Cinemaniacal: Some Things That Sorta Kinda Bugs Me

STAR TREKONOMICS:

Ever since I was a kid I was a fan of Star Trek.

The whole concept of going out into space, meeting aliens, having adventures, just spoke to me as kid.  If I had a genie pop out of a magic lamp when I was 10 years old, I'd have had a fully equipped and functioning starship.  And that was before Next Generation, and all I had were the reruns of the original series.

However, there was always something about Star Trek that sorta, kinda, bugged me.  Even when I was a kid.

Economics.

They didn't really have any.

In fact, they actively avoided any economic talk in the original series, and generally avoided it in the Next Generation, with a blanket statement that no one in the Federation "used money," viewed those that did use money with suspicion, if not contempt, and left it at that.

Now I can understand Gene Rodenberry giving short shrift to thoughts of economics and money when creating the show. Talking in any depth about money, how it works or where it comes from is considered gauche in Hollywood circles, and they don't call economics the "dismal science" for nothing.

However, it is a key component in universe building because economics is the study of interactions between people, their society, and between societies.

To just ignore economics and hope that thinking up replicators would make it go away is something that I think hurt the franchise in the long run because it raised some questions that they couldn't answer.

1. How did the Federation trade with other interstellar  powers? Seriously, without any sort of market system that allocates accurate costs and values to goods and services there really is no way for nations to trade beyond the most basic bartering. 

2. How did everyone get paid?  Seriously what is to stop a citizen from going to the replicator and just giving themselves all sorts of junk.  While the replicators are good at transforming and recycling matter, they still need a steady supply of raw materials because you can't just create matter out of nothingness. 

They need farmers and miners to produce those raw materials and they need something to control how much people use and prevent people from wasting them. A free market society uses money to control consumption. If you want to consume more, you must provide some sort of good or service to the wider world so you can earn more money so you can consume more.

Does the Federation government ration what resources people can use?  If so, how does the Federation determine how much of said resources each person can use?  How do they determine how someone gets since there's no real way to determine value? Is it based on your productivity, your rank, or your political connections? If it isn't, then what reason do people have to work hard at the sort of unglamorous jobs that make the comfortable lives of the Starfleet officers, Federation technocrats, and Academics possible?

And that's just the beginning of the questions.

Some people nitpick Star Trek's technobabble, I nitpick their incomplete social models.  I know I'm not the only one who does this.  Joss Whedon's Firefly was pretty much an expose of what life would be like under a Federation style state where you either served the state, served the politically connected elite who ran said state, or you had operate in an underground capacity, actively avoiding the state when you could.

GENERAL CONTRIVANCE STRIKES AGAIN

I was channel surfing the other night and came across some cheap-ass sci-fi monster movie about mutant bugs killing people. It was an exposition scene where the guy who knows what's going on explains things to those who don't know what's going on.

The explanation for the killer mutant bugs was that they were created by the US military to use a weapon.

Now this wasn't the first time I saw this, in fact, I can't keep count of how many time I have seen this or a variation of it.  When there's mutant bugs, green irradiated rage monsters, man-eating mythical beasts, undead horrors, and or alien creatures running amok, there's often some guy with fancy rank insignia on his shoulders and scrambled eggs on his hat who either created it, or brought it to our world, or just stumbled onto it, but they want nothing more than to make it the next entry in America's arsenal.

That really sorta, kinda bugs me to no end.

Because it doesn't matter if this "weapon" can't be controlled, and will most likely kill all sorts of innocent civilians without doing any damage to any enemy, they want to have it, and won't let logic or strategic considerations stop them.

I call this character General Contrivance, because that is what they are: a contrived excuse for a plot.

You see everything in storytelling is contrived to one degree or another. Characters have to do certain things, often fantastical, at certain times to move the story along, that's contrived. However, the trick to avoid looking contrived by giving these things a basis in rational thought or some sort of reality, even if it's an alternate reality that operates by its own natural laws.

However, when someone does something that is obviously stupid for reasons that make no logical, or strategic sense the writers are creating an obvious contrivance.

Now there are two reasons to call in General Contrivance and his ilk.

1. LAZINESS: Coming up with new reasons for monsters to run amok requires burning calories.  It's better to just slap in something about the military, because the uniforms are cheap to rent, and let it end there.

