Let's Talk Film

Opinion-State of Play

2009-05-08T10:32:00.000-07:00

McAdams trying to keep her performance alive...

Ok, let's talk film. As I always say, when a genre is done to perfection, then there is no reason to continue making movies in tha genre. That doesn't stop Hollywood at all in sucking the well dry with once perfected genres as Mob films, police corruption films, or lone cop stories. The Godfather, LA Confidential, and Die Hard make up the highlights of well done film of these genres, yet I am sure you will see many more failed attempts at rehashing. Well I have never seen a journalistic thriller done to perfection. Sure, you have Absence Of Malice and Ron Howard's The Paper to contend with, but neither of those are masterpieces. So it is safe to conclude that the Journalistic Thriller is a genre yet to be made perfect.
First off, State of Play, Directed by Kevin Mcdonald who did a mesmerizing job directing, "The Last King of Scotland", does a great job with his actors, even Ben Affleck. Actually this is the best I have ever seen Affleck since "Good Will Hunting". He has managed to remember that he has acting skills instead of his usual mumble and scoff performances that have made him unpopular. Russell Crowe is always good and likeable here, yet the problem with his performance is not him, but his character. His character of Cal, calls for more of a "slimeball reporter" performance and Crowe injects his usual heroic, likability into it. You really want to hate the guy and should except that Crowe's personality prevents us from fully realizing the way the character was truly written. I would have chose another actor to play the role. I would have chosen more of an actor who could give a Jack Black in "King Kong" sleazy role, but why would you when you can have Russel Crowe.
This is actually a perfect example of "Hollywoodizing" a real person. Sure, this is a fictional story. Still, the character on the screenplay page I guarantee you was written as a sleaze and not as Russell Crowe.
Rachel McAdams and her doe eyes force her to bring a strong performance to the screen, yet she does not rise to the challenge as another experienced actor would. I don't think she is the proper choice for the role here. Her ability is not strong enough to carry the emotionally thick role. Her slight performance stands out when compared to the ferocity of Crowe and Helen Mirren. McAdams is out of place in that heavy company.
The film moves slow at times. It is based on a British TV show and at times it feels that way. Yet it is a welcome to go to the movies and see a film that is intelligent and thought out. I actually am very grateful that Universal is making pictures that an adult can go to see an intelligent, thriller without sex and violence. In that in itself is a reason to jump around for this film.
I found myself happy that this choice was there to see. Most of the films out there are made for fan boys these days it seems. Adults that go to the theater really don't want to see "Wolverine" or" Watchmen" with a young audience.
Although this film does not perfect the journalistic thriller, its nice to see a major studio make such an effort.

Reinventing the Masters

2009-04-29T10:13:00.000-07:00

"Looking to the past...

Ok, let's talk film. Well I am reading in THR.com, the following:

Stone has just closed a deal with Fox to direct the follow-up to "Wall Street," now tentatively called "Wall Street 2," with Douglas starring. This would provide an unusual amount of continuity since Stone directed and co-wrote, with Stanley Weiser, the original 1987 exploration of the inner workings of the finance sector and its complicated relationship with greed.

The plot line for the new "Wall Street" iteration has not been divulged, but it will pick up with corporate raider Gordon Gekko, the character for which Douglas won a best actor Oscar more than 20 years ago. Gekko's larger-than-life presence will once again loom over a younger upstart looking to navigate the shark-tank world of today's Wall Street.

Shia LaBeouf is in talks with the studio to take on the younger role. Stone and Co. hope to begin production over the summer.

The question I ask (and will aptly answer) is what happened to Oliver Stone anyway? Why does he feel the need to look into the rear view mirror of his past film and recreate a film that wasn't a franchise to begin with? The answer is obvious. He hasn't had a hit in a while. I am a huge fan of Oliver Stone and I will defend him to my dying day. His guerrilla approach to filmmaking is nothing less than inspiring. He takes risks and chances that Tarantino only dreams of. He started out as a screen writer, penning the scripts for Midnight Express and Scarface. Ha! Bet you didn't know that. Well, that's why I am here, to remind you of the lost talents of directors who are performing less than par today.

Stone's first film, "Platoon" won best picture of the year and rightly so. It was a incredibly realistic piece that showed war as a horrible place. You have to remember that Clint Eastwood and the string of Dirty Dozen like films back the 70's and even 1950's with "From Here To Eternity" and such were glorifying war. WW II made everyone a hero and films until the 70's were made to make war seem majestic and heroic. When the Vietnam war hit, the world knew that was was something different than the hero stories that our grandfather's told us...It was real, gritty and not triumphant as we we seeing on the screen.

Gritty, all too real...Fantastic...

Platoon was the first of it's kind in the realistic war scenario. Even Spielberg had to go back and set the WW II record straight with "Saving Private Ryan". Spielberg was not the first filmmaker to show was as the monster it is. So, here comes Oliver Stone fresh off writing really straight forward, political stuff with Midnight Express and Salvador. His newest script is a gritty look at the Vietnam war and it works. It changes the way all future war movies will be made.

A performance that gives me chills...

After that he does "Wall Street" which is a break from his political stories and it is so well made it is nominated for Best Pic and gets Douglas an Oscar, in a role so well played and written. Then Stone does his polical fare with "Born on the Forth of July", "JFK" and "Heaven and Earth". They all do very well and earn Oscars for every one.

" "
Enter Shia Labeouf...

Yet, he steps into what I will now call the Tarantino trap, retro here. As we all know Tarantino will lose his mojo with his new film. Stone does not reinvent his vision. He keeps hacking away at material that is too violent and unnecessary. In fact he teams with Tarantino for "Natural Born Killers" and for many an audience is it way over the top with violence. The mayhem that was once OK in war movies and "Scarface" is unnecessary for this new film. You see Stone toning down a bit and refocusing with "Nixon" and "Any Given Sunday", yet he now lacks the ability to cover new ground no matter what ground he tries to expose. As an audience, we have grown tired of his maverick liberal style thrown in our face. What worked in "JFK" is no longer a hot item.

Even with his recent stuff, "Alexander" was a mess, yet if you watch the "Final Cut", it is actually quite good. Though that version clocks in at four hours. The three hour version is not very good. His latest, "W." is good, but gets ignored by critics and the audience.

Well to make a long story short. Stone is realizing that he needs to reinvent himself or he will sink. He knows he needs to stop making liberal political pics and start making film that will appeal to a broad audience. It is the "17 Again" factor. The Zac Efron film was a shallow as a puddle of water, yet it was basic and appealed to a broad audience. And that's what it is all about. "Platoon" and "Wall Street" appealed to a broad audience and they worked. A film about George Bush does not appeal to a large audience, especially when no one liked him in office to begin with.

Does this mean that he should do an "Obama" film? Well I am sure one with Denzel Washington is in the works as we speak. But, in the mean time Stone is doing what Tarantino will have to do soon. They will have will have to reinvent themselves. Spielberg did it. He stopped doing the "Wonderment" kids films of the 80's after "Hook" bombed. Now he does real gritty film and he is the master. Stone will go back to the basics of attracting a wide audience. Shia's casting is not a bad idea actually. I hope Stone's best work is yet to come.

Will other directors like Tarantino reinvent themselves to stay fresh and successful or will they fail over and over. I am sure we will see a Pulp Fiction 2 in order to save Tarantio's career in five years. Bank on that! Until tomorrow, let's talk film!

Rehash Again...Go Ahead...Was it Cute?

