Friday, 16 May 2014

Hollywood Babble On & On #1148: Fall TV Preview: ABC!


2014-15 ABC Schedule
(New programs in UPPER CASE & BOLD)


MONDAY

8 PM – Dancing With The Stars

10 PM – Castle



TUESDAY

8 PM – SELFIE - Karen Gillan plays a vacuous web-famous single gal who decides to pursue real life.

While I'm a big fan of Karen Gillan in particular, and long legged redheads in general, I just can't get myself into this premise. I think she needs a better vehicle.

8:30 PM – MANHATTAN LOVE STORY - Oh boy, New Yorkers, romance, I'll be seeing what else is on.

9 PM – Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. - I just realized that this is the only ABC series I currently watch with any consistency. Had a weak beginning, but definitely improved, and hopefully they keep to the lessons learned for season 2.

10 PM – FOREVER - Ioan Gruffud (pronounced "Throatwobbler Mangrove") plays a crime solving medical examiner with a secret, he's at least a couple of centuries old and cannot die.

Liked it when it was called New Amsterdam, but I'm uncertain on how it's going to be done this time around.



WEDNESDAY

8 PM – The Middle

8:30 PM – The Goldbergs

9 PM – Modern Family

9:30 PM – BLACK-ISH - A sitcom about a successful upper class black man seeking some sort of black identity. I'm expecting lots of stereotype humour. Not a fan of stereotype humour.

10 PM – Nashville



THURSDAY

8 PM – Grey’s Anatomy

9 PM – Scandal

10 PM – HOW TO GET AWAY WITH MURDER - A sexy suspense thriller about sexy students in a sexy law class run by a sexy teacher getting involved in sexy situations with other sexy people in sexy places.

Sorry, it's just that the blurb describing the show made so much about the "sexy" my parody isn't that far off. I think they're trying too hard with their pitch and it's a bit of a turn off.



FRIDAY

8 PM – Last Man Standing

8:30 PM – CRISTELA - An old fashioned ethnic sitcom about a Mexican American girl beginning a career as a lawyer and her whacky traditional family.

Didn't I see this in the 1970s?

9 PM – Shark Tank

10 PM – 20/20



SATURDAY

8 PM – Saturday Night Football



SUNDAY

7 PM – America’s Funniest Home Videos

8 PM – Once Upon A Time

9 PM – Resurrection

10 PM – Revenge


MID SEASON SHOWS:

SECRETS AND LIES - One of those "mystery box" series based around a central crime that has to be solved. I hope they're selling it as a miniseries, because the moment they're tempted to do a Season 2 you can forget getting it solved… ever.

AMERICAN CRIME - Another central-mystery show, but with an added taste of racial tension in the plot-line. Might be too grim to catch on.


THE WHISPERS - Aliens are invading, using Earth's children as their weapon. I guess they hope to annoy Earth into submission.

MARVEL’S AGENT CARTER - Agent Peggy Carter, played by Hayley Atwell, faces post-war ennui, the loss of her true love Captain America, while doing missions in the early days of SSR/SHIELD.

I will be interesting to see if Marvel manages to build successful TV franchises around non-superhero characters.

Thursday, 15 May 2014

Hollywood Babble On & On #1147: Fall TV Sneak Peak! CBS!


CBS FALL 2014-2015 SCHEDULE

(New programs in BOLD and UPPER CASE with some added snark, all times ET/PT)


MONDAY
8 PM – The Big Bang Theory/2 Broke Girls

8:30 PM – Mom

9 PM – SCORPION - Premise: A gang of misfit geniuses work with a grizzled FBI agent to solve the nation's crises. 


I'm a tad uncertain of this, since handling crisis events like international terrorism or espionage could potentially offend someone whose opinion matters to CBS management, so it has the potential to become a "domestic militia or Christian religious nut of the week" show very quickly. Then it will slip into the Offend/Bore matrix, and could be canned by mid-season.


10 PM – NCIS: Los Angeles


TUESDAY
8 PM – NCIS


9 PM – NCIS: NEW ORLEANS According to CBS the US Navy is a hotbed of homicide. On the upside it ensures that Scott Bakula will be on television somewhere, which is an FCC licensing requirement.

10 PM – Person Of Interest


WEDNESDAY
8 PM – Survivor

9 PM – Criminal Minds

10 PM – STALKER - 2 sexy cops handle cases of sex-obsessed stalkers who are stalking sexy people. Feh.


THURSDAY
8-11 PM ET – NFL THURSDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL (Sept 11-Oct 23) - "Are you ready for some football!?!" 
No.


