100th BLOG!!!! YAY

Yes men!

Ok, let's talk film. This is my 100th blog but that really doesn't matter because this blog doesn't have a huge following. Actually only one person reads this blog. So, for you! Thank you for reading 100 times! Let's dive in cause there is a lot to talk about.

First off from ShoWest.com

Before presenting the trailer for Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, Warner Bros head Alan Horn joked that he hopes fans can forgive him for moving the film to July, and that “we got a few emails about that one.” The footage was incredible, as is to be expected. A lot of really cool visuals which I won’t even attempt to disservice by describing.

I wrote about this a while ago. Summer I think it was. Now Alan Horn knows he should not have moved Harry Potter to Summer. He needed the competition with Twilight. Twilight made a killing and is off to make its sequels. If Harry Potter has taken away from Twilight even a little,(Shadowed Twilight in it's numbers) New Moon would not have the budget and the insane hype it has now. Yes it's my sole theory, but I do believe that if Harry Potter had been released as it should have, it would have taken millions away from Twilight. Sadly there was no Harry Potter. So the Harry Potter audience, seeing nothing to watch at Christmas, went to Twilight. I am well aware free society can see more than one film at Christmas. Yet the multiple viewings of Twilight would have gone to Harry Potter, thus taking steam away from it. It's my bold theory and I think I am right about this. As usual.
So look at this...Basically, and Alan Horn knows this, they set up a tee ball for Twilight to hit it out of the park. They sat back and let Twilight make a ton of money and let the sequel, New Moon, become greenlit with a gazillion dollars, and Dakota Fanning (an expensive buy), behind it. They let that happen and I am sure that Warner would have preferred to have taken some steam off that saga.
Here's the other part of the article.

As the keynote began, Horn made another funny joke. He noted that the large auditorium was very full, and that if every person in the room had paid $10 to see Watchmen, the film might have performed better. I’m paraphrasing, of course, but it was pretty funny. But I’m surprised that he would make that joke.

I predicted Watchmen to make a sub par box office. I talked about this last summer when Warner was battling out with Fox for the rights. This whole project was a "urination contest" if you will, from the beginning among Fox and Warner. It was a project built on ego. Now don't get me wrong, it was a good fanboy film. If you loved the novels, you probably really liked the movie. But it was not a project for a broad audience in mind. It was another superhero ego project. It was a ego project from Warner to begin with...And thus, ego projects just about always fail. Read my blog from last summer, I talk about this and I predicted this. And NOW Alan Horn has Watchmen, Twilight running amok, and a bad choice for a Harry Potter release date to wear on his shoulders. Good Job Alan, you'll be cleaning 7-11 restrooms soon.

From Variety

As Paramount Pictures readies the May 8 release of its "Star Trek" franchise relaunch, the studio is moving forward with a sequel, and has hired Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof to pen the screenplay.
J.J. Abrams, who directed and produced the latest chapter, is onboard to produce the follow-up alongside his Bad Robot partner Bryan Burk. No decision has been made yet on whether Abrams will return behind the camera for the sequel.

Story is still in the embryonic stage,

"There's obviously a lot of hubris involved in signing on to write a sequel of a movie that hasn't even come out yet," said Lindelof, co-creator with Abrams of ABC's "Lost" who produced the upcoming "Trek" but did not contribute to Orci and Kurtzman's screenplay. "But we're so excited about the first one that we wanted to proceed."

Well, as I have talked about before Orci and Kurtzman are secretaries that just take down what execs want written. They don't really have a lot of creativity in themselves. That's what Paramount wants, they don't want Maverick screenwriters taking liberties with a story. They want secretaries, yes men. And that's what these men are. It's funny that Lindelof says that "Hubris" is involved. Of course it is. You're a million dollar screenwriter! It's what Joe Estarhaus used to call a "bank heist". Estarhaus is the once ego inflated writer of Basic Instinct who went on to sell his "Showgirls" script for three million. It's robbery! So to speak. You can write a mediocre script and get paid millions. However, this is not how creativity florishes. Three overpaid guys in a fancy room is a recipe for a crappy script. Bet on it! Talk to Nicholas Meyer if you want advice on a Star Trek sequel. I will talk about that later. Until tomorrow, let's talk film!