2009-04-19T15:05:00.001-07:00

Ok, let's talk film. I may not blog tomorrow due to work, so let me say on this Sunday, that if you paid ten dollars to see Zac Efron, aside from being dragged by your tween daughter, you must have gotten "17 Again" confused with "State of Play". State of play was the good movie that played this weekend. It's hard to get them straight, I know. So in light of "17 Again".. and Agains Disney makeup, here are other rips offs of the same idea. And again...this films whole propose was to be CUTE. It was written CUTE, had a CUTE star. CUTE directing. CUTE funny lines. And a CUTE ending. If you thought this film was CUTE, well then, that's what it was. It's supposed to be CUTE. That's it's whole reason for it existing. Here are your predecessors..You want your money back yet?

WOW that's not a rip off

Oh yeah what's that storyline?

Dad is unhappy
Wants to be younger
Witty crazy friend played by Seth Rogen or Paul Rudd or that cop from Garden State
Gets younger
Hijinks
Funny lines about his sons or daughters
Teaches kids some lessons
Does too well in school (this is fictional, I don't think anyone of us could back to HS with confidence)
Someone's son goes there who is still a jerk when he went there
Helps kids
Sees wife differently
Has to get older again
Helps someone who is a geek
Gets older scene, everyone surprized
Someone storms out, he goes to chase her
The "But I finally realized" scene
THE END

A four year old could write it

Why Tarantino is NOT a Great Director

2009-04-16T10:50:00.000-07:00

Metaphorically, one day Quentin, you may have to do this to your violent side...

Ok, let's talk film. I don't think I have said this on this blog before, but I am going to put it out there and probably catch a lot of flack from it from my one reader. Here it is...Quentin Tarantino is not a great director. He is at best an ok storyteller. But he is NOT this great icon that most people think he is. Upon his release of Inglorious Basterd in August, I am here to tell you his luck is growing slim. Even as such, he is not great as some people swear by. The reasons why are very clear to me and I will share them with you.

Number one: He uses too many words in his script. Most writers will write a lot of dialogue and yet narrow it down to a few choice lines to tell the story. Not Tarantino. He will leave in every last line that he writes to tell a story that can have been told in three lines. He may think it's real and interesting. I think it's annoying. Kill Bill series and especially the film Death Proof are testament to heavy, unnecessary dialogue that wastes the audience's time.
I have read in some blogs that Tarantino is recognizable by his heavy dialogue and I have to say that is true. How ever it is too much. In Death Proof, half the film is heavy dialogue among two groups of women. They talk a great deal about everything and nothing. That would not be so bad had the film not be showcased with a "grindhouse" horror umbrella title. The "grindhouse" title promised gore and violence. Planet Terror did well on its promise. Death Proof did not.

Number two: Tarantino glorifies violence and passes it off as art. Xavier Morales said it very eloquently in his review of Kill Bill Vol. 1

Morales argues that "...Tarantino manages to do precisely what Alex de Large was trying to do in Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange: he presents violence as a form of expressive art...[in which the]...violence is so physically graceful, visually dazzling and meticulously executed that our instinctual, emotional responses undermine any rational objections we may have. Tarantino is able to transform an object of moral outrage into one of aesthetic beauty...[, in which,]...like all art forms, the violence serves a communicative purpose apart from its aesthetic value." When the female sword-wielding protagonist "...skillfully slices and dices her way through...[the opposing fighters]...we get a sense that she is using them as a kind of canvas for her expression of revenge...[,]...like an artist who expresses herself through brush and paint,...[she]...expresses herself through sword and blood."[5]

Looking at all of Tarantino's films you will see that every single one of his films glorify violence or treat violence as a commonplace entity in everyday life. No where is this more apparent than in "Pulp Fiction" where the characters Jules and Vincent talk in relaxed conversation about an Amsterdam vacation and a violent act regarding their boss. While they discuss this in an everyday manner then commit three acts of Murder. This scene proved highly interesting at first and something we haven't seen before in film, leading to cult status. Yet Tarantino continued his love for heavy violence mixed in with everyday situations in Jackie Brown and Kill Bill. As an audience, we hoped to relive the "Pulp Fiction" experience and many of us just shrugged. As of then, we have seen this before.
As Morales says above, violence is his "canvas". Therefore we can easily say, that violence and heavy dialogue while groundbreaking in "Pulp Fiction" lacks novelty in his latter work.

Tarantino shows us that this is another day at the office...

Number three: He is a direct ripoff of Martin Scorsese. You have to admit that he is a ripoff of Scorsese. He keeps the camera moving as Scorsese does and tells a broad story in non-linear time. This is Martin Scorsese' signature. In "Goodfellas" he starts us off in the middle of the film, then tells the story from the beginning. Scorsese also uses violence as art, though not as stylized. The brutal mob violence in "Goodfellas" is shown as a warning to mob involvement, rather than Tarantino's use as a showpiece.

Violence used brilliantly as graphic storytelling...

So in these three ideas as why Tarantino is not as great as most people think, I am here to predict that his luck will run out. I am pretty sure and convinced that his new film, "Inglorious Basterds" will fail critically. I would think that he will need to reinvent himself in order to be good again, to be real. Academy Award winner of last year, Danny Boyle has not made the same film twice. From "Trainspotting" to "The Beach" to "Slumdog Millionaire" his work is diverse. As that as an example, I foresee Tarantio losing his novelty and interest with the audience with his next film. He will need to re evaluate his direction to make a great film again. Otherwise he will be alone in his violence and gore. As for us the audience, we need a more meaningful, less violent time, for entertainment. Until tomorrow, let's talk film!

The Potential Magic of Release Dates

2009-04-13T11:46:00.000-07:00

In 99, "The Matrix" made a gazillion dollars in March, since then, the summer season kickoff month has fluctuated from March to May.

Ok, let's talk film. The Hannah Montana movie drew in some pretty good crowds this weekend. 34 million for Miley Cyrus. However, that's not what I want to blog about. Hooray for the fans of Hannah Montana. I am glad they packed in the theaters. The thing to look at here is how hot April has been for the box office.
Look for studios vying up for this April time slot next year. You had Fast and Furious take in the biggest April opening ever with 71 mil. A week later you have Hannah Montana taking in 34 million. Execs are finding a new landing pad for Summer Tentpoles.
April is the new May. Last year, Iron man took in 103 million first week of May. Execs ran wild to fill that spot this year. The new Star Trek film changed it's release date from Christmas 09 to spring 09 in order to take that May time slot this year. So, Hollywood is continuing its mindset that specific dates are auspicious, lucky days and maybe not the films themselves. Sounds like Hollywood, of course it does.
This is one of the foremost reason why "Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince" was postponed from Christmas 08 to Spring 09 this year. up setting fans from here to Britain. Yet, execs want to give HP the The Dark Knight's release date, end of July. They think it will perform better in the supposed "charmed" release date.
So with the performance of Fast and Furious and the lukewarm showing of Hannah Montana, combined with the box office results of Iron Man last year, first week of May, you'll start to see the summer season starting earlier and earlier. Usually, the summer season doesn't start until Memorial Day weekend.
However, these sleeper tentpoles of the last two years, have begun to change that. Sleeper tentpoles are surprise money makers that produce more revenue than expected, acting as a projected major tentpole, yet made with a smaller budget.
So, as such, the summer season start will earlier next year than it did this year. It will most likely start the first week of April.
Studios still look at the first week of March as a lucky release date even today. "The Matrix" in 99 made a gazillion dollars and since then we have seen "300", "V for Vendetta", "Passion of the Christ" all making excellent money during March. So that date has proved hot and because of which, "Watchmen" was released this year and "10,000 BC" last year in hopes of making big numbers. While March does not start the beginning of summer, it is proof that execs think the dates are charmed and not the quality of the films themselves.
You have to remember that Hollywood execs expect certain films to do Gazillions of dollars and other films to make just millions. Last year, they expected "Incredible Hulk" and "Prince Caspian" to make gazillions cause they cost gazillions to make. Both films underperformed. While Iron Man and The Dark Knight did much better than expected. So Hollywood can project all they want, yet they will NEVER get it exactly right. Yet, everyone in Hollywood wants to stay working in Hollywood, so projections and a "musical chairs" of release dates are the future. So look for summer to begin earlier than usual next year. Maybe the groundhog of summer films is not seeing its shadow earlier and earlier each year.
Until tomorrow, let's talk film!