Beginning Oct 30:

8 PM – The Big Bang Theory

8:30 PM – The Millers

9 PM – Two And A Half Men - Is starting its 12th and final season. While the show was crap, it was nice to see Jon Cryer make some decent money.

9:30 PM – THE MCCARTHYS - Premise  They're Irish, they're loud, they're sports obsessed. I can't bring myself to care.

10 PM – Elementary


FRIDAY
8 PM – The Amazing Race

9 PM – Hawaii Five-0

10 PM – Blue Bloods


SATURDAY
8 PM – Crimetime Saturday - reruns.

9:00 PM – Crimetime Saturday - reruns.

10 PM – 48 Hours


SUNDAY
7 PM – 60 Minutes - Yes, it's still on.

8 PM – MADAM SECRETARY Premise- A feisty, sexy female secretary of state solves the world's problems on a weekly basis.

Conservatives will shit on it as an overly-idealized campaign ad for Hillary Clinton, and liberals will be bored out of their skulls. Good shot of cancellation by mid-season.

9 PM – The Good Wife

10 PM – CSI/CSI: CYBER - Premise: Patricia Arquette plays the head of an elite team of cyber-crime busters chasing pornographers, identity thieves, and bloggers who say nasty things about the CBS network.

Uh-oh.


MID-SEASON: BATTLE CREEK - Premise: A rough cop in the woe-fully underfunded, under appreciated police department of Battle Creek Michigan is partnered with a slick agent from the well-funded FBI.

The biggest problem I can identify with this show is that it's Vince Gilligan's follow-up to Breaking Bad, and that is an extremely tough act to follow.

Let me know what you folks think in the comments.

Wednesday, 14 May 2014

Hollywood Babble On & On #1146: In At The Deep End

"But what I really want to do is direct."

That's an old cliche in Hollywood, mostly because it's true. Lots of people who work in the movie business from writers, to producers, to executives would love to become directors. It has the image of the take-charge auteur who takes words on paper, actors, props, and other things, and magically brings them all together to make a film.

It's a very tempting prospect.


Roberto Orci made his name as a screenwriter specializing, with his scribbling partner Alex Kurtzman, in big action and explosion heavy blockbusters for major studios. Now he's getting out from in front of the computer to behind the camera having just landed the job of directing the next Star Trek movie.


Now I'm not going to talk specifics about Mr. Orci, because I don't know the man personally other than a brief jokey exchange like two years ago on Twitter, nor am I a fan of the new Star Trek franchise, but I think I can speak in broad generalities and be extremely judgemental in a broad general way.

My concern is that Orci, while experienced in writing and producing, has only 1 directing credit to his name, and that's the upcoming Star Trek 3.

That's a very precarious position to be in, and I'll tell you why.

Paramount doesn't have much in the blockbuster movie franchise department. They have to share Transformers with Hasbro, they sold back the Marvel movies to Marvel/Disney, and the Mission: Impossible series is pretty much dependent on the whims of star Tom Cruise.

That leaves Star Trek as the studio's flagship movie franchise.

That means that Orci will be carrying a lot of the studio's proverbial eggs in his proverbial basket with a $150-$200+ million budget with his very first directing gig.

Those things mean that every studio suit will feel compelled to put their 2 cents in every decision. That's going to be tricky for Orci since making an effects-heavy mega-budget blockbuster requires literally tens-of-thousands of decisions both large and small.


And it's not like Orci can use years of experience as a director in his own defence, he has none, and none of his time as a writer and producer in film and television counts in the eyes of the powers that be.

If the whole situation hadn't been so badly rushed by the sudden defection of original director JJ Abrams to Star Wars at Disney, he might have directed a couple of smaller features, or even some episodes of television to prove his abilities as a director. Then he might have some defences against the monstrous regiment of meddlers and self-justifiers.

Right now, where things stand, he's pretty naked.

I wish him luck, he's going to need it.

Monday, 12 May 2014

WE HAVE A QUESTION!

