Hollywood Babble On & On #1247: Friday The 13th The Series?

Flush with success from DC superheroes, magicians, and a pregnant virgin, the CW Network now thinks it can work miracles by raising the dead. The stinking foetid corpse in question is the Friday The 13th franchise which they hope to adapt into a TV series about the people of Crystal Lake facing the return of a more "grounded" version of the unstoppable killer.

Now I've never been a fan of the franchise, it came to embody the worst of the 1980s slasher-horror boom, coming up with lamer and lamer excuses to ramp up the gore and keep Jason coming back no matter what happened to him. It got very silly and very boring, and it showed in the diminishing returns at the box office.

Even a big budget remake failed to revive interest in a franchise that was deader than a Voorheez victim.

The funny thing is that the franchise had already branched into TV back in the 1980s.

Sort of.

Back in 1987 the producers of the Friday the 13th movies were branching into television with a Canadian-USA syndicated late night horror series that was originally going to be called The 13th Hour.

They decided that title was too obscure and went with the more famous "brand" even though the show had nothing to do with Jason Voorhees.

The premise of the show was pretty straightforward. An antiques dealer named Louis Vendredi made a pact with the devil for wealth and immortality. To cash in the stock in his store had been cursed to lead those who buy them into madness and murder by bombarding them powerful temptations.

But in the pilot Louis had an attack of guilt and broke the pact, and ended up dead and in hell.

Two distant relatives then inherited the store, which they then cleaned out in a huge sale. Shortly afterward, with the help of their uncle's ex-partner, they discover the curses and spend the rest of the series trying to get the stuff back and locked up safely in a supernaturally fortified vault.

Now I was just a kid when I saw it, and it ended 25 years ago, but I remember that it was one of the scariest things I had ever seen made for TV, and that includes Dark Night of the Scarecrow.

As far as I can remember, it sure was scarier than anything the Friday the 13th movies dished out.

Which is why I'm not holding out much hope for the CW's idea.

They should stick to DC superheroes.

Hollywood Babble On & On #1156: Random Bits...

PARAMOUNT HATES ORIGINALITY

Paramount Pictures, which practically founded Hollywood in its days as Famous Players-Lasky, has announced it's slate for the next two years and one thing is for certain: The don't pay much attention to what the Chinese are thinking because it's going to be almost all sequels, remakes, reboots, and rehashes. 

I said "almost" because they are releasing one movie that isn't a sequel or remake, and I'll wager dinars to donuts that they're only doing it because it helps fulfill a deal with Transformers director/producer Michael Bay. They're even doing a sequel to Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters, which tanked in North America, but sold better overseas, in the vain hope that it will somehow transform (get it) into a profitable franchise.

This is the same company that licensed a good chunk of their classic film library to Warner Brothers because they didn't know what to do with it, and are making stumbling steps back into television after giving it away during all the internal Viacom-CBS-Paramount shuffles.

I really get the feeling that the people running Paramount aren't really all that interested in the effort that goes into running a Movie and Television Studio.

CHELSEA DOES NETFLIX

Chelsea Handler's leaving her E! Network talk show and has signed on to do a talk show for Netflix.

Really?

The Netflix watching model, especially for TV series is to pick a show and binge watch it in a marathon session. Talk shows are all about being "in the moment" talking to people and about things that happened that day. There's a real good chance that, despite her small, yet rabid fan base, this show could easily be lost in the shuffle. And will her perpetual party girl image, which was getting a bit long in the tooth on cable, and failed utterly on the network, endure or annoy in this medium?

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

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

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

It's a very tempting prospect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hollywood Babble On & On #1132: Random Forebodings?

CAN NOAH SAIL?

The box office for Darren Aronofsky's non-Bilblical Biblical epic Noah has been very good for the opening weekend raking in about $44 million domestic and $50 million internationally. Now Hollywood is thinking that it's a victory for the film which sparked some controversy by, according to some reports, removing most of the involvement of God and religion from the Biblical tale, replacing them with CGI monsters, which strikes me as akin to making a Batman movie where all you see is Alfred doing chores.

