A Furious D Exclusive

The other day I wrote about the dearth of Christmas movies this year. Well, I have to admit that I have a conflict of interest in that issue. You see, I made a Christmas movie, based on the work of a beloved author, and no studio or distributor would release it. Here's the poster:

Apparently those stuffed suits thought my blend of sex, savage violence, and Xmas cheer was just a few steps over some precious "line" of theirs.

Hollywood Babble On & On #649: Miramax & The Weinsteins Are Reunited Sort Of

Welcome to the show folks...

One of the major problems faced by anyone buying the mostly moribund Miramax movie company is that you'd have to deal with their founders the Brothers Weinstein. Despite being absent from Miramax for years, they still have a certain amount of say over what can and can't be done to a lot of movies in the Miramax library.

As it happens, the new owners of Miramax seem to be interested in bulking up that library and have just inked a deal with the Weinsteins to co-produce sequels to films from Miramax's golden age like Swingers, Shakespeare In Love, Rounders, Bad Santa, and Clerks.

It seems that this is not a pre-Christmas practical joke, and that they actually are serious about this.

Let's look at the pros and cons of this idea:

PROS:

1. This project allows the new owners of Miramax to bulk up their library with lots of familiar titles.

2. When it comes to selling or merging film libraries, which seems to be the ultimate aim of the consortium that owns Miramax, size matters, not box office performance.

CONS:

1. Most of the films in the Miramax library are built around specific filmmakers and specific stars. Do you know the odds of those filmmakers and stars going back to make sequels to films they did in the 1990s and early 2000s? Very slim. Not only because of the passage of time, but because the majority of them have bad memories of their past dealings with Miramax.

2. Most of the films are not the sort of concepts you build a franchise around. Can you imagine Good Will Hunting 2: This Time It's Geometry, or Shakespeare In Love Again? Also some have already had sequels, like Clerks II, that came and went barely earning minimum wage at the box office.

3. Remember that this deal involves the Weinstein Bros. How many of their partnerships ran smoothly with everything coming out sunshine and unicorns? Not many. I expect this partnership to last about a year, maybe two, then abruptly end with a lot of anger, threats, and lawsuits aplenty.

The rule seems to be that unless you're one some sort of "Golden Boy" list that exists in Harvey's head, you will do business with them once, and only once if you can avoid it.

So to sum up my feelings, I will actually be surprised if they actually make any of these proposed sequels, and I'll be even more surprised if any of them are any good, or do any business outside of the discount DVD bin nestled between copies of Mansquito 2: Even Suckier.

Hollywood Babble On & On #648: Cognitive Dissonance At Universal Pictures

Welcome to the show folks...

Universal Pictures, currently in the midst of a takeover by cable giant Comcast & liberation from the misrule of David Zucker, has recently announced that they are starting a new division. The SyFy Channel has been having some success producing and airing low budget creature features with titles like Sharktoberfest* so they're starting SyFy Films.

The purpose of this company is to create around 2 genre pictures a year for Universal to distribute theatrically starting in 2012.

Think about that for a second.

For decades Universal Pictures was the one stop shop for all your genre entertainment needs. They even had their own sub-genre The Universal Horror Movie defined by films like Dracula and Frankenstein, The Mummy, and The Wolf-Man.

They shouldn't need to start a new label to make genre films, their ancestors made genre films for decades.

Of course Universal shot itself in the foot by completely forgetting their history beyond what titles they owned. Those original films were, for their time, straightforward horror movies. Universal tried to "re-imagine" them as epic fantasy adventure blockbusters in the vein of Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and Lord of the Rings. So The Mummy went from a sinister force of evil, to a massive special effects spectacle, Frankenstein and Dracula were mashed together into the over-priced creative abortion called Van Helsing, and finally ended with the $100+ million boondoggle of The Wolf-Man.

To put it bluntly, Universal forgot how to make the sort of genre pictures that made Universal. So I find it funny that they are turning to the SyFy Channel to make sci-fi movies after working so hard to take the sci-fi out of the channel.

