Showing posts with label Lucasfilm. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lucasfilm. Show all posts

Friday, 1 January 2016

Hollywood Babble On & On #1258: 2015 - The Year In Stupid

2016 has finally stumbled into our lives like an alcoholic uncle who shows up late for the holidays with a bottle in his hand screaming for everyone to keep the party going even though all are still hungover from the last year.
Anyway, 'tis the season for looking back in list form and I'm not immune for that sort of easy clickbait, so let's look back at the year in stupid.
THAT'S OFFENSIVE: 2015 was the year when EVERYTHING was declared offensive. In fact, I'm pretty sure that someone, somewhere is offended by my mentioning people finding things offensive.
It was also the year that a select few saw that no matter what they try, popular culture will always be in the wrong to the new class of professionally offended people who write thinkpieces for websites.
Let's use sexism as an example.
Hollywood does have a sexism problem. They don't know what to do with female stars and female audiences like they did in the allegedly more sexist Golden Age, when both female stars and audiences were much bigger box-office players. However, modern Hollywood sexism is trapped in a never ending circle of offense. Even when they try to appease or even please their critics they still get crapped on.
Critics complain that there are not enough stories being made about the accomplishments of historic women. Hollywood responds with SUFFRAGETTE a lavish period drama about the fight of women to get the vote. SUFFRAGETTE is almost immediately condemned that the suffragette movement was too white and middle class to matter to modern audiences. (Ironically, a complaint made about the real suffragette movement at the time)
Critics complain that there are not enough competent female heroes on the screen, so they give them Rey in STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS who is tough, competent, and capable of tackling any problem. Many of the same critics then condemn the film and the character as a "Mary Sue" a female character who is "too perfect" to be believed.
There is literally just no pleasing some folks. 
The greatest irony is that when there is something that just reeks of sexism, it's treated as a victory. I'm talking about the all-women reboot of GHOSTBUSTERS. Hollywood is literally tossing women the scraps of a franchise that's been dead for over 25 years, instead of creating something new and original, and it's seen as a victory for feminism.
To borrow a phrase from Admiral Ackbar: "IT'S A TRAP!"
If the film succeeds, the credit will go to the affection people have for the GHOSTBUSTERS franchise.
If the film flops, the blame will be put on its female stars. 
Yet I appear to be the only person who sees this.
Ironically, I'm not offended by it, just saddened.
GEORGE LUCAS: Lucas called Disney "white slavers" after they dropped $4 billion on his lap for Lucasfilm because they revived the long moribund and once creatively bankrupt STAR WARS franchise sans Lucas and his whims like Jar-Jar Binks.
George, I love ya for creating STAR WARS, but you're driving me crazy with this sort of spoiled brat chatter. It was nice that you apologized, but maybe you shouldn't have said it in the first place, right when people were about to forgive you for the prequels? 
SLOW WEST: My problem is not with the movie itself. It apparently got lots of good reviews. My problem is with the title.
It's hard to sell a Western, but calling a Western SLOW WEST is about as smart as naming a play THEATRE CLOSED FOR RENOVATIONS. 
It's going to turn audiences away.
What producer or distributor allowed themselves to be convinced that it was a good title for a Western?
It makes the film sound pretentious, annoying, and, most of all SLOW, and audiences hate slow and will avoid anything that literally promises slowness in the title and makes the film lucky to pull in the $200,000 it did at the box-office.
Not seeing that means those who green-lit that title should probably reconsider their career choices.
MARTIN SHKRELI: Now this isn't an entertainment or pop culture story, but it does have some lessons people in any business can learn.
In case you're living in a cave Martin Shkreli is a millennial multimillionaire who took over a drug company and immediately jacked up the price of a drug for people with compromised immune systems by about 7,000%. He claimed he was going to kick the profits back into research and development, but his lifestyle, business record, and overall attitude about everything made everyone doubt his word.
In fact, when he was arrested and arraigned on running a high financed Ponzi scheme the internet pretty well cheered in unison.
Which brings me to the lesson.
A little known fact about business life is that no matter how honest an American businessperson strives to be, they commit on average several felonies a day without even knowing it. This number goes up exponentially the higher up you go in the financial food chain.
The majority of these felonies are violations of obscure Federal regulations that even the regulators don't fully understand. 
That creates an interesting situation.
First, there are laws that everyone breaks, but since they're so complicated and obscure they're selectively prosecuted.
Second, if you want to be prosecuted for something, be a business person that makes himself a politically attractive target.
Which means that Shrkreli was nowhere near as smart as his ego told him was, or he would have seen that coming. If Conrad Black could be convicted of a crime that never happened, then any businessperson can become a pelt on a prosecutor's wall, so be honest, be straight, and for the love of Xenu, don't make yourself a target.

