Hollywood Babble On & On #534: 3 Bad Ideas

Welcome to the show folks...

BAD IDEA #1: SWIMMING IN THE SHARK TANK

The Summer movie season is not looking all that good, ticket sales overall are down, pundits are calling this "June Gloom," and the studio bosses are so panicked they're actually talking to agents about what to do next.

I have some video of one of these meetings:

I know, it's a joke I did before, but I love flogging a dead horse as much as the studio executives I like to mock.

But seriously, this meeting is a perfect sign of what's wrong with Hollywood, and here's why: It's basically two Hatfields having a discussion about why those damn McCoys are so ornery.

Well, here's my 2 cents about why things aren't working out whether you want them or not.

1. THE SELF FULFILLING IDIOCY: Hollywood should know that their own business practices are the main reason the costs of making, marketing, and distributing movies has a rate of inflation last seen in Weimar Germany. The whole structure of the studio system is designed to burn more mental calories figuring out how to screw some poor actor out of their 2% piece of the net, to get their CEO a better bonus, than making movies people want to see.

Everybody knows that, especially agents, and that's why agents have the reputation for being sharks. They know their clients are going to get hosed by the studios at some point, so they try to get everything they can get up front, and to hell with other considerations, because it's not like their clients are going to get their residuals anyway. The bigger the star, the bigger the demands, and the narrower the profit margin until it disappears completely.

This leads to an atmosphere of...

2. SHEER TERROR in the executive suite. The people who make decisions in Hollywood are terrified to actually make decisions, for fear of getting canned and losing their company paid Bentley, beach house, and jet for trips to the company retreat in Aruba. So they become extremely risk averse, because their practices made everything so damn expensive. This leads to an incredibly bland entertainment landscape, and a shrinking box office, that can't be attributed to the bad economy, because the movie industry is supposed to thrive in bad times. Hell, the Great Depression was a glorious time, both financially and creatively for Hollywood. Not anymore, so the Executives go off in search of a...

3. MAGIC BULLET. That simple, easy, 1 step plan for guaranteed hit movies, so they don't have to use any common sense in the field of studio management, budgets, or accounting. When one studio has success with a type of project, all the others pounce on that type like extras in a bukkake video. Remakes, reboots, adapting TV shows, digitally animation, 3D visuals, comic book movies, market research or even talking to agents. The problem is that most of these magic bullets are more fizzle than sizzle. I myself was shot with one of those magic bullets back in college, and no for a fact that they can do more harm than good.

While a university student in Toronto I was hired to write sketch comedy for a TV pilot. I was part of a team of 6 writers, and we were putting together some pretty good material. Then the producer decided that the project needed a magic bullet to make it a hit. So she went to market research, and from the findings of the market researchers we went from a funny sketch show, to a mildly amusing sketch/candid camera rip-off, then just a candid camera rip-off, and finally, a sitcom about angels. Why did it become a sitcom about angels? Because the marketing whizzes noted that an ad campaign for cream cheese using angels did very well (It's still running in Canada) so the show should rip off the commercials. The entire production crashed and burned over Xmas, the money people fled, and no one got paid.

Magic bullets do not work.

What does work?

Well, in the old days it was instinct. The folks who gave movies the green-light asked themselves: Would it play in Peoria? It was still a gamble, but at least they weren't completely turning audiences off the way their heirs are doing now.

But they're probably not going to hear that from the agents, because the agents are too wrapped up in the existing system. There's no one in Hollywood that can rattle the cages enough to get the people in power their to take notice.

BAD IDEA #2: MOVIE FUTURES TRADING

The federal regulators who thought Bernie Madoff and sub-prime mortgage backed securities were fine and dandy like sour candy, have decided that "futures trading" (translation: betting) on movie box office performance is a wonderful idea.

I have to call bullshit on this. It's a dreadful idea.

Why?

Think about it.

The values of these "futures" will be based upon the box office estimates made by studios and their rivals.

Those studios, and their rivals, all have reasons for spinning, or outright flim-flamming those estimates for their own ends. (I go into more detail here)

A movies futures market will give them yet another reason to play around with those estimates, and with it the money of even more investors than usual.

So I have to say this...

NO!

BAD FEDS!

BAD BAD FEDS!

