Hollywood Babble On & On #290: Terminated By Greed?

Sorry for the late posting, life does get in the way sometimes, but here I am.

TERMINATED BY GREED?

Terminator: Salvation opened in second, to what many consider a lukewarm opening. Those many are already branding the film a failure. It might end up failing, it was very expensive to make, and it really needed a killer opening weekend to put it over the hump.

Their second mistake was opening it against a big budget family oriented fantasy sequel like Night At The Museum: Battle of the Gift Shop. They should have aimed for a weekend with less overt competition, even if it meant sacrificing a 3 day weekend take.

But their first mistake was in screwing up the franchise big time.

To get that precious opening weekend for a sci-fi/fantasy franchise the franchise has win over the geeks, the hard core sf fans who line up down the block to buy tickets, and who then see the film several more times if they like it.

But in order to attract the geeks, the franchise has to have some value to it, and it has to at least make a little bit, a scintilla, if you will, of sense.

You see Terminator 3 played around with the continuity established by T2. Some folks forgave them for that, because T2 did the same to T1, and sci-fi fans can accept some playing around with time travel. But then came the Sarah Connor Chronicles, which screwed the continuity up so much you don't know what the hell happens to John Connor, and you just stop caring.

That's what happened to me when I realized that they were doing a Terminator TV series, as well as a new planned trilogy of feature films. It struck me as a desperate attempt to milk a franchise that new owners probably paid too much for to begin with. You knew that there will never be a final victory in the war between man and machine, because some executive will then hire some scribbler to come up with a cheap excuse to start it all over again. Sure, time travel creates some pretty convoluted plots, but there's a line, and when you cross that line, you've screwed your story into the ground, and I don't think it will get out.

The geeks may not be able to express it, but they smell that desperation, and despite Bale's charisma as an action star, which is what I think brought in the $50 million, I just got the feeling that they just couldn't forgive the new owners for what they did to the Terminator.

An Evening With Jon Peters

An Open Letter
To Hollywood
by
special guest
JON PETERS
The Greatest Movie Producer
The World Has Ever Known*

I just don't fucking believe it.

First everybody shits a kitten when Nikki Finke gets her mitts on my book proposal and starts blabbing about it all over this enter-web thingy, and I get all sorts of threats of lawsuits and shit if I don't pull out of the deal like Catholic birth control.

Well, I pulled it out, are you happy now?

Damn.

I thought you people were my friends?

Sure, none of you have anything nice to say about me, and my book didn't have anything nice in it about you, but come on. It would have been a fucking bitching book!

And I know books, I read one once!

It has fucking, it has bitch slaps, it's got even more fucking, and the ending where I beat up that giant fucking mekanikal robot spider was the greatest thing ever written.

But what do I get?

I get the most powerful people in all of Hollywood looking to put my tastekels testekels balls in a sling over it.

Goes to show that I still got it.

Because getting all those emportent big people coming after me shows that I am still the biggest ballsiest bad-ass producer in all the land, and not someone who once had the run of a studio and all he got done was getting himself dismasst shit-canned for wasting millions.

I am still the king!!

*As determined by the Jon Peters Institute for Measuring the Greatness of Producers.

Saturday Silliness Cinema: 2 Canadian Stand-Ups

Sorry for not blogging yesterday, too much to do, too little time. But I do have my regular Saturday comedy video break for you all to enjoy with another installment of Canadian stand-up comedians.

First up John Wing with a touching song about a break-up...



Next up Erica Sigurdson explaining why she doesn't have children, but what she'd do if she did...

Hollywood Babble On & On #289: Miscellaneous Movie Related Musings...

1. YOU SANK MY FILM INDUSTRY

Word is going around that a major studio is planning to do a movie version of the board game Battleship. It was this news that inspired me to start my internet rumour about a movie version of Hungry-Hungry Hippo. (Which I expect you to spread everywhere.)

Now I don't know why Hollywood decided to pay a toy company lots of money to license the movie rights to a game when there are literally hundreds of naval battle stories in the public domain known as history. (Sure, some life rights may need to be cleared, but that's minor)

There's the sinking of the Bismarck, Midway, Coral Sea, and if you want to go way back, try Trafalgar, Lepanto, and the good part is that the really ancient battles are free, totally free!!!!

