Hollywood Babble On & On #689: Twentieth Century Fox Needs A New Plan

Welcome to the show folks....

Can you name Fox's biggest money-making movie of 2010?

I won't keep you in suspense, it was the indie production/Fox Searchlight release Black Swan. The low budget bat-shit ballerina movie raked in $103.9 million, and here's why:

1. Fox Searchlight, unlike other major studio's "indie" divisions actually hopes for a return on their investment beyond getting their executives invites to the swankier Oscar parties. So they handled the promotion and release of the film extremely well with the intention of selling it to more than Academy and Indie Spirit voters.

2. Two hot chicks making out.

3. The buzz about the film's strangeness inspired curiosity, good word of mouth from the initially curious ticket-buyers inspired consistently solid ticket sales.

Now that we know why Black Swan did well, why did it beat so many of Fox's other productions from A-Team to Date Night to Knight & Day?

Well, there's a lot of conjecture, but from what I've seen that conjecture seems to be quite accurate. The legend I heard is that Fox operates everything around a simple strategy. That strategy is to release certain types of films at certain times of the year, and watch the money roll in.

If this is true, then they're making the classic gambler's mistake. Releasing films is an inherently risky business. It doesn't matter how good or bad the film is, or how well you promote it, a film's ultimate fate is based on a capricious, fickle, and often perverse creature called The Whimsy Of The Audience.

Folks think they can understand this strange creature, and create "systems" to bring it under control, but it's all an illusion. Sure, you can have a few wins when you roll the proverbial dice, but sooner or later, the hideous bitch goddess of success will turn on you and kick you square in the cinematic pills.

The best system is no system at all. Using instinct, looking at projects and thinking: "I would pay money to see that!" over trying to find something to fit some sort of release date protocol is good. Working hard to make sure you make and market the most entertaining and interesting films around is good. Understanding that the business will always be risky, and understanding that you can only prepare for, but only rarely prevent, disaster is good.

In fact, maybe you should put someone with absolutely no system outside common sense and gut instinct to run your movie business, might I humbly suggest:
You can't blame me for trying. Have you seen what these CEOs are making these days?

I Think I Was Visited By The Ghost Of Stanley Kubrick

Welcome to the show folks...

I have to tell you about this absolutely weird coincidence. I didn't know that today was the 12th anniversary of the death of director Stanley Kubrick. I went out to get my hair cut, and was walking home when I stopped at a discount store on the way. This store isn't much different from any other discount retailer except it has an eclectic DVD rack. This rack doesn't have the usual box office bombs filling space like at a Wal-Mart, but instead has a mix of cult films and old classics at serious discount prices.

Today, on the 12th anniversary of Stanley Kubrick's death, I saw 2001: A Space Odyssey, and A Clockwork Orange, deluxe edition DVDs selling for 2 for $10. With tax, it came out to just a bit under $12.

I came home, checked my Twitter, saw that Stanley Kubrick was trending, and then realized that it was the anniversary of his death.

SPOOKY!

Cinemaniacal: When Did Special Effects Stop Being Special?

Welcome to the show folks...

I was born during what I call the Golden Age of Special Effects. When I was a kid I saw such groundbreaking work in films like Star Wars and later Blade Runner that told me that if you put enough work and care into your film, any sight that you can imagine, can be put on the screen.

Audiences used to be like me and be amazed by quality special effects work. They'd see the spaceship battle and say: "Wow! That was really well done."

Nowadays, special effects seem boring. They don't generate the chill down the spine that they used to, and I don't think it's caused by my jaded personality brought on by my rapidly advancing years. I will try to explain this blase reaction, and I think you'll agree with me on this issue, because I tend to right about everything.

1. EFFORT: When I was a wee shaver special effects impressed me because I knew the amount of sheer labor that was needed to create special effects. I knew this because I loved to read and watch stuff about how movies and special effects were made. I knew that what looked like simple FX shots involved talented designers, model makers, camera operators, editors and other technicians. FX took a combination of imagination, manual craftsmanship, and cunning trickery to get the job done. People used to look at some impossible sight or stunt and say: "How did they do that?" and really mean it.