There's been a lot more stupidity this year, but I've decided to just let it go, and pray that 2016 will be a lot smarter.

Monday, 25 August 2014

Hollywood Babble On & On #1173: Palpating Palpatine & Missing Mythbusters...

PALPATING PALPATINE


Since Star Wars 7 is a JJ Abrams production there's naturally lots of rumours spewing all over the internet. The latest is that the Emperor Palpatine, chronologically last seen being tossed to his alleged doom down a shaft in the Death Star by Darth Vader, will be making a comeback as the main villain.


If you remember JJ Abrams' modus operandi he loves to leak rumours about what he's working on, strongly and vehemently deny that those rumours are true, and then, when the picture's released, reveal that the rumours were true all along. (e.g. Star Trek Into Darkness.)

Now while all signs are saying that the rumours are true, I'm hoping it's not true for these reasons.

1. FAN SERVICE OVER STORY: The only reason to bring Palpatine back is because when Abrams takes over a franchise he feels he has to go all in for what he thinks the fans want, most famously with casting fan-favourite actor Benedict Cumberbatch, inappropriately as fan favourite villain Khan.

But here's a question: How many people, fans included, were actually satisfied by the story in Star Trek Into Darkness

Then answer is: Not many.

Fan service characters and casting infects the story, and becomes an excuse to avoid the hard work of creating something new that the audience would find interesting.

2. RENDERS VADER MEANINGLESS: Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back tricked the audience into thinking that it was the story of Luke Skywalker, the revelation that Vader was Luke's father in Empire,  his redemption by tossing Palpatine down the shaft in Return of the Jedi and the story of his fall in the prequel trilogy showed that the saga was really all about Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader.

Bring Palpatine back and Anakin/Darth is no longer the fallen soul being redeemed through suffering and sacrifice, he's just a bump on Palpatine's road of mischief making.

And that's another thing…

3. IT CHEAPENS PALPATINE: Here's JJ Abrams' sales pitch: "We'll bring back Palpatine, he'll be played by another actor, so he'll look different, sound different, and he won't be ruling the Galaxy anymore, but he'll still be bad-ass because the actor will be a lot younger, and we'll use truckloads of CGI."

Anyway, I'd have preferred they create a new threat born from the chaos of a post-Palpatine galaxy, but Hollywood can't resisting rehashing stuff because they know you fans will lap it up like the salivating dogs that you are.

MISSING MYTHBUSTERS

For some reason this is the only pic I could find
The long running blow-shit-up-in-the-name-of-science show Mythbusters is trimming 3/5s of its cast for the next season. They're dropping long running build team Kari Byron, Tory Belleci and Grant Imahara.

The producers and the Discovery Channel say it's to bring the show back to its roots of just having original hosts Jamie Hyneman and Adam Savage, but I don't really buy that.

I suspect they're trying to trim costs, but are doing so at the risk of alienating some of the show's long running fans who literally came of age in the long time those three were on the show.

Crying shame.

Tuesday, 7 May 2013

YOU ASKED FOR IT!

Some readers had some comments that I think are worthy of a response.

Ken Begg asked... I'm increasingly surprised that Disney hasn't released remastered editions of the original versions of the older Star Wars movies on DVD / BluRay. Get rid of all the lousy additions George Lucas shoved down the fan's throats. This would result in instant money, and make the fans happy, buying Disney further cred. 
Hell, release the Star Wars Holiday Special. It was always incredibly petty of Lucas to have had just a bug up his butt about that.