Reader Nate Winchester had a question…
So reading how you point out ideas are an endangered species in Hollywood: 
Police Composite Sketch of Nate Winchester
Then I was watching SF Debris' video of Transformers when he mentioned what I always thought: Micheal Bay's films can be too complicated. 
So all this led to a revelation: Nowadays the remakes and sequels, the "dumb" flicks all have one thing in common- They're overcomplicated.  The arthouse/brainy fare right now are films that take a really simple concept (like Man falls in love with AI) and examine it in minute detail over the runtime. 
Why is this so?  When hollywood remakes a movie, why do they make it more complicated than the original?  Why do sequels intended for mass production have more storylines in them than game of thrones? 
To quote Ken Begg of Jabootu:
And the storytelling is refreshing clean and straightforward. Again, these are traditional strengths of B-movies.
Has this flipped with the "A-movies" now being clean and straightforward?  Or am I just going mad? (well, more so than usual)
I think the key here is word choice, you said COMPLICATED, and not COMPLEX, and that says a lot.

Now these definitions are mine, and probably mine alone, but they make sense to me and I hope they make sense to you.

COMPLEX, as I define it when it comes to narratives, is when the plot and characters work together to create a story with lots of interesting twists and turns that serve to create a cohesive whole.

Being complex is a good thing.


COMPLICATED is a very different situation. Complexity is born from creativity, Complication is born from insecurity. It occurs when someone takes a story that they're uncertain about, and think they can take it to the "next level" by layering unnecessary twists, character business, distractions, and other nonsense. These complications do not come together to form a cohesive whole.

Complications can often happen in big budget studio movies since you not only have the writer, director and producers involved in the creative process, you also have every studio executive tossing in their two cents to justify their continued employment.

Now you may not notice complexity, because of its inevitable coherence and cohesiveness, but you will notice complications. 

The problem is that not enough people truly understand the difference between complexity and complications and don't understand where and when simplicity is best.

So you might think that a story might appear to be simple, in that it follows minutiae while following a premise that can be explained in a tweet, but it could be more complex than you think, especially if the film manages to keep you interested all the way through.

So things may not have flipped, it's probably not much more than just a matter of storytelling mechanics.

Thursday, 8 May 2014

Hollywood Babble On & On #1145: Shocking Showrunner Shortage

The networks and cable channels are putting together their new shows for the upcoming TV season and there's a scramble for the shrinking supply of show runners.

"What's a showrunner?" you ask furrowing your brow in a feeble attempt to understand.

Don't worry, I'll explain.

A showrunner is a chimeric creature that can be found in writer's rooms and production offices all over the world of television, it's part writer, part producer, and survives by consuming a steady stream of caffeine, greasy foods, and the tears of younger writers.

That make it any clearer?

Okay, I'll go into a bit more detail.

A showrunner, who usually has the title of Executive Producer, is the person in charge of getting the show written and getting it made. A sort of Chief Creative and Executive Officer for the show.

The showrunner is firstly a writer, and their duties begin in the writer's room. The writer's room is a long room with a long conference table that smells like coffee, junk food, and yeti sweat.

In this room the showrunner and the writers flesh out their ideas for characters and the season in general, pitch their ideas for episodes, then the episode ideas that are accepted are broken down into "acts" and "scenes" and writing assignments are handed out.

The showrunner then makes sure that the scripts are finished on time, handles or oversees rewrites, and then oversees the shooting of the episodes.

The shooting of the episodes involves budgeting, scheduling, hiring, casting, and the hundreds of other little jobs that need to be done when putting together a professional grade television show.

Now the showrunner will have deputies to assist with a lot of their duties, but when it comes to important decisions the buck, and the blame, stops at the showrunner's heavily laden desk.

So why is there currently a shortage of showrunners?

Four reasons.

1. APPRENTICESHIP: Showrunner is not a job that can be taught in school. It is a job that has to be learned through experience. To become a showrunner you must begin at the very bottom, working on different shows and under different showrunners, and hopefully you will learn the best writing and management techniques from them for when the time comes for you to run your own show. But they can't get people to come in to learn after the...

2. STAFF WRITERS SLASHING: About 10 years ago the studios slashed the number of "staff writers" that could be hired for each writer's rooms. 

Staff Writers are literally 1 step above assistant and are the lowest figures in the writer's room totem pole, but unlike assistants actually have a very slim chance at possibly writing, or at least contributing to an episode. The position is usually not paid for by the show, but by the studio, and has a small weekly pittance to keep them fed and sheltered as opposed to being paid by the episode. The purpose of the job was to foster talent by getting their foot in the door at an age when they can learn the business from the bottom and work their way up.