But that's an argument for Biblical scholars and Hollywood folks to have, what I'm here to talk about is whether or not the movie has legs. Or in the case of Noah: sails.

You see "legs" is old school theatrical talk for a show's ability to pull an audience over time. One way is to gauge word of mouth, like a film's Cinemascore rating, which in the case of Noah is an unhealthy "C."

That means that while audiences are flocking to the opening weekend, they are leaving the theatre unsatisfied at best, and will most likely not recommend the film to other potential ticket buyers.

That doesn't bode well for Noah, which cost about $125 million to make, and at least 2/3s of that amount to promote and release. Add that to the fact that on-average the distributor gets about 50¢ of every domestic dollar, and anywhere between 25-40¢ of each international ticket dollar, depending on the territory, and you have a potential problem.

Noah is going to need to maintain that opening weekend momentum if it's going to turn a profit. The reports of audience dissatisfaction don't bode well for that, and for its future home-video revenues.

SPEAKING OF THERE BEING NO GOD

The Shituation Situation from Jersey Shore is getting another reality show.

That crew are like herpes, you never truly get rid of them as long as TV execs have zero imagination and they have unlimited greed.

THIS DOES NOT BODE WELL EITHER

Colin Farrell is signed up to do the movie The Lobster, about a dystopian future society where if you don't find your true love by a specified time you're turned into an animal. Most likely a lobster.

Why?

It's a dystopia, we don't need reasons!

Is it just me, or does the combo of Colin Farrell, and a romantic-adventure story with a surrealistic premise seems like a rerun of the fiasco surrounding A Winter's Tale?

Hollywood Babble On & On #1105: Glorification, Martyrdom, & Idiocy.

WHAT'S WITH ALL THE GLORIFYING?

Martin Scorcese and his muse Leonardo DiCaprio have a movie out called The Wolf Of Wall Street. The film covers the true story about a white collar criminal, who made huge money running stock scams, spent huge money on hedonistic high living with fast cars and faster women, and ended up doing time for it all.

Some are accusing the film of glorifying crime, while Scorcese and DiCaprio say they're just telling a story and letting the audience do the judging for themselves.

What do these people want?

The little lectures they used to put in gangster movies in the 1930s about how crime does not pay?

That would kind of defeat the purpose of the film, since SPOILER ALERT crime does pay for the film's lead character because he games the system to avoid any substantial punishment for his crimes.

The film might be attempting to show the weakness of white collar laws, and the moral morass of Wall Street. 

I won't say.

But I doubt anyone who doesn't already have criminal tendencies will see the movie and say "That's for me" and begin a life of crime.

KEVIN SMITH'S CAREER SUICIDE NOTE

Kevin Smith first announced his retirement, then he backtracked saying he was going to make 1 more film, a horror film called Tusk, about a man who forces another man to dress up like a walrus.

Then he backtracked some more, saying he's going to make even more final films including a new Clerks sequel and a film called Helena Handbag. No, it's not about women's accessories, it's about mankind forming an alliance with Satan to save civilization from a giant monster-Jesus out to "rapture" the world.

This is making me put on my psychoanalysis hat and try to figure out what Smith is up to.

I think Smith feels very unsatisfied when it comes to being a filmmaker. He peaked very early in his career, and ever since his output has been witnessing diminishing returns in both audience and critical reaction. In fact, he seems more popular as a "personality" and raconteur than as a filmmaker, and  wants out.

But he can't just quit.

That might hurt his credibility as an indie darling, and as one of Hollywood's conformist rebels.

He needs to have filmmaking taken away from him, or to be more exact appear to have filmmaking taken away from him.

