Scott,

Can you have a 'tent pole' movie without CGI??

The type of movies I like to write are usually action-adventure, thriller -- without all that CGI crap. I say crap because I find CGI boooooring! Kind of a 'been there, done that' feeling.

Just me -- and I'm sure it limits my chances of ever making a sale – but... I'm writing what I want.

Keep Writing,
Mike

First movie that comes to mind is The Dark Knight. Director Chris Nolan, like you, doesn't like "CGI crap." Hence, when he wanted to flip over an 18-wheeler in Dark Knight, they actually flipped an actual 18-wheeler. BTW, the cab of the truck landed within 2 feet where they projected it would land in pre-pro.

I say write what you want to write, and let the director and prod team figure out if / how much CGI they will use / not use. Unless your script includes an army of 8 million giant ant warriors, in which case CGI is pretty much a given.

"While the typical route to a tentpole movie is, as noted, pre-existing literary or original motion picture, at some point a writer came up with a great idea, wrote a book or script, and that evolved into a hit franchise (e.g., Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, Shrek)."

i know 'die hard' and 'shrek' were books first. isn't that a 'pre-existing literary'? or were these books specifically written by screenwriters with the movie in mind?

The answer to your question is, yes, I do have a couple of features that would make GREAT "tentpole" features: "Indians of the Ancient Plains," genre: Supernatural Western Thriller, "Cowboy Alien Diaries", genre: Supernatural Western Thriller, "Give It Up for Chimpy," genre: Screwball Comedy with a Romantic Comedy twist (and I've allready got its sequel already penned to if that's a go!), "Hometown Professional Football" genre: sports comedy, might fit that bill too.

I've got one other tentpole movie, but it will only work through FOX, as it is my re-imagining of "Planet of the Apes" and it rocks. Re-captures the sci-fi edge that I thought Tim Burton's film lacked. Can't show anyone that one though, as I got a cease and desist letter from a VP at FOX. Would love to re-crank up that project, BUT it would have to be through FOX and with a deal in place...

- E.C. Henry from Bonney Lake, WA

Shrek and Die Hard were based on books, the latter a book by Roderick Thorp, "Nothing Lasts Forever," the former "Shrek!" by William Steig. I'd say that most tentpole movies are based on books, comic books, graphic novels, however, there are exceptions ala Lethal Weapon, Night at the Museum, Kung Fu Panda.

I'd say the one big factor is repeatability.

The ability to have a sequel, that is similar enough to the original to capture the same audience, but different enough to provide something new.

Alien, Godfather, Shrek, Austin Powers, Die Hard, Indiana Jones, Lethal Weapon --

The sequels are all a promise of the original feature (with heightened stakes). Aliens is Alien with, literally, more aliens, and this time trained marines to fight them.

I'd say some of the tentpoles that peter out tend to be a little more based on a gimmick -- BEVERLY HILLS COP comes to mind. It is a great film. But by the start of the second movie the premise (a Detroit Cop in Beverly Hills) has just been worn rail thin.

Same goes for RUSH HOUR. The premise, that made the first one interesting, can't propel multiple episodes.

Even some of your cheesier horror movies have premises that can be exploited for dozens of movies. Isn't the premise of NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET terrific? A killer who attacks you in your sleep. This could be exploited in SO many different ways and still be hauntingly frightening (I don't have high hopes for the remake, but the originals, despite low budget effects and hokey story-telling were still utterly frightening).

James, that's a really good analysis of tentpole movies and I concur: one of the most important elements is, as you say, "repeatability."

Here's the thing about sequels: the conventional wisdom in Hwood has done a complete 180 in two decades. Back in the 70s and 80s, the thinking was that sequels would generate less revenue than the original movies. They even had a formula that said most sequels would only generate 50% of the original.

Now it's completely different: studios expect sequels to do more business. Why? Because the original movie builds an audience that can be tapped again and enlarged with sequels. That's why so many sequels cost more than the originals, again a change from two decades ago when sequels were made for a budget price.

I think part of that is because it takes a VERY specific type of writer to craft a GREAT sequel.

James Cameron is king in this arena. Aliens, Rambo II, Terminator II are some of the best sequels ever made.

And Jeffery Boam who wrote Lethal Weapon II and Indiana Jones 3.

That's two writers, who are responsible for the overwhelming majority of GOOD SEQUELS from the 80s and 90s, that we are still familiar with to this day.

I really think you need a writer that just "gets it." That understands the original franchise and are able to reproduce that with a new story.

I think there is a big problem with many of the sequels of today -- Die Hard IV, and Indy IV are awful. The characters don't feel like they are the same characters we've come to know and love.

I think part of the reason there was a ney-saying of sequels is for the most part they tended to be genre fluff (and are becoming so again, because they can make money off known franchises -- note INDY IV 740 mil worldwide). Sequels of old were much easier to be written off when good, and for the most part, they were expected to be bad. Heck, I love Jaws 3D -- because it is Jaws IN 3d, at a water park. That's just fun. But I'm not expecting Spielberg.

Really, I think Godfather 2, and the Star Wars trilogy are what proved that cinema could both be serial and good.

The dawning of good comic book movies (basically 2000), along with Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings, and J.K. Rowling's Harry Potters have done a LOT for the resurrection of the serial and sequel format in film.