When those posts were slashed the few remaining staff writer jobs were used to fulfill diversity hiring rules, or passed on to friends of friends, or giving a boost to an assistant. Otherwise it turned down the faucet that kept the pool of talent full, something that's essential when it's being drained by…

3. CABLE TV: If a cable channel wants to find an audience it must do more than run cheap reruns and reality shows. It must produce its own dramas and comedies and they really have to bring their "A-Game" if they're going to be seen above the herd. All those shows on all those channels all require showrunners. It used to be that you'd just pass those duties on to the creator of the show, but there's a bit of a complication these days that I call the…

4. FEATURE FILM TO TV MIGRATION: A lot of  people who, ten years ago, would have spent their careers completely in feature films are now getting into television. 

If you're a feature person who creates a premise, writes and/or directs a pilot and that show sells and has a good run, you not only get a credit, but a paycheque for as long as that show is being watched by someone somewhere in almost any fashion.

That's a pretty sweet deal, and offers a level of creative freedom and financial security you're not going to get in feature films.

But there's a catch.

Most of the feature film people don't want to give up their feature film careers to become full time showrunners of a TV series. They need experienced and skilled TV people to do that job for them.

So, what can Hollywood do to solve this problem?

First bring back more staff writers, start training and apprentice programs for promising young people to learn the ins and outs of show running, and stop treating everything like a closed shop where you have to be almost born into the industry to get a job.

Then you might be able to start filling the empty slots. It'll take time, and until the market balances itself out Hollywood will have to pay through the nose for the top tier people, but it's their own fault.

Wednesday, 7 May 2014

Work In Progress: From Poverty Row To Park City- A Rough History of Independent Films

For the last few years I've been working, off & on, on a book compiling all the things I've learned while doing this blog. It's become a much bigger undertaking than I originally envisioned, racking up about 153,000+ words so far, and many things left to cover.

Today, I'm going to post one of the articles from my work-in-progress on the history of independent film in America, just so you can get the gist of what's going to be in the book and how it's shaping up. To some of my long running readers it may seem familiar in parts, since some of it was cannibalized from a blog post I had done several years ago.  Enjoy.