Theft and the Blogosphere

2009-04-09T12:08:00.001-07:00

Wolverine's box office intake WILL be affected negatively

Ok, let's talk film. I am actually at this moment disappointed in my fellow bloggers out there. A great number of Movie Blog sites exist. I am not one in a "few" movie blogs. I am one in a thousand, maybe more. I do read other blogs to see how I measure up next to them. I see a lot of sites that are like mine. I see sites that display the current news and offer an opinion as I do. Though for the record, my thing here, my Schick, is that I offer a "reading between the lines" of articles. I cut through Hollywood Executive hogwash. Like when Warner announced it's reasons for moving Harry Potter to summer, I was here to give you the correct reasons and show you where he went wrong.
Who am I? You may never know. I may be someone who works in Hollywood and keeps his identity secret. Or I may be an unemployed, ex drunk who has seen one too many movies. With the insight I have, anything is possible.
One thing I am not is a thief. Sure in my younger, party days I was known to shoplift a candy bar or nail clippers on one stupid occasion, on a one time basis. However, I have not entered a life of burglary or larceny. I don't plan to.
This is why I am upset at my fellow bloggers. I have read on many, many sites that bloggers have seen the Wolverine leaked film and have blogged about it. Now, my fellow bloggers, this is theft. This is stealing. If you have downloaded the Wolverine film, you have committed an act of thievery. Look at the writer for FOX...

From Variety.com

But on Sunday afternoon Friedman told Daily Variety that he had not been let go.

Fox News released its own missive when asked on Sunday afternoon if Friedman had been ousted. "This is an internal matter that we're not prepared to discuss at this time," a Fox News spokesperson said.
For its part, the studio weighed in Friday with its own statement, calling Friedman's actions "reprehensible."
Friedman came under fire for posting a review of a pirated version of 20th Century Fox's "X-Men Origins: Wolverine." Both Fox News and 20th Century Fox are divisions of parent company News Corp.
Friedman posted a review of the film Thursday, one day after an incomplete version of the tent pole was leaked on the Internet, a breach that occurred a month before the film's release and that could potentially cost the studio millions in box office receipts.
After Friedman's positive "Wolverine" review hit the Web, the fan boy blogging community, which had largely called for a boycott of any reviews of the film, immediately lobbied for Friedman's dismissal.

The article says that the "fanboy blogging community" called for a boycott. When I read the many reviews out there yesterday, I found that to be untrue. Now this is a big deal. Make no mistake about that. This wasn't a necromantic, pirated copy that you got a hold of and no one else saw. This was a straight up massive leak. And it seems that NO ONE was against it. Especially not the "fanboy blogging community" Someone, who I believe is a "higher up", gave the copy to someone else and it leaked all over the Internet.

From Slashfilm.com

This is perhaps the biggest leak for a major tentpole release in recent memory. Leaving aside the well-known phenomenon of Oscar screener leaks, workprint leaks have certainly happened in the past. For example, Eli Roth’s Hostel 2 leaked onto the internet several weeks before its release (in that situation, Roth was furious and blamed the leak for the film’s weak box office performance). Other films such as Rob Zombie’s Halloween and Michael Moore’s Sicko also experienced similar issue.

Now Hostel probably would not have preformed as well as Roth thinks it would. No one wants to see torture porn. But, ticket sales most likely declined due to his leak. It's the exponential factor here. Ten people see it with two or three other people. That's about 30 people. Those ten send it to a hundred other people. Those hundred other people have parties to watch it and now, it's really out there.
And watching any film once may be enough! As you know, when you see a movie, you may not want to watch it again because you have already seen it. Its a simple explanation. A good deal of the movie watching public won't watch a movie twice. Its not a bad thing. It's just how some people are and how some movies are. I can see The Empire Strikes Back 100 times and still want to see it again.
Wait a minute, you may think this is a fan boy site. This is a movie goer site, not just a fan boy site. Ok I did see Titanic three times in the theater. That was because I love James Cameron and I did this in the first couple weeks before it crossed over and was inherited solely by the female demographic. But I did see it three times so you can feel assured this is a site for all movie watchers.
Anyway, most movies, I believe, are one time viewings unless it's lightning in a bottle or a film you relate to and you have to see it twice or more, unless your significant other drags you. No that wasn't my attempt at feeble comedy, that is truth. I have been dragged to a few things myself.
Point here is, now that Wolverine is out there, it will be seen by about 3 million people by the time this is said and done. I would say that it would have taken in a good 55 million. Now, because of the leak, you can cut that number in half. It will do 30 if it's lucky.
Judging from that number, it won't get a sequel. So here you have loss of jobs, loss of future revenue. I think it is sad that this leak did happen due to arrogance at the top exec level.
I believe that everyone thinks this is all a joke. It's not. I don't think that stealing is a joke. I don't think that my fellow bloggers need to market their ignorance by posting reviews. It's sad. It's infantile. You're stealing away future jobs.
The next time this should happen, don't download it. Refuse it! Delete it! Let's all take a stand to protect filmmakers privacy in the process and our right and privilege to see the film and enjoy the fun of movie watching ONLY in it's completed form, in a movie theater with our fellow fans on opening day!

The Twisted Side of Twitter

2009-04-06T10:54:00.000-07:00

Is this it?

Ok, let's talk film. Fast and Furious did 72 million. I know I predicted 67 million. I was 5 million off. I was close. I did say it would do a gazillion dollars and it did just about. It was the biggest opening ever in April. I think I smell sequel here. Like I said, it would be a sequel to the fourth film in a franchise. So we will see what happens with that news.
Jon Favreau is Twittering his heart out as he is filming Iron Man 2. I was actually curious if he had his own personal twitterer on hand to do the updates for him and as it turns out, he himself is the twitterer in question. I laughed to myself pictureing someone following around Jon giving colorful and witty Twitter updates. However, Jon's actual updates are infrequent and not that exciting, "I slept like a rock...Heading to the set". This leaves me to believe that Jon is actually writing them. They are the updates of a busy, tired working man, not the updates of someone following a busy tired, working man. He writes nothing juicy plot-wise or relative to story, not even gossip.
So why bother? Well, I look at this in a couple ways. The whole twitter idea and "constant update" idea is exciting. As a fan, tt is exciting to stay in constant touch with someone whom you adore. It makes you feel a part of it all. Even if the updates are not juicy. Jon is posting pictures here, which is exciting to see things as he sees them, such as his directors chair and the set direction sign.
Yet there is another side of Twitter. Does it make the non obsessed, obsessed?
In my teens I was obsessed with Debbie Gibson, I wanted her to be my GF. I was and am a rational person. I knew she never would reall be my GF. Yet, the fantasy is fun to make believe.
Sadly I had to stay up to date with her career on the covers of Teen Beat and Teen People. If the computer age encased my life in 1990 as it is now, it may have satiated my curiosity with Debbie instead of being in the dark about her, whom I enjoyed looking at and fantasizing about in a non obsessed way.
I ask myself, would I have been more interested? Would I have looked at constant updates of Debbie Gibson and not the monthly visit to the magazine rack? I dunno. Or would the constant update made me tired of hearing of her and shortened my teen crush?
Let's just look at Rob Pattinson. Some teen girls are obsessed with him. So, the twitter thing can work out in two ways, it can quench the obsession and they can realize how silly star craziness can be, or it can lead to further unhealthy obsession. Should Rob elevate some craziness by Twittering and facebooking, it may make his life and the non obsessed fan happy. It may help elevate unnatural obsessions such as stalking, which in some cases lead to potential harm to the young actors.