While I didn't like the changes Lucas made to his movies, I will acknowledge that he had the right to make those changes. The movies were his property.

What I didn't like was that he constantly refused to release a decent DVD version of the unsullied originals, and declared that the memories of the original fans didn't matter because it was his toy and they could go pound sand. Which was a tart blend of hypocrisy and arrogance since back in the 80s he fought so hard against Ted Turner colourizing the black and white classics he grew up watching.

Disney could release a "Classic Edition" DVD/Blu-Ray and probably make a few gazillion easy, but knowing George Lucas and his love of micromanaging and denying that he ever made a mistake might have made him put something in the sales contract to keep them from doing it.

If there isn't some poison pill in the contract, just pressure Disney to release the originals. If they can make money off of it, they will do it.

As for the Star Wars Holiday Special, I have to say that I have to agree with George on that one. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I remember seeing it as a little kid, and thinking: "This doesn't make any sense, and it's making my brain hurt."

Next comment...
Rainforest Giant here,

How hard would it be to combine the budgets from two or three of those scyfy channel abortions they churn out?
I mean they put up one or two new ones a week. So why not take some time and actually do one half-assed right? Or combine some of their properties into one show? Have 'Face Off' do the makeup for a couple movies and cross-promote with tie-ins all around. Give some money to people doing decent web shows like 'The Guild'.

I watched the first episode of 'Defiance' and it wasn't too horrible but there were no surprises. I am not sure if I'll keep watching. 'Continuum' was simply boring I quit watching that already.

They didn't have to reinvent the wheel with their Battlestar Galactica prequel thing. I guess they thought that having a fifteen year old girl who is too stupid to stay away from murderous morons was the way to go.

Somebody could produce some scifi for kids Saturday morning tv (do they still do that?). It wouldn't have to be too perfect kids don't demand that (look at 'Power Rangers') but they do want it to be engaging and fun. Any reason that cannot be a gateway drug to good science fiction/horror?
I don't think it's about money when it comes to the crapulence of the SyFy originals and their ilk. Only the major studios think massive amounts of cash are necessary to make decent science-fiction and horror.

There are ways to make those kinds of genre films on a budget, but they require resources that SyFy and other straight-to-DVD-cable producers have a shortage of.

Those resources are imagination and the ambition to create work that does more than just fill time on a schedule.

If they had those resources they would have put together something involving their other shows, which actually is a pretty good idea. They also wouldn't butcher popular science fiction novels into unrecognizable messes.

But they don't. Instead they clog the airwaves with crap, and those who actually do make good genre movies on a budget are lost in the shuffle.

-----------
And now a moment of RAGE!

Speaking of lazy b-movies. Last night I was channel surfing and came across a movie called Swamp Devil with Bruce Dern. Though I was only able to force myself to watch about 10 minutes of it I can say without a doubt that it was a perfect example of lazy b-movie making.

Why?

THERE WAS NO SWAMP!

The titular 'swamp' was a pond in the middle of a forest of gently rolling hills in Quebec.

Now if you're going to put out anything with "Swamp" in the title, you better deliver lots of watery places teeming with all sorts of biting things. If you can't afford a swamp then you have to ask yourself:

What would Roger Corman do?

Corman would have hired some eager kid with talent looking for a break into the industry, like a young Robert Towne, or Francis Coppola, tell him the script needs a rewrite because they can't afford Louisiana, they have to shoot it in Quebec. Then he'd lock the writer in a room, like he used to with Robert Towne, and let him out when he was finished. The writer, hoping to make his mark would then change it from a swamp monster, to a forest monster, and make up something that sounded like Quebecois folklore as local colour so they can save money by not trying to make it look like America, contrive a reason for an American hero, and they're off to the races.

It's not rocket science, it's just using a little imagination.

Wednesday, 24 April 2013

Hollywood Babble On & On #1013: You Want Star Wars? Then Choke On Star Wars!

I meant to get to this earlier but Disney announced that they're hoping to put out a new Star Wars movie EVERY FREAKING YEAR.

Let's look at the PROS & CONS of this idea:

PROS:

1. People are hungry for more Star Wars, and this will be more Star Wars happening than ever before.

2. They're following the model that their division Marvel's been following when it comes to a nearly constant output of Marvel movies.