2. STATMENT!: The writers think they're using their monster movie to make some sort of statement about the military/industrial complex, when in fact they're just rehashing a cliche.

Those are two things that sorta, kinda, bug me.  Leave what sorta, kinda, bugs you* in the comments.

---------------------

*Warning: This blog and its author does not count as something that sorta, kinda, bugs anyone.

Hollywood Babble On & On #836: Random Drippings From My Brain Pan...

Hello everyone, time to wipe some random drippings from my brain pan, and wipe them on your computer screen....

1.  IS OSCAR TOO OLD?

The folks at the LA Times are wondering if the Oscars have given up on wooing the young with the recruitment of Billy Crystal to be the host. 

Now I think Crystal, who first hosted the Oscars in the Silent Era, probably got the job because he was actually willing to do it on relatively short notice more than any demographic consideration.

However, should the Oscars pursue the young whipper-snappers in their dungarees listening to their rock and roll boogie woogie music?

Probably not because it only succeeds in making the Oscars look even more old fashioned and square.  It's the Awards Show equivalent of your grandfather dressing up like MC Hammer because they think it will make them a "hep-cat."

Let's look at Oscar's recent attempts to "connect" with the youngsters:

1. Jon Stewart came across as stale and smug.

2. Chris Rock didn't seem to know what to do, and I think he hurt Sean Penn's feelings when he made fun of Jude Law.

3.  Anne Hathaway was actually burning calories when she co-hosted, but her co-host James Franco looked bored, disinterested, and possibly high. Their mismatched energy was further hobbled by limp writing.

I don't think the Academy shouldn't even bother angling for the youngsters, because youngsters don't give a shit about the Oscars.

The Academy Awards are for people who go to movies that are made for people who vote for the Academy Awards.  It wasn't always this way, but times and Hollywood have changed, and unless they're going to start nominating Twilight movies, the Academy isn't going to get any younger.

Don't accuse me of posting cheesecake, I Googled "Past Oscar Host" & got this picture instead of one of Billy Crystal, honest.

2. SIGN OF HOPE SIGN OF DESPAIR!

I think this a sign of hope, Sony Pictures has ceased production of Roland Emmerich's next bombast fest Singularity, because they thought the script wasn't good enough for a $175 million production.

However, this sign of hope is hampered by the simple fact that Sony's Columbia Pictures division has spent $79 million on Adam Sandler's latest shit-sandwich Jack & Jill.  Don't just take my word for it, Movieline has collected the most scathing critical responses to the movie, which stands, as of this writing at 4% "Rotten" at Rotten Tomatoes.

Seriously what possible reason other than the paychecks and perks written about yesterday can possibly explain how $79 million was spent on Adam Sandler running around in drag?

Taking a stand about Singularity's quality was a nice first step, but it's only a first step.

I think Sandler's become a parody of himself now, I really do.

4. ASHTON KUTCHER TAKES THE FIRST STEP....

....and admits that he's an idiot.

The truest thing he's ever said.

He's handing over control of his Twitter account to his management and publicity team after tweeting to the defense of Penn State Football Coach Joe Paterno who sorta, kinda, allegedly allowed child rape as a hobby for a member of his coaching staff. 

I guess 140 characters just took up too much brain power.

Link Piece: Polone On Perks

Agent turn manager turned producer Gavin Polone wrote an interesting piece on star perks that fills in a lot of facts to go with what I wrote in my piece about how overpaid stars cost more than just their bloated up front salaries.

The sort of thing the article is talking about.

Hollywood Babble On & On #835: Oscar's In Chaos

Wow.

Yesterday I wrote a rather tongue in cheek post about who might replace Brett Ratner if he got turfed from the Oscars. 

Little did I know that my little attempt at humor, complete with satirical social commentary, would turn out to be not only true, but desperately needed.

In case you're living in a cave Senor Ratner is out at the Oscars, and if that isn't enough chaos for you Eddie Murphy has dropped out of the hosting gig.

I actually pity the fool who takes on the job as producer of the Oscar telecast, and I'm not saying that because of my never-ending admiration for Mr. T.

I really do think whoever takes the job will be deserving a spot on my "poor bastard" list.

Let's look at the facts of the case.

1. A lot of the budget has already been spent. This is not an insurmountable problem, because the Academy, and the ABC network can kick in some more into the kitty because it's still a pretty major TV event.  However, the ratings of past Oscars have been iffy, and it's not good to lose the safety cushion of a nice profit margin.