Interesting, though not too juicy...

Using that as an example, let's move away from star obsession and look at plot and spoiler obsession the same way. With the recent leak of the Wolverine film across the Internet, studios are looking for ways to quench a fan's thirst without giving away too much and at the same time quench it enough to hopefully prevent major leaks in the form of important plot information and/or the whole film itself. This will not save internal leaks of course as may as well been the case with Wolverine, yet it can prevent external leaks in the way of theft as Michael Bay's laptop was stolen a couple years ago during the filming of Transformers.

Twitter can also make us feel as if we are part of the process. We are on set with Jon Favreau from day one and in the form of small updates can follow him conducively. We may even feel satisfied with Jon's updates and small, safe plot leaks, someone may not feel the need to steal. It's taking away the vault secrecy and giving it to the fans. I do think that fans have a problem with vault secrecy and we need to be included in the process since communication is instantaneous. It's a theory. I could be full of hot air. Until tomorrow, let's talk film!

4 Fast and 4 Furious = Gazillions At The Box Office and More Bay Bashing!

2009-04-03T12:43:00.000-07:00

Waiting for big weekend results...

Ok, let's talk film. Despite bad reviews of "Fast and Furious", this film will make a Gazillion dollars. Well, I predict 67 Million for this outing of the franchise. Can you call it a franchise? I dunno. I mean the middle films three and four were just fingernail holds on the cliff of a franchise after Vin Diesel left. The second grossed a decent box office take. It was enough to garnish a sequel. The "Tokyo Drift" one was the biggest piece of fluff I have ever seen. Metro sexual dressed Japanese driving rather safely did not rake in the totals expected for a third film. The F and F audience does not want to see safe driving. They want to see dangerous driving with Vin Diesel. They want a stick it to the man movie. The other films were too scared that the audience will drive like the movie. Well we won't. But we want to see it. I think F and F producers figured that out.
You have to remember also how this franchise grew. It was a B picture. The budget for the first one was 38 million. That's nothing for a blockbuster film. Hence it was not a blockbuster. It became one because it was a pretty good film. I know. I know. A good film. Hollywood still doesn't know what that is yet. They make a good film and they spend four to ten more attempts to repeat the first high. Isn't the definition of addiction? I dunno. There is just too much excitement in Hollywood. It stifles creativity. Creativity is not born in Hollywood parties and paychecks in excess of millions. It is up to the individual artist (i.e. actor, director, screenwriter) to forget the glitz and glamor and get into the story. Pixar does it! They lock themselves in a room and forget that everyone has five cars at home. It can be done.
Well the whole cast returning and Justin Lin the director here will make this film very decent and I am excited to see it. I will see it this weekend as will a gazillion other people. Bank on it and look for a sequel to the 4th one. Which these days in Hollywood makes perfect sense.

And now let the Bay bashing begin!

No Mike, it's not a gun, it's a camera!

Bay was at ShoWest this week. It is a convention for threater owners to see what's new and such. It's in San Diego. He had some of this to say in front of an audience.

From Collider.com

·Calls 3-D ‘a gimmick’

·Says when Paramount announced a 2011 release date for Transformers 3 they were playing ‘studio games’ and maybe using Transformers as a way of holding that date
·When I asked if he’s definitely doing Transformers 3, he said let’s wait and see how 2 does
·Talks about what’s better in Transformers Revenge of the Fallen
·Says the budget for second Transformers was 200 million and that he came in 4 million under budget. Said they are using extra money on more effects
·Talks about the IMAX footage – says it’s much easier to shoot than stereoscopic

·Explains what’s the most challenging of the special effects
Talks about why ShoWest is important and explains why you need to see his films in a movie theater

I have so many problems with Michael Bay I don't know where to begin. Well first he is an uninteresting director. None of his films are interesting. They are all loud car crashes that don't make any sense regarding plot. He's good with the military, I will give him that. Yet, because of which all of his films look like recruiting films for the 4 branches of military.
First off, 3D is not a gimmick, Mike. It's a new way to enhance the movie going experience. We have amazing technology and we are using it wisely. You have three of the the most influential directors betting the farm on 3D. (Peter Jackson, James Cameron and Steven Spielberg) And here is Bay, not even caught up with the idea yet. This is testament to how far behind Bay is in cutting edge cinema thought. He is a caveman of creativity. His ideas and camera angles are all wrong. This is who he is. He will never be a cutting edge, interesting director because his ego is way too large.
He goes onto saying why it is important to see HIS films in a theater. I am glad you caught that too. He doesn't talk of all blockbuster film. Just HIS films. Ok, Mike. your ego is huge, your talent is small. Everyone knows it. Until later, let's talk film!

Instantaneous Remakes and "Lackadaisical (Fox) Security" (1)

2009-04-02T12:15:00.000-07:00

Fox's Leaky leak

Ok, let's talk film. From Rotten Tomatoes Weekly Ketchup:

2010s relaunch to the "modern horror classic" The Strangers, which starred Liv Tyler as a woman who is terrorized by a group of stalkers in her remote house. To give the remake a younger edge, Kristen Stewart is being eyed for the lead role, although the screenwriters are expected to fill the remake with knowing references to the 2008 original for fans to pick up on.

Now this is obviously trying to ride the coattails of Kristen Stewart's raven success. AND this is down the line of something I predicted a while ago about Hollywood changing scripts like plays on Broadway do. We all know there is a serious lack of creativity in Hollywood and this is another testament to that tragic fact. I did with "The Strangers" though. I thought that the couple caught in the cabin was too passive towards the Strangers. Liv and Luke's character kinda just "took it" and didn't put up much of a fight at all. Well I always thought that if I could do it again, I would put a section in the film where there is a fight back scene. Sort of a Home Alone horror movie type thing. That would make the film a lot more interesting and not have us hanging with the passive aggressiveness of the couple.
So if Rouge Pics does a remake, they should include that and not just rehash for the sake of Stewart. Heck, you could put Stewart in anything right now and the film will make it's money back.
And how far will this remake thing go? I mean if remakes are being done two years after the film is released, who's to say that remakes won't happen instantaneously. The remakes will one day come out before the original is released. You will ask each other one day "Have you seen the remake" and the answer will be "The original isn't even out yet!"
From CHUD.com

Today an unwatermarked, time code free workprint of X-Men Origins: Wolverine leaked on the Internet. Within hours thousands of people had a version of the upcoming Fox release, and once a file like this is in the wild it can never be fully brought back in.

How the hell did this happen?

