[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

No Subject



Little studio time for rock bios
By Josh Spector

LOS ANGELES (The Hollywood Reporter) --- Sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll --
sounds like a surefire recipe for boxoffice success, right?

Studios apparently disagree.

While the exploits of music's most notable -- and notorious -- stars have
sparked ratings booms for television networks and best sellers for
publishers in recent years, the movie industry has noticeably shied away
from telling tales of rock 'n' roll excess.

The wild lives of rock stars might seem tailor-made for the big screen, but
a glance at studio release slates reveals that few biopics ever escape
development hell. At a time when television networks like VH1 have found
success with biographical shows like "Behind the Music," and autobiographies
by Melissa Etheridge and Motley Crue land on best-seller lists, the film
industry has been notably absent from embracing the trend.

One reason for the industry's hesitancy might actually be the success of
rock biographies in other mediums.

" 'Behind the Music' has definitely raised the bar for the movie industry in
terms of the entertainment value of these stories," said producer Bill
Gerber, who is developing projects based on the Who's drummer Keith Moon and
early Beatle Pete Best. "When people can tune in to VH1 and see these
stories every night for free, it makes it much more challenging to justify a
movie version."

Although a plethora of musical legends have been bandied about as potential
movie subjects over the years -- Bob Marley, Jimi Hendrix and Brian Wilson,
among them -- precious few have ever actually found their way into
production. Instead, they just seem to exist forever in development limbo,
as evidenced by a 1991 Los Angeles Times article written by music critic
Robert Hilburn. That story cited 18 rock biopics in development at the time.
Ten years later, only two have been produced.

So why do studios seem so hesitant to commit resources to producing such
projects? Studio execs point to the genre's spotty track record as one
explanation, noting that even the most successful films have failed to
approach blockbuster status. The Tina Turner biopic "What's Love Got to Do
With It" drew raves from critics in 1993 and garnered two Academy Award
nominations but earned only $39 million domestically for Buena Vista
Pictures.

When Oliver Stone cast Val Kilmer as Jim Morrison in 1991's "The Doors," it
seemed to have all the makings of a hit, but the film only made $35 million
domestically for TriStar Pictures. More recently, the rock-biopic genre has
failed to reach even those standards, as Warner Bros.' Frankie Lymon biopic
"Why Do Fools Fall in Love" took in a dismal $12 million domestically. Even
quasi-biopics like DreamWorks' "Almost Famous" haven't been able to convert
critical acclaim into boxoffice bucks -- "Famous" barely broke the $30
million barrier last year.

"I think part of the reason we've seen these films struggle is because you
have so many biopics that actually wind up on television," Exhibitor
Relations Co. president Paul Dergarabedian said. "I also think these kind of
fall into a documentary category, and sometimes if people feel like
something's a history lesson, they are less inclined to see it."

Whatever the reason for the poor performance, critical praise and middling
success just doesn't seem enough to convince studios that the genre is worth
the investment -- especially in today's bottom line-driven market. Producers
also suggest that finding a subject worthy of big-screen treatment is a task
in itself.

"Rock stars generally are not the most sympathetic characters," Gerber said.
"They make lots of money, do drugs and get into trouble -- that can make it
tough to find a story that's both empathetic and entertaining."

When the subject of a rock biopic is a band, things can get even more
complicated since different band members may have different recollections of
events from their past. Craig Zadan, who executive produced the successful
ABC miniseries "The Beach Boys: An American Family," said that production
was wrought with obstacles.

"We were naive enough going into it to believe that because we were working
with the band that everything would just fall into place," Zadan said. "But
it turned out to be one of the most difficult and stressful experiences of
my career. It's hard enough to get a good script without having to worry
about countless people approving things for their own needs."

Further complicating matters are the hurdles that must be cleared in order
to get the rights to an artist's music -- a necessity for any biopic.
Battles over song rights have wreaked havoc on a pair of competing Janis
Joplin projects in recent years.

Although rock biopics might be few and far between these days, the genre is
not completely dead. Gerber, who produced the Jennifer Lopez starrer
"Selena" in 1997, believes one of the keys to getting his Moon project off
the ground is the involvement of the band.

"We're working very closely with Roger Daltrey and Keith's mother to develop
the project," Gerber said. "He was a very troubled man, but the story of how
he became that way is truly fascinating."

By working with the Who -- Who Films will share producing credit -- Gerber
has been able to avoid the legal nightmares often inherent in rock projects.

"Dealing with publishing rights and record labels can get extremely
complicated," Gerber said. "But that has not been a problem for us because
the Who controls their own publishing, and they are working with us. It has
made a huge difference."

-Brian in Atlanta
The Who This Month!
http://members.home.net/cadyb/who.htm