CONS:

1. This means a nearly constant stream of bogus "leaks" by the minions of JJ Abrams spreading rumours of things that probably won't be in the movies.

2. This could create a logjam within the studio considering how inefficient studio development can be.

3. The Marvel model may not be the exact thing to emulate, since it is, in fact, half a dozen individual franchises that are only connected via the elements of The Avengers franchise. Star Wars is different because all the movies have been centred around Darth Vader and his family. The rumours coming out, which might be all lies since this is a JJ Abrams production, is that they're probably going to somehow continue along that vein. 

That is 1 franchise, not a half-dozen franchises set within the same universe.

To make it viable they need to create new characters and new franchises within the greater Star Wars universe. Some can be found in the "expanded universe" material done in books and comics, but Disney hasn't given any sign they're interested in doing anything with that material. In fact, there are reports that they intend to scrap it all.

Which makes me worry about this plan.

Wednesday, 6 March 2013

Hollywood Babble On & On #994: 2 Things That Sound Good, But Probably Aren't That Great...

THE RETURN OF PRINCESS LEIA?

Word is bopping around that Carrie Fisher is set to head again for a certain galaxy far far away and rejoin Harrison Ford for the upcoming Disney/J.J. Abrams Star Wars sequel.

Here's the working title: Star Wars Episode 7: A New Hip.

Personally, I feel that bringing back the stars of the original trilogy is something that sounds great to someone inside Hollywood, but probably doesn't ring all that true to those living in the real world.

When the original trilogy ended with Return of the Jedi we had the space opera equivalent of the happy ending. Bringing them back, 30+ years older, is a bit of a downer. The fans want to remember them as they were in the last movie, still young and heroic. Not old and yelling out the window of the Millennium Falcon for the kids to get off their lawn.

I think they would have been better off starting a new franchise with new characters that can explore different parts of the "expanded universe."

But that would be original, and Disney, being a Hollywood studio fears originality, even though it was the originality of the first trilogy that made it a cultural touchstone. So they try to copy as much of the original as they think they can get away with, except its originality.

Does that make any sense?

CORRECTION: Now the word is that she was just jerking our chain.


SPIELBERG MIGHT DO KUBRICK... AGAIN...

Stephen Spielberg has announced that he's developing Stanley Kubrick's massive script for his unrealized epic Napoleon as a television miniseries.

On the surface it sounds like a great idea. Miniseries, especially historical costume dramas, seem to do great business these days. Also it's probably the best way to do Kubrick's highly detailed and meticulously researched vision for the project, which he and his writing partners could never condense into a feature film length.

However...

Maybe it's me, but while Kubrick greatly respected Spielberg's talent, their styles, at least in my eyes, don't mesh. Kubrick was cynical in tone and clinical in style, Spielberg is an emotional romanticist, which made their post-mortem collaboration A.I. kind of a disappointment, at least to me.

Then again, maybe I'm just a worrier.

Wednesday, 31 October 2012

Hollywood Babble On & On #965: Disney Declares Star Wars!

A real whopper hit the world last night. Media megalith the Walt Disney Company inked a deal to give George Lucas $4.05 billion, yes, that's BILLION, in exchange for his company Lucasfilm and all its assets, including the Star Wars and Indiana Jones franchises and special effects powerhouse Industrial Light and Magic.


Disney also announced that they have a new Star Wars movie trilogy mapped out and will start with Episode 7 slated for release in 2015.

Time for us to look at the PROS & CONS!

PROS:

1. Lucas has managed to become the richest filmmaker in the history of Hollywood.

2.  Disney now controls two of the most commercially successful franchises in recent movie history, namely Star Wars and the Indiana Jones franchises. They come with not only a history of lucrative movies, they have immense merchandising empires (including toys & games) as well, which are literally a license to print money.