So what can SyFy do as they dip their toe into the realm of big screen sci-fi movies?

Well, it's simple.

SUCCESSFUL GENRE FILMS ARE ABOUT IDEAS, NOT BUDGET.

Remember that when selling the genre film, it's all about the premise catching the audience's attention, not about the star, or how much money you spend on making the movie. There has to be a good and catchy idea behind the movie. The sort of idea that would make someone see the ad and go "Hell yeah!" or "I gotta see this because this looks bat-shit insane."

If you have a good story built on a good catchy premise then it doesn't really matter if you spend $100 million on star salaries or special effects. All the audience wants are actors who won't embarrass themselves, and special effects that don't look too ridiculous.

Then it's all a matter of selling the story and creating the sort of word of mouth that gives a genre film the legs it needs to become a perennial favorite like many of those Universal pics of old.

_________________________________

*I think Sharktoberfest is about a mutant shark who drinks beer and eats plump Bavarians, or something like that. (How fast before someone at SyFy makes a movie out of this joke?)

Hollywood Babble On & On #647: Marvel Dumps Man Behind Iron Man

Welcome to the show folks....

The interwebs is buzzing over reports that director Jon Favreau is out as the man behind the camera for Iron Man 3.

I went down to Marvel headquarters, which is behind the Taco Bell in Burbank, and asked if these reports were true or not, this was their response...

Since that really told me nothing other than I love to repeat hacky jokes, I returned to my luxurious mountaintop mansion to ponder the issue. The first two Iron Man movies were very successful financially, and usually studios are wary to drive off who many consider as the goose laying the golden eggs, so if this report is true than they must have some kind of reason behind it.

Let's look at the possible reasons:

1. Favreau is expensive. Jon Favreau isn't a fool and when dealing with major media companies like Paramount and Marvel/Disney he knows that it's a matter of getting what you can up front and holding onto it.

Marvel and Disney would rather find someone cheaper, no matter how it affects the franchise, because since it's the third film in a trilogy, they're expecting to just coast along.

2. Favreau has too much clout. One of the biggest complaints against Iron Man 2 was that there were too many villains trying to do too many things all at once. But the blame for that falls squarely on Marvel who insisted on pumping in more characters in the hopes that it would help spur the upcoming Avengers movie. Rumor has it that Marvel is planning to cram every second tier character into Iron Man 3, in the hopes that it will open the door to other future franchises for them to exploit.

It's unlikely that Favreau will go along with that, considering how he was blamed for the overcrowded nature of Iron Man 2, and how fans now openly mock Spider-Man 3, which was product of just going along with Marvel. His box office record's too strong right now, and will be stronger if Cowboys and Aliens clicks with the audience, and Marvel/Disney doesn't want to have to fight to get what they want, when they can just order it.

Personally, I think it's a mistake. Tony Stark is a right wing, defense contractor alcoholic, womanizer, and aside from the booze and broads, Hollywood doesn't have a good record at presenting that kind of character in a heroic role. Favreau and Downey Jr. created the right alchemical mix of charm and brains to pull it off.

Will his replacement be able to do it amid the rumored cacophony that Marvel/Disney is planning? I don't know, but I don't think so.

Hollywood Babble On & On #646: Miscellaneous Movie Media Musings...

Welcome to the show folks...

OPRAH'S LEAVING ALL HAIL THE ANTI-OPRAH

Anderson Cooper will be starting a syndicated daytime talk show and will be replacing the exiting Oprah Winfrey in many markets across the USA.

You can't really get more un-Oprah than Anderson Cooper, let's look at the stats.

Background:

Oprah Winfrey, female, poor working class, African American, from Mississippi, who went to Tennessee State University on a scholarship while working in local radio.

Anderson Cooper, male, rich and privileged (a Vanderbilt), ultra-white (even his hair), from New York City who went to Yale University.

Personality:

Oprah Winfrey presents herself as warm, sensitive, friendly and hyper enthusiastic about things she likes.