DON'T MAKE ME RUB YOUR NOSE IN IT!

BAD IDEA #3: CRIMINAL MINDS - DEFINITELY NOT LADIES NIGHT

CBS has decided to trim the herd on their consistent Top 20 workhorse crime drama Criminal Minds by firing AJ Cook, chopping down the role of Paget Brewster, and keeping fan favorite Kristin Vangsness, for now.

Now CBS is hoping to mitigate the outrage among fans of the show by saying that they're adding a new female (& cheaper) character to the show to replace AJ Cook. Which means that they're already on some sort of damage control, not wanting the fans super pissed off at CBS with a Criminal Minds spin-off due in the fall.

Now CBS's case is that they're trying to control costs, and they're picking on Criminal Minds specifically because it's their workhorse drama. It's not in the Top 10, it's unlikely that the star's going to be cast in the next big blockbuster movie during their summer break, and it doesn't sweep the Emmy Awards every year like those critical darling cable shows. So they can beat it like a rented mule, and get away with it, but I think it's a bad idea, here's why:

1. OPTICS: It really looks bad to slash the roles of female characters on a show that's already viewed as pretty male dominated. It also makes CBS management look like sexist pigs, and give internet wags like me the license to whip up little pics like the one to your right.>>>>>

2. FAN RESENTMENT: Fans are getting sick and tired of seeing their shows jerked around because some executive wants to charge a new boat to their favorite show's budget. This is especially true when it involves actors and characters they like. CBS can't afford to lose these fans, especially in the face of...

3. THE SPIN-OFF: CBS is trying to sell a spin-off in the fall. A lot of fans are already thinking that these cuts are to somehow make the costs of this spin-off more manageable, whether it's accurate or not. They're going to resent the spin-off, and quite possibly tune out.

Of course if the costs were the problem on one of the cheapest looking shows on the normally over-slick network, CBS could have negotiated some sort of deal where both sides could have been happy. Of course, they were denied that option by their own shoddy business practices.

Anyway, if they go through with this plan, I expect the show, and its spin-off, to be done and dusted after next season, barring a miracle.

Hollywood Babble On & On #533: Back Pain Edition

Welcome to the show folks...

Threw my back out yesterday, & I aggravated it more today working on the old domicile. Plus, I'm looking around the movie news sites, and the stories going around today are either stuff I've previously written about ad nauseum, or they don't really put a wind up my kilt. (Also, I tried to post this a couple of hours ago, but then my power went out for an hour and a half. Lovely day.)

So here are some more lame little jokes I do occasionally to fill space...

Ryan Seacrest's stalker sentenced to 2 years in prison & a lifetime of cruel mockery for poor taste in demented obsessions.

MTV is looking for a "Twitter Jockey." Applicants must be both intellectually vapid, corporation friendly, &, above all, obedient enough to act like P Diddy is musically relevant.

Hollywood to remake "Don't Tell Mom The Babysitter's Dead." New title will be "Don't Tell The Audience That Creativity Is Dead."

Country singer & sausage entrepreneur Jimmy Dean died today. Instead of a funeral, he'll be fried & served alongside scrambled eggs, & toast.

Hall & Oates have canceled a concert in Arizona in protest over the state's immigration law. This move makes Arizonans declare the law a success, & immediately start working on a law that offends Justin Bieber.

Anyway, hopefully my back will be.... uh, back to normal tomorrow, and that someone in Hollywood do something stupid and melodramatic for me to crank about.

Zucker, Weinstein Brothers, I'm counting on you.

Hollywood Babble On & On #532: 3 Quick Hits

Welcome to the show folks...

Sorry for not posting anything yesterday. Combination of business, laziness, and plain old orneriness.

But here I am, with a few short little notes to ponder...

TWILIGHT OF THE WEST END?

Some British theater producers took a break from jacking up prices and sucking up for government hand-outs to chat up Twilight star Kristin Stewart about the possibility of starring in a play in London's storied West End.

Now some might think Miss Stewart is crazy for putting herself on the stage, since London's critics can be unfairly harsh to those they consider spoiled Hollywood interlopers soiling the stages made sacred by the like of Olivier and Gielgud with their presence.