Dreamworks' Pixar Envy

Why does the Dreamworks' monster look like a Pixar monster?

Ok, let's talk film. Monsters vs Aliens- 58 Million, no surprize here. 58 Million is a very decent take for a Dreamworks or Pixar debut. Pixar has more staying power. Most Pixar films go onto survive in the top five for a couple more weeks. This is not a very lucrative release date to begin with. You have to wonder why Dreamworks didn't save the release date until summer. This summer is not a crowded summer at all. The only Tentpole that is a guaranteed juggernaught is Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. Star Trek and Terminator are going to be released in MAY. So, why didn't Dreamworks hold this until June? It boggles the mind.
They could have made 68 Million I would guess. Well actually I am sure the projection or expectation was 63 million. Wall E and Madagascar 2 both did 63 million. Wall E was released in summer. Madagascar 2 was released beginning of Nov. So you can see the Sequel factor propelled Mad. 2. Wall E made 62 because of summer and because they are Pixar. The audience knows that Pixar makes remarkable film. So why doesn't the Audience know that Dreamworks animation makes remarkable film. Well because Dreamworks animation doesn't make amazing animation. The sad thing is that they have had enough time to do so.
Dreamworks animation makes funny, throwaway animation. Shrek is their bread and butter. Yet they let the Audience down with Shrek the Third. Shark Tale, and Bee Movie. Dreamworks Animation does not have the track record that Pixar does and we all know it.
The funny thing to think about this is that Dreamworks themselves think that have the magic touch like Pixar because of these numbers. 58 Million is respectable, but its not Pixar numbers or the Pixar effect which is in fact just a really satisfying movie experience. But, strange enough, Dreamworks will go on believing that they are comparable to Pixar when they are not. Yet, as long as they are making close to the money, why should they care. Well, they will fumble again. In this quest for greed, it's a safe bet to believe that Dreamworks will give us another Bee Movie or Shark Tale. Unless they figure out what really makes Pixar tick. Until tomorrow, let's talk film!

Seth Rogen: Ordinary Guy or Super Hero?

Ok, let's talk film. Seth Rogen talks about playing the Green Hornet, going before the cameras in June.

From Collider.com

While Seth Rogen’s “Green Hornet” has been talked about for over a year now and people have wondered if it would ever get made, it seems that it’s finally getting ready to go before the cameras this June. At least that’s what Seth said just an hour ago during a round table interview while promoting his new comedy “Observe and Report”.


“Right now we’re scheduled sometime at the end of June,” he said.

Couple things come to my mind here. Number one, on "Observe and Report". The film looks like the R Rated answer to "Paul Blart Mall Cop". Hollywood does things in two's anyway. This is another testament to that theory. Since the new Seth Rogen film seems like a copy of "Paul Blart". It will do fairly well at the box office. The only thing that will prevent "Observe and Report" from doing "Paul Blart" numbers at the box office is the R rating. Whenever a film is R rated, the box office receipts will always suffer. An R rating excludes the teenage crowd from seeing the film at the theater. The 12 - 17 crowd is a significant demo. At the same time, Seth and his sometime producer, Judd Apatow (40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up) are the only ones who are keeping the R rated comedy alive. A large population of movie goers flock to R rated comedies. They don't want the "Let's kick someone in the balls" PG comedy. They want smart comedy with edge. I actually am thankful that Seth and Apatow are keeping the "Animal House" "American Pie" genre alive. Still with a huge following of the R rated comedy out there, movies of the sort don't rake in PG-13 numbers.

Going back to the "Green Hornet" film. I am not sure Seth Rogen needs a comic book movie to help his career. Great comic book films are very hard to pull off. Not to mention they are a tired genre. I don't think this world needs more comic book films and especially not from someone like Seth who makes original film without hacking ideas from the Super Hero genre. I am not sure it's a good idea for Seth Rogen. I hope the Green Hornet idea falls through for his sake. He needs to continue with what he does best and that is to make us laugh with "Regular Guy" roles. That is what sells him tickets.