So he makes films like Red State, a horror film about Hollywood's irrational fear of "psycho American Christians" inspired by America's craziest pseudo-Christian religious cult the Westboro Baptist Church which consists of 1 large family and approximately 5 other people, who haven't actually done any physical violence. In fact, all the Westboro dicks seem good at is attracting attention for being obnoxious.

It got him some attention, but the film wasn't the noble disaster he needed to bow out. So why no do a completely bug-shit premise about a man forcing another man to dress up like a walrus, and follow that up with an apocalyptic comedy about battling Jesus.

Then he can blame the failure of those films on audience ignorance and oppression from Hollywood's favourite bugbear the "religious right." Even though there are only two things the religious right would actually do to Helena Handbag:

1. Complain about it, giving it some free publicity that won't actually help it at the Box Office.

2. Ignore Helena Handbag completely and let the Bore/Offend Matrix do the rest.

Then he can do 1 last Clerks film and quit filmmaking and staying as Hollywood's pet "indie" darling.

DEEP SHIA KEEPS GETTING DEEPER

An apology in the sky...

Just give it up Shia, you're only making yourself look dumber.

Plus, I'm pretty sure it's been done before.

Hollywood Babble On & On #1100: Weekend Wemake Woundup!

Got some remake news to discuss, so let's get started…

ANOTHER MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS

Fox has announced that they're joining forces with Ridley Scott's Scott Free Productions to produce a remake of their 1974 hit adaptation of Agatha Christie's 1934 novel Murder On The Orient Express.

For those who have lived in a cave the Christie novel follows Belgian master detective Hercule Poirot going from Istanbul to Calais on the legendary Orient Express. The train gets trapped in the snow in the Balkans, a shady businessman with a shadier past is brutally murdered, and Poirot has to sort through a gallery of exotic suspects to get to the truth.

As previously mentioned it was first produced in 1974, directed by Sidney Lumet and had an all-star cast led by Albert Finney in the role of Poirot, and was a commercial and critical success. A second modern-dress adaptation was done for CBS TV in 2001, with Alfred Molina as Poirot, but it wasn't very well received.

The most recent adaptation was in 2010 as part of the ITV/WGBH-TV Poirot TV series which has been running off and on since the early 1990s. This version starred British actor David Suchet as Poirot.

Now I think it's interesting that blockbuster mavens like Fox and Scott are interested in a period film that despite its large cast, takes place almost entirely on a train. That could make it an affordable production if they don't go all "A-List" on the casting.

Speaking of casting…

The role of Poirot is a very tricky one to translate to film. He's a very odd character, an eccentric, anal-retentive, obsessive compulsive, egocentric genius with a thick Belgian accent and a tendency to malapropism with a hyper-fastidious fashion sense that is considered old fashioned by 1934, that makes him easy to parody and hard to portray straight.

Albert Finney got an Oscar nomination for it, and Peter Ustinov played a popular, if less eccentric, variation of the character on the big and little screen, but it was David Suchet who came to define the role pulling off the appearance, mannerisms, and charm of the character without looking ridiculous.

Of course that's if the producers have any notion to take this project remotely faithfully. There is always a good chance that they'll cast Will Smith as rapping  & ass kicking American detective "Hercules P" and change the Orient Express from a train to a spaceship full of aliens.

NAKED GUN REDUX?

Paramount has signed comic actor Ed Helms to star as Lieutenant Frank Drebin in a reboot of the absurdist comedy classic The Naked Gun, which itself was a reboot of the prematurely canceled TV series Police Squad.

Now I find it interesting that they cast the star of the Hangover movies for this reboot, which was the complete opposite strategy that made the original so successful.

People don't remember what it was like to see Leslie Nielsen, the original Frank Drebin, play that character. Before his roles in Airplane! and Police Squad/Naked Gun Nielsen was best known as a dramatic actor in movies and especially television. He played serious, if not downright sombre, authority figures like senior cops, doctors, or sinister criminals.