I think this is hilarious, not to laugh at other's misery. But if you look at it closely, you will see that the only ones who will suffer from this are the Fox Execs and the studio itself. Everyone else involved with the production have been compensated. Producers and Execs make the money afterward with ticket sales. So the fact that only the Execs are suffering is hilarious to me. It was the Execs mishandling of the DVD's that are sent to them are the ones to blame. I guarantee you that this leak came from the top. Execs were freely passing out Wolverine DVD's to friends and family and thus the leak happened. I will use the word hubris. Yes I will use that word to describe the way execs handle these DVD's. The leak didn't come from the bottom. The lower level players want to stay working and in my theory would not jeopardize their careers like this. The early version had to come from the top. Yet, I am sure a lower level leak will get blamed for this. You can bet that Havoc is loose in Fox today and someone will pay dearly. Though, the suspect will certainly not be an exec.

CHUD continues to say

I have a feeling that the Wolverine leak is the tip of the iceberg. My source tells me that he suspects the person who leaked it may have been motivated by a grudge against the house where they work - perhaps someone who has been laid off or had his hours reduced

As I just said, no way. The leak is high up. This is ego. This is execs flexing their security clearance. I believe that.

From BBC News

"Even if you see the workprint you're still going to have to go see it in the theatre to fully experience the full movie with CGI effects fully intact."

Fox confirmed the film "was without many effects and had missing scenes and temporary sound and music."

This is even funnier. This is nothing less than a sandbox cry from execs to taunt up to still go to the theater. I mean this thing was downloaded over 100,000 times. I am sure each download had two or three or ten viewers each! Plus if the film stinks, that's bad word of mouth to not see it. So in essence, that's 500,000 times 10 dollars a ticket price. That's a lot of money to lose on opening weekend. Well at least Execs now have a scapegoat if the film under performs. They have an excuse. They have something to blame it on. And in Hollywood's continual blame, hot potato game, that is golden news. Until tomorrow, let's talk film!

(1) http://chud.com/articles/articles/18792/1/HOW-DID-X-MEN-ORIGINS-WOLVERINE-GET-LEAKED-ON-THE-INTERNET/Page1.html

100th BLOG!!!! YAY

2009-03-31T20:19:00.000-07:00

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

2009-03-30T11:24:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-03-25T10:12:00.000-07:00

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

2009-03-24T09:30:00.001-07:00

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

2009-03-23T17:57:00.000-07:00

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.

Nothing Has Changed

2008-12-04T13:46:00.000-08:00

Ok, let's talk film. Well it's been a little while. Things have happened for the better. Like a Disney film, I am a better person at the end in light of all that has happened. I would tell you about it, but why, when you can wait for the movie that will be changed into a much more interesting bio pic by hack writers like Kurtzman and Orci and industry execs who malignantly obscure any shred of original story that first inspired the writer. Well in my absence it is nice to know that Hollywood hasn't changed at all. I have been in the loop as usual and see the insanity that is making Hollywood it's cornerstone for the talentless and bottom feeder population of California.

James Cameron is in the news today telling Tim Burton's producer, Richard Zanuck, that he is essentially full of it when speaking about Zanuck's analysis of 3D filming. Zanuck thinks that shooting in 2D and later transferring to 3D is the cheaper and best way to go about making 3D film. As we all know Cameron is busy chugging along hoping to give us an unparalleled 3D experience with his new film, Avatar, set to be released next Christmas. Cameron is shooting with expensive 3D cameras and the cost of such resources has some execs worried.

This is classic Hollywood exec thinking. Zanuck opens up the exec playbook and reads from the first page. "Do whatever is fastest and easiest". Zanuck says that he cannot tell the difference between transferred 3D film from 2D and 3D film shot with a 3D camera. Well, I happen to know people who can't tell the difference between Blu ray and regular DVD. Maybe Zanuck is one of these people. I am sure there is a HUGE difference between transferred and non transferred 3D film, but back in the 20's, Studio Execs, didn't know much difference between talking film and silent. These are just who these people are. Execs and bean counters with no real talent whatsoever. Of course Zanuck doesn't see a difference, he doesn't want to. many people who don't see a difference between Blu ray and regular DVD simply don't see it because they don't want to see it. I urge to read the article. Zanuck even sounds like he is riding the coat tails of Burton like a dolphin trainer. Read and laugh.

Well in another article Cameron urges filmmakers to provide interesting content in reverence before the 3D gimmick. Will filmmakers listen? Of course not. They won't listen not because they can't hear, the won't listen because they don't know how. I think Cameron knows that. I think he knows that most filmmakers, writers, and especially producers make bad film because they don't know how to make good film.

Most of Hollywood just remakes good film and turns it into bad film. I mean, yes that's all they know how to do. Look at all the Horror franchises. Texas Chainsaw, Hills have Eyes..etc, These people in Hollywood are dangerously out of ideas. I mean the well has run dry and they abhor any new talent because new talent would threaten their jobs and their livelihood. So here we are, millions of eager film goers who are suck watching rehashed ideas and flat out crappy film to only facilitate talentless people who refuse to get out of the sandbox and make room for the ones with talent who actually belong there. Is it good that execs haven't changed in 100 years? Until later, let's talk film.

Small Dogs, Big Profit

2008-10-06T17:51:00.000-07:00

Didn't see it? Well a lot of people did and now it will probably give birth to a sequel.

Ok, let's talk film. Well Beverly Hills Chihuahua cashed in at 29 mil over the weekend. It's a family film. I agree that the main reason for the little dog hoopla over the weekend was the family appeal. But, seriously. It's a contrived idea. It's a bad contrived idea. I think and this is my humble opinion, that we basically told Hollywood that it's ok that they give us crap. When we as an audience propel contrived, non original film like this to number one, we tell Hollywood that it is perfectly ok if they give us crap like this. Not to mention the sequel to this thing that will be BIGGER and BOLDER like all sequels. SO today we told Hollywood that that if they put small talking dogs on the Screen we will run in droves to see it.

It's seems everything these days is about lists. Everyone wants to do best lists and top ten lists. Who cares? There will never be a definitive list that everyone agrees on. Every one's taste is different and that is the truth. I don't believe in top whatever lists. I think it is ridiculous. I am assertive in my writing of this blog, but I will never think I am all knowing enough to write a top ten list of any kind. It doesn't exist. I know what good film is. I will tell you what good film is. I am assertive enough to tell you what is good and what is crap. But, best lists, come on!

Well Empire Magazine compiled a list of 500 of the best films ever. What a waste. Every number one is The Godfather or Citizen Kane anyway. That's never changed. I mean why even bother with this. BTW I know number one is the Godfather without even looking at the list. People who write these lists are too predictable. Ok I just saw the list and yes I was right, so another pat on the back for me.

Moving on, now I have always said this. Kenneth Brannah should be directing feature film. He should be doing studio film. The best directors are actors. They are not commercial directors like Bay, the best directors are in fact actors. Like, Gibson, Costner, and Favreau. Why? Because they know how to direct actors. They know what works on screen. So, for a while I have been saying that Brannah should direct feature film. Finally someone at Marvel has picked Kenneth for Thor and that choice could not be more bold and proper. Until later, let's talk film!

Catching Up With Audience Demand

2008-09-30T19:53:00.000-07:00

We're gonna need a bigger camera...

Ok, let's talk film. Well, I should not pat myself on the back too much for this. But, I am right again. I know I am right often in this blog. I have been saying for two months now that Michael Bay needs to start shooting Transformers 2 in IMAX. Well news from Variety.com yesterday says that Bay will indeed pick up an IMAX camera. Though I can't take all the credit for this. We all knew this. In fact I think myself and everyone was wondering why it was taking Bay so long to announce that he was going to film in IMAX.

Well he announced it yesterday. It is official. It will be interesting to see Bay's breakneck speed directing on such a large canvas, but hey, it's IMAX. It's the only way to go for this film. Someone at Paramount caught this in time and sent IMAX cameras to Bay. Or maybe they read this blog and knew how much I could not understand why they were neglecting something so painfully obvious. Well they fixed the error and all is well.