And if you're the studio that's made movies about the Bismarck or Midway, then you're halfway there already, because you probably already own the remake rights.

Sure, there's that hobgoblin of small minded marketers called "name recognition," but that's not all it's cracked up to be. Millions know the name of Nicole Kidman, but they won't pay good money to see her in a movie.

Speaking of remakes...

2. UFO FLIES AGAIN

Chinatown producer Robert Evans is heading up a big screen adaptation of the short lived British series UFO. Now some may wonder why Evans, who was a major force at Paramount in the 1970s would try to make a movie based on a show that was really only a minor cult favourite?

Well, I think I know why. The premise of the story is that Commander Ed Straker runs a secret organization called SHADO, whose mission is to protect humanity from aliens intent on harvesting our organs. Straker's cover story is that he's the CEO of a movie studio.

Face it, this is the closest it will ever come to a Hollywood CEO being cast as a hero.

I'm surprised Evans was the first to try for a remake.

3. SPEAKING OF PRODUCERS AS HEROES

Former hairdresser turned producer and former Sony Pictures boss Jon Peters is floating around a proposal hoping to attract a publisher to his autobiography. You have to read it for yourself to believe it, so read it, and come back. I'll wait....

...
...
...

Did you read it?

Man, wasn't that a tad self-aggrandizing?

If I didn't know that it was serious, I'd have thought that it was a parody.

Whoah.

The plan is to call the book Studio Head, but I think it needs a different, better, and more accurate title. So here are my suggestions:

-A Boy & His Ego

-Hollywood Ozymandias: Look Upon My Wang Ye Mighty & Despair

-I Slept With Streisand, I Earned That Credit!

-Everything Goes Better With A Giant Mechanical Spider!

(If you have your own suggestion for a title, leave it in the comments)

A little humility goes a long way, especially when you have collected half the enemies that Peters has allegedly collected over the years.

I predict that Peters will get a couple of million for the book, and the only way it'll every be profitable is if the publisher sells it for $500,000 a copy. Because I'm very doubtful that anyone outside of the attorneys of the people mentioned in this book will buying it.

4. CEASE & DESIST

No it's not a letter from Jon Peters' lawyers, he hasn't found this blog yet. I'm talking about William Morris-Endeavor telling other agencies to stop poaching their people.

It's natural, Hollywood agencies are the most like sharks, not because they devour people, that depends on the individual agent, but because they have to be constantly moving forward.

When word of the WM-E merger got out, I'm certain that every other major agency in town smelled the coming layoffs like blood in the water, and instantly made a wish-list of agents and clients they wanted, and swooped in.

You can't blame them. They're just doing what nature intended, and it's perfectly natural for WM-E to protect their turf.

5. AND SPEAKING OF AGENTS...

I'm still looking for one, as I reported yesterday. Today involved some research and the preparation of a new synopsis/cover letter for my novel Joe Average. Just the drudgery of getting the work out there. Wish me luck.

A VERY IMPORTANT MISSION!!!

By now you've probably heard that some British newspapers have picked up a joke made on Defamer about Martin Scorcese casting Jamie Foxx as Frank Sinatra, and run it as a real story.

Well, I think it's time for another internet rumour tainting the news, and I think it should start here.

So I want you, all two of my loyal readers to pass around an alleged "test" poster of a film allegedly in development at Universal Pictures and Imagine Entertainment. I want this all over the internet and I want major newspapers running it on their front page as soon as possible.
Start spreading the word because I want to do more than just analyze the news, I want to make the news, even if it's complete hippo-shit.

Hollywood Babble On & On #288: Miscellaneous Musings

1. RELATIVITY DOES MGM?

What are they up to at Relativity Media? First they buy Rogue Pictures, a company with no distribution and a questionable library, from Universal, then they go into a lame "brand awareness" deal for Rogue with the Hard Rock Casino, and now they're buying up MGM's debt.

MGM has a lot of crushing debt that's keeping the company from moving forward, and Relativity could be buying it up in order force a bankruptcy and gain control of the company, either as their own distributor, or to strip it down and sell off the assets for a profit.

I've already discussed what should be done with MGM, and a commenter added that some money might be had selling the MGM trademark to Warner Bros. (Who own the MGM golden age library), but the question is, does Relativity have what it takes to do what needs to be done. Saving the venerable studio is really not an option anymore, it's history, it's toast, it's done and dusted, what has to be done is a complete reinvention of the entire shebang.