2. Putting together a large scale live telecast is a huge time consuming job, and Ratner's replacement will have less than half the time to do it than Ratner.  They will not only have to make decisions regarding the new business that will pop up, but will have to review and probably redo just about every decision made during the Ratner regime.

3. Finding a host for the Oscars isn't easy.  Billy Crystal's eager, but since the Ratnerati shot him down rather publicly, it's unlikely he'll continue to be eager about it. Whoever takes the hosting gig, even if it's The Muppets, will have less than half the time to prepare, and then there's problem #4...

4.  If every joke is not a smash gut-buster, and every intro, segue, presentation, and acceptance speech not smoother than greased silk, the critics, punters, and internet wankers like me will shit on the replacement host and producer without mercy.  It doesn't matter how hard they try, because sniping that this year's Oscars was the worst Oscars almost as popular as soccer as a global past-time.

However, all is not doom and gloom.

The simple fact that all this chaos and sturm und drang is happening could make people who wouldn't normally watch the Oscars tune in.  There will be a lot of schadenfreude about Hollywood in flyover country and it could turn into pure ratings gold.

So if the reports that Brian Grazer is taking it on turn out to be true, I'm going to wish him, or whoever gets the job, a lot of luck, because they are going to need it.

---------------------------------

UPDATE: Brian Grazer has taken the job, and is moving fast to stabilize the situation, and the word is that Billy Crystal is at least in talks to be the host again.  Sorry Muppets.

Hollywood Babble On & On #834: The Ratner Factor?

Brett Ratner, the director behind the Rush Hour movies and Tower Heist, is producing the upcoming Academy Awards.  Among the decisions he's made is to drop Bruce Vilanch as the top writer, give a rather raunchy interview on the Howard Stern Radio Show, and insult and enrage the gay community.

Now some are calling for Ratner to be promptly fired and replaced.

But that raises a different question:

WHO COULD REPLACE THE RAT-MAN?

You can't have the Oscars without a producer, and look all the stress is making Don Draper cry:

So let's look at the pros and cons of potential replacements for Brett Ratner.

J.J. ABRAMS

PROS:  He's a very successful producer and director of film and television, and is credited with reviving both the Star Trek movie franchise and the lens flare. 

CONS:  He could spend the entire Oscar telecast planting clues to what film will win Best Picture, only to have a finale that leaves the audience and nominees confused and vaguely dissatisfied.

MICHAEL BAY

 

PROS:  He knows how to coordinate large scale productions, and since he's never satisfied a critic in his life, the inevitable griping and grousing about the show's quality will be like water off a duck's back to him.  

Plus, if your speech goes too long....  

BOOM!  

Exploding podium.

CONS: The costs of making the Oscars will be massive and the stage could collapse when a life-size Transformer robot goes out to present the Oscar for Best Sound Design.

RYAN MURPHY

 

PROS: He's a successful and experienced film/TV director and producer. 

CONS:  There will be annoying musical numbers starring those overage "kids" from Glee every ten frikking seconds.  Plus, he's going to want the host to wear that rubber/leather gimp suit from American Horror Story.

ELI ROTH

PROS:  His films are about torture as well as torture to watch, so it's not much of a stretch for him to do the Oscars, which are just torture to watch.

CONS: Presenters could slip on the inevitable arterial spray and that could lead to lawsuits.

JAMES CAMERON

PROS: He's an Academy Award winner and has experience handling large scale productions with big budgets.

CONS: The budget will balloon into the hundreds of millions of dollars to pay for converting the broadcast to 3D, and the whole production will have massive gaps in logic that will annoy any viewers with half a functioning brain cell.

QUENTIN TARANTINO

PROS:  He's a past Oscar winner and critically acclaimed director.  Plus, Samuel L. Jackson presenting the award for "Best Motherfucking Picture."

CONS:  There will be just too many close ups of actress's feet for a respectable awards show.

HARVEY WEINSTEIN

PROS: Has a lot of experience with the Oscars from his days with Miramax, and is really good at getting what he wants.

CONS: He'll refuse to broadcast the Oscars live, preferring to tape the show, then sit on it for two or more years, re-editing it to include more dick jokes, and a hip hop soundtrack.  It will then be dumped into discount video bins after a hell of a lot litigation.