Well the IMAX and 3D revolution is here. I know. You still don't believe me. It is actually a far fetched thing to believe that a great portion of film will be in 3D, but it will. Hollywood has planned for it. They gave X number of dollars to help facilitate that and it will happen. I mean the sequel that we all knew we'd see, well not The Dark Knight Returns, but Kung Fu Panda will get a 3D sequel. Hollywood swears to us that this is not your mama's 3D and I am inclined to believe them. With the sweeping technology we have these days, I am confident that the audience will be demanding more 3D film.

Because as I always say, this is about getting people into the theater. I am a huge advocate of that. I believe that film will always be better on the big screen. We are coming to a crossroad where we will choose to view our film on Blu Ray and out God awful huge LCD's And why not? It's a good way to go. Yet, there will never be a substitute for watching a great film on a large screen with audience reaction. Sure, some audience members can steal theater experiences with loud popcorn chomping and talking even though the theater strongly forbids it. And everyone around you probably hates it.

The only thing Hollywood needs to remember with all this technology is to give us interesting film. That's the thing that Hollywood is and will always be incompetent in. They will always be incompetent in producing great film. They don't do that regularly. They do it once in a while. When it's just Lightning in a Bottle. They do it when it just happens. They don't know how to start from an idea and know from script page one, how to make great film. Pixar does it! It can be done. But mainstream Hollywood can't do it. Until later, let's talk film!

Lost and Found in Translation

2008-09-29T11:49:00.000-07:00

Based on hoping for a good translation...

Ok, let's talk film. Well we lost a legend over the weekend. It's been that kind of year. We are losing legends and greats too often this year, in my humble opinion. I guess that's not like any other year. However, this year feels more personal for me. Feels more immediate. Legends and actors too young. I guess life is life. Well, God Bless Paul Newman and everything he did for film.

Number one at the box office was Eagle Eye thanks to it's high concept idea, strategic marketing to the target demo, and decent star power with Shia Labeouf. Nights in Rodanthe held on strong to come in second with half of what Eagle Eye made. 14 mil to Eagle Eye's 29 mil. 14 mil is very average for Romantic films, drama or comedy. This year with What Happens in Vegas came in at 20 mil. That was a spring release. Yes romantic films rarely see more than 15-29 mil. It appears to be a dying genre in theaters. Probably has to do with the quick market to DVD, people know if they wait they can watch a romance at home. Still, this particular period or post Summer, is a slow period. Things won't pick up till November.

So the LA Times today tells this very sad story of the translation of books to film and how difficult or a "horror story" it could be to do so for an author. You can read the article here or you can just imagine what the article says. It says Boo Hoo, films NEVER live up to the book. That's right they never will. Unless the book has a very strong narrative like Hemingway or the DaVinci Code, which are in essence, screenplays in disguise. That is a paraphrase of the article.

BUT, what's it really all about? Why are books singled out over original material. Well a book following is a built in audience. You like the book? Check out the movie! It's built in ticket sales. Hollywood loves that. They only make films with guarantees, not creativity. Don't let this article fool you. Don't let the LA Times woo you into thinking that Hollywood is the firing squad for a novel. It's not. Hollywood buys rights to books because its easier and more of a guarantee than original material. In fact, you will see most films out there are based on something. It's a safe haven.

As for the author, it's all about the money. If an author sells to Hollywood, it's for money and fame. That's it. I don't think these authors should cry over spilled book because they sold it to hungry lions in the first place. If authors want their ideas to stay pure, don't sell to Hollywood. Then there is nothing to cry about. How much does Stephen King really care if his films are sub par? He doesn't. He keeps writing books and selling then, he cashes his check. Don't let this creative process distress you. It's hit or miss anyway. Books and novels are two completely different mediums. What works in a book will NOT work in a movie. Peter Jackson knows that.

The Lord of the Rings books are WAY different than the film. So, in some cases it's good and in some it is a horror story. But do not forget it's all about the paycheck and the guarantee for the studio. It's the gamble writers take. They should stop whining about it. If they are gonna whine, they should not sell. Until later, let's talk film!

The Friday Night Rave

2008-09-26T14:39:00.000-07:00

Ravin till dawn...with my boots on...

Ok, let's talk film. It's easy to get caught up in Hollywood. There is a lot of money and a lot of fame. It's very easy to get lost in the promise of what Hollywood has to offer. Fame, Sex, drugs all that stuff. If you're a screenwriter, like Diablo Cody and you really know and resits the faux glitz of it all, you know better than to get too excited before your name is properly established. Well there is whole slew of young comic book movie writers out there that read comic books, take cool parts out of them and write them on paper and get oodles of dollars for this David Blaine like magic trick. And they get way too excited before the deal is sealed.

Usually these writers come in pairs. Magic couple number one consists of Alex Kurtzman and Robert Orci. They are the writers of Transformers 1 and 2. They recently got the good fortune of getting credit of taking dictation for Star Trek, the new prequel, sequel, whatever it is. Now I say that they take dictation because that's all they really do. They don't have any ideas of their own regarding the screenplay. They just take notes from the director and the ever so insightful execs and then they run into an over decorated office and write what they just took notes on. Then after they do that they run back to the aforementioned people and ask for approval.

This is what these two guys do. There is no creativity in it. I know what you're saying...It's a paycheck, it's a good gig. Well maybe so. But I am just here to tell you what they do. I am here to shine the light on this.article in the MtV Blog. The blog talks about more couples making gazillions being Secretaries, namely, Mark Fergus and Hawk Ostby, the writers of Iron Man. It seemed they have been called up to other jobs as secretaries. Well read the article, judge for yourself. I think they are overpaid secretaries. Am I just jealous? Maybe, but I am still here to point out the truth.

So I saw this really amazing film the other day. It's called Redbelt. It is written and directed by David Mamet. And it is one of the best films I personally have seen this year. It's not one for the awards, but it is a fantastic film. I very much recommend it. Until later, let's talk film!

Disney Talking Smack

2008-09-25T11:41:00.000-07:00

Brains of the operation...

Ok, let's talk film. Yes, I think that I may be getting a little of my old spunk back. I am getting comments again, so that keeps me writing at my best. I know. What an attention whore if you will, I am. Well, I think it's just a need for recognition from my peers. If you have read my Monday's blog about Diablo Cody, you may noticed I have revised it (four times). That is because if you google, Jennifer's body, Diablo cody, this site comes up at like third or fourth on the list. So I am actually trying to proofread now.

Well let's dive into this Article posted today by the Hollywood Reporter. Apparently Dick Cook, Disney Exec extraordinaire, gathered the who's who of the media biz and announced their future schedule. I am sure everyone waited with bated breath to see what Disney will have in store for us regarding live action. Do we really care? We know what Disney does. They rehash anything in their path and pass it off as their own. They ran out of ideas a while back so they had to come up with a brilliant idea to tie in the Disneyland theme park rides with the movies.

Haunted Mansion tanked at the BO. But, Pirates did not suffer a tragic fate. Yes Disney was saved by talent. If Disney does success, they DO NOT do it themselves. There is not ONE talented person at Disney. All of their talent is outsourced. Johnny Depp saved them in POTC. Looking back, Pixar saved their animation department since Howard Ashman died in the 90's. He was the lyricist for Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast. They did not resuscitate their animation quality until Pixar did their Toy Story thing and breathed life into animation again.