Nowadays, folks look at a special effect or a stunt, and they say: "A computer did it." It degrades the work and imagination of CGI artists, but nobody really thinks about them. The computers get all the credit, and no one really thinks sitting up all night, buzzed on caffeine pointing and clicking is the same as building a large model or set, or doing what looked like a dangerous stunt while dangling from a great height.

2. OVEREXPOSURE: Back in the days of models and camera tricks effects shots were done pretty quickly. They had to be, because if you looked at it too long you'll see that 007's jet wasn't really flying through an enemy hangar, but was instead bolted to the roof of a car going 70 miles an hour. You got a quick glimpse, then off to the next shot. The monster had to be kept 90% in shadow, or you'll see the seam in the rubber suit and the wires keeping it upright.

With CGI there are literally no strings attached, so they can afford to linger on something long and lovingly to show off how well rendered the lizard monster's eyelashes are. That slows everything down.... a lot. Also the feeling of being impressed quickly shifts to one of tedium when they start thinking that this shot is not going to end.

3. PANACEA: Too many recent films have treated special effects as a cure-all for such problems as having a uninteresting storyline, weak acting/characters, and wooden dialogue. It's not. It's supposed to be a supplement to good movie elements, not a replacement.

That's how I feel, how do you all feel about special effects?

Hollywood Babble On & On #688: Motives, Means, Methods, & Movies!!

Welcome to the show folks...

Sorry I didn't post yesterday, I spent the afternoon getting a troublesome wisdom tooth extracted. My dentist said it came out easy, but it sure as hell didn't feel easy to me. But enough about my pain, which you may find amusing, or boring, depending on your sociopathic tendencies.

Let's get down to business, which is the business of this business blog.

Did that sentence make sense? I need to check the best before date on this ibuprofen... anyway, let's get back on topic.

Today I'm talking about AMC Theaters and Regal Theaters and their big new idea. They are two of America's biggest movie exhibitors and they are joining forces to start a new movie distribution company, tentatively branded Open Road, and have hired indie film executive Tom Ortenberg to head it up.

If done right this could be a very good idea, not just for the AMC/Regal partnership, but for the film industry in general. There are three things that this project needs to be a success, they are MOTIVES, MEANS, and METHODS.

1. MOTIVES: AMC and Regal have pretty good and clear motives for getting involved in this project. THEY NEED TO MAKE MONEY.

They are in the business of movie exhibition, and own thousands of screens all over the USA. They need a steady stream of movies to show on those screens or they won't move the popcorn and soda that makes their profit margin. The studios are decreasing their output, specializing in fewer and fewer mega-blockbusters every year. While they put these mega-pics into thousands upon thousands of theaters on their opening weekend, only a few at any time are worth the while of the exhibitors and most leave theaters empty of ticket and snack buying customers. They have to get those turkeys out and get new movies that could put bums in seats in.

They can't turn to the major studios for that product, like I said, they're not making enough movies. Most of the "indie" distributors remaining are merely subdivisions of the majors, and despite the occasional hits like Black Swan, are geared more towards getting Oscar nominations than selling tickets at the box office.

So they have pretty good motives for creating their own distribution company.

2. MEANS: The backers of this project have deep pockets. Those backers include JP Morgan, Apollo Management and the Carlyle Group behind AMC, and Regal's owner, billionaire Philip Anschutz. This means that the company is a pretty good candidate for the sort of financial and credit facilities needed to get off the ground. I think they're in pretty good shape on these grounds.

3. METHODS: As I always say, any idiot can make a movie, but it takes experience, intelligence, and cunning to distribute movies in a way that can make money. Key to operating a good distribution operation is not just volume, but also variety.