Or crazy like a fox. (And I'm not talking Megan)

Out of character Miss Stewart has a habit of coming across in the press as a sulky, disinterested, occasionally petulant, teeny-bopper with a perpetually stoned look on her face.

Nothing humanizes someone better than being maliciously mangled by London's notoriously snooty and elitist critics. This goes doubly true if she knuckles down, works hard, and does her best. Then they look like nasty bullies, and she a poor little girl deserving of sympathy.

Or she could just be crazy. Right now, it's a toss up.

FLASHFORWARD FANS FLASHMOB FOR FUTILITY

Fans of the canceled sci-fi show Flashforward stage mass recreations of the "blackouts" featured in the show's pilot in a vain attempt to save their favourite show.

It's not going to work.

Flashforward was a great concept for a mini-series, or one of those British TV style multi-episode adaptations of the original novel by Robert Sawyer. However, it was a terrible concept for an open ended series. You can only stretch out the mystery of the Flashforward for so long before people get sick of it. Even Lost knew that having just the island wasn't enough, and started tossing mysteries and mayhem with both hands in the hope that enough stuck well enough to win back viewers, and even then they had to buckle down and announce an official end date to save the show.

Viewers knew this and didn't want to get burned, so they avoided the show, not wanting to get attached to the characters and interested in the plot, because something in the back of their minds told them it was going to leave them hanging. That something was right. The finale did leave the show's few fans hanging, and now their acting like idiots in public because of it.

LIONSGATE FEUD GETS KOOKIER

Billionaire gadfly Mark Cuban was listening to the little leprechaun that lives in his sandbox and only he can see it, because he's injected himself into the Lionsgate Feud.

Cuban owns 5% of the mini-major and has announced that he's going to sell his shares to Carl Icahn. It this goes through with the other 4% being tendered, the New York based takeover maven will own 28% of Lionsgate.

This is the time that I tell both factions to get together, sing "Give Peace A Chance," share a spliff, I don't care, because this battle has gone on too long.

Too many major shareholders are aligned with management, but Icahn owns too much stock to be ignored, or driven out. This is what we call a Mexican Standoff, both sides have all their guns pointing at each other, but no one can actually achieve total victory without a complete bloodbath.

The company is distracted from what it's supposed to do, which is make and distribute movies, and is wasting millions on keeping this battle going.

Come on, would a company that was actually paying attention to its business try to convince audiences that a covert agency would give Ashton Kutcher a gun?

No.

So have your group hug in the boardroom and end this shit. Now.

Don't make me come down and give you a talking to.

Hollywood Babble On & On #531: Does CBS Films Need Extraordinary Measures?

Welcome to the show folks...

I finally found something to blog about. It ain't much, but beggars can't be choosers.

Some folks are ringing the bell of doom for CBS Films because some recent re-scheduling of their release slate has left them bereft of a summer tent-pole film.

I went over to the headquarters of CBS Films and asked CBS honcho Les Moonves for a statement on the topic, but all I got was this:



Still not quite sure what he was talking about, but then again, I'm a blogger posting opinions in a smug, pompous, know-it-all manner, not an interviewer. So I'm going to do what I do, talk about stuff I barely know about.

But first a little history...

In the beginning (the late 1960s) the CBS TV network dipped its corporate toe into theatrical feature films with Cinema Center Films (in association with distributor National General Films), but closed the whole deal in 1972, due to serious under-performance issues. While Cinema Center Films was gone, the idea was not forgotten. In the 1980s CBS TV begat CBS Theatrical Films, while it also begat a share in Tri-Star with Columbia Pictures and HBO. However by 1986 CBS TV had moved out of both projects and theatrical features entirely.

The concept of TV/Theatrical movie synergy lay dormant for a little over 20 years, until CBS Boss Les Moonves took an opportunity in the almost constant restructuring of the Paramount/CBS/Viacom mega behemoth to forge a feature film fiefdom of his own.

The idea was to make modest budget movies with big stars in allegedly "quality" roles.

The idea was good, however, the execution seems lacking. Its first film Extraordinary Measures, a overly sincere drama about doctors and disease starring Harrison Ford and Brendan Fraser came and went like a fart in a stiff wind, the critically roasted romantic comedy The Back-Up Plan needed a back-up plan, and their next release, a Beauty & The Beast rehash called Beastly was bumped from Summer to Fall to avoid competing with star Vanessa Hudgens' former co-star Zac Efron, and that they want to hopefully cash in on her new co-star's role in a bigger film from another studio.