FURIOUS D

PROS:  Makes up for lack of direct Hollywood experience with common sense and a certain amount of demented evil genius. Will use cattle prods to end speeches that go long.

CONS: None. He's perfect in every way, and that's an unbiased judgment by an expert.

Well, now that we've looked at our options, there really is only one choice.

Hollywood Babble On & On #833: Overpaid Overexposed & Just Plain Over

Yesterday, I wrote a post about Forbes' list of Hollywood's most overpaid stars.  Click the link and read it if you haven't already, I'll wait.

...

...

Okay, you're back.  Brilliant, wasn't it?  Anyway, enough about that post, let's get on with this one...

In response to my post, reader Blast Hardcheese commented:

Artist's Conception of Blast Hardcheese writing his comment

An interesting list. Only one (Ms. Barrymore, alas) can be said to actually lose money. It would be interesting if Forbes gave some idea of what the minimal 'reasonable' ROI should be for a major Hollywood star. Would it be a 10/1 return, or what?

As far as one of the best for money, my initial WAG is Signourney Weaver. I think pretty much everything she's been in recently (Galaxy Quest, Avatar) did well, and I can't imagine her commanding a $10M+ salary.

Now I'm going to try to look at some of the points that Senor Hardcheese brought up in his comment.

First is the concept that Drew Barrymore is the only one that actually loses money.  Because you see there are a lot more factors to consider beyond the star's salary and the rate of return they can muster.

There are other things to consider when considering if a star earns or loses money for a picture, you have to look at these factors:

1. The up-front salary.  (What Forbes based most of their calculations on)

This photo has nothing to do with this post.

2.  The ancillary costs of having that star involved. (These are the perks, that include travel, hotels, entourage, trailers, food, not just during the shooting, but during the publicity phase, and all those other things that aren't part of the "salary" but still cost real money, and in the case of some stars millions.)

3.  The star's piece of the back end, if any.  (A lot of the heavy hitters demand a get a "dollar one" piece of the box office revenue.  That means from the first dollar spent, the studio has to give anywhere from 5%-25% to the star. That's before the studio accountants can pass it through their various machinations.)

Then you put all of them together to figure out...

4.  The potential negative impact that star may have on the production.  Did this film lose money, not so much because of the star's appeal, or lack thereof, but because they were just too damn costly.

So the potential is there for some, if not all of the others on the list, to be major money losers, depending on the contents of their contract.

Now Blast Hardcheese asks if a 10/1 return on investment would be considered good.

I think it's a good place to start, but I doubt it will even be considered.

Why?

To answer that we must dive into the murky depths of Hollywood business again.

You see in almost every other industry salaries are determined by the vicissitudes of the marketplace.  Costs that negatively effect the profitability of a good or a service usually get chopped.

But not in Hollywood.

You see Hollywood is heavily insulated from the vicissitudes of the market by two important factors...

1. The studios usually have very large, very deep pocketed parent companies.

2.  The movies they make are usually resold over and over again in a variety of formats.  TV, home video, streaming/downloads, direct-to-brain transfer, so they expect to get at least something back in the long term.

This insulation means that pay related decisions are often based on factors that have little, or nothing, to do with the market.

That's right, I'm talking POLITICS.

Not the "voter for this guy or that guy" kind of politics, I'm talking about that my definition of politics. Meaning factors are being used in the decision making process that have nothing to do with the actual pros and cons of any of the options around said decision.

So you get people getting big bucks for having their mugs on a lot of magazine covers, or for having an agent with a lot of clout, or if they can get you a good seat at the next big fashionable fundraiser.

Very little weight is given to a star's ability to put bums in theater seats.

Now the insulation is getting scratched off Hollywood's business practices.  Box office is down, again, and home video is looking wobbly with people losing interest in a lot of today's movies and stars, and piss-poor marketing of yesterday's movies and stars.

Will this cause someone in Hollywood to seriously crunch the numbers and set some standard to determine a movie star's true market value?

I don't know, the insulation's pretty thick, but it's bound to wear out eventually, and then, someone might prove Blast Hardcheese's guess is right, and that Sigourney Weaver just be worth every penny she gets.

Hollywood Babble On & On #832: Presenting An All-Star Cast!

It's that time of the year again. No not Autumn, I'm talking about it being the time that Forbes magazine publishes it's annual list of Hollywood's most overpaid stars.