He was not known for doing silly things, in fact his image, forged by decades of TV guest spots, was the exact opposite. So seeing him engaging in all that silliness was a refreshing novelty. It gave him a second career as an international box office star at an age when most actors are considering retirement.

People expect Ed Helms to do silly things, that's his image. That means no real surprises from this film, which doesn't bode well for its success. Which is sad when they could have done a straight up police procedural parody under another name, and not have the shadow of Nielsen hanging over it.

Hollywood Babble On & On #1094: The Franchise That Won't Die

Happy Thanksgiving to my American readers, and Happy Hanukkah to my Jewish readers. I'm here to ruin your holidays with some annoying movie news.

Paramount has just announced that they will reboot the Friday The 13th franchise in 2015.

Now this is not a sequel to the 2009 reboot that New Line/Warner Bros. tried, which was actually a reboot of Friday The 13th Part 2. After some no doubt complex negotiations Paramount regained ownership of the franchise and are going to reboot the whole thing all over again.

Why?

The most obvious reason is that the 2009 reboot actually made money. $91 million worldwide to be exact.

But I don't think Paramount is asking themselves this question:

Why did Warner Bros./New Line not make a sequel?

Seriously, they went to all the trouble to buy the franchise from Paramount for New Line's Freddy VS Jason movie, they made the reboot, and it sold, so why didn't they flog the dead horse the way Paramount did in the 1980s?

Did they see something in the audience reaction, that it was seen as just a bit of nostalgia with 2000 era gloss, and that as a franchise it didn't have legs?

Look at the performance of the original franchise.

Riding the "slasher horror" wave begun by John Carpenter's Halloween the original Friday was a surprise smash, and the first sequel did well too.

But then things started to go south.

The studio quickly painted itself into a corner.

You see in Part 1, the killer was Pamela Voorhees, a maniacal mother out for revenge for what she thought was the death of her mentally handicapped son Jason.

Part 2 needed a new killer and since they had hinted that Jason may still be alive in the first film, why not have him him take up mad-momma's mantle. It didn't do as well as the first one, but it still made a profit.

But by the time they got to Part 3, which was boosted by the novelty of 3D, the makers saw they were pushing one thing a little too far. That one thing was Jason Voorhees, and his ability to endure horrible injuries and certain death to keep on killing.

Remember that in the 1980s there was still an expectation of at least some reality in non-supernatural horror films. The idea of the unstoppable-why-bother-even-running-because-there-is-nothing-you-can-do kind of killer can turn off all but the most ardent gore-hounds, and if they wanted to continue past a trilogy they needed to do something.

So the producers thought "Hey, let's have Jason die in the 4th movie, then introduce a new killer in the 5th movie" restoring the 'whodunnit' element of the first film.

They did that, but the decline continued, which convinced the studio that Jason was the selling point. Jason was brought back from the dead, and the first thing he did was slaughter any semblance of creating an interesting story.

The decline continued, Paramount sold the franchise to New Line, which tried to keep it going, resorting to sending him into space, and to hell, and finally into their own spent-force franchise of Nightmare On Elm Street, before the 2009 reboot.

Remember, the audience don't buy tickets at the local cineplex, they're buying the ability to be told a story. Stories have beginnings, middles, and ends, and have characters they can relate too.

With the Friday The 13th franchise they only offer beginnings and middles, no ends. Instalments only exist to segue for the next instalment, and no matter what happens at the ending of the instalment, it's going to be a fake-out, so why should the audience invest themselves emotionally in it?

I think Warner Bros. saw that 80s nostalgia and modern gloss could sell a beginning, but weren't going to sell a bunch of middles, which is why they traded it back to Paramount in exchange for their cut of Christopher Nolan's upcoming mega-epic Interstellar.

Maybe Paramount thinks they can run the whole "sell the beginning" scam all over again, but I fear they might think they can flog this dead horse back to life again.

Hollywood Babble On & On #1086: That's Where The Money Is...