In fact the best thing said about CBS Films so far is that the films were so cheaply made they won't lose too much money.

Too bad.

As I said before, the idea is a sound one. The middle ground between over-priced studio tent-pole blockbusters and smaller, often dreary and occasionally annoying indie films is quickly being abandoned by everyone else. Meanwhile, the dropping overall summer box-office shows the definite possibility that there's a lot of audience dissatisfaction with Hollywood's recent product.

There's a door of opportunity for CBS Films to take, but they're not taking it. In fact they seem to be slamming it in their own face. I'm not talking about not having a Summer release, in fact, I think avoiding the overly expensive Summer hype frenzy is a smart move when you make middle-price, middle-brow movies. If you don't need to be a blockbuster to be profitable, why open in a season where you need to spend ofter 2-3 times the production budget just to be noticed?

Take over the gaps, the middle-range films, in the middle range-between big holiday blockbuster seasons, and use them to your company's advantage.

But this is where CBS Films seems to stumbling. They're just not delivering the stories the audience seems to want. Extraordinary Measures was a Lifetime TV movie sold as Oscar bait, didn't have the narrative firepower to back it up, and died accordingly. The Back-Up plan sounded like a rejected sitcom episode rewritten and expanded but with the same number of jokes.

CBS Films should forget about being making films that might be considered 'important' or 'star vehicles' and concentrate on entertaining genre material that the audience is not getting from the majors, and do that material right.

10 Lame 1 Liners For A Slow News Day

Welcome to the show folks...

10. An adult movie company has announced that they're releasing a porn-parody of 80s sitcom The Golden Girls. Oh that Betty White, 88 years old and still a trooper for work.

9. An arrest warrant has been issued for actress Lindsay Lohan after her alcohol monitoring bracelet started singing "How Dry I Am."

8. NBC has put up special mannequin displays in Bloomindales stores to promote their TV shows. I bought a shirt off the Conan O'Brien mannequin, next thing I know someone's ripped it off my back, and slapped on a Jay Leno sweater.

7. A cast member of the Real Housewives of New Jersey has a sex tape. It was apparently released under the category of "Leather Fetishes" before folks realized she was naked.

6. The Weinstein Company has acquired Julian Schnabel's film Miral. Instead of posters they're just going to put the film's picture on milk cartons.

5. Spike TV has announced an upcoming show about dwarf wrestlers. Sorry, but I think this idea comes up a little short.

4. Shania Twain is now officially single. Which means she'll be creeping around my bushes again.

3. Brett Michaels the star of reality show Rock of Love is rumored to replace Simon Cowell as a judge on American Idol. From now on contestants will be judged on vocals, stage presence, song choices, and skankiness.

2. Scientists are saying that ancient neanderthals did not go extinct as first thought, but instead interbred with homo-sapiens. If you want proof the scientists suggest you watch reruns of COPS.

1. Director James Cameron has offered to help solve the Gulf Oil disaster by using his massive ego to plug the hole. His offer was rejected, because the sheer size of his ego could cause the sea level to rise and permanently swamp New Orleans.

Yup, this is what happens when biz news fails to put a wind up my kilt. Sorry, I'm sure I'll have something tomorrow. I promise.

Hollywood Babble On & On #530: London Calling

Welcome to the show folks...

Today, 2 stories set in Jolly Old England, or to be more specific, London, home of Big Ben, Buckingham Palace, fish and chips, and that side effect of fish and chips, projectile vomiting.

HARRY POTTER MAGICALLY AVOIDS LONDON

London's Lord Mayor Boris Karloff Johnson is very displeased with Warner Brothers over opening the multi-gazillion dollar Wizarding World of Harry Potter theme park at Universal's mega-park in Orlando instead of London.

As much as folks may love foggy old London town, and accept its deeply held connection to the Harry Potter franchise, I can understand why they went to Orlando.

1. BUSINESS It's just plain cheaper, in fact immensely cheaper, to build a theme park in Orlando over London. London is one of the most expensive cities in the world where it comes to real estate and cost of living. Everything costs more in London, it's just that simple.