3. Disney also has ownership of one of the longest running and most successful special effects houses in movie history. 

4. Disney has had success buying franchises and making them lucrative money machines like they did with Marvel comics.  

CONS:

1. Lucasfilm's record doing anything outside their core franchises is pretty dismal. Not including the first American Graffiti movie Not only did a lot of these films lose money, you could put together the collective box office of Willow, Radioland Murders, Tucker: A Man & His Dream, Howard The Duck, Labyrinth, Mishima, and Red Tails and it probably wouldn't add up to the take brought in by 1 of their blockbuster core franchises.

2. The Indiana Jones franchise is essentially built around Harrison Ford and Stephen Spielberg, and even though Crystal Skull made money at the box office, a lot of the core fans think Ford's getting too old to be the action hero, his potential replacement Shia LaBeouf is more like "Where's The Beef," and Spielberg struck many as uninterested in the whole franchise, which isn't good for a director.

3. George Lucas pissed off a lot of the core fans who grew up on the first trilogy. First he started changing the movies, like making Greedo shoot first to nullify Han Solo's origin as an amoral bad-ass who redeems himself fighting the Empire. Then he worked out ways to piss them off even further by denying them a decent DVD version of the untampered originals simply because he felt like it.

Then came the prequel trilogy which, while profitable, were considered a creative disappointment with bad-ass villain Darth Vader starting out as Anakin the Whiny Bitch, and acting that couldn't have been more wooden if the casting had been held at an Ikea store. By the end only the real die hard fans and the kids who didn't grow up with the awe inspired by the originals gave a shit about the prequel trilogy and the related spin-offs.

Disney might be able to appease those lost fans by releasing a nice DVD/Blu-Ray of the originals in their original form.

4. $4 billion is a lot of money. Disney is going to need hits and fast the way they did with Marvel. If they don't make hits, they won't be moving the toys and games and other merch at levels that will get them out of hock as quick as they want.

If SW7 becomes another John Carter, or if Johnny Depp gets involved and blows out the budget, they will have a hard time covering the costs. Then the whole thing could become a white elephant the size of the Death Star.

Friday, 10 February 2012

Hollywood Babble On & On #850: Dear George.

AN OPEN LETTER TO GEORGE LUCAS.

Dear George Lucas.

Furious D here, just dropping in because I read some comments you made recently about the whole "Han Shot Greedo First" controversy.  Here's the kicker that got me started...
The controversy over who shot first, Greedo or Han Solo, in Episode IV, what I did was try to clean up the confusion, but obviously it upset people because they wanted Solo to be a cold-blooded killer, but he actually isn't. It had been done in all close-ups and it was confusing about who did what to whom. I put a little wider shot in there that made it clear that Greedo is the one who shot first, but everyone wanted to think that Han shot first, because they wanted to think that he actually just gunned him down.
Seriously George, you think the audience misunderstood this scene?


It looks like a pretty straightforward scene to me.  Greedo, a professional thug, threatens Han, Han shoots Greedo before Greedo can shoot him.

I remember it clearly because it was the first movie I remember seeing in a movie theater. I didn't "want" Han Solo to be a cold blooded killer, but even then, in my half-formed, still slightly gooey child's mind, I knew that Han had to kill Greedo in cold blood.

And not just because Greedo was threatening Han with a blaster.

The central reason that Han had to shoot first is that it is fundamentally essential to the narrative of the whole Star Wars saga.

"Oh no! George is at it again!"
Remember, Han is the first major character that Luke meets that isn't a relative, or a Tatooine local. He's the "gateway character" who ushers Luke from his isolated life on the farm to the greater Galaxy.

Han also illustrates that this Galaxy is a dark and dangerous place, where it's often kill or be killed, because while the Empire is oppressive, it's essentially decadent.  Not decadent in the meaning of wild orgies and other sexual shenanigans, but decadent in the meaning that the moral and ethical norms of a decent civilization are in a profound state of decay.

It also adds weight to Han's ultimate redemption during the final battle with the Death Star.  He has his reward for rescuing Leia and bringing her back to the Rebel Alliance, he can pay his debts and resume his normal life as a low rent smuggler.

Now the Han that shot first at the beginning of the movie, would have gone home with the money.  But that Han is gone by this scene. He is changed profoundly by his adventures with Luke and Obi Wan. Because of that change, that sign that heroism really is an option now, he turns his ship around and joins Luke in a desperate suicide mission against the planet smashing Death Star.