Epix is a cable/satellite network owned by a partnership between Viacom/Paramount, MGM, and Lionsgate that was founded in 2009. Epix specializes in showing movies, boxing, and stand-up comedy specials. 

However, the head honcho of network partner Lionsgate has announced that the network is now planning to produce and/or license original scripted content for their channels.

Now just a few years ago people who claimed to be in the know said that "reality TV" was going to be the future. All shows were going to be about celebrities, skanky debutantes, pawn shops, car restoration, and a hundred other topics.

So why is everyone rushing toward scripted programming?

First, experience has proven that while about 5% of reality shows can be whopper hits, like Duck Dynasty, 95% of reality shows are just filler. Even the modestly successful ones are usually watched simply because they're on, and the competition in the 1000 channel universe is pretty thin.

Now add competition.

"Al A Carte" packaging in cable/satellite providers is probably inevitable, and streaming services like Netflix and Amazon means that you need something that will attract subscribers and/or viewers.

Reality programming is not a selling point, quality storytelling is.

Think about it, what's the first thing a child asks for that doesn't involve food or a diaper change?

The little bastards look up at you and say: "Tell me a story."

People love stories, they crave stories, and while interactive material like games are all well and good, there's nothing like a good story well told.

People will pay for good stories, reality TV, not so much.

"But what about movies?" you ask, furrowing your brow in a feeble attempt to understand. "Movies have stories."

True, but there are too many channels and not enough movies those channels are willing to air. Most channels balk at airing black and white movies, because they don't think kids will watch them. So there goes hundreds, if not thousands, of movies that can't get aired outside of Turner Classic Movies.

Then there's the fact that these channels are owned by studios, and they want the films in their libraries being given precedent. Then comes all the other factors that go into scheduling, and most of it is the sort of internal corporate politics & penny-pinching bullshit that ends up putting some less than stellar films on a perpetual loop.

People won't subscribe to movie channels that only show the same cluster of movies into infinity. Especially since so much of Hollywood's recent output can be described as lacklustre at best.

Another case for original scripted programming.

So let's all wish Epix luck. More scripted programming means more work for writers, actors, and directors, and if the shows are good, it's a win for the audience as well.

Hollywood Babble On & On #1076: Little Bits...

1. Someone Agrees With Me...

I see that someone inside the comics industry not only agrees with many of the things I've been saying about the comics industry, but can expand on them.

2. Now That's A Long Run...

Producer A.C. Lyles, Paramount's longest serving employee, passed away at the age of 95 after working for the studio for almost 80 years.

Cause of death was extreme surprise after receiving his first net profit participation cheque for the 1957 film Shortcut To Hell.

3. Hollywood Gets Into The God Business...

By hiring director Kevin Reynolds to direct Resurrection, a film about a Roman soldier investigating reports of the resurrection of a recently executed rabble rouser named Jesus.

I can't judge the film's quality before it's even made. But I can harbour worries that it will probably under-perform at the box office. Not because the audience doesn't want religious themed entertainment, but because they don't trust Hollywood to do it right.

4. Breaking Bad As An Excuse...

Breaking Bad wrapped up its five season run to beaucoup ratings and praise from critics and audiences alike.

But some took it as an excuse to use the internet to shit on writer/producer Damon Lindelof over the finale to Lost.

I can see their point.

Breaking Bad's finale embodied the shows central themes very well and tied up the main storyline in a satisfactory manner that fed the audience's desire for a sense of cosmic justice.

Lost on the other hand didn't even bother to tie up any of the hundreds of unanswerable mysteries the writers pulled out of their asses. It just pulled another one out of its ass, said goodbye, and declared that anyone who didn't love it was just too stupid to "get it."

They failed in their job as artists, and then they compounded it by insulting the audience.

That makes me understand the venomous reaction to Lindelof.

However, I don't support the reaction, especially the childish name-calling, obscenities, and other hostility sent to him.

