Err, no, really, that’s not how it works

Handsome Devil, by contrast, tries to make a different point: “That LGBT issues are mainstream and they should be funded by the mainstream. We should be seeing $50m LGBT comedies with realistic couples at the middle of it. Because it’s one in 10 of us, you know? We belong in the mainstream.”

It’s not 1 in 10. Nothing like.

Further, that’s not the way that business works. You’re looking for the marginal customer when going big, not trying to address some core.

To be stupid about it compare the scandium business with the hamburger one. Maccy D is trying to sell to anyone and everyone. Thus big productions, lots of shops, big ad budgets and so on. They get some portion of that market of course. When I was selling scandium there were maybe 10 people in the world I needed to reach. All the effort went intoidentifying those 10 people, plus a bit of finding out if there were an eleventh or twelfth.

The strategy for trying to sell to a core audience of perhaps some 3 or 4% (to be generous about LGBT numbers) of the population is rather different than the one required for trying to sell to the marginal member of the general population.

Sigh.

30 comments on “Err, no, really, that’s not how it works

  1. “Butler, who attended a private school in Ireland not unlike the one depicted in Handsome Devil, was lucky enough never to have been the target of bullying, but he developed an ear for inherited homophobic language: the boys in the film unthinkingly make an overly camp “Oooohhhh” sound to denote supposed “gayness” without quite knowing what they’re doing.

    “It’s from the Carry On films in the 1960s,” says Butler. “You suddenly realise you’re taking on some bullshit language your grandfather would have used.””

    Oh, FFS!

  2. Even if it is one in twenty, homosexuals have a lot more money to spend on average. So they ought to be able to afford their own films if they want.

    They are probably too busy going to Judy Garland festivals. And besides, they do have a significant part of modern culture more or less to themselves. Musical theatre for instance.

  3. It’s a puff piece for a low-budget indie film (one which sounds rather good, by the way), but they still manage the mandatory anti-Trump rant toward the end. It’s really rather tiresome.

  4. > We should be seeing $50m LGBT comedies with realistic couples

    He might be in for a shock when he discovers what constitutes a realistic LGBT couple. Two thirds of gay men are single; of the couples, around half have what they describe as an “open” relationship. Lesbians more closely resemble traditional couples, but they’re incredibly boring so wouldn’t make good film material. As for finding a “realistic couple” in the trans faction, good luck with that.

  5. Andrew M – “Lesbians more closely resemble traditional couples, but they’re incredibly boring so wouldn’t make good film material.”

    You know, I think that film makers have found a way to make lesbians look interesting. At least among a certain market.

    The other thing is that homosexuals don’t mind looking at notionally heterosexual films. The opposite is not necessarily true. Although whether there are any actual heterosexual films left I wonder. It seems more and more that the homosexual lobby has an effective veto if their members are not actually making them. So virtually all films are homosexual films, just some times with female and male actors.

  6. If they are part of the mainstream then the mainstream will pay money to watch their stuff, but somehow aren’t. Trump!

  7. $50m? How much does he think straight romantic comedies cost to make? OK, Deadpool cost that (and it is a romantic comedy) but Woody Allen’s stuff costs more like $15m.

    And really, please, you… Idle. Motherfuckers. There has never been a better time in history to fund raise, make and distribute a film. You think they’re leaving money on the table, raise the funds for a film on Kickstarter, find a great script (plenty of writers forums around), a first time director and some actors who want exposure. Shoot it with Red cameras and then use festivals (and shit, there’s hundreds of those now) to get a distributor. Hell, you might even get some gay actors who’ll do it for union rate, like the way Wes Anderson gets people like Bill Murray. Ask Zachary Quinto or Jim Parsons. A lot of actors will do a role for almost nothing if you can keep their time down.

  8. “funded by the mainstream” ie people who don’t want to buy my stuff must pay for it.

    If there was a market for LGBT romantic comedies, people would be making them.

    I think the last UK census showed about 2% of the population to be homosexual. You might get to one in 10 if you count ‘touched another boy’s willy at school’ and ‘snogged a mate in order to get boys excited’ but I doubt it.

    My Facebook friend list is 2.2% gay and 0.4% lesbian. 60% of the gays and 100% of the lesbians are married incidentally.

    One thing they all have in common is a pretty much total of lack interest in ‘gay culture’. That’s the problem for the LGBT movies business; the gays are no more interested than the rest of us.

  9. A gritty tale of deprivation set in naughties east end of west london, as john and raul battle against the chronic shortage of fucks given about their lifestyle choices.
    That will be 50m of your pink pounds please.

  10. virtually all films are homosexual films, just some times with female and male actors.

    It was often pointed out that Sex and the City was a series about four gay men being portrayed by four women.

  11. ‘It’s not 1 in 10. Nothing like.’

    Evidence please.

    Nature does not do binary.

    Natural variation is invariably a bell curve.

    There is no objective assessment of the relative proportions of sexual orientation and variation around the mean of any society.

    You are entitled to your own prejudice but not your own facts.

  12. Sex in the City was just such a production.

    It is by and for teh gayers. Because Middle America was not ready for full-on gaiety in their living rooms, the producers used 4 ( rather unattractive yes, you Horse Face Parker )females as the analogues for sodomite activities.