But again it was not Disney themselves. Disney as a new idea factory is non existent. Well here you have Dick Cook giving us a quote for his vision of the future, "Movies are constantly changing, and we want to be at the forefront," said Cook, hammering home themes of innovation and creativity throughout the day."

"innovation and creativity", you have got to be kidding me Mr. Cook! Since when has Disney themselves been self sufficient at creativity? Well at the time of Walt Disney, yes! He was a hallmark of creativity. But then that's it. The Disney Classics such as Cinderella and so forth were staples of uniqueness and treasure. But, then once Walt and his people were out of the picture. Then what happened? Well they had a few live action films in the 70's and 80's, Flubber, Love Bug, all that. But then nothing until talent found them in the form of a lyricist named Howard Ashman and a musician names Alan Menken, who still does great work. But, they were a Lennon/Macarthy, it hasn't been the same since. Road to El Dorado anyone?

Now Pixar is giving them wings. Pirates and Johnny Depp is giving them wings. So how is Disney on the forefront? How are they ever going to be on the forefront? With Pixar! With Johnny Depp. Not with Disney themselves. Let's take another quote.
"We add that extra increment of quality to everything we do," Cook said.
No you don't Mr. Cook! You have others to do that for you who are not direct representatives of Disney. So you Mr. Cook and Disney. Do not do anything except ride the coat tails of others! That's it!

This is typical exec thinking. They think they are the talented ones when they have no more responsibility of a McDonalds manager. But, that's what they do! Mr. Cook is diluted. He is in Fantasyland. He nor any other person has true talent like the talent the outsource. Until later, let's talk film!

The New Digital Age...Is Anyone Prepared?

2008-09-24T17:09:00.000-07:00

Demand is there, Hollywood isn't. What else is new?

Ok, let's talk film. Well here is this DJ Caruso interview in Collider.com says this, "As everyone is slowly realizing, what Christopher Nolan did with “The Dark Knight” this summer has changed everything." This is a quote in reference to the audience appreciation for IMAX format that The Dark Knight was partially filmed in. Well first off on that quote. Everyone is NOT SLOWLY realizing this. I am certain everyone is rather quickly realizing this. There is just a high cost option that Hollywood is scared of. Remember Hollywood is terrified of new ideas. All Hollywood wants to do is make the same films over and over again. I say that every blog. They want to make only the teen comedy, the Superhero film that's written with snappy dialogue, the slasher film, the feel good underdog film, and the by the numbers romantic comedy. That's all they have in their playbook. That's it! That's all we get.

Sure, they may throw a thriller out once in a while, like Eagle Eye. But in essence is a "Like a Bourne film, except..." We know the formula, we're not stupid. SO when the Dark Knigh shattered all records for being a great film and shot in IMAX, Hollywood wet themselves with fear. They don't know how to make great film. Making great film eludes Hollywood, always will.

Well here is Collide.com telling us everyone is slowly realizing this concept. No! Hollywood knows this concept! They know it very well, they are just unequipped to deal with it. So, that may come off as uninformed. Well, theaters are ill equipped as well. We have this 3D craze, this 3D revolution coming to theaters and the cinemas themselves are not ready. Only digital projectors can run 3D digital film. Only 40% of theaters have this technology. It's crazy.

And where is Michael Bay in all of this? Where is Spielberg for that matter? They NEED to be filming Transformers 2 in IMAX. They need at least 3 strong scenes in IMAX format. Favreau is panting in front of Paramount, begging for the budget for an IMAX shoot. What does all this do? Well IMAX and 3D (stereo as James Cameron calls it) brings people to the cinema again. Otherwise most people will wait for blu ray. And why wouldn't they?! Blu Ray is a wonderful technology.

Michael Bay should by all means be shooting in IMAX. Why he isn't doesn't make any sense to me. They have the budget, they need the cameras. Spielberg knows better. Until Later, let's talk film!

Diablo's Fear of Failure

2008-09-22T17:10:00.000-07:00

Keep it personal, Cody.

Ok, let's talk film. Lakeview Terrace was number one over the weekend. Samuel Jackson playing the bad guy is even money at the box office I would say. But Hollywood can rejoice! The film got terrible reviews and people still went to see it. I didn't. I caught up with Burn After Reading and laughed my tookas off. The best reviewed movie, Ghost Town, suffered from lack of a movie star. People still want to go see movie stars. Ricky Grevais, the star of Ghost Town isn't popular. Sure he is a good actor. But, the studio should really know better. Without a movie star, well, the audience will go see something else with a movie star.

SO I wanted to go see Ghost Town, but I was a week behind, so I saw the Cohen Bros. Film. Though the Box Office is slow. The number one film is still only pulling in 15 million. That's nothing. So even if you're number one, there is still nothing really to be that excited about. Studios I am sure are doing the pogo dance rejoicing that their film is number one, but until you're pulling dark night numbers, there is nothing to get excited about. Nothing.

So Diablo Cody, one of my favorite writers, though she has only one script produced thus far, talks to the LA Times today and reveals a career killing fact. Here's one on talking about her new film, Jennifer's Body, "I did not think this would be my follow-up to 'Juno.' But I don't know if I will ever write [another] highbrow, artsy movie."

Well Diablo, or Brook, as her real name is, Brook, that's what wins awards. A highbrow, artsy film, is basically a personally written script. When I think of her description of Juno as artsy, highbrow, I think of scripts like Ordinary People, Moonstruck, Forrest Gump. They're sure artsy films, but they are what we as an audience member responds to. I know! She is sounding like a Hollywood exec! She is sounding like Paramount Pictures. They canned Vantage so they would not have to do Artsy films anymore. She doesn't want to sell out, yet that train of thinking of NOT doing Artsy films, is selling out because that is the trend of thinking in Hollywood. If she wants to go against the grain she needs to do Artsy films. Don't you see that Brook? Is it that hard to notice your current train of thought is not risky at all. It is current Hollywood exec thinking.

You're an Oscar winning screenwriter now, I think, in my humble opinion, you need to act like one. She thinks being risky is doing offbeat, genre horror films. Well that's current Hollywood ideas Brooke. It's actually not risky at all. Risky is doing an Artsy film. No one right now in Hollywood wants to do Art films. They are a liability. Hollywood wants to do huge dark studio picks (Dark Knight) or cheap audience appealing films that make back chump change in the first day.

Here are two inevitable facts about being a writer. First, you're gonna write personal and artsy eventually anyway. I mean one day every writer wants to get introspective. Cody will want to write another Juno like script. And she should. It is her life. She can't escape who she is. I do not believe she is this offbeat writer. I mean leave the offbeat, sellout writing to Tina Fey. She has smart glasses and snappy one liners. Let her sell out and do frivolous, comedy pieces.

Brook, You're way better than that. You need to write from your gut and leave a pint of blood on those pages. That's what we want! Every writer WANTS and needs to write what they know. So even if Jennifer's Body is a success, you may and will eventually want to go back and re-open up your own floodgates. It's an evolutionary fact.

Second, a writer is always afraid of failure. We always hate what we write. I hate what I am writing right now, but I do it because putting words on paper is wonderful. I love it. I think she is
afraid of failure. It is written all over this LA Times article. Why else would she do what seems to be a throwback film. She can't hide herself and say as she does to the LA Times that she wants to forget her Oscar. I think that is a lie. I think she sees it everyday and wants to repeat that success, but is terrified. And rightfully so. She is afraid of success because in life and especially in Unforgiving Jew Town, it's hard to stay on top. Even Rob Reiner's golden streak ended. Even Speilberg makes a bad film once in a while. The industry is so hard to foster success that I am positive Diablo, my fair Brook, is afraid to fail. And with her pressure who wouldn't be.