If you don't like someone's work there are two reactions that I will permit when I rule the world:

A. Cogent criticisms where people outline how and where they think things went wrong pertaining to the project in question.

B. People will also be allowed to not buy or watch stuff by creators they don't like.

I heard Lindelof's doing his own version of the Left Behind stories with The Leftovers on HBO. It sounds like a combo of many things that bug me, one of them the threat that it will be Lost redux in the plotlines determined by dice rolls department. So I'm going to exercise my right to not watch it, because I don't have the time to waste.

But I'm not going to hurl shit at him on Twitter for it, because I don't have the time to waste for that either, and neither should you.

If you don't like something, think clearly about it, then write clearly about it. Name calling accomplishes nothing constructive.

Hollywood Babble On & On #1062: More Little Thoughts From My Massive Brain

First A Question?

This is for any British readers I might have.

I watch an inordinate amount of British TV shows and I've noticed a bit of a mystery. How come every British show with a lead character that's a single driven career woman have an unwanted pregnancy storyline? Is it laziness on the part of the writer looking for drama with little creative effort? Some sort of BBC mandate? Or are British women really bad at birth control?

Twerk It Don't Work It!

Everybody's talking about former Disney starlet Miley Cyrus shaking her bony, tramp-stamped ass to the tune of Robin Thicke's "Is That My Roofie In Your Martini" at the Video Music Awards on a channel that doesn't show music videos.

The ratings were okay, but they didn't set any records, but that's not stopping people from the MTV Publicity Department Parent's Television Council to MSNBC to declare that civilization is coming to an end unless heads roll. It doesn't matter that Thicke was singing the new anthem for the Bob Filner's of the world, an ex-child star was next to nikked.

This isn't the end of civilization. It's more like Hollywood announcing they're doing a remake of a really crappy movie, with the same crappy script, the same crappy director, same crappy editor, same crappy cinematographer who can't keep the boom mikes out of the shot, but this time they have a different star, so it can't possibly be crappy this time.

Miley's merely doing what other teen starlets try when their careers hit the skids after tasting mega-fame thanks to the stupidity of tween girls. They try to go "adult" by getting tramp stamps, wearing skanky clothes and doing skanky stuff on things like the MTV VMAs.

Her attempt at a movie career is pretty much over. Even at her peak the only film to crack that precious $100 million "can be a real movie star" line was an animated family film.  I could do a voice in an animated family film and crack $100 million and it wouldn't make me a movie star. And let's not forget her last movie:

Which was judged so bad by the producers they literally sat on it for over a year, and only gave it the bare minimum release they were contractually obligated to do. They preferred to lose their entire budget rather than be publicly associated with that big steaming pile.

What does she have left?

Shameless publicity whoring on the VMAs which exists solely for shameless publicity whoring for MTV.

It won't work. Her album won't sell, and her future movies won't sell, so all she's got left to do is take up drugs, mental illness, and get a gig as a judge on a reality talent show after her parents put her through rehab and under a conservatorship.

Double Feature Follies!

Paramount is rereleasing their really expensive hits World War Z and Star Trek Into Darkness as a double feature.

It'll be called the "We Spent Too Much On Them Night At The Movies."

NBC Has A Fever, & Instead Of More Cowbell It Wants More Germs!

NBC has made a deal with ex-ER executive producer John Wells to develop a pilot based on the 1990s disease thriller Outbreak. If you don't remember, Outbreak was about an outbreak of an ebola type disease in a small town thanks to an evil monkey, and while Dustin Hoffman and his team struggle to save the day, an Army General played by Dustin Hoffman keeps trying to blow it up because that's what Army Generals do when they're bored.

Now Outbreak was a hit when it came out, 18 years ago, and NBC had tried doing something similar in 2005 with a show called Medical Investigation, which lasted one truncated season.

But I'm sure it'll work this time.

What do you think about this Nineteenth Century English Gentleman?

I thought so.

Hollywood Babble On & On #1049: Two Television Tidbits

Today we've got two stories about television....

