According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Smithee, Alan Smithee “retired” in 2000. I was still under the impression “Alan Smithee” still made films, but hadn’t really paid attention. What happens now to disgruntled directors? Are they forced to keep their own name on the project, does it just get listed as directorless, is there a new “Alan Smithee”, or do they just change the name to something generic?
Oh and another question. i always thought “Alan Smithee” was a stand-in for “Anon”. Were the general public genuinely supposed to think that “Alan Smithee” was one (real) person?
Cracked’s article doesn’t explain why the pseudonym was discontinued either.
Basically, yes. “Alan Smithee” was discontinued because it became too well-known. The point of the pseudonym was that it was a way to hide the fact that there had been a behind-the-scenes dispute over the movie; directors were forbidden by the guild from discussing the trouble or even acknowledging that they directed the movie. But once directors let the cat out of the bag and “Alan Smithee” entered the lexicon, it lost its original purpose.
Now, they just come up with a generic name for each movie. There’s probably a more recent example, but for Shortcut to Happiness, Alec Baldwin is credited as “Harry Kirkpatrick.”
Yes, Alan Smithee is the movie version of using “John Doe” as a name. The point originally was to let a director remove his or her name from a project that was so tampered with by a studio that they felt it no longer reflected their own work. Once the name became widely know to the general public it became synonymous with being a crappy move. Studios demanded a change from the Director’s Guild so that the pseudonym would not affect the box office take by alerting the audience that the movie was a stinker in advance.
Well, he’s still posting here.
If studios agree that Alan Smithee is such a lousy director, wouldn’t the obvious solution be for studios to stop making their movies worse by interfering with the director instead of continuing to make them worse but trying to hide the fact?
Because the director may just have made a stinko movie, and the producers need to redo things to make it work.
The article you link to pretty much answers your questions. Just keep reading to the end. (It’s not very long.)
I suspect it was also used to hide a director slumming for money. I saw an Intel propaganda industrial directed by Alan Smithee which certainly didn’t have any studio involvement or was any worse than the normal industrial.
I thought the Alan Smithee movie: Burn Hollywood Burn had something to do with it.
I wonder if that’s ever actually happened - a movie made better by interference from the studio. The last big dust-up I recall was Payback, where Gibson used his clout to force a bunch of dumbass changes by the studio, but maybe there have been some.
“Better” is a slippery term in the movie business. What a director considers “better” might translate to more accolades from critics and The Academy, whereas what a studio considers “better” might translate to more teenage butts in seats and a greater bottom line in DVD sales. Neither of them are stupid; they just have different agendas.
Wait, what?
Quiet, you. You’ve been discontinued.
I’m sorry you had to find out this way.
/injects needle into Alan Smithee’s neck.
/Looks around to make sure there are no eyewitnesses.
That was the nail in the coffin, but the fact that the movie’s title and premise required the general audience to know the use of the name was a pretty good indicator that its usefulness was pretty much at an end, anyway.
Worse still: If he tries posting under a series of generic names, he’s going to get smacked by the Mods.
And the actual director did have his name removed from that movie.