The folks behind Open Road are saying that they're looking to not only release art-house or indie fare, but also bigger and more commercial product. A smart strategy, because there's a widening gap between big budget blockbusters and pseudo indie award bait. Something has to fill that gap.

An all too common, and fatal, error made by indie distributors is to get caught up in the extremely narrow art house/festival market, or bankrupt themselves trying to become a major studio overnight by trying to release blockbuster movies without blockbuster resources.

They are also stating that they will not keep their releases exclusive to AMC and Regal owned theaters. Smart. Despite having thousands of screens between them, they really don't have the reach needed for a successful distributor. They will need to deal with the other chains, and hopefully they can do those deals in a way where both sides can walk away happy. I hope they succeed in making those deals, because an indie distributor can't afford enemies.

I'm going to wish these guys luck with this project. Independent film needs something like this to breath new life into the business.

Hollywood Babble On & On #687: Miscellaneous Movie/Media/Musings

Welcome to the show folks...

Sorry for not posting much yesterday. It was one of those days. Anyway, here are a few snippets for you to chew on for today.

1. THE CAPE HAS BEEN FOLDED

Well, it looks like NBC's attempt at doing another superhero drama has been canceled, and its finale will be posted on the internet instead of being broadcast.

Now I'm not the type to say "I told you so" when it comes to predicting that it was unlikely that it would survive... but guess what.... I DID!

2. RUPERT GETS HIS WAY

Media mogul Rupert Murdoch has had the way cleared for his News Corporation to buy up the parts of the British BSkyB channel which he didn't already own. There was a lot of opposition to Murdoch taking over the channel, but most of it was based on the simple fact that a lot of people don't like Murdoch, and he loves to push those people's buttons.

3. WHY?

Warner Bros. is in final negotiations to start making sequels and maybe even prequels to the classic 80s SF film Blade Runner.

Think about the facts behind this decision. The original Blade Runner, was actually a box office failure, only finding an audience in home video. Fans of the original film will view these new projects as a shameless attempt to cash in on their love of the original along the lines of the multiple cuts and versions of the film they put out on DVD a while back.

I'm just not seeing the logic behind this, unless they go completely Michael Bay and turn it into nothing but an FX spectacular with lots of explosions and cheap excuses for hot chicks to wear skimpy outfits.

While that way may win new fans, it will definitely offend the fans of the original.

Why can't Hollywood let sleeping dogs lie?

Probably a combination of greed, stupidity, and fear of doing anything original.

A Little Bit O'Filler!

Welcome to the show folks...

Not much to blog about today, so here's a link to the website of TV producer Tim Gibbons and his post on how to pitch a TV show.

Hopefully some inspiration that doesn't involve Charlie Sheen will pop up tomorrow.

Hollywood Babble On & On #686: Can Firefly Fly Again?

Welcome to the show folks...

I have to say something, and that I'm a fan of the sci-fi show Firefly. I watched it when it first aired, I railed against Fox for its terrible treatment of the show, I raged at its unfair cancellation, and later made it the first TV box set I ever bought.

Now for those who are unfamiliar with the show, and if you are, shame on you, I can sum it up like this: Firefly was the anti-Star Trek.

Where Star Trek presented a futuristic utopia where everyone was content to work for the omnipresent government of the United Federation of Planets Firefly went in the opposite direction. Firefly was about people who didn't want anything to do with an omnipresent, omnipotent government. This is because that same government has made making a living for anyone outside of a politically connected elite a grueling ordeal. The characters lived and worked on a "Firefly" class spaceship called Serenity, and did whatever it took to keep fuel in the tanks and food on the table. That meant occasionally committing crimes, a very easy proposition in a society where the state has made doing most kinds of business illegal.

The show developed a strong cult following, and word of mouth led to strong sales of the DVD box-set. Universal made a movie version, called Serenity, hoping it would be the next big franchise, but the film was released when the fan community was still fairly embryonic and it underperformed at the box office.

