific" is an unmitigated failure, and it is. AND BOTH WERE MADE BY THE EXACT SAME PEOPLE (other than the actors). BoB works because they chose the right property to adapt and Pacific doesn't work because they chose the wrong property and adapted it wrong. But at the time, the choices were seen as the same. Both were critically acclaimed properties. One works and one doesn't because of the choices made in how to do them. Which nobody could foresee.
Thought provoking read, to me it brings to mind the payola scandals of the 50-70’s ...and if the hit parade would have looked any different without the manipulation
Dan, what you are doing with your column is (not really) clearly obvious: a lot depends on a lot.
We can affect and/or control some things and some things we cannot. Is that a reason to do nothing? Nope. But, we do have to realize that we cannot totally control the world around us. Only some of it.
As always, you have provided a cogent and delightful way of making your point.
A great example of how you never know what will stand the test of time: on one weekend during the summer of 1987, "Spaceballs" and "Dragnet" were released head-to-head, and the winner by a landslide was..."Dragnet." "Spaceballs" wasn't a flop, exactly, but it underperformed during its theatrical run.
Fast forward to 2022, and "Spaceballs" is iconic, while "Dragnet" - despite Tom Hanks and arguably Dan Ackroyd's greatest ever performance - is almost completely forgotten.
The copyright snafu certainly helped (something similar happened to the original "Night of the Living Dead") but "It's a Wonderful Life" might have found its audience anyway. *Many* beloved movies flopped in theaters but went on to become classics. (And then again, some never do. I'm still waiting for people to rediscover "Quick Change" and "The Hard Way," two of the funniest movies of the early nineties and largely unknown.)
Obligatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw89o0afb2A
Excellent post. As Galen Strawson put it, luck swallows everything. We should be a lot more humble about our successes and others’ failures.
Dan, I have enjoyed all your posts, but this one is extra special. It encapsulates so many of the themes you have been educating us all about. You unpack little-known historical 'gaps in the curtain' that, unlike the John Buchan novel of that title, reveal insights about the past, rather than the future. And yet those insights are as timely and universally relevant as possible. Plus you have provided, in time for putting it on my Christmas wish list, an intriguing book to read. Thank you so much. P.S., you remind me of how often we hear that a hugely successful movie, (Casablanca?) boasts a crew of cast members who, at least in hindsight, seem perfect for their roles. Nonetheless, these films frequently feature back stories about decisions by other, famous actors who turned down an invitation to participate, often because they knew it wouldn't succeed.
Don’t we always need to have an explanation for why something is a success or is important? And in coming to such decisions we focus on the easy and immediate.
I’m sure many have foregone a day off or begged off participating in something fun we wanted to do, because we believed there was an important and serious activity requiring urgent action. Then, looking back on that decision in 10 days, 10 months or 10 years, we realize that it was not as crucial as it seemed. Pausing for a moment of self-reflection to consider such a future impact can be difficult though if others do not value such an approach or if our own sense of duty/obligation (and hubris) prevents it.
Famously, the first choices for "Casablanca" were Ronald Reagan and Anne Southern. Bogart and Ingrid Bergman were the ones who said yes after the others turned it down. And at the time it was being made, "Casablanca" was seen as a "B" movie. Julius Rosenberg, who wrote it with his brother Philip, told me they were "sometimes only hours ahead" of a scene being shot when they were writing.
As screenwriter William Goldman famously wrote, the three rules of Hollywood are "Nobody. Knows. Anything." Because if they did, they'd all be billionaires. As a producer I once worked with told me, if he had said "yes" to everything he said "no" to and vice-versa, "the overall result would probably have been the same."
Or a favorite of mine: "Band of Brothers" and "The Pacific." BoB is considered wonderful and it is. "The Pacific" is an unmitigated failure, and it is. AND BOTH WERE MADE BY THE EXACT SAME PEOPLE (other than the actors). BoB works because they chose the right property to adapt and Pacific doesn't work because they chose the wrong property and adapted it wrong. But at the time, the choices were seen as the same. Both were critically acclaimed properties. One works and one doesn't because of the choices made in how to do them. Which nobody could foresee.
I loved this piece Damian..thanks for sharing it
Thought provoking read, to me it brings to mind the payola scandals of the 50-70’s ...and if the hit parade would have looked any different without the manipulation
I am sure there are days when our Prime Minister wishes he were still teaching skiing.
Dan, what you are doing with your column is (not really) clearly obvious: a lot depends on a lot.
We can affect and/or control some things and some things we cannot. Is that a reason to do nothing? Nope. But, we do have to realize that we cannot totally control the world around us. Only some of it.
As always, you have provided a cogent and delightful way of making your point.