Lost in the Sands

[subplotkudzu]

I have a sort spot in my heart for the film Sahara. It's not, by any stretch, a great movie, but both times I've seen it it's been a fun Fung Shui style ride with insanely capable heroes dealing with wildly improbable situations with grace and humor. It doesn't leave me with any desire to read the books on which is is based, but  figure I'll mine parts of it for plot ideas someday.

So this series of articles in the LA Times discussing why the film has been such a monumental money pit intrigues me. Those interested in the inner workings of Hollywood ought to check it out. 

Comments

[doc-mystery.livejournal.com]

You see, I'm the opposite. I read and enjoyed the books, but the trailers I saw looked a little...silly. Maybe if it shows up cheap I'll buy it.

However, a very interesting link about the creative accounting done by Hollywood, and how extravagant the director and production company were. Film a $2 million scene of a vintage airplane crashing...and never use it? And over $80 million to advertise it? No wonder it lost money!

::B::

[kriz1818.livejournal.com]

We actually own a copy of that film! It *is* funny, especially the part about Civil War era cannons still being able to fire - and hit a helicopter.

[(Anonymous)]

I read the novel. It's startlingly stupid. Having read it I decided not to see the movie because either:

a) It would be just like the book, and therefore suck, or
b) I would somehow enjoy it, and therefore feel dirty.

Cambias