More in that Seth article

The other thing he was asked was is the film still the hero/sidekick story. Seth said, “Yeah and I’d say if anything it’s taken on…at first we were kind of resisting the notion of an origin story but then we realized if we kind of embraced it and played with that idea it could be a lot better so that’s something we’ve added.

Yeah Seth! You can't get away from the origin story. Even if you ditch the story now, if the Green Hornet film is successful, you will eventually have to do the origin story. You know as well as I do Seth that everything is Hollywood is "Begins" "Someone or something Begins" So you might as well get it out of the way! Another case in point as to why he should stay away from the Super Hero genre. Keep up the good work Seth. Until later, let's talk film.

New Moon Insight for My Tweens Young and Old

Ok, let's talk film. All right. I will do a Twilight: New Moon update for those of you who are dying to hear insight from me. Ok, the one person out there. A couple things to look at regarding the inside track here. The replacement of director Catherine Hardwick was no surprise to me. Once Twilight made money, they handed over the direction to a director with some experience working with special effects. New Moon has werewolf transformations apparently. They hired Chris Weitz who incidentally was hired for the Golden Compass as a cheap hire. Now he's the professional hire for New Moon. Go figure, it's Hollywood. Golden Compass was a very bad film. Weitz did direct "About a Boy" with Hugh Grant, a film which I liked. So he does have talent. So hopefully this will be a good fit for the Twilight Saga. Well here's the thing anyway.
It doesn't matter if he's the perfect fit for the series or not. He will be replaced after New Moon anyway. Why you ask? Well because once filming is done on New Moon, the actors must go right into filming the third book in the series, Eclipse. They don't have time to wait for the director to finish post production. They will hire another director and do principal photography back to back. While one director is in post production, the other is lensing.
That's the way Harry Potter does it. The HP series has only on two occasions had the same director twice. Chris Columbus on the first two and now David Yates for the final three. During HP's middle years they hired a new director each time. The reason for this kind of constantly replacing with movie sagas is to prevent the actors' to age too much in front of your eyes.
So there is a huge downside to this. Inconsistency in the quality of the product is number one here. If you know a little of the Harry Potters, you will know that the 3rd in the series, directed by Alfonso Cuaron is the best one. The others lack creativity. This is what will happen with the Twilight films. You will have one that is better than the others. That will be due not to the quality of the book, but to the choice of director. The best director will make the best Twilight film. Period. We will just have to see what happens. But one film will be really good and the others will just be ok, like Twilight is. It's just ok.

This is an actual concern I found online by a Twilight fan.

In the book, Bella hears his voice, right? She hallucinates. When she’s in danger, his voice comes out of nowhere, in her mind, very realistic (and usually “velvety”). So, there are a few things to consider:

1) Edward is gone for the duration of at least half of the story. It’s painful, but it’s kind of important. You can’t just change the story to get more Edward time.

2) Even though he’s gone, he must remain present for the moviegoer… because he’s always present for Bella.

3) We can’t just not see Edward for half the movie.

4) A voice in Bella’s head, we think, runs the risk of being very, very goofy when translated to film.

We have a simple solution: Don’t make him just a voice. Make him a visual hallucination, too. How does this answer?

1) It retains the integrity of the story, which is important!

2) As moviegoers, we’ll experience him as present, but understand that he’s really not (poor Bella!).

3) We’ll get a lot more Edward/Pattinson screen time… good for us, good for Summit Entertainment.

4) Goof factor almost entirely eliminated. Unless Weitz screws it up.

I read New Moon and I have to say that it does have a huge problem of not having Edward and Bella together at all really. Now I can hear studio execs gasping at the top of their lungs at this fact. "What?! No romance in our romance saga?!" Yes. That is what New Moon is about. Edward's absence. But that's not what execs signed on for. That is not what they want the Saga to be about. Kinda like Grease 2 without Travolta and Newton-John. What's the porpose? Well the fans know. It's in essence a love triangle between the werewolf and the vampire. SO since execs don't want it that way. They may not get it that way. They want the Robert Pattinson/Kristen Stewart duo. Their chemistry sold tickets before. The Bella/Jacob romance is untested. Execs don't want that. It scares them. Especially with the main heart throb absent from 3/4 of the novel. Don't underestimate Hollywood Execs, Twilight fans. This is a serious problem.