LET'S BUTT IN ON PARAMOUNT!

Paramount is getting serious about getting back into the TV production business. They've hired a new boss to run the thing, and are saying that they will make TV for any channel, platform, or site, if it can get to an audience.

That's all well and good, in fact, you should start pitching to Netflix... but that's another story...

Let's take a moment and put on our smug know-it-all hats and offer Paramount some advice on how to not screw things up.

Here are some of my suggestions...

1. TREAT CREATORS RIGHT: The main business of television is the selling of stories. Good stories that are well told can not only sell in the present, they can sell well into the foreseeable future. To get those stories you need to attract the best and brightest writers, and figure out a way to keep them working for you.

To do that you can't just treat them as disposable assets. The audience is starting to pay attention to who is making the shows the like, and will pay attention to shows from those creators. So it's good business to foster positive relationships with writers, and that means making sure they get paid what they're owed, and aren't jerked around, or fired for arbitrary, if not whimsical, and petty reasons.

2. DON'T BE AFRAID OF NICHES & RISKS: The audience is factionalized in ways that were unimaginable 20 years ago. The days of getting the big ratings by playing it safe with what the marketing department thinks is the widest appeal are over. 

Take for example The Walking Dead. When it was first bought by AMC everyone outside the comic's fans thought they went off their nut. A grim show, about people surviving a zombie plague and the end of civilization, that's loaded with gore, and a constant air of downbeat desperation doesn't sound like the recipe for a hit. In fact, the focus group gurus would piss themselves in terror at the prospect.

But look at its ratings. It's getting more viewers than most mainstream network shows. 

Yes, it's going to be a gamble, but playing it safe is basically playing dead. The good way to hedge your bet is to...

3. PRACTISE FISCAL SANITY: It's a common practice in Hollywood these days, when faced with a problem, to just throw money at it, then complain when something goes over budget. Some common sense, tied with a little diplomacy, and imagination, can solve a lot of problems, without costing any extra.

4. DON'T JUST REHASH OLD TITLES: The urge is to take old movie titles and try to revive them as TV shows. If you're going to do that, you have to do some radical re-imagining to the point that what comes out is completely new. Audiences want novelty, not reruns.

SPEAKING OF OLD TITLES

Universal and the SyFy Channel are making a pilot for a TV series based on the mind-bending time travel movie 12 Monkeys.

If you spent the 1990s in a cave I'll do a little explaining. 12 Monkeys is a remake/expansion of a short film from France called Le Jettee.

In it Bruce Willis plays a convict from the future who is given a chance at parole if he participates in a high risk time travel experiment aimed to discover information on the plague that wiped out most of humanity & rendered the surface of the Earth uninhabitable. The only clue is a reference in the records to a group called the "Army of the 12 Monkeys."

There are twists, turns, and everything wraps up into itself the way a good time travel movie should.

Now I'm not going to go on about the injustices of remakes, and how hard it will be to transfer something that is a perfectly encapsulated story, that literally goes full circle, into an open ended TV series.

Instead, I will use this story to explain what is a fundamental flaw in Hollywood.

The original 12 Monkeys was considered so original, so "out there" that everyone involved had to take a cut in their up front pay to make the $29.5 million budget, which was about half what a studio was normally paying for a science fiction movie at that time. The tight budget was a necessary condition by Universal, because they considered the project as nothing more than "filler" and were literally betting all their money on what they thought was a sure-fire hit called Waterworld.

Soon 12 Monkeys became not only a hit movie, but a certified genre classic that can be enjoyed in repeat viewings, and while Waterworld had a bigger global box office, mostly out of curiosity, it lost a ton of money, and basically became a punchline for jokes about Hollywood bloat and ham-handed "statement" movies.

Now Universal, because of its terror of doing anything original, is picking at the carcass of something they originally didn't want to do at the time, because it was too original for them.

I don't know if that's ironic, or just sad.