2. CRIKEY!! IT'S THOR!!

Director and suspected thespian Kenneth Branagh has picked an Aussie actor Chris Hemwsworth for the title role in Marvel Comics movie adaptation of The Mighty Thor. Now I noticed that some of the commentariat at Nikki Finke's site are a little miffed that the role didn't go to an American actor.

Well there are two reasons for this:

1- Method Acting. Too many American actors are wrapped up in the whole "method" made famous by the Actor's Studio. Now while in the right hands method acting can provide an element of realism to a role, it's not that great when you're playing the Norse god of thunder.

The role of Thor, even without the faux Shakespearean dialogue, requires a certain amount of bombast that would come across as hammy from a method actor. Any actor doing the role of Thor requires a certain amount of classical background, or the capability to be moulded to give a classical theatrical performance. It has less to do with "being" the role, than "selling" the character.

2- Machismo. Face it, too many American actors in the Thor age-range are a little lacking in the testosterone department. Clint Eastwood, who is pushing 80, looks like could take all of them on, and dole out the harshness upside their pretty, carefully coiffed, heads.

Hollywood has wasted too much time looking for faces that could go on a magazine cover, that they have none that look like they could take a punch.

When casting an "action star" you need someone who looks like they could back you up in an Old West saloon brawl. Most of young Hollywood look like they would scream "NOT THE FACE!" and run away to put the moves on Miss Kitty while you're getting your ass handed to you on a plate by the Clantons.

Now I'm not sure about Thor wrestling crocodiles while yelling "crikey, she's a big'un!" will be appropriate, but I'll give Branagh the benefit of the doubt.

Hollywood Babble On & On #287: A Rarity Indeed

According to the always indefatigable Nikki Finke, Sony Entertainment CEO Michael Lynton offered to reduce his own pay to reflect a recent downturn in the company's fortunes.

This report stunned me so bad I really couldn't write about it for a few days. It's like seeing a Bigfoot but rarer, and more unbelievable.

I should probably should explain why I was so shocked by this event. Usually when a company hits a bad patch the CEO then goes to the board and demands raises and bonuses far beyond the performance of them or the company. These demands are usually made in the name of "retention," basically a polite form of blackmail where the CEO says: "Pay me more, or I'll walk".

Usually the CEOs who make these demands, are the very same people who put the company in the bad spot in the first place, but since the boards tend to be comprised of their friends and cronies, they usually get what they want. So we have a system where companies pay out tens of millions of dollars to keep people whose sole claim to fame was already costing the company tens of millions of dollars in losses.

Which is what makes Lynton's offer so incredible.

He actually wants his salary based upon his performance. When the company hits a bad patch, then he has to ride it like everyone else, and not resort to layoffs just to cover his own butt and income.

Now some have tried to say that Lynton's offer is no big thing since he comes from family money and can probably survive a pay cut. I disagree. Most CEOs are paid in the millions every year, and if they can't save some rainy-day money when times are good, they really shouldn't be running a major corporation.

Lynton's offer, which was ultimately refused by the Sony parent company, shows a certain amount of seriousness about his role as the Chief Executive Officer. He has offered to link his own success to the success of the company, in good times and bad, and it's an admirable stance.

I think Sony should have taken him up on his offer, if only to shame the other CEOs bleeding their company's dry into doing something to make them worthy of their salary.

Anyway, I wish them luck. Anyone who views the company as a serious business, than a means to fatten their egos and wallet is someone who deserves it.

Saturday Silliness Cinema: Happy Victoria Day!

This is a long holiday weekend in Canada, thanks to the lovely Queen Victoria, and in honour of that holiday, I'm posting a couple of videos that highlight two truly Canadian stand-up road warriors.

First up is Ron James, who started out as a sketch performer with Toronto's Second City in the 1980s. After an unsuccessful sojourn as an actor in Los Angeles James was inspired to turn his Hollywood experiences into a stand-up show called "Up & Down in Shakey Town." The show was a huge hit, and turned him overnight from a failed actor, to one of Canada's top stand-up attractions.

He's continued with a series of specials for the CBC about Canada and Canadians, in this segment he discusses that ever-present Canuck institution, the Tim Hortons Donut Shop.