Do you see my point George?

Now you have every right to fiddle with your creation. You own it, you can make the whole franchise your bitch, which you appear to do on a regular basis.  But the overweening arrogance of refusing to release the original versions, and now denying the memories of millions of fans to justify your questionable choices, can only mean one thing.

You are so full of shit you don't even know up from down anymore.

I can only assume that you're surrounded by legions of sycophants who tell you that you're every cranial fart is some tremendous act of genius, and that you don't have anyone near you brave enough to talk reality.

Because if you did have someone like that near you, they would have told you that such a statement makes you sound like an arrogant, ultra-narcissistic douche who lives in a semi-dream-world.

Of course this is all just yelling in the wilderness. You probably don't take criticism seriously because you're still making mega-millions off your creation, and assume the dollars coming in must mean you're right.

But how will history judge you George? As a visionary?  Or just a neurotic who scored big on one good idea and spent the rest of his life trying to milk as much money as he could by draining said idea of all of its originality and creativity, ultimately becoming synonymous with the Hollywood ethic he once claimed to be rebelling against.  The ethic that story was secondary to flashy visuals, and creativity and emotional impact secondary to the cash that could be made.

Is that how you want to be judged?

-Sincerely

Furious D.

Thursday, 1 September 2011

Hollywood Babble On & On #795: George VS George VS The World

Well, it looks like the open letter to George Lucas that I posted yesterday got quite a response. Not only from readers, but from George Lucas himself, and by that I mean both of them.

"Both of them?" you're asking yourself in a feeble attempt to understand.

Yes, both of them.

Thanks to my combined degrees in mad science and black magic from the DeVry Institute I have made contact not only with George Lucas, but with George Lucas circa 1988.

You see back in 1988 George Lucas testified before congress about people changing around movies, and guess what, HE WAS AGAINST IT!

So, I opened a few spatial temporal gateways and brought them together in my basement laboratory/rec room for:
POINT / COUNTERPOINT
STARRING
1988 GEORGE LUCAS
VS
2011 GEORGE LUCAS

FURIOUS D: I'd like to thank everyone for coming. 1988 George I'd like to turn to you for an opening statement.

1988 GEORGE: Thank you. I'm here to tell you that a film is like any work of art. While it may legally and physically belong to the holder of the copyright, in essence it belongs to the public, the fans. People who change around works of art either to make money, or to exercise power are barbarians!

2011 GEORGE: George you are an ass. There is no either/or question behind me constantly fiddling with the original trilogy. I do it to make money and to show the world that I'm a great big swinging dick.

1988 GEORGE: I can't believe you're talking like that. Our films captured the hearts of a generation, while I can understand a desire to polish up the special effects and make sure the picture quality was at its best, but you're redoing whole scenes, adding dialogue, and slapping back in stuff that was best left out.

2011 GEORGE: I'm making it better!

1988 GEORGE: How!

2011 GEORGE: By getting it to make me more money while I make myself feel that I'm somehow still relevant! If I just put out the original movies in their unaltered form, most of the hard-core first generation fans would probably buy that and only that because they have fond memories of the magical time they first saw it and other nonsense like that. It's not like I can just put out a version of prequel trilogy where Anakin Skywalker isn't a whiny little snot-nosed emo-bitch. Computer technology can't erase whiny snot-nosed emo-bitchiness yet, and I doubt it will ever be able to in my lifetime.

FURIOUS D: May I interject?

1988 GEORGE: Knock yourself out kid. I'd love to hear from the fans.

FURIOUS D: There's a scene in the movie Six Degrees Of Separation where a pompous Manhattan art dealer, played by the effervescent Donald Sutherland, says that the best works of abstract impressionist art he ever saw was in a kindergarten art class. He asks the teacher how she was able to get such mini-masterpieces out of small paste eating children, some of them were even gingers. Her answer: She knows when the picture's finished, even when the kids don't.

2011 GEORGE: You are so full of shit.

1988 GEORGE: Come on, give him a break. He was a huge fan, and it was Star Wars that go him interested in movies in the first place.