Here's a brief run through the top ten.

 
1. Drew Barrymore  For every $1 Barrymore is paid, her films return an average 40 cents.

2. Eddie Murphy For every $1 Murphy is paid, his films return an average $2.70. 

3. Will Ferrell  For every $1 Ferrell is paid, his films return an average $3.50. 

4. Reese Witherspoon  For every $1 Witherspoon is paid, her films return an average $3.55. 

5. Denzel Washington  For every $1 Washington is paid, his films return an average $4.25. 

6. Nicolas Cage For every $1 Cage is paid, his films return an average $4.40. 

7. Adam Sandler  For every $1 Sandler is paid, his films return an average $5.20. 

8. Vince Vaughn  For every $1 Vaughn is paid, his films return an average $5.20. 

9. Tom Cruise  For every $1 Cruise is paid, his films return an average $6.35

10. Nicole Kidman  For every $1 Kidman is paid, her films return an average $6.70.

Now here is what I learned from this list:

Some stars, once thought safe bets in a certain genre/budget, can become great big financial negatives when their appeal goes down just as prices go up. (Drew Barrymore.)

Some stars can be hurt by being in some expensive flops in an otherwise fairly solid record. (Reese Witherspoon, Vince Vaughn, Tom Cruise)

Quite a few stars have prices so big that can negatively impact the profitability of the films they star in, regardless of the film's box office performance. (Adam Sandler, Nicholas Cage, Denzel Washington.)

Some stars coast on a combination of past success, and name recognition. (Will Ferrell, Eddie Murphy)

And when Nicole Kidman, who has dropped more bombs than Curtis LeMay, is considered the best investment among this crew, the "star system" as we know it is completely screwed up beyond all hope of repair.

In fact, movie stardom as we once knew it may be all an...

Of course if you try telling the people who run Hollywood this, you get this as their reaction.

"I CAN'T HEAR YOU! LALALALA!"

Now what I'd like to see next is a list of Hollywood's most underpaid stars.  Does anyone have a definitive list of who delivers best for the money?

Hollywood Babble On & On #831: The First Step Is Admitting That You Have A Problem.

When you have a problem, no matter what that problem is, the first step towards fixing that problem, is to admit that it exists, and it has a negative impact.

Universal chief Ron Meyer took that step when he admitted that: "We make some really shitty movies."

Congratulations Mr. Meyer for such rather blatant candor. Such honesty is very rare in Hollywood where buck passing and blame dropping is practically a sport.  Most studio bosses avoid making such admissions because admitting mistakes makes the people above you, specifically the board of the parent company think that keeping you is a mistake.

While I'm no mind-reader, I suspect that Mr. Meyer must have one hell of a golden parachute included in his contract to make him so fearless.

Anyhow, let's take a moment to think about what makes a movie shitty.  

The first thing you need to know is that nobody in the mainstream Hollywood system deliberately sets out to make a bad movie.  Most people who make movies want movies to be good, because movies that people like tend to make more money than movies that people hate.

So why do so many movies start out with so many good intentions only to end up big steaming piles?

Well, there are several reasons.

1. BAD MOVIE IDEAS ARE PICKED BECAUSE OF POLITICS OVER MERIT.

Now often you can see some movies that are just bad right down to the core.  The whole fundamental idea behind the movie just radiates eight kinds of stink. So why do the studios keep picking these obvious create and financial suckholes?

The short answer:  

Politics.

I'm not talking about what political party someone votes for, I'm talking internal Hollywood office politics.

I define these kinds of politics as factors that affect decisions that have nothing to do with the actual merits of the options that surround that decision. 

Here's a scenario that might help explain this.  Imagine you're a studio boss.  You have been given a pitch for a movie called Shite-O-Rama. Everything about the idea stinks from Lucifer's cornhole to highest Heaven and all points in between.

However, the biggest box-office star in the world really wants to do Shite-O-Rama, because their spiritual adviser had a vision that told them the film will win the star an Oscar.  You want that star to make movies with your company, so you might have to take a hit with this one, in order to do something better down the road.

Now that's just one potential scenario.  Others involve studio executives, financiers, and other contributors having hidden agendas involving trying to either jerk each others chains and maybe some light back-stabbing.