2. BUREAUCRACY The British government and London's municipal government is one of the most notoriously bureaucratic organizations in the world today. Every stage of the park's construction would be at the mercy of petty bureaucrats attempting to micromanage every aspect of construction and operation for their own political objectives over the owner's monetary objectives.

3. WEATHER Theme parks are like carnivals or county fairs. They need lots of space for the outdoor exhibits and rides, and most importantly of all they need GOOD WEATHER. It has to be sunny, warm, mostly dry, and above all predictable. London tends to be cloudy, chilly, damp, though predictable in the fact that it is cloudy, chilly and damp. However, 1 out of 4 factors just isn't enough. So unless you're going to build a massive dome, measured in square miles,

4. LOCATION Where will you build the park? London is cramped, crowded, and has very little free land available. The land that is available is artificially expensive due to the vagaries of the London real estate market, which is not a free market, but a carefully controlled by a small number of people.

Now if London really needs a theme park, then I suggest that they go for Britain Land! The ultimate British Theme park.

A park that celebrates all of Britain's greatest contributions to modern culture. There's James Bond 007's Danger Zone, The wacky world of Terry Pratchett's Discworld's Magical Mayhem, and the exotic adventures of Dr. Who Across Space & Time. The last park would feature remote controlled Daleks roaming the halls screaming "EXTERMINATE litter," as they clean up the garbage.

Once you've enjoyed all the rides, stuffed yourself with quality British cooking, namely curry and spaghetti bolognese, you exit the park, then get the living royal shit beaten out of you by genuine British soccer hooligans.

It's the ultimate British experience.

IT'S PRONOUNCED THEE-YAH-TAR

London's theater going community is getting a tad peeved with the various knighted heads of the people who actually own and run those theaters. The theater owners have decided that the regular ticket prices that require fans to get a mortgage to pay for a spot in the basement listening to the play through a closed door, just aren't enough anymore. They slapped on a special "restoration levy," on every ticket they sell.

They claim that this levy is an emergency charge to help save their crumbling buildings from the ravages of time and that these properties must be saved because they're vital historical artifacts.

Now I'd like for all you to ponder this for a minute.

All businesses have cost pertaining to the running of that business. One of those costs is the maintenance of the properties that house said business. They are supposed to be considered in the cost of the end product (eg theater tickets) and paid off regularly so the building doesn't fall down on them.

They are not supposed to be the subject of a supposed emergency levy, because they are not supposed to get that bad if the business is properly run, and the infrastructure properly maintained.

Now the thing that makes me suspicious is that the rich businessmen who run British theater, the top two worth hundreds of millions of pounds each, recently asked the cash strapped government for money and were denied.

Hmmm....

Makes you a little suspicious, doesn't it. As someone who lives in a region of Canada where rich businessmen and government are often hand in hand I've seen a lot of this behavior. If the rich guys can't get their corporate welfare money from the government, they start doing stuff, like well timed lay-offs and such, to give the government a black eye and embarrass them into coughing up the dough.

I get the feeling that these rich theater owners are looking to get the government to pay some of their bills for them in the name of "historic preservation," and "cultural promotion."

Hollywood Babble On & On #529: Should Hollywood Go Vertical?

Welcome to the show folks...

Like a broken clock that's right twice a day, every once in a while billionaire gadfly Mark Cuban says something that makes you think. He took time from his busy schedule of rolling around piles of money and arguing with basketball referees to say that movie studios should buy movie theaters. He says his ownership of Landmark Theaters has helped his Magnolia Pictures do well, despite the high number of jokers that nobody's seen in the company's deck.

Now that's actually something to seriously consider.

Why can't movies be a fully 'vertically integrated business' handling production, distribution, and exhibition?

Well, the answer is that they used to be and could be again.

First, a little history.

Once upon a time the major studios all owned their own chains of movies theaters. Many of these theater chains operated in certain kinds of communities and the studios would often tailor their movies for those audiences. Each studio released a new film every week all year round, which would then play in the theaters they owned first, then the prints would then go to the independent "second run" cinemas, then third run "grindhouse" theaters in the more low-rent neighborhoods.