Will the execs keep the Bella/Jacob relationship in or scrap it? Cut to the chase, as they say. I honestly don't know. They MAY downplay it. They may not. I know the ins and out, but this one stumps me. I have concerns about Chris Weitz directing this, but if Hollywood can make Michael Bay tolerable, maybe New Moon will be ok. Until Later, let's talk film!

Knowing Number One Despite Bad Reviews

Know your critics!

Ok, let's talk film. Those of you who went to go see Knowing this weekend didn't pay attention to your tomatoemeter did you? Well, that's what you get when you ignore the tomatometer and take it on your own to see a film while ignoring the reviews. Now, I know what you all say. You all say "I don't care what the critics think!" But you have to. Don't you listen to stock market analysts before investing in the stock market? Wouldn't you listen to a house appraiser before buying a house? Granted the movies are a fraction of the cost of these things. Just take in this folling fact: movie critics are journalists who are paid to watch movies. They get paid to write down their professional opinion.
I have a critic that I jive with. Kevin Thomas of the LA Times thinks just like I do. I rely on him. Even though the tomatometer may say one thing, I look at Kevin Thomas and read what he thinks. I read just about every review he writes and he proves consistantly to think like I do. Still I look at the tomatometer. If it is low, I don't pay to see it. If it is high, I will gladly pay, no matter who is the star.
So if you don't have a reviewer that you jell with as I do, you should read and heed the tomatometer. Otherwise, you'll be stuck watching Knowing with Nicholas Cage and thinking to yourself that the money on that film should have been money spent towards the dollar menu at Mcdonalds. That's what I would have spent it on. Maybe a coffee at It's a Grind. I like that place.

From LA Times:

Amanda Seyfried's attempt to tackle some edgy theatrical material has been thwarted by scheduling issues. EW has learned that the actress, best known for her singing-and-dancing role in Mamma Mia, won't be starring in Zack Snyder's 1960s-set, R-rated action fantasy Sucker Punch for Warner Bros. Seyfried was offered the lead role of Baby Doll, a young woman who has been committed to an insane asylum and fantasizes about escaping with the help of her fellow inmates. But with shooting scheduled for the fall, HBO won't release her from her Big Love commitment, which will be in the middle of filming its fourth season. No word yet on who Snyder will find as her replacement.

I think this goes into the great contract withholding stories of all time. Well maybe not, but you can look at it that way. Tom Selleck could not be Indiana Jones because of Magnum PI. Pierce Brosnan could not be James Bond at first because of Remington Steele. This could fall into that category cause Zack Snyder is now an A list director. Not that Watchmen was a monument of great storytelling, but it made money. 300 was pretty good. No it wasn't a great great film. It was ok to pretty good. That made money. And that is all you need to wear the A list Belt.

Now I have mentioned this before but I don't think anyone believed me. Here is an article in Time magazine which has Spielberg and James Cameron telling us that the future as in this year will be 3D laden. Sure you had a few films that tried to catch our 3D attention. Journey to the Center of the Earth did not do well. Bolt 3D made a small splash. As you know the 3D craze is dependent on movie theaters being equipped to handle the digital projection. Most theaters are not digital equipped. Movie studios have lent money to AMC and Edwards, but they have yet to conform. This is because the public, you yes you, is/are in denial of allowing 3D to become the fad it desperately wants to be.
We as a audience don't have favorable memories of 3D in theaters. In the 50's, it was campy and not well done. It gave people a headache. There were a few movies here and there like Jaws 3D in the 80's, but nothing took.
What we need to trust is that this technology is different than before. The best directors in Hollywood are 100% behind this new technology. I think we need to trust them and get excited about it. I am. Until later, let's talk film.