Welcome to the show folks....
DISNEY BUYS MARVEL AGAIN... SORT OF...
The Walt Disney Company has paid Paramount around $115 million+ to end their distribution contract with Marvel a couple of years early. While Paramount will still release Thor, Disney will directly handle the upcoming Avengers movie, and Iron Man 3 completely in house. Aside from the initial $115 million Paramount will also get a piece of the action from the two movies they gave up to Disney.
Of course that's if both films don't mysteriously "lose" millions in the dark and mysterious maze of studio accounting where madness doth dwell. That would be a lawsuit I'd pay to see.
Anyway, it's a good deal for Paramount, while they loved to claim the box office totals on their press releases, they had to hand over 92% of those revenues back to Marvel. They could use the cash to further their ability to produce their own material, which they almost completely gave up when they became utterly dependent on Marvel and Dreamworks which are now both gone.
If anyone has anything to worry about, it's the crew from Jackass 3D, a $50 million opening weekend means that Paramount's going to force them to endure more grievous groin injuries for at least 3 more movies.
BRANSON WE NEED TO TALK
Richard Branson's new Virgin film production whatever has announced its first project. It will be a big budget movie about Christopher Columbus, to be done in the style of Zack Snyder's 300, but directed by McG.
I'd like to take a moment to speak directly to Mr. Branson.
Mr. Branson, Richard, Richie, if I may... I have something to say about this Christopher Columbus movie project:
Seriously.
300 was a hit because it was a blood & guts celebration of violence, masculine power, and resistance against religious fanaticism in the form of the mindlessly obedient followers of Xerxes the "god emperor" of Persia.
What is McG going to do, a dramatic slow motion shot of Columbus' sailors unintentionally sharing smallpox with the Natives?
Here are some other problems that will pop up with the production:
1. Politics: If the film goes by Columbus' reports, there will accusations of cannibalism against the Carib Indians, which will get people protesting against it the way they did over the Columbus anniversary in 1992.
2. McG's record as a filmmaker: It's pretty lackluster with even guaranteed blockbusters losing money because they cost too damn much. His background is in music videos, which means less interest in telling a good story, and more interest in just throwing money at creating overwrought visuals.
3. Story: It's been done to death and lacks the epic battles and melodrama that made 300 a hit. If you try to inject it into the film you'll end up bastardizing history even more than 300, because they at least had a massive epic battle, and not a few arquebus shots at ill tempered locals firing arrows. Let us not forget the last time producers tried to inject melodrama into the story, which badly damaged or pretty much destroyed the movie careers of almost everyone involved.
My advice, step back from this movie. Find another movie. If you want to make a historical action picture, try the Battle of Lepanto. It's like 300, but at sea, and even has a huge battle at the center, full of roaring cannon, sword-fights, and big sailing ships burning, sinking, and even exploding, and I don't think it's ever been done on film.
DISNEY BUYS MARVEL AGAIN... SORT OF...
The Walt Disney Company has paid Paramount around $115 million+ to end their distribution contract with Marvel a couple of years early. While Paramount will still release Thor, Disney will directly handle the upcoming Avengers movie, and Iron Man 3 completely in house. Aside from the initial $115 million Paramount will also get a piece of the action from the two movies they gave up to Disney.
Of course that's if both films don't mysteriously "lose" millions in the dark and mysterious maze of studio accounting where madness doth dwell. That would be a lawsuit I'd pay to see.
Anyway, it's a good deal for Paramount, while they loved to claim the box office totals on their press releases, they had to hand over 92% of those revenues back to Marvel. They could use the cash to further their ability to produce their own material, which they almost completely gave up when they became utterly dependent on Marvel and Dreamworks which are now both gone.
If anyone has anything to worry about, it's the crew from Jackass 3D, a $50 million opening weekend means that Paramount's going to force them to endure more grievous groin injuries for at least 3 more movies.
BRANSON WE NEED TO TALK
Richard Branson's new Virgin film production whatever has announced its first project. It will be a big budget movie about Christopher Columbus, to be done in the style of Zack Snyder's 300, but directed by McG.
I'd like to take a moment to speak directly to Mr. Branson.
Mr. Branson, Richard, Richie, if I may... I have something to say about this Christopher Columbus movie project:
NO!
NO! NO!
NO! NO! NO!
NO! NO! NO! NO!
BAD RICHIE!!
BAD! BAD RICHIE!!
DON'T MAKE ME RUB YOUR NOSE IN IT!!!
NO! NO!
NO! NO! NO!
NO! NO! NO! NO!
BAD RICHIE!!
BAD! BAD RICHIE!!
DON'T MAKE ME RUB YOUR NOSE IN IT!!!
Seriously.
300 was a hit because it was a blood & guts celebration of violence, masculine power, and resistance against religious fanaticism in the form of the mindlessly obedient followers of Xerxes the "god emperor" of Persia.
What is McG going to do, a dramatic slow motion shot of Columbus' sailors unintentionally sharing smallpox with the Natives?
Here are some other problems that will pop up with the production:
1. Politics: If the film goes by Columbus' reports, there will accusations of cannibalism against the Carib Indians, which will get people protesting against it the way they did over the Columbus anniversary in 1992.
2. McG's record as a filmmaker: It's pretty lackluster with even guaranteed blockbusters losing money because they cost too damn much. His background is in music videos, which means less interest in telling a good story, and more interest in just throwing money at creating overwrought visuals.
3. Story: It's been done to death and lacks the epic battles and melodrama that made 300 a hit. If you try to inject it into the film you'll end up bastardizing history even more than 300, because they at least had a massive epic battle, and not a few arquebus shots at ill tempered locals firing arrows. Let us not forget the last time producers tried to inject melodrama into the story, which badly damaged or pretty much destroyed the movie careers of almost everyone involved.
My advice, step back from this movie. Find another movie. If you want to make a historical action picture, try the Battle of Lepanto. It's like 300, but at sea, and even has a huge battle at the center, full of roaring cannon, sword-fights, and big sailing ships burning, sinking, and even exploding, and I don't think it's ever been done on film.
No comments:
Post a Comment