Anderson Cooper comes across as cold, aloof, un-emotional, almost robotic.

Weight:

Oprah Winfrey has struggled with her weight for decades and in public.

Anderson Cooper looks like he was born thin.

Career:

Oprah Winfrey, started in local radio, and got a spot hosting a local talk show and took it from the bottom of the ratings to the top of the ratings and then national success in syndication and a media empire which includes magazines and her own cable network.

Anderson Cooper, went into journalism over a career with the CIA, and became a major figure by hosting a prime-time show on what was then the biggest cable news network in the country and watched the ratings for his show, its network, and the importance of both dwindle against the competition.

The only thing they appear to have in common is that both are subject to speculations about their personal lives. Personally, I don't give a rodent's left butt-cheek about the private lives of either.

So the question is, after watching Oprah for decades will they watch her exact opposite?

IMAGINE IMAGINES WRITERS WORKING IN A NEW-OLD WAY

Ron Howard and Brian Grazer's Imagine Entertainment Company is starting what they believe is a radical new experiment that they hope will evolve the creative process.

They're calling it a special "Writer's Lab" and in it writers will be brought together for a year, put on salary and given other financial incentives to create movies and television shows together.

Now maybe it's just me, but I don't think this is all that radical.

Back in the golden age of Hollywood writers would be brought in from all over the world, put on a generous weekly salary for the time, put in offices, and then put to work on creating scripts for the studio. There would also be extra money to be made rewriting each others scripts, and if two or more worked together to create a script they didn't have to split a single pay-check, because they were both on salary.

Sounds to me like a bit of history repeating.

AND NOW, A PALATE CLEANSER

Saturday Silliness Cinema: Merry Xmas Part 2

Welcome to the show folks...

It's time for my usual break from ranting about pop culture and the business behind it and have a little laugh. In keeping with my December yuletide theme, here's Brit comedian Peter Serafinowicz with some Xmas themed sketches. Enjoy.

Hollywood Babble On & On #645: Billionaires, Movies, & Money

Welcome to the show folks....

There's an old saying that nothing make someone a millionaire faster than being a billionaire investing in the movie business. Forbes has an article about the decidedly mixed record billionaires have had investing in the movies. (hat tip: DorothyAtForbes)

At the very best investing in movies is a gamble, and success selling computers, real estate, or cars, doesn't mean that you're going to have success making movies. In fact being a success in one of those fields gives you a very special title when you invest in making movies.

That title is PIGEON.

The movie business is unlike any other industry in the world. The temptations are obvious, it's glamorous, exciting, creative, and sexy, and then there's the money to be made if you have a blockbuster hit. But behind those temptations are a myriad of traps and travails that could leave a once mega-rich player busted flat and wondering what the hell just happened.

So let's have a little thought experiment. Let's imagine that you, gentle fragrant reader, just joined the ranks of the might uber-rich thanks to selling off the mega-successful company you started in your garage. You have billions of dollars in liquid assets, time on your hands, and a passionate love with movies that you want to consummate.

Well, if you're going to do some consummating, you are going to need some protection. Protection in the form of advice from this smug know-it-all like me.

1. REMEMBER THAT ANY IDIOT CAN MAKE A MOVIE. That's true, anyone with money and time can make a movie. However, it takes skill, intelligence, and experience to get that movie into theaters and get people to see it. This requires intense research and planning. You need to find out how every facet of the business works. It's not like selling widgets, it's making movies, and it operates by its own rules. You have to know those rules like the back of your hand, you must know who the players are, how they operate, and who you would like to do business with.

Knowledge is power, but remember that you must...

2. TRUST NO ONE. If you're going to make movies you are going to need partners. Co-producers, distributors, whatever, you can't do it all by yourself without investing pretty much everything you've got. You will need an infrastructure to get the film out there, and to sell it to audiences. Now a lot of the people that will want to do business with you see you as a yokel who just fell off the turnip truck. They will promise you huge profits, Academy Awards, starlets at Sundance who will let you into their designer parkas, and anything else that will get you to sign with them.