Since then the fandom has grown, and with it has interest in the revival of the series. Even former lead Nathan Fillion, now starring on ABC's Castle, and some of the writers have expressed interest in reviving the show, sparking a short lived fund-raising movement to buy the rights for the show from its current owners.

Well, I've been doing some thinking, and I think that there is a way to bring back Firefly, in a way, that is in the realm of possibility, that could just might open further possibilities for the franchise.

Forget movies, forget television, the cost of the show would be too prohibitive in the minds of executives who are too busy spending that money on Kardashians.

I'm talking about radio.

Okay, not radio exactly, but internet audio.

Think about it for a second while you look at these simple facts behind an audio version of Firefly:

1. COST: Doing Firefly as a radio-style drama is exponentially cheaper than doing it for the big or small screen. You don't need sets, costumes, or visual effects, just some microphones, a bank of sound effects, and the sort of sound editing program you get standard on some computers. It's also easier for the cast, who are all busy working on other projects, and can do a season's worth of episodes in a matter of days because they have to do fewer rehearsals, don't have to do stunts, or make-up and costume fittings.

You can even amortize cost by selling advertising. Most fans wouldn't object to a "This Show Is Brought To You By Message" at the beginning of each episode, because they know that the bills have to be paid somehow.

2. MARKETING & SALES: What do all Firefly fans have in common? A love of the show, natch, a desire to have new stories in the continuing adventures of the crew of the Serenity, and an internet connection. This means that the seller doesn't have to manufacture anything and can just beam it over the internet, using a truckload less bandwidth than transmitting video. Properly market this new version, and offer it at a reasonable price, with the caveat that sales will dictate the availability of future episodes, and you could make a profit very quickly.

3. PRECEDENT: The BBC regularly does radio or audio adaptations of their popular shows. When Doctor Who was canceled in the late 1980s the show lived on in radio plays, and audio productions, which are still being made and sold, even though the show is back on the air.

It can be done, because it has been done, and it can be commercially viable, if you do it right. It's also a good way to test the waters and see if future TV and film versions are in the realm of possibility.

That's what I think. Tell me what you think in the comments.

Hollywood Babble On & On #685: Post Oscar Blahs...

Welcome to the show folks...

I managed to avoid actually watching the Oscars last night, so I won't pass judgment on the show, I also had a really busy day today, and I don't want to write about that bat-shit yahoo Charlie Sheen, so here's the list of Oscar winners, be happy with it.

BEST PICTURE
THE KING'S SPEECH (The Weinstein Co)
A See-Saw Films and Bedlam Production Iain Canning, Emile Sherman and Gareth Unwin, Producers

BEST ACTOR
COLIN FIRTH - THE KING’S SPEECH (The Weinstein Company)

BEST ACTRESS
NATALIE PORTMAN - BLACK SWAN (Fox Searchlight)

BEST ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
CHRISTIAN BALE - THE FIGHTER (Paramount)

BEST ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
MELISSA LEO - THE FIGHTER (Paramount)

BEST ANIMATED PICTURE
TOY STORY 3 (Walt Disney)

BEST DIRECTOR
TOM HOOPER - THE KING'S SPEECH (The Weinstein Co.)

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
THE KING'S SPEECH, David Seidler (The Weinstein Co)

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
THE SOCIAL NETWORK, Aaron Sorkin (Sony Pictures)

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
Denmark, In a Better World (Sony Pictures Classics) - A Zentropa Production

BEST ACHIEVEMENT IN CINEMATOGRAPHY
Inception (Warner Bros.) - Wally Pfister

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
Inside Job (Sony Pictures Classics) - A Representational Pictures Production Charles Ferguson and Audrey Marrs

BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT SUBJECT
Strangers No More - A Simon & Goodman Picture Company Production Karen Goodman and Kirk Simon

BEST ACHIEVEMENT IN FILM EDITING
The Social Network (Sony Pictures Releasing) Angus Wall and Kirk Baxter