After World War 2 someone in the American government decided that having a bunch of production-distribution-exhibition companies competing with each other was dangerously close to a dreaded monopoly. S0 the government came down on those companies and ordered them to sell off their theaters and rely only on production and distribution or face criminal prosecution through something called a Consent Decree.

Now, recent developments in law and commerce show that the consent decree might actually be a wee bit unconstitutional with restraint of trade and all that.

Which brings me to consider the PROS, CONS, and HOWEVERS for this idea.

PRO: Creates a leaner, hopefully more efficient means of distribution.

HOWEVER: This is Hollywood we're talking about here. There is no such a thing as a leaner, more efficient means of doing anything in Hollywood, and they like it that way.

CON: Studios may use their theaters to block rivals from entire regions of the country.

HOWEVER: Imagine that you're Universal, you own all the theaters in the American Southwest. Are you going to block let's say the next Batman movie from Warner Bros. and leave your audience stuck with Land of Lost 2: Even Loster, starring Rob Schneider and Lindsay Lohan? No, because you need money to survive, and can make a lot more dosh from the tickets and popcorn sales with full theaters rather than empty ones.

That's not to say that a studio might try that. They can be a tad thick sometimes.

PRO: We might actually get market forces at work with ticket prices. With only one business as middleman between production and exhibition the old excuses for jacking up prices might go away as these new vertically integrated chains compete for putting bums in seats with special sale prices. That's because in theaters it's not the ticket price that mean profit or loss, it's the salty popcorn and 95% ice cube sodas.

HOWEVER: Hollywood has often shown itself, if not totally immune from the normally immutable forces of the market, at least bulky enough to ignore them. So there is the very serious risk of them going even more bug-shit with ticket prices than they are now.

CON: Independent movies may get shut out of movie theaters by the big studios.

HOWEVER: That's already happening without studios owning theaters. The big multiplex chains would rather have the over-sized, over-expensive, over-hyped star vehicle than the sincere independent film about a boy and his love for a terminally ill badger that taught inner city kids to love learning advanced math through interpretive folk dancing.

The thing to remember, is that there are a hell of a lot of screens in America, and fewer major film studios producing fewer films every year. There's a huge middle ground in cinema being quickly abandoned in the gold rush for the sort of instant gazillions raked in by 3D action-fantasy epics. They are going to need content for these screens when 3D fizzles out, and they have to clear out the dead-weight big bombs to make room for something that might actually sell tickets. The key is for independent producers/distributors to figure out a way to make their films sell without the big marketing budgets of the majors.

Then again, a consortium of indie distributors could pool their resources and purchase either their own chains, or slots in the studio owned chains. Though it would take a serious study of the economics to see if these ideas are viable, or if they would collapse in the sort of petty bickering the movie biz is famous for.

This is where I turn things over to you, all three of my readers, and ask you to give me your opinion on the idea. Should movie studios buy or build their own theater chains?

Hollywood Babble On & On #528: The Curse of the Dark Castle

Welcome to the show folks...

Although they were a little late the weekends box office reports and estimates are out, and the phenomenon the folks are calling June Gloom is continuing. Ticket sales are down all around, and many films are under-performing. One of the films being called a failure by box office watchers is the Canadian sci-fi/horror film Splice, despite opening on 2,450 screens it premiered at #7 with $2.7 million, and is estimated to clear only $7 million this weekend.

Now from a Canadian perspective that's most likely the biggest opening weekend made by a Canadian movie in a long, long time, if ever.

But from a Hollywood perspective, it's a bomb, and a lot of people are putting it down as yet another turkey from US company Dark Castle Entertainment who bought the film and released it through its distributor Warner Bros.

I'll go into some detail in a bit, but first a little history.

Dark Castle is a division of producer Joel Silver's Silver Pictures Company and was formed in partnership with mo-cap maven director Robert Zemeckis, and producer Gilbert Adler. Its original purpose was to remake the films of the company's namesake, legendary cinematic impresario William Castle, but quickly expanded into being a more diverse horror and genre movie label.

Dark Castle quickly became known not so much for horror or genre entertainment, but for the poor performance of their releases. Their biggest hit was the 2003 ghost story/psycho-thriller Gothika with Halle Berry and Robert Downey Jr. which made $141 million international, but only $59 million of that was made domestically on a $40 million budget, not including prints and advertising. Their least successful film was 2009's suspense thriller Whiteout which had a $35+ million budget and a total international box office take of $17 million. The rest either never got close to that $100 million hump into hitsville, or just fell shy of it if they were lucky.