Don't believe a word of it.

Believe what you can dig up yourself. Keep up with the research advised in step 1, dig deep, and see what lies beyond the curtain and just who can deliver on the promises, and who can't. Remember the industry is based on fiction, on screen and in the account books.

3. ONLY INVEST WHAT YOU CAN AFFORD TO LOSE. This is key. Even if your partners, are as honest as humanly possible, this is still a gamble. Treat it like a trip to Vegas. The money you brought to the table is the price of admission to the big poker game, and you must be willing and able to lose the whole pot, and walk away.

That's why you must start modestly. Keep the budgets under control, aim for commercially viable properties, and if they succeed, you can build a cushion for riskier projects. Going big budget blockbuster, or hard-core art house awards-bait on your first attempt, without a track record could backfire badly.

4. MANAGE RELATIONSHIPS WISELY. If you do make money on your project, and can keep going that's all well and good. But that doesn't mean you can start stomping around like you're King Kong. Hollywood is based on relationships, if you want to build a viable career as a producer, you have to know what relationships you should maintain, and what you should drop like a dead branch off a tree.

Diplomacy, alliances, and even knowing the right times and places to keep your friends close and your enemies closer are all important. You don't want to be known as a bully, or as a doormat, you want to be known as a tough but fair businessman that compared to you there is no better friend, and no worse enemy.

Then, maybe, you might be able to survive with your fortune more or less intact.

Hollywood Babble On & On #644: Hollywood Foreign Prostitutes Association?

Welcome to the show folks...

It's December, and with the certainty of the tides comes the annual griping about Awards Season. This week TV producer Peter Tolan said this about Hollywood Foreign Press Association and the Golden Globes:

"just a group of whores from other countries... I'm not prone to hyperbole, but the Foreign Press [Assn] really is a bunch of whores. They can be bought... It's really an excuse to go out with people who don't speak English that well and maybe win a trinket. [A Golden Globe] means shit. Fuck the Globes."

The HFPA is a bunch of whores that can be bought.

Let's just file that under "Well d'uh!"

In the grand schematic of the multiverse Hollywood based award, be they from Associations, Academies, Guilds, Circles, Clubs, and Covens, are all essentially meaningless trinkets that have more to do with the maneuvering of the nominees and the prejudices of the nominators than actual quality of the films and the integrity of the process.

The problem is that Hollywood takes these damn things too damn seriously.

I end up saying this every year, the worst thing to happen to the Golden Globes was when the press thought it was some sort of predictor for the Oscars. Sure, sometimes it did honor films that went on to win Oscars, but that's the same logic that tells you to base your schedule on a broken clock because it's right twice a day.

The thing is that you're not supposed to take the HFPA or the Golden Globes seriously. It started out as a charity fund-raising dinner and the agenda had nothing to do with predicting the Oscars or awarding quality.

The agenda was to get together with your friends and co-workers, get shit-faced drunk, hand out prizes as an excuse to rag on each other, and wake up in the morning with a cocktail waitress and no memory of what happened and why there's a live chicken in your living room, and a trophy with Don Ameche's name engraved on it stuck in your chandelier next to the waitress' panties.

That's why they usually stuck to just releasing the results the next morning. Partly for the public to see who won and partly to remind the participants that they were there.

However, the big media conglomerates want to have glamorous gals in glittery gowns on their magazine covers and something to fill four hours of usually dull winter TV-prime time on Sunday night, so they started hyping it up. They conveniently forgot about the whole Pia Zadora incident, and just kept pushing the glamor and the glitz in the hope of making a quick buck. What was once just a fun social get-together became a stress filled media monstrosity that holds way more sway over an actor's career than it should, because despite it's image as a qualifying play-off to the Oscars, it's ultimately meaningless.

It's a triviality, treat it as such.

Hollywood Babble On & On #643: Randoms Drippings From My Brain Pan

Welcome to the show folks....