2. TOO MANY COOKS SPOIL THE BROTH.

One of the things that can turn a good idea into a shitty film is the whole development process. 

Development is the time when the movie's script is written, people are hired, and the film is supposed to be put together. 

The problem with development is that it can turn from a collaboration into a total cluster fuck in a nanosecond.  The main reason is that during this process everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, assumes that they can do a better job putting the story together than the people who dedicate their lives to putting together coherent stories.

Executives, actors, producers, directors, other writers, their friends, family, and office/household cleaning staff all have their say in the film.  Many of the people having these says are only involved momentarily, and have no reason to offer input other than feeling that they have to say something, whether it's relevant or not.

3. THE PEOPLE MAKING IT DON'T CARE.

A lot of times you can have a good idea that survives the development process to become a good script, but in the end, the movie is a piece of shit. Well, one of the most common reasons for this is because the people doing the final execution of the movie just don't give a shit about the project. 

If the filmmaker doesn't really care about anything beyond cashing their next paycheck, it's going to show on screen, and turn viewers off.

4. SOMETIMES SHITTY MOVIES JUST HAPPEN.

That's right, no matter how hard you try, and how good everyone involved was, you might still end up making a piece of crap.

Now you might look at reason number 4 and think, well what's the point of even trying?

Well, there's a lot of point, and it's poking you in the eye.  While #4 happens no matter what you try, it's a hell of a lot rarer than reasons #1-#3.  And #1-#3 are all preventable reasons.  If you work really, really hard to fight those first three, then the fourth becomes just a rare nuisance instead of something that could potentially threaten your company.

In conclusion, I congratulate Mr. Meyer on admitting that his company has a problem.

Now it's time for him and Universal to take the next step, and do something about it.

Hollywood Babble On & On #830: Has Fox Been Outfoxed By Fox?

Things aren't rosy at the venerable 20th Century Fox studio, and it has nothing to do with the hacking troubles afflicting the newspaper wing of its parent company.  

It's hemorrhaging executives, and despite some hits at the box office has come in behind Universal Pictures in overall box-office take.

Behind Universal Pictures.

Think about that for a second.

So we have to ask...

While industry folks say that indie division Fox Searchlight is chugging along pretty healthily, the main studio is suffering because of what insiders describe as the studio's "corporate culture."

You see every company has a certain way of doing things that is unique to that company.


According to reports, with 20th Century Fox it's all about sequels, remakes, and reboots, making greenlight decisions around preordained release schedules, and if you want to work with them, getting a decent payday from them is like getting blood from a particularly parsimonious stone, one that's from Scotland.  This means that "A-List" stars and filmmakers, especially the ones that are actually worth the money, are wary of working with the studio. 



What can Fox do to get out of this creative, and now financial trough they find themselves in?


Well, they could...

What? I haven't done one of these gags in a long time.

Okay, I'll be serious and talk about what they can do to improve things.


1.  LEARN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING "COST-EFFECTIVE" & "A CHEAP BASTARD."


I'm all about being cost effective.  There is way too much waste going on in Hollywood.  But there is a fine line between being cost-effective and being a cheap bastard.

A truly cost-effective operation finds solutions that keep budgets under control. They look for waste, and ways to eliminate them.  This means careful planning, and organization with people that can be trusted to help root out potential problems before they become real problems.  Managers who don't do this run the risk of becoming "cheap bastard" operations, and that's bad because...


Cheap bastard operations cause problems with penny pinching demands, that are usually made as a move in a game of "Cover My Ass" caused by poor spending choices made in other areas.  Picking on Movie A, because you spent too much on Will Smith's trailer while making Movie B, is not being cost effective, or problem solving.  Prevent the waste in the first place.


2.  DON'T SCREW PEOPLE.


I coined the term "self-fulfilling idiocy," to describe how the "cheap bastard" policies of the Hollywood studios have given their budgets an inflation problem on par with Zimbabwe.  They make deals offering a piece of the profits, then claim that the $60 million film that grossed $250 million at the box office lost money, mostly through shady accounting tricks.


This means that anyone with the slightest bit of clout expects to be screwed over, so they make very strict deals with massive up front payments, accompanied by "dollar 1" box-office revenue deals that can suck a successful movie's profit margin into the depths of oblivion.


Now I'm not saying that Fox should start paying out "net."  I'm not expecting miracles yet, but I am saying that if money and credit is owed, make sure that money and credit is paid.  Preferably on time.