FURIOUS D: Thanks 1988 George.

1988 GEORGE: It's not his fault that he's not as rich and successful as we are, and lives in comparative poverty and obscurity.


FURIOUS D: Okay you can stop defending me now.

2011 GEORGE: I don't need to be lectured by this punk. I'm the big man, the Alpha Dog, no one dares say no George Fucking Lucas!

1988 GEORGE: Do I really end up like that?

FURIOUS D: Sadly, but he's not completely without merit. In fact, I think he's just told us the root of his problem without even knowing it.

1988 GEORGE: What do you mean?

FURIOUS D: Look at yourself at the time I plucked you from with my time machine. You had a lot of success, especially with the Star Wars and Indiana Jones movies, but you were still reeling from the failure of Howard The Duck, which was a serious setback to you in many ways.

1988 GEORGE: It was a swift kick in gonads.

FURIOUS D: You were humbled, and still possessed with a love of film. Now look at 2011 George...

2011 GEORGE: Now you're trying to psychoanalyze me?

FURIOUS D: He's rich, and powerful, but not as much from films as you'd think. The bulk of his success comes from selling franchise related merchandise to fans, and special effects to the major movie studios who are constantly trying to copy his success without the heart and soul that made people care about the original trilogy. His last attempt to produce a non-franchise movie The Radioland Movies Murders crashed and burned, and he's seen people bitch and complain about his the Star Wars prequel trilogy and Indiana Jones & The Kingdom Of The Numb Crystal Skull, while still giving him hundreds of millions of dollars of their hard earned money. It's no wonder that he's lost all respect for film, fans of film, and his own talent. He can't help but think that his only future is trying to find new ways to cash in on his legacy, by tossing out shit, expecting people to call it ice cream by buying it and then complaining about it later, and there's no one in his inner circle brave enough to tell him he's on the wrong track, and/or he's too isolated to listen to such voices. Dissent is necessary when creating art, it's called "editing."

1988 GEORGE: Wow, that's deep for dime store psychoanalysis.

FURIOUS D: I have some training in that field. I read the blurb on the back of a Dr. Phil diet book someone gave me for Christmas. Well, I read what I could through the bloodstains, because who the hell gives someone a diet book as a Christmas present?


2011 GEORGE: Look, I'm going home to roll around a pile of money. You losers can just have your little circle jerk without me.

1988 GEORGE: Don't be like that.

2011 GEORGE: I'm sick and tired of your attitude. You are so fired!

1988 GEORGE: You can't fire me, I'm you!

2011 GEORGE: Yes I can, I'm older, I have seniority.

EXIT 2011 GEORGE.

1988 GEORGE: Well, he's got me there.

FURIOUS D: I guess I better get back to violating the laws of physics to get you back to your original time. So I'd like to ask my readers to post what they think of this little exchange in the comments.

Wednesday, 31 August 2011

Hollywood Babble On & On #794: Dear George

AN OPEN LETTER TO GEORGE LUCAS.

Dear George--

I hope this little missive finds you well, you're certain doing well financially, and I'm sort of glad to hear that your epic Star Wars Saga is coming out on high definition Blu Ray DVD.

I said "sort of glad" because while I am a huge fan of the original trilogy, I probably won't be buying this set to replace the 16 year old VHS copies I have.

Why?


Because you keep pissing on your original fans, like me.

Now I'm not going to complain about the constant fiddling, fidgeting and plain old buggering you do to the original trilogy at every freaking opportunity.

You own it, you have the right to do whatever you goddamn want with your private property. Though I do fear that it's only a matter of time before you digitally replace Emperor Palpatine with Jar-Jar-Binks' evil twin Brother Fart-Fart (voice by Jim Carrey) because of a dream you had after eating an extra spicy fajita.

What bugs me is the pissing on the childhood memories of the original fans, like me, who, through buying tickets, action figures, and other associated merchandise, made you the media powerhouse you are today. We just want a nice copy of the original, unaltered, un-doctored, and un-sodomized version of the original trilogy. We want to show the kids these days the images that electrified us when we were kids.

But you won't let us, simply because you fucking well don't feel like it.