Now here is where I think Dark Castle's gone wrong.

It's their entire business philosophy.

I think the founders looked at the out of nowhere surprise hits of some horror franchises and said "Me too." Well, that's all well and good, but the people behind Dark Castle have backgrounds in big budget blockbusters like Lethal Weapon and Back To The Future. That's not good for horror films.

I think it was Stephen King who said that horror has to be cheap, because big budgets require big explanations. If a company is spending tens of millions of dollars on special effects, a filmmaker is compelled to show the entire monster in loving detail. That kills the mystery, and with it, the horror. It's actually better to cheap out, because then the filmmakers have to use darkness, and mystery to hide the fact that they're made of rubber and string, hence escalating the potential for horror.

Also the use of "stars" in these film also hurt them. If you know who is going to live right from the beginning, you're just going through the motions. So unless you're going to pull a "Janet Leigh in Psycho" it's going to be a better move to hire unknowns, cheaper too.

Another problem, and this is directly related to Splice, is that they treated it like it was a summer blockbuster.

Big mistake.

Splice is a cult film, it's not direct competition to Iron Man Drops A Deuce, Shrek Whatever After, or the horrors found among the grimacing gargoyles of Sex & The City 2 and doesn't have a chance against them and their media hype machines no matter how good the reviews are, how much ad space you get, or how much it trends on Twitter.

The film should have been released in a slower time, possibly as counter-programming when Oscar-baiting season have flooded the screens with overly sincere dramas and pseudo-indie studio films. They should have built up word of mouth with select previews for influential critics and bloggers, who appreciate films of that genre, then released it on a more modest scale and built from that.

Horror can be a blockbuster, but only if you don't force it, that's the key.

Myself, I haven't seen Splice yet, but I've read some good reviews, and I'm pretty sure it's going to be one of those films that will live on in home video. Though I do fear the inevitable low-rent "sequels" that usually come from such cult success.

Saturday Silliness Cinema: Frightening Diseases of the Mind

Welcome to the show folks...

A little break from my usual ranting and raving about the business behind popular culture for some cheap laughs. Today an old favorite returns the fake educational films by comedian Harry Enfield and his chums.

Today they'll teach you all about the frightening diseases of the mind, then you can come back later when I post another blog about business and you can see what frightening diseases dwell in my mind:

Hollywood Babble On & On #527: Just A Quick Note...

Welcome to the show folks...

Just a quick Friday note for now kiddies. According to The Wrap.com Disney has entered into exclusive negotiations with troubled film financier David Bergstein and his backers to buy the moribund mini-major Miramax.

Now in case all this is new to you Mr. Bergstein is currently being sued by.... well.... everybody. I'm talking about every investor, creditor, union, casino, and corporation that he has ever done business with. So I'm sure that Item #1 on Disney's agenda for this deal is to get cash up front. It also shows that some of the reports of Disney being concerned with the condition and structure of the Weinstein Company weren't exactly accurate, considering, unlike Bergstein's ThinkFilm and Capitol Film ventures, they haven't had any bench warrants put on them in bankruptcy court. It had to have been over money and Disney's hope that they can squeeze some out of Bergstein's backers.

Of course this story also shows that Bergstein doesn't go out of his way to read an obscure entertainment business blog written by a Canadian literally thousands of miles from Hollywood, because if he did, he'd have read my advice on the matter. If you're too lazy to click the link I recommended that any other parties interested in buying Miramax do one thing:

WALK AWAY

To make a long post short, I advised to walk away, force Disney to sell Miramax to the Weinstein Brothers / Ron Burkle group, wait for it to all fall apart, which it will, and then feast upon the corporate entrails like vultures.

Well, now these folks might have to wait a little bit longer, but this adds a whole new aspect to the plan. Now wait for the Bergstein Group to fall apart, let the Weinstein Bros. / Burkle Group buy it, wait again for that to fall apart, then dive in.

It's a pain in the butt, but it's a method, that could save even more drastic corporate butt pain in the future.