FROM POVERTY ROW TO PARK CITY
A ROUGH HISTORY OF INDEPENDENT FILM

The big studios that we know and love today, were founded by the original independent filmmakers.
Yep, that's true.
The massive conglomerates that crush all who challenge their dominance, were once a collection of small, hard-scrabble indie filmmakers fighting against a massive conglomerate that dominated the fledgling movie industry.
History does repeat itself, first as a tragedy, then as a farce, but I digress...
It all starts with Thomas Edison.
Thomas Edison, not only invented the light bulb, but patented some of the first modern motion picture cameras and projectors. Now most people would think that their patent only gave them the right to manufacture the cameras and projectors.
Edison saw it differently.
He believed that owning the patent on the means of making films, gave him an amount of ownership of the films themselves. So all motion pictures had to be produced by the member companies of the Motion Picture Patent Company (A.K.A. the MPPC or The Edison Trust). These companies included Edison’s own company as well as Biograph, Vitagraph, Essanay, Selig, Lubin, Kalem, Star Film Company, and American Pathé. If you don’t find any of those names familiar, there’s a pretty good reason for that which I will get to shortly.
Anyone who tried to make or show movies outside of this little cartel could face lawsuits, court injunctions, and sometimes vandalism and intimidation by MPPC goons.
Some folks didn't care for this and started heading away from the original film centres of New York, New Jersey, and Chicago, and went west to find a place where they could operate free of MPPC interference.
According to legend, the founders of what would become Paramount Pictures, were planning to set up their operations in New Mexico, but changed their mind en-route because of bad weather, and chose to stay on the train until they reached a little town in southern California named Hollywood. Soon others followed suit, and a new film community was born.
The truth is a little more banal. Some companies had already been operating in Southern California by that time, because of the ability to film outdoors all year round. However, the big clincher was that the Edison Trust didn't have the political clout they had back east to get away with their usual competition crushing shenanigans. This meant the independents could operate there more or less unmolested and enjoy the sunshine.
These tough little indies soon defeated the MPPC. Partially through winning anti-trust court battles, and the MPPC’s own internal fighting, but mostly by beating them at their own game.
One of the MPPC's favourite tactics was to use uncredited actors. They feared that anyone who became popular would naturally become more expensive. Now that is a reasonable concern, but a real star who put bums in seats could also be a worthwhile investment. The upstarts in Hollywood started giving credit to their actors and using the image and charisma of their more popular stars to promote films.
Another way the upstarts defeated the cartel-beast was by catering to popular tastes. The companies of the MPPC had quickly grown arrogant and thought that their monopoly meant that people would like what the MPPC told them to like. The independents in Hollywood based their business plan on looking for what made audiences happy and then running with it.
It wasn't long before the old trust companies of the MPPC had crumbled into corporate oblivion, and the Hollywood companies were at the top of the game.
By the 1920s the Hollywood studios had grown large, and a tad drunk on their own power. This sparked not only the founding of the major Hollywood trade unions, but also the creation of the United Artists movie company. United Artists was founded by a coalition of A-List actors, top tier directors and producers, and one politician, to produce and distribute their own films, as well as distribute the films of other independent producers. Unlike the major studios, United Artists had a comparatively small infrastructure and, as the box office clout of its founders dwindled, quickly became dependent on importing British films, or distributing productions by major independent producers like Samuel Goldwyn and David O. Selznick. 
Outside of those aforementioned major players Goldwyn and Selznick, most independent producers were relegated to making low budget films for various Poverty Row companies like Republic Pictures, Monogram Pictures, and the Producers Releasing Corporation. The Poverty Row studios specialized in "filler" material: cheap, relatively short movies designed to fill screen time for the independent cinemas that dotted the country. The films were small because for the most part their market was very small. The main reason their market was so small was because the major studios also owned almost all the movie theatres during this era.
However, Poverty Row enjoyed a renaissance thanks to the 1949 federal consent decree that forced the studios to sell their theatres. Soon after that came the explosion of television, and the studios cutting back a lot on making their usual slate of program "filler" B-movies, aiming for grander and more "important" Technicolor wide-screen "A" pictures. The studios figured that only big widescreen technicolor movies with big stars and big budgets could compete with the small, black and white, cheap, yet convenient competition of television.
Now if you didn’t skip ahead and read my history of blockbuster movies before reading this, you’d know that independent companies like American International Pictures (with their exploitation maestro & cinematic mentor Roger Corman), and producers like William Castle, stepped in to fill the gap the studios left behind. Long story short, their movies started making serious money, and by the 1970s Corman started his own company New World Pictures, and the studios started poaching talent and ideas from the independents. That poaching led to big movies like The Godfather and Jaws, and the age of the studio blockbuster was born.
Now these big studio blockbusters started to squeeze independent movies out of the theatres, which were then being swallowed up by big corporate cinema chains. These chains, though independent of the studios, wanted big movies that attracted big crowds to their new multiplex theatres. AIP tried to become more "mainstream" with limited success, and Arkoff sold the company to Filmways (itself to be soon bought by Orion Pictures), and retired. Roger Corman also sold New World Pictures to new owners who sought to make it into a more diversified and mainstream media company. Even poverty row stalwart Monogram, which had been renamed Allied Artists in the 1950s, had tried to play the blockbuster game, but didn’t have the infrastructure and deep pockets to do big budgets with the efficiency of the major so that even when they had hits, they couldn’t make enough to stay afloat.
But all was not lost.
Because home video had come along, and had come with a vengeance.
Home video was new, and in the early 80s small independent video stores had spread more virulently than over-priced coffee shops in the 90s and venereal disease in the 70s. These stores needed to fill their shelves with anything they could get their hands on, and the studios were a tad slow, sometimes taking years to get films out on the then new fangled phenomenon of the VHS cassette tape. This was because the big studios saw home video as a threat to their lucrative broadcast and pay television sales, and an invitation for piracy. They even went to court to try to put home video out of business, but they failed.
Independent companies saw an opportunity and moved fast to exploit it. Filling video-store shelves with hundreds of low budget sci-fi, action, horror, and comedy films. Since these films needed an exploitation or “high concept” hook to make themselves stand out the sci-fi flicks had lots of (usually hokey) special effects, action films became more violent, the horror films spewed buckets of gore, and many of the comedies took the easy road of low-brow sex-farces complete with topless girls and genital jokes.