BEST ACHIEVEMENT IN VISUAL EFFECTS
Inception (Warner Bros) - Paul Franklin, Chris Corbould, Andrew Lockley and Peter Bebb

BEST ACHIEVEMENT IN ART DIRECTION
Alice in Wonderland (Walt Disney) - Production Design: Robert Stromberg, Set Decoration: Karen O'Hara

BEST ACHIEVEMENT IN COSTUME DESIGN
Alice in Wonderland (Walt Disney) - Colleen Atwood

BEST ACHIEVEMENT IN MAKEUP
The Wolfman (Universal) Rick Baker and Dave Elsey

BEST ACHIEVEMENT IN MUSIC WRITTEN FOR MOTION PICTURES (ORIGINAL SCORE)
The Social Network (Sony Pictures Releasing) - Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross

ACHIEVEMENT IN MUSIC WRITTEN FOR MOTION PICTURES (ORIGINAL SONG)
“We Belong Together” from Toy Story 3 (Walt Disney) - Music and Lyric by Randy Newman

BEST ANIMATED SHORT FILM
The Lost Thing (Nick Batzias for Madman Entertainment) - A Passion Pictures Australia Production Shaun Tan and Andrew Ruhemann

BEST LIVE ACTION SHORT FILM
God Of Love - A Luke Matheny Production - Luke Matheny

BEST ACHIEVEMENT IN SOUND EDITING
Inception (Warner Bros) - Richard King

BEST ACHIEVEMENT IN SOUND MIXING
Inception (Warner Bros) - Lora Hirschberg, Gary A. Rizzo and Ed Novick

Discount Bin Film Club: Moonraker

Welcome to the show folks...

It's been a while since I've done one of my discount bin film club reviews, which is rather slack on my part.

In the shopping and sales crush before Christmas I came across a discount DVD rack selling the Ultimate Edition box sets of the James Bond movies for less than $20 CDN apiece. These editions deliver some of the best picture and sound quality these films have ever enjoyed, and watching them on a big screen really brings it home to the viewer.

Now I could talk about the 007 movies that I like, but I decided to do something different and talk about the James Bond movie that I have never really liked from the first moment I saw it as a kid.

I'm talking about Moonraker.

However, it wasn't until my recent viewing, part of my ongoing Bond Movie A Week program, that I realized why I disliked Moonraker so much.

My dislike is rooted in disappointment.

I have been a Bond fan since I was a kid and was allowed to stay up late to watch Dr. No on the ABC Movie Of The Week on a summer night when I was 10 years old. I liked the action, the sly sarcastic humor, the beautiful and exotic women, the beautiful and exotic locales, and even the super-sleek production design work of Ken Adam.

Yet from the moment I saw Moonraker on TV about 2-3 years after its theatrical run, I felt nothing but disappointment. That disappointment comes from the fact that it has some good elements that are crushed by the overwhelming power of the bad elements.

First, the good elements:

1. The Villain. French actor Michael Lonsdale does an excellent job as the villain Hugo Drax. He understands the role better than a lot of actors who had the job. He does more than just delivers his lines, he sells it. They give him some really hokey chestnuts in the dialogue and he does them with the sort of conviction you need when you're playing a Bond villain. The most common mistake among villain actors is that they play them evil. Lonsdale plays Drax as a sober and serious man who truly believes that he's doing the Earth a favor by wiping out civilization and with it the bulk of the human race.

2. The Action. Moonraker features some really well done action sequences. The stunt work is first rate, and the special effects, considering the primitive technology they were using, even by 70s standards, is for the most part pretty good for their time.

3. The Production Design. Ken Adam does his usual crackerjack work creating the sleek metallic HQs of Bond super-villains, creating unique sets that put the series in their own special little universe. My only little quibble is that a lot of death and injury could have been avoided if said super-villains invested in some railings for his stairs and mezzanine areas. Just a quibble.