3. BUILD BEYOND THE BLOCKBUSTER.

20th Century Fox is locked into the mindset of pumping out big budget movie franchises. 

Most studios are these days.  However with Fox they recognize that big budget films have risk involved, so they try to mitigate that risk by making every blockbuster they try either a sequel, a remake, or a reboot of a preexisting franchise.


That flops more often than it hits, and that's why the studio is running behind Universal.


Familiarity is all well and good, but if there isn't an amount of novelty and originality, the audience is going to stay away.  Also, franchises burn out and lose their value and then what are you going to do?


Fox needs to build a cadre of new young filmmakers, trained to be cost-effective, create new ideas and hopefully new potential franchises.


Now this is where I suggest that Fox repeat a mistake.


A while back Fox shuttered Fox Atomic, which was supposed to be its low budget youth-oriented genre film division.  The project had been one big fizzle with a handful of mostly forgotten films, including a remake of The Hills Have Eyes.

The fundamental idea behind the creation of the division was a good one.  You can use it to bring in fresh talent with fresh ideas, etc..., etc...


But the big problem with the idea was the name they gave it.

Calling it Fox Atomic may have sounded like a great idea to those marketing gurus who insist that "brand" is everything and should be slapped onto everything.


However there are times when branding can backfire and bite you on the ass like a badly mangled metaphor.  Calling it Fox Atomic was the equivalent of calling it "Not Good Enough For Regular Fox, But You Kids Are Idiots Anyway So You'll Buy It."  Kids are media and marketing savvy, and while they may not be able to articulate that feeling, they can sense when someone is trying to jerk them around.


What Fox needs to do is revive the good idea of a low budget genre subdivision, but ditch the bad idea of "branding" it as a repository for a big studio's table scraps.


They need to make this division look like a company that runs completely independently of the mother-studio.  It needs its own name, one that is separate from Fox, and the great irony is that Fox/New Corporation already owns a "brand" that not only looks and sounds independent, but has a historical association with youth oriented low budget genre fare, and a mandate to develop new talent.

The company was founded by Roger Corman in the 70s, where it was the launching pad for dozens of successful filmmakers.  Roger Corman sold it in the 1980s, ended up being revamped as the owner of TV stations, which was swallowed up by the creation of the Fox TV network.


They can take this preexisting, long moribund entity, and revive it as a training ground for new filmmakers, and if these same filmmakers are treated right by the company, they will be loyal to that company.

The fact that nobody there thought of it while the whole Fox Atomic cluster-fuck shows that not enough people there know enough about the company they work for, or cares enough to take a stand against the marketing gurus.


So basically I'm suggesting that the company shake up just about everything about how it does business until everything crumbles down to nothing.  Then rebuild a whole new corporate culture.

Cinemaniacal: Monstrous Thoughts About Monsters

In the week leading up to Halloween I decided to dust off some DVDs of old horror movies from Hammer Films, mostly a set of four of their Dracula movies, and I started to think about a trend, or trends, when it comes to monster that I don't really care for.

1. ROMANTICIZE: This is where they take classic movie monsters like vampires and werewolves and turn them from bloodthirsty creatures of the night out to feast upon your flesh and/or blood, into neutered soapy broody emo-brats to appeal to teenage girls.

The Twilight films were the most obvious and worst offenders of this. Essentially the whole series is based on the notion that a girl can change a homicidal predator if she loves him enough. Then there's the whole choice between necrophilia and bestiality storyline when she wavered between bloodsucking vampire boy, and flesh eating werewolf boy.  

Wonderful themes to build your franchise on.

2. CARTOONIZE: This is the temptation to go overboard with just about everything associated with classic movie monsters.  I'm talking big budgets, big stars, lots of fancy pants special effects, big monster battle scenes, and lots of super-slick martial arts fighting with a variety of exotic weapons done by heroes who are more than a match for any monster that comes their way because they are some sort of "chosen-one" monster fighter.  The most obvious example is the movie Van Helsing.

I'm not saying that these trends are necessarily bad things.  However, while they did seem new and novel when they were first done, they have since become very predictable cliches. Also Hollywood seems unable to properly market a more straightforward "scary monster" movie without trying to either mold it into one of the two aforementioned cliches, or at least trying to market it as such.

That's what I think, what do you think?