RUSSELL MAKES A FUSSELL

Russell Crowe wants a sequel to his seafaring adventure Master & Commander: The Far Side of the World. I can understand that, he hasn't had a real substantial hit in a long time, and people are starting to wonder about his status as an A-List movie star, especially after his last film The Next Three Days lasted less than three days at the box office.

But what makes Russell so unpopular. He is a good actor, but he does have this image as a prickly and cantankerous bloke, and the whole toss the phone at the hotel worker incident didn't help, but it shouldn't be fatal to a career. So far he hasn't killed anyone or trashed a hotel room with a porn star hiding in the closet.

And it can't be because he's "difficult" in the old Hollywood parlance. If you look at his filmography filmmakers tend to work with him again and again, chiefly Ridley Scott and Ron Howard. These aren't people who are going to waste time with someone who is hard to work with.

Maybe it's a case of expectations. When he first exploded into Hollywood in the 90s he came across as an old school tough guy with some serious acting chops who was capable of playing classic heroic parts. People had high expectations, and maybe that incident with the phone-toss scarred those expectations. Maybe he should have started out as a coked-out drunken asshole, like Charlie Sheen, and then he'd have been immunized.

MPAA GIVES HARVEY WEINSTEIN A VALENTINE FOR HANUKKAH

The Motion Picture Association of America's ratings board has changed their mind about the Weinstein Company film Blue Valentine. The film was originally rated NC-17 over some sexual content, which made people who actually saw the film go "WTF?" but now it will be rated "R" which folks are saying is more reasonable.

Now I could go on about the inanity of some of the MPAA's ratings decisions, but I'll bet dollars to donuts that they'd give the Justice League porn parody a PG-13 if it could get a bulldog like Harvey Weinstein off their backs.

Which only just shows how broken and in need of reform the rating system really is.

Hollywood Babble On & On #642: Christmas Movies & I See Dead People On Screen!

Welcome to the show folks...

SANTA ISN'T GOING TO HOLLYWOOD THIS YEAR

For the first time in my living memory there isn't a single Christmas movie coming from a major studio this December.

Now some may say that this is just another shot in the ongoing culture war between Hollywood and the predominantly Christian American audience.

I think the answer is much simpler.

Hollywood can't make a decent Christmas movie anymore.

Think about it, what made the Xmas movies you watch every year so great. They were great stories of redemption, belief, and sincere emotion.

Can you imagine anyone in Hollywood capable of producing something like that these days?

Most of the Xmas and Xmas-related movies of the past few years have tanked, mostly because they were either brain dead slapstick farces, dreary FX overloads that had all the warmth of an icicle from Pluto, or something like the direct to DVD flick Santa Paws, the only Xmas related release of any kind this year is a steaming pile of saccharine hoping to grab cash from harried parents with cute puppies and some regurgitated catch phrases and cliches. It's the sort of film I used to make fun of when I was a kid.

Personally, I don't think anyone can top what I consider the trinity of Xmas movies, A Christmas Carol (AKA Scrooge) with Alastair Sim, It's A Wonderful Life, and Miracle On 34th Street, and it looks like Hollywood isn't even going to try this year.

WHEN THERE'S NO MORE ROOM IN FOREST LAWN...

....the dead will walk again in Hollywood.

At least that was the rumor yesterday. Comedian and director Mel Smith made a comment that George Lucas was buying the rights to the images of dead celebrities for use in a CGI movie.

Lucas took a moment from rolling around a bin full of $1000 bills to deny this rumor.

Now Smith was probably joking, but his joke was a little too believable and instantly became the rumor that got people going all over the word.

Lucas is notorious for his disdain for working with living actors, his love of old movies, the people who starred in them, and his dream of making a film without actors in the vein of the films that shaped his childhood.

Personally, I think Robert Zemeckis is going to try it first, finally making a mo-cap film where the characters don't look like re-animated corpses by actually casting reanimated corpses.

What do you think about these stories? Leave your thoughts in the comments.