Now I come to the bad parts, which are really small parts of a greater unpleasant whole otherwise known as THE SCRIPT.

1. The Plot. I assume the writing process for Moonraker went something like this: The writer took the basic plot of The Spy Who Loved Me, which is rich man steals government property in order to end humanity, then Bond stops him. Then the writer replaced nuclear submarines with space shuttles, and an undersea habitation with a space station. Of course the writer was limited by...

2. The Premise. Even when all they take from the original novels was a title there was usually some sort of organic idea behind the film's central premise. This isn't so with Moonraker. With Moonraker there's nothing organic about it, just an attempt to cash in on the success of Star Wars by trying to turn 007 from a relatively Earth-bound spy to some sort of Han Solo rehash. Even why I was a kid and saw the ads declaring 007 was going into outer space I thought: "What a hack job."

3. The Jokiness. Despite the fate of the entire world lying in the balance the film is unrelentingly silly. It goes from really ridiculous visual gags like the gondola that turns into a hovercraft and runs through St. Marks Square in Venice, to some really hokey joke lines. Bond is expected to drop a fitting pun or double entendre on occasion, but they really go overboard here, and with the subtlety of a sledgehammer.

They also bring back the metal toothed goon Jaws from The Spy Who Loved Me, and transformed him from a scary unstoppable killing machine into a comical oaf, who switches sides and joins Bond to save his diminutive girlfriend who doesn't match Drax's image of perfection.

When I see Moonraker I can't help but think that they should have stopped before the camera's rolled, and took the time to find a better script, so that the good elements of the film could find the home they deserved.

It's a must for 007 completists, and the extra features show you a lot about the state of the franchise and film in the late 1970s, but that's pretty much the only reason to buy Moonraker.

Hollywood Babble On & On #684: Inevitabilities & Consequences

Welcome to the show folks...

It looks like Charlie Sheen has finally found the line he had to cross to get in deep enough shit that not even his bloated head can float out of it. His recent antics, and feuding with producer, studio, and network has gotten his hit sitcom Two & A Half Men canceled for the rest of the season, and highly unlikely to come back next season.

I've written about Chuckles Sheen before, but if you're too lazy to click the link I'll sum it up for you.

The only thing that's kept Charlie Sheen viable as an actor and TV star are expectations. People have very low expectations of Charlie Sheen. He was known as a drug addled, sex obsessed screw-up even before he became a movie or TV star.

Scandal destroys a career when the audience is disappointed by the star's behavior. Sheen inoculated himself from disappointment by making just showing up for work wearing pants look like a tremendous achievement.

However, when your behavior goes from scandalous to bat-shit insane, you've crossed that precious line. This means that you don't have to worry about the disappointment of the audience ruining your chances for employment, but the reasonable expectation of your co-workers that you're going to drive an SUV through the studio wall, firing pistols, and screaming that you're Lizard King.

What lead to this sad and inevitable conclusion?

Consequences.

Or to be more exact, the lack of consequences.

Sheen's never really had to pay any price beyond the hourly rate for his favorite whores. He's never suffered any consequences of any consequence.

Even now he's coasting. Sure, his show is canned, and he's not going to be paid for the rest of this season, but this only comes after raking in tens of millions of dollars a year in both salary and royalties. He's dumped, but he's been dumped into a vat full of money, so I don't see any real change in his behavior.

What I do see is that the people who worked on Two & A Half Men are now unemployed, and I have the sneaking suspicion that Mr. Sheen really doesn't give a royal shit.

So I advise that the people from that show wash their hands of Mr. Sheen, and come up with another show for the cast and crew to do without him. He doesn't care about them, so they should stop caring about him.

My suggestion: A show where Jon Cryer plays a rich spoiled actor with no impulse control and the Angus T. Jones as his neglected child who tries to live a normal life despite the drug and sex mad antics of his dad. End every episode with the drug-addled dad landing face first in manure, and you've got a hit.