Ant_1971
Posts: 104
Joined: 30/9/2005 From: England
|
I do agree with you Stu. My suspicion is also that he regrets not having made the western he always wanted to. It's obvious he has great passion for the genre: He's co-scripted several western Teleplays, his gushing for the genre in just about every interview he does, the constant insertion of western themes/ cliches into his genre films and then his work on The Once Upon a Time in the West DVD. And now he could probably never get it off the ground. Aside from the genre being pretty much dead, he's nowhere near the bankable director he was in the late 70'-early 80's. He's always going to have a steady income due to the royalties the Halloween franchise continues to pay him, so I'm sure he's not starving, but a natural director like Carpenter should be working. I think Carpenter was one of the first (if not the first) independent writer/producer/director whose movie broke box-office records the theaters, and in 1978, dollars taken too. And I think it's because of this reason (along with him being talented) that he will always be able to get a film made. Ghosts of Mars had a pretty high budget of $28 million... while Escape from LA had, five years earlier, a $50 million dollar budget. Both films did terrible at the box office. I trust Carpenter as a director, but I think the choices in scripts is what is making these last few films so not on par with his earlier work. I think the same thing can be said about Schwarzenegger... I'm just making a comparison here between the two, because their choices of scripts (End of Days and The 6th Day for Arnold) were not good choices. His films until Memoirs have all been relatively low budget, and though they never made as much money as Halloween, they all were successful in their own rights. Till this day the films do well in rentals and sales, so they continue to make money. I thought 1995 was a great year, because Carpenter filmed both Village of the Damned and In the Mouth of Madness at the same time... crazy guy. I enjoyed both of them. It's funny, but his films haven't made money since, yet every since Halloween addition to the franchise (for which he gets a cheque) makes money. It's almost a universal constant that when directors put their names above the title in a possessive manner (ie. John Carpenter's Vampires... Wes Craven's New Nightmare is an exception to this rule, though I wouldn't argue the contention that we've seen the best from Craven we ever will.. another thread), that the film will suck and the directors' career is over. Really, did John Carpenter's name on the Ghosts of Mars poster really draw that many more people into the theatre? No, and reason for that is that John hasn't been able to use his name as currency for a long, long time. He had a good run though. As many have pointed out, he's made some bonafide masterpieces: Assault, Halloween, Escape from N.Y, The Thing.. as well as several respectable genre efforts. And even many of his failures are at least entertaining, intriguing or provocative: Prince of Darkness, They Live, Big Trouble. I don't think he has had any passion for any of the projects he's done in the past 15 years. In the Mouth of Madness is probably the only halfway decent film he's done in that period, but the lustre on that one wore off after the second viewing. It's sad, because Carpenter is so enormously talented, and helped kick start the 80's horror boom that so many other directors benefitted from. I'd hate to entertain the notion that he's dried up and has nothing left
|