Among the new crop of companies to grow in the fertile fields of VHS and begin to use their clout to get better releases for their films in theatres were New Line, New World (under new owners), Embassy Pictures, Cannon Films, Live Entertainment, and Vestron.
While Cannon was the most prolific of the low budget exploitation movie companies, producing and/or releasing hundreds of films in theatres and on home video during their run, other companies like Goldcrest, and the fledgling Miramax, sought their own opportunities. The teen market was over saturated in theatres and in video stores by both the big studios and the smaller "mini-majors." Leaving mature urban professionals under-stimulated when it came to movies. Goldcrest and Miramax started to fill this gap with some success. Goldcrest was the critical and commercial golden boy of the 1980s but was hindered by an overly complicated corporate/financial structure and internal strife, got overextended, and was actually crushed under its own success. Miramax specialized in distributing foreign and "art" films to the upscale urban audience and subsidizing that business with Dimension Films, a division that specialized in low budget, low brow material for the lumpen proletariat.
It was around this time also that Robert Redford started the Sundance Film Festival as a place for independent filmmakers to network with distributors and promote their films.
While many of the "mini-majors" came and went, being bought out by majors, or destroyed by their own ambitions, a handful survived, and some of them even thrived. New technology made it possible to make movies without the sort of massive studio-sized budgets, and this technology fell into the hands of a new generation of film school graduates, and other wannabe directors. This new generation of movie brats made the films they wanted to see, and they did it faster, cheaper, and more creatively than the big studios and the aging first generation of film school kids. Sundance gave them a place to premiere and shill their films to companies like Miramax, who had the means to get them into theatres. The indie film industry saw the beginning of a major change with the coming of a film with a $1.2 million budget called Sex, Lies, & Videotape. S,L, & V, directed by a post-pubescent neophyte named Steven Soderbergh, became a critical splash at the then still foetal Sundance Festival, but Harvey Weinstein and his Miramax company saw an opportunity. They shook up the industry by spending several million dollars to buy and then market the film. Traditionally independent films were booked into little “art-house” cinemas in major cities and college towns with small ads in the local newspapers and hope that word of mouth would help it catch on. Miramax spent millions in TV ads, and booking it into a couple of hundred theatres. It was a huge gamble, but it paid off, with the film raking in $24 million domestic, and spawning millions of bad puns and jokes based upon its title.
Flushed with cash and a line of credit Miramax started buying up more and more films both independent and foreign. Some did well, but too many were too niche to make back what Miramax was spending. But all was not lost, The Walt Disney empire was growing and then executive Jeffrey Katzenberg saw the awards, critical praise, and “street cred” that Miramax enjoyed and wanted some of that action. The sale to Disney saved Miramax from its overextension and gave it not only deep pockets but greater weight in theatrical and home video.
Then came Pulp Fiction.
Pulp Fiction rocked not only the independent film business but mainstream Hollywood as well. The critical cachet filmmaker Quentin Tarantino earned with his previous film Reservoir Dogs had helped him raise a slightly larger budget of $8 million as well as the participation of some big name actors like Bruce Willis. It went on to win multiple Oscars, including Best Original Screenplay, made over $100 million domestic gross at the box-office, and revived John Travolta’s long dormant career. It marked the beginning of a golden age for Miramax, which went on to dominate the Oscars, the Sundance festival, and the independent film market almost entirely between 1994 and 1998. Part of this came from shrewdly marketed quality films, but a good chunk of it came from very aggressive Academy Award campaigns that were often bigger, budget wise, than the films they were promoting.
This was the big sign that things were starting to go wrong, very, very, wrong.
A form of schizophrenia descended on the world of independent films.
First Miramax used it’s Disney backed bulk to outbid all of their truly independent rivals not only for the ones they liked, but even the movies they didn’t like. Miramax’s business philosophy was that they not only had to win, everyone else had to lose. This meant that Miramax was acquiring a massive amount of films that were being listed as assets on the books, but weren’t doing anything but gathering dust on their shelves.
Second, a lot of companies that originally just acquired and distributed independent films, including Miramax, began to produce their own films because it seemed cheaper than the rampant inflation that Miramax started in the acquisition market. Too many of these producers saw the success of Pulp Fiction and tried to repeat it, constantly. Instead of carefully aiming modestly budgeted pictures at modestly sized audiences for modestly sized profits, these companies now wanted big hits, and lots of them. Miramax became notorious for chopping up such pictures in the vain hope that they'd be able to somehow transform them into the next "indie" blockbuster.
Thirdly, and this is where the schizophrenia set in. The big studios started buying up independent distributors, spending millions of other people's dollars for art-house street-cred, and Oscar mojo. The distributors that remained truly independent were hurt financially from trying to compete with the majors and the new “independent” divisions, many went under or were swallowed up, and Sundance degenerated into a massive media whore fest, known more for celebrity sightings at the "swag parties" where billionaire corporations shower expensive gifts on millionaire movie stars, than independent films.
There was also a change in attitude. With most of the "indie" distributors now very dependent cogs in massive corporate machines, the need to make films that actually appealed to audiences outside of critics and Academy voters, dwindled to almost nothing. These new faux-indies didn't even need to market and release these movies in any way that might make the films profitable, since the reason for their existence was to win awards, critical praise, help their executives get young actresses out of their designer parkas at a Sundance swag party, and give the parent companies something to write-off on their books.
Soon what was once challenging, became insulting, daring became offensive, and artistic became an excuse for being incoherent, obscure, and worst of all, boring. Indie films went from giving the audience what mainstream Hollywood wouldn't give them, to giving Hollywood what the audience didn't want.
But like all bad things, it has more or less come to an end.
Because the big studios could only really get away with this sort of operation when times are good, investor financing plentiful, and losses acceptable. That changed with the global economic crisis of 2008-2009. Times became bad, investor financing shrank, while becoming more finicky, and losses lost their acceptability. Many faux-indie divisions of major studios soon found themselves being shut down, their staffs dumped on the unemployment line, and their films dumped in the discount DVD bins.