    All they had to do was imagine that Carrie was Cary.

    This makes Cynthia Nixon a very complex character.

  13. John B

    “Evidence please ”

    People’s self-defined persuasion. Unless you think that doesn’t count.

  14. They also, for some reason, seem to think that T stuff is applicable or of interest to the LGB’s.

    Because the B’s get along just fine with the current stuff – M-F, sort of by definition being as interesting as M-M/F-F to a bisexual.

    Which leaves the LG’s – who make up around 5% of the population but are otherwise comfortable with cis-sexual roles.

    *Then there’s the transgender*, some unbelievably tiny minority split into innumerable diverging gender roles. Somehow we’re supposed to make movies and TV that cater to this small slice that is *deliberately* heterogenous in their ideas of what transgenderism should be, while somehow being ‘accurate’.

    I mean, I’ve no problem with the whole sex=/=gender thing but when you’ve watered down ‘gender’ to mean ‘whatever I want it to mean, no more, no less’ and complain loudly when people don’t read your mind, don’t complain that no one is chasing the dollars of such a fragmented and combative market.

  15. It was often pointed out that Sex and the City was a series about four gay men being portrayed by four women.

    And was insufferably dull to boot.

    In the service of complete accuracy: Four gay men being portrayed by three women and Sarah Jessica Parker.

  16. Out of my immediate circle of friends and acquaintances, I know two who are out. Travestis? None. It’s a well-known cognitive error to think there are more people like you than there are. It’s a touch of Pauline Kael and a bit of psychologist’s fallacy.

    I’ve made the same mistake. I mean, I sound like a cross between Colin Firth and Rupert Everett, which I assumed was the way a pretty hefty chunk of people in the UK spoke. Not so; RP is something like 1% of speakers. It comes from being very, very middle class and going to a school full of very, very middle class people. It usually makes people think I am a good deal richer than I am.

  17. “Nature does not do binary. Natural variation is invariably a bell curve.”

    Tell that to a barren woman.

  18. imho the TG stats the LGBTxyz proponents puff pieces contain wrongly add TVs* to the TG camp

    * TV numbers further inflated by question: have you ever dressed as the opposite sex?

  19. Come to think of it, it’s hard to find anything in the living natural world that isn’t binary. Right from the double helix of the DNA molecule. Genes are switched on or off. Amino acids are right or left handed. But only one handedness serves to build proteins. It’s difficult to be a little bit pregnant. Or a little bit dead.

  20. They also, for some reason, seem to think that T stuff is applicable or of interest to the LGB’s.

    I’ve often wondered why and on what grounds gays are lumped in with the trannies. A lot of gays seem to believe they share common interests, and are going to get one hell of a shock at some point when the Ts out-victim the Gs.

  21. “Come to think of it, it’s hard to find anything in the living natural world that isn’t binary. Right from the double helix of the DNA molecule. Genes are switched on or off. Amino acids are right or left handed. But only one handedness serves to build proteins. It’s difficult to be a little bit pregnant. Or a little bit dead.”

    Umm. DNA has to unzip to reproduce, so it’s not always doubled (and there’s RNA floating around as well, which serves much the same function). Gene switching can be partial or conditional. The amino acids isoleucine and threonine occur in more than just the two two mirror forms (i.e. they have diastereoisomers). Pregnancy is a classic case of the difficulty of drawing sharp lines, as the abortion debate illustrates. With IVF, do you become pregnant when the ovum is fertilised, or when it is implanted, or when it embeds and starts to develop, or when a pregnancy test responds, or what? And of course medical resuscitation science has blurred the line between dead and alive – not to mention odder cases like ‘is a virus alive?’ and Henrietta Lacks.

    Human intelligence simplifies a complex world by clustering fuzzy things into sharp categories, that it can more easily process/manipulate. Initial explanations of how things work usually start with the simplest or most common cases, when everything works right. If 99.9% of the time it does A or B, the explanation is good enough to start with. The 0.1% of the times it does C, or D or E are easily and (usually) safely ignored. Every chemical reaction (including biochemistry) is an equilibrium, with some molecules randomly going forwards and some backwards again and some doing something else entirely. The statistics are such that an overwhelming majority are doing what you expect, so that’s what you get told/taught as “what happens”, but the deeper you dig into science, the more you realise the real world is more complicated than the human mind can conceive, and the more you realise the simple ‘truths’ you learn at school are all ‘lies to children‘.

    Dawkins called it “The tyranny of the discontinuous mind“. It’s not all negative. As Dawkins said: “This categorization allows us to communicate with each other, remember things, and reason logically. In fact, there is evidence that the part of the brain that most distinguishes humans from other species (our large neocortex) is structured specifically to support the storage of hierarchical, discrete concepts. […] So the great advantage of using categories is that they allow us to convert the infinitely complex world into finite pieces that we can gain familiarity with and reason about. The great disadvantage is that categories are fuzzy, subjective. They form a simplified model of reality that is subject to interpretation, especially around the edges.”

    It’s a powerful way for a computer made of meat to achieve an impossible task, but it’s only an approximation to reality.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.