Anatomy of a hit TV or film production | Inquirer Entertainment
Viewfinder

Anatomy of a hit TV or film production

/ 10:37 PM September 25, 2013

Whenever a TV or film production turns out to be a “sleeper” (unexpected) hit, many producers excitedly scramble to duplicate it. After all, one hitmaking “formula” can beget another, right? Dead wrong.

Consistently sad experience shows that hits are generally sui generis, meaning one-of-a-kind, so attempts to duplicate or Xerox them will often turn to grief.

Many examples abound: “Speed,” starring Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock, was a big hit, but “Speed 2” vanished without a trace. Francis Ford Coppola’s “Godfather” movies made him King of Hollywood for a spell, but his subsequent films like “The Cotton Club” and “One From the Heart” quickly put an end to his “reign.”

Article continues after this advertisement

Disney’s “Snow White” was adored by millions, but “Fantasia” was an arty and expensive flop. George Lucas’ fortunes soared with “American Graffiti,” but “Howard the Duck” didn’t fly.

FEATURED STORIES
ENTERTAINMENT

“The Blair Witch Project” was the first feature film made for only $20,000 that grossed over $100 million—but its makers haven’t been heard from since!

So, if “emulation” or shameless imitation can’t be relied on to make box-office lightning strike twice, what factors do conspire to create a hit?

Article continues after this advertisement

We abashedly recall that we asked precisely that question of the producer of our first feature film, a no-nonsense gal who’d seen it all, and she gayly laughed, “Naku, iho, kung alam ko ang sagot sa tanong mo, e di sana bilyonaryo na ako ngayon!”

Article continues after this advertisement

That grinning retort effectively put us in our place—but, it also led to more efforts on our part to get the lowdown on hits—and flops—from other sources, and this is the result of our extensive “research”:

Article continues after this advertisement

A sleeper hit happens when its maker perhaps “accidentally” plugs into a still unfelt need on the viewing public’s part for a production that vivifies or “represents” something that bothers or fascinates and excites it.

Thus, we recall going to a cineplex many years ago to catch the first screening of a movie we wanted to see, but lining up instead to watch an early Robin Padilla starrer, because we were surprised and impressed to see that, at only 8 a.m., there were already around 60 people who had lined up to see the then new star’s flick!

Article continues after this advertisement

That’s how we were inadvertently able to latch onto and write about Robin’s signature “bad boy” appeal to young, empathetically “tough-guy” viewers, who subliminally felt that he

“represented” them!

Instructively, both Robin and his fans are fathers or even grandfathers now, but the “bad boy” factor and bond still works for them!

Another hit-making element that’s emerged as a constant hitmaking factor in our research is the unique vision of the artist responsible for the work, which he relentlessly pursues, contra mundum, to its successful conclusion.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

So, there’s great heart and soul involved, and it’s precisely those key elements that can’t be imitated or duplicated. “Reasonable facsimiles thereof” simply won’t do!

TAGS: cinema, Entertainment, Television, TV

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

© Copyright 1997-2024 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

This is an information message

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more here.