And that's where it sits today. Independent films are still being made, thanks to new technology making professional looking filmmaking cheaper than ever, and some are even finding audiences thanks to social media and new services like Netflix allowing them to circumvent the blockbuster obsessed mainstream. So the industry may be due for another renaissance, but probably not in the way it happened before, and most likely in a way we cannot see today.

Monday, 5 May 2014

Hollywood Babble On & On #1144: Where Did These Ideas Come From?

Today I'm taking a moment to talk about two ideas that are making me wonder where the hell they came from.

GREEN ACRES: THE REVENGE!


In case you're under the age of 40 Green Acres was about a rich big city lawyer played by Eddie Albert, who has some sort of a stroke, or a brain tumour and decides to drag his glamorous shopaholic wife, played by Eva Gabor, to go to a town called Hooterville, whose smartest citizen is a pig named Arnold, and become farmers. The rest of the series is based on the premise that the easily conned city lawyer would do farm chores not only incompetently, but while wearing a three-piece business suit.

The show ran for six seasons without any characters other than Arnold learning anything, and was a modest ratings winner but that couldn't save it from the infamous CBS "Rural Purge" that stripped the cornpone from the network in favour of more urbane and urban-set fare.

The show ran for a while in syndicated and cable re-runs, but faded quickly from the public zeitgeist to anyone else but the most extremely nostalgic baby boomers.

Which is probably why someone in Hollywood thinks it would make a good movie. The same thinking that made Mr. Peabody & Sherman such a smash for Dreamworks Animation costing them a whopping $57 million write down. They look at stuff that they have the rights to and figure that's good enough because it's thought to be safer than doing something original.

What a load of something Eddie Albert would have shovelled while wearing a three piece suit.

SPIKE DOING TUT?

Spike TV the channel for 18-34 year old males who are interested in storage locker auctions and bar management has given the green light to a scripted event series on the life of Egyptian child-pharoah Tutankhamen.

Where did this idea come from?

I'd really like to know because it illustrates what I think is a fundamental flaw in Spike's management, they don't know what the hell they're doing.

The format of the channel is supposed to be shows aimed at males ages 18-34. Sounds simple, but it isn't or we'd all be hearing how Spike's the centre of the young male zeitgeist. I don't know how Spike USA is run, but Spike's broadcasts in Canada are a dog's breakfast. New shows are hyped, but not aired for months, then dumped in a one-day marathon and never shown until months later at the next one-day marathon, and shows that were cancelled years ago still being rerun three times daily until the tape wears out.

If the American Spike channel is anything like the Canadian one I wonder how they're able to get anything to last more than a handful of episodes.

Which brings me to my question about the King Tut series.

Why?

It sounds like a project more befitting The History Channel, and something that would drive away Spike's usual audience of people wanting to see other people yelling at each other. Spike is better known for chasing the lowest common denominator  in scripted shows like Stripperella while being unable to close the deal on actually reaching that denominator because there are limits to what a basic cable channel can show.

Which means that audiences who might be interested in King Tut's story aren't likely to trust Spike TV to tell that story.

Which brings me back to Why?