And don't give me that: "I put out an unaltered version as an extra feature on a DVD release a couple of years back."

That's bullshit and you know it.

Let's remember that this "release" was of a non-anamorphic transfer scraped off the 1993 LaserDisc release and wasn't anywhere near the picture/sound quality of the remastered and rejiggered versions you can't stop playing with, especially if you try to watch it on a rectangular hi-def TV.

That basically tells fans like me, the people whose allowance money went on to build your own ego-empire, that you don't really give a shit about them, or their memories.

That's what gets fans pissed off at you.

That and Jar-Jar Binks. Man, he was so-fucking-annoying, were you high when you created him?

Anyway, back to my point.

Your constant fiddling no longer looks like a unending quest for perfection, but a never-ending desire to feed both your ego and your bank account, and to hell with the fans who once looked up at your big screen achievements in awe. It wasn't enough for you to bombard them with overwrought CGI and under-wrought writing and acting in the prequel trilogy, you had to deny them what they really want.

That's why I refuse to give you another dime of my money. You've done more than piss me off, you disappointed me. You started off as a rebel, striking a blow for independence and imagination in the face of a greedy unimaginative corporate studio system. Your vision excited a generation and you were rewarded for it.

Now you are the greedy unimaginative corporate studio system.

You're basically doing remakes, that bane of the imagination you once held so dear, without having to deal with the hassle of rewriting your scripts or working with living actors. You also seem to be hoping that if you deny the audience the originals they crave, you will somehow catch lightning in a bottle again, and the audience will love and respect you once more.

You'll make a shit-load of money, a lot of fans will still buy your shit and call it ice cream, but the days when you could amaze an entire generation are long over.

You should know that, at least show a little respect for your own legacy and your fans.

--Sincerely

Furious D

Tuesday, 21 December 2010

Hollywood Babble On & On #651: Random Drippings From My Brain Pan!

Welcome to the show folks...

With the Xmas season starting my posting may become a tad erratic, until after Boxing Day. Please be patient if I'm not up every day, it's a busy time of the year for me, and a slow time for the sort of news that gets my dander up.

So here's some little bits to fill the great void the sits in the middle of your soul....

I AM SHOCKED AND APPALLED!

Not that a major Hollywood conglomerate like Disney/ABC would put the screws to a business partner in the way they are accused of screwing the creators of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire. I am shocked and appalled that the court has rejected their first round of appeals of the $300+ million judgment.

All is not lost for Disney/ABC, there are still appeals to be filed, ensuring that the winners of the lawsuit will be getting their pension checks before they get one from Disney.

I AM SHOCKED AND APPALLED PART DEUX!

Lucasfilm has settled a civil action brought by the Justice Department over their little hiring scheme that they hatched with neighbor, and supposed competitor Pixar. The deal was that if one had laid claim to a potential employee, the other would not compete, and that they wouldn't try to poach each others animators or techinicians.

Now at first glance you might think that they're just being civil, but the real reason they did this is to SUPPRESS SALARIES.

You see when competitors compete, they compete on all levels. They compete for audiences in the theaters, and they compete for the sort of talent that puts bums in those theater seats. That means spending money to outbid each other for the best and brightest.

That's the natural order of things, and it is called capitalism.

However, when alleged competitors work together, they can keep salaries artificially low. That is called COLLUSION, and it is a twee bit illegal.

Sounds like Lucas and Pixar were both dabbling in the dark side.

THE BEST JOKE HE'S EVER DONE

Comedian and talk show host George Lopez has announced that he's running for mayor of Los Angeles. Let's look at his resume and compare to that of current LA mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (AKA Tony Vilar).

GEORGE LOPEZ is a comedian.

ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA is considered a joke.

GEORGE LOPEZ took his wife's kidney, then they got divorced.

ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA took his wife's last name, then got caught tapping an anchorwoman and got divorced.

GEORGE LOPEZ has worked in comedy clubs, then a sitcom, and currently a late night talk show.

ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA can't practice law because he can't pass the bar exam, so his career has been spent between working for government employee unions, activist groups, and elected offices.

My advice- Lopez's campaign slogan should be:
"I can't be any worse."