Up next is Derek Edwards, who is considered the comedian's comedian, being praised by his peers for his unique delivery and clever material. In this clip he's discussing an outbreak of Mad Cow disease in Canada.

Hollywood Babble On & On #286: MGM-- Must Get Money

Pity poor MGM.

Once it was the grandest and most glamorous movie studio, boasting "more stars than in heaven," and a trademark gloss to everything it did.

Nowadays it's lucky to co-produce a Bond flick, or a remake that shouldn't be done, like the Pink Panther, and is currently trying to renegotiate the company's substantial debt. One of the plans being floated is to sell United Artists, but I can't see it earning much without the library, which MGM needs to stay afloat, and its deal with Tom Cruise is hemorrhaging epic amounts of cash on script rewrites alone without pulling in the green necessary to make the scene.

Now there are ways for MGM to survive financially, but it will take more than a cash infusion to keep the company running beyond the next quarter.

So let's have a little thought experiment, I want you to imagine that MGM has the financing necessary to keep themselves afloat for another year. Then you have to ask: "Now what?"

Well here's the plan, which I call Dump/Dump-Make/Make...

1. Dump Tom Cruise. He'll be happier back at Paramount, you'll be happier with him at Paramount, and Sumner Redstone's probably forgotten their split by now and will be grateful to have someone willing to work for them. Let him be their problem, and get him out of United Artists, because that's the next step of the plan.

2. Dump MGM. Not the whole company, just the name when it comes to new productions. The name Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer has a lot of history, but not much of a future. Back in the golden age it stood for films that were big, slick, glossy, glamorous, and often epic in scope. Nowadays it stands for films that want to be big, slick, glossy, etc...etc..., but just doesn't have the money to go big the way they used to. In branding a studio content truly is king, but in MGM's case their content is in conflict with their company's history.

The name United Artists, outside of the Tom Cruise boondoggle, is pretty much an unknown to modern moviegoers, being more or less moribund for years, if not decades. In a way it would be like starting a whole new company. One with a library of thousands of movies pulling in half a billion a year in revenue. Use MGM to sell the old films on DVD and television, use United Artists to sell the new one.

4. Make Friends. A lot of the independent film financing investment houses and indie producers aren't happy with a lot of the major studios. The majors screw them at every opportunity, which wasn't bad when times were good, and film investing could be a tax write-off, but those days are over, and folks want investments that pay off when the film's a hit. Don't screw them over, and keep them coming to you as the studio-distributor of choice.

5. Make Money. Do whatever it takes to bring in the cash. I'm talking low budget horror flicks, get someone from the Judd Apatow money factory to make a cheap but profitable comedy, I don't care. Forget winning awards, forget wooing critics, they don't pay the bills. I'm talking about pimping everything you've got to make the most money fast. If you don't want these films to taint your "brand" then take one of the moribund companies in the MGM vault like Orion and release it through them.

Just get the money coming in and keep it coming in. This is not about prestige, it's not about glamor, it's about survival.

Now get to work.

Hollywood Babble On & On #285: When Good Brands Make Dumb Mistakes

Imax, the Canadian invention that takes the "big screen" experience to a whole new level is getting a bit of a blog-based bitchfest aimed at it over their Imax Digital movie theatre system. Folks are paying an extra $5 a showing, expecting a monster-sized picture, and discovering that the screen really isn't much bigger than a conventional movie screen.

How Imax did not see this coming in blazing sharp definition is really beyond me.

While they may that it was a good idea to slap their name on this new digital projection process, all in the name of promoting their "brand," it was in fact a bad idea. A really bad idea.

The Imax "brand" is identified with ginormous motion sickness inducing mega-screens, not slightly larger than average screens. This Imax Digital controversy has now associated their precious "brand" with ruined expectations.

And the sad thing is that it could have been avoided.

All Imax had to do was to come up with a cool sounding name that was different from Imax, but associated with Imax. Something like DigiMax, or HiMax, but less lame. (Just look at Hollywood history at the dawn of widescreen cinema for inspiration)

Toss in a marketing campaign that told audiences that the Imax folks invented a new system that improves the ordinary theatre experience in quality and quantity, and you could have avoided the whole backlash.

But instead they listened to the so-called marketing gurus, who told that the Imax brand itself was the be all and end-all, and they gacked it, big time.

The lesson here is that sometimes to protect your brand you need to create a new brand.