So, she is making Jennifer's Body on purpose to seemingly take a huge risk and basically get that fear of failure out of her system. But, it's not risky. Art films are out in Hollywood. If she wants to go against the grain, she would write that auto bio stripper story and tell it from the gut. That is against the grain. Until later, let's talk film!

Manhunter vs. Red Dragon

2008-09-18T22:26:00.000-07:00

Manhunter. Directed by Michael Mann

Ok, let's talk film. HD NET movies is a great channel to have. Watching Manhunter on my wide screen tube and I forgot how great a film this is. It was released in 1986 when high concept films were bombarding the multi plexes, so it was unfortunately easy for this film to get lost in the mix. It was directed by legendary filmmaker Michael Mann. He is the director of Heat, The Insider, Last of the Mohican's, Miami Vice, which I loved. I am not sure anyone else saw that film. It was really good. I recommend it.

Anyway I am watching this film now actually. I can two things at once and I want to write about it cause it reminds me of the hapless repetition of Hollywood. You see this film is the first Silence of the Lambs film. The definitive one was the spectacular opus starring Hopkins and Foster, both to walk away with the Oscar. But this film from 1986 stars William Peterson from CSI. Edward Norton took over this role in the Brett Ratner remake, Red Dragon. Now you have to expect a few things from Ratner and not expect a few things from him.

He's someone who could screw up a cup of coffee. But who knows if that is really his fault. I mean he is a studio yes boy. There is not too much to his style at all. If you look at his films, Rush Hour, Family Man, After the Sunset, X Men 3. There is not much to him. He is one of those directors that Hollywood likes because he went to USC film school. So he knows SOMETHING, but when it comes to meat and potatoes he is a small fry short of a happy meal. He can't improvise. At least Michael Bay can do that. Well that's all Bay does is improvise. He doesn't have any real vision as a director. So here you have this film that Michael Mann very competently did in '86 and Ratner and MGM decided to do it again. Well that's what we do in Hollywood. We do things twice, three times if needed until they get it right.

Well it doesn't really matter on this film because the original Manhunter by Michael man is far superior to Ratner's. There is a couple things artistically I want to point out. First really good camera decision is during a tense scene that is in every scary film ever. It is a slow pan around a house while a character looks for a possible killer in the home. But this pan is ingenious for Mann and DP Dante Spinotti pass the camera through a fish tank during a suspenseful scene like that. It is brilliant! It really is. The shot reminds me of Spielberg's shot in Saving Private Ryan in the beginning where he bobs the camera up and down in the water juxapositioning tranquility and chaos.

Performance or substance?

And that's what its all about my film fans and future filmmakers. You have to put two things that don't belong together together to make it interesting. Keep that in mind when you're making your film. Another interesting thing that actually is a point for the Ratner side is the infrequent use of Hannibal Leckter in Manhunter. There is actually a lot of dialogue referring to Leckter's madness and yet few scenes with him (the likeable Ronny Cox in Manhunter... I know). That is because when you have Anthony Hopkins playing his bone chilling version of Lecter (not a typo, they are spelled different in the two movies), you don't need excessive dialogue explaining how crazy he is. Hopkins shows you. Perfectly! Which brings us to lesson two, if you have good actors, the less dialogue you need. Great actors can sell emotion with fewer lines.

Well that is rub between these two films. Hopkins is fantastically bone chilling. Yet, Michael Mann is the better director. If you're looking for a great Hannibal crime thriller you may have never seen, this is something to rent. Until Later, let's talk film!

Decline of the Family Holiday Film

2008-09-16T17:40:00.000-07:00

We want it done right or we don't want it at all...

Ok, let's talk film. The holidays are fast approaching and I wonder what kind of Holiday fare we will see. Well I can tell you right now. Its gonna be a Christmas film about not wanting to be with family. Well Hollywood echos itself this way. They show us who they are by releasing Holiday film like this. This anti family fare has been in the mix for a long time. I just saw this trailer for Four Christmases with Vince Vaughn and Reese Witherspoon and I can tell you that the trend is here to stay. If you look at the past Christmas film releases you will see the exact same trend.

The past flock of films include Saving Christmas, Christmas With The Cranks,Deck the Halls, and Surviving Christmas. The new theme here for Christmas film is avoiding family and the theme here is continued with this new Reese Witherspoon film. Why is this trend alive? I believe that Hollywood makes the films that they themselves believe in. Aside from the fact that the town in heavily Jewish, there still is necessity of a Holiday gathering in Judaism with Hanukkah. So, with whatever gathering the execs and writers in Hollywood choose, there is a need to tell a story of the estranged family.

The simple point is that execs don't care about family. They greenlight Christmas films they want to see. They think this lack of family togetherness if funny. Yet, its not funny. Those films I mentioned above did not do well because the audience does not think the same as an exec. We, as an audience, love our families. Sure, in reality it is uncomfortable to see all our relatives at once, but we don't avoid them like the films execs put out during Christmas.

All these anti family Christmas films have failed. They will continue to fail because of what I talked about yesterday. Hollywood execs and the Box Office are two different entities. Execs obviously don't care about their families. But we as an audience do. They are gonna have to do better in delivering family fare about families that actually has a traditional family theme. Otherwise we will avoid it as we have been. Until Tomorrow, let's talk film!

Box Office Truth

2008-09-15T12:31:00.000-07:00

They are good, my film fans...Cohen Brothers

Ok, let's talk film. So I think we all know that there are two separate entities in Film. One is Hollywood and the other is the Box Office. Hollywood represents the execs, the sharks, the ones who are out to make a gazillion dollars each film. The other entity is the audience, who pay 11.50 to see a good story. These two divisions never see eye to eye. Hollywood wants to make the same movie over and over again. They think we want the same movie over and over again. You know what movie I am talking about. They make the Hero movie, the film where the hero doesn't want to be the hero, yet becomes the Hero anyway. The underdog story. That's what Hollywood keeps making over and over again.

Well there is a point here. If you look at the Box Office this weekend. Let's just post it and take a look at it here.

1 Burn After Reading $19,404,000 2,651
2 N Tyler Perry's The Family That Preys $18,020,000 - 2,070
3 N Righteous Kill Over. $16,500,000 - 3,152
4 N The Women (2008) $10,088,000 - 2,962
5 4 The House Bunny $4,300,000 - 2,763

Well the first number is of course the weekend gross and the second number is the number of theaters. Here is the tomatometer for the opening films.

78% Burn After Reading
52% Tyler Perry's The Fami… $17.4M
23% Righteous Kill $16.3M
10% The Women $10.1M
84% Tropic Thunder $4.2M
40% The House Bunny $4.2M
95% The Dark Knight $4.1M
10% Bangkok Dangerous $2.6M
52% Traitor $2.1M
38% Death Race $2.1M

This speaks for itself. The big ticket for the weekend according to Hollywood was Righteous Kill. Hollywood marketed that like it was the next Godfather. And they had high hopes with Diane English's The Women. But, look how it turned out. The audience went to see the film that got the best reviews. How upset does this make Hollywood? I could not even tell you. It takes their wind away. They can't fool us anymore. This has been going on all summer. All summer long we as an audience has told Hollywood to shove it when it comes to sub par film.

They are gonna have to do better. Well don't think that this is gonna sink in right away. We are gonna have to boycott more films. Yes of course. Hollywood is aware but they are not going to learn instantly. They still have the studio formula stuck with them like cancer. That will be the biggest thing for them to overcome. They have to stick to their inbred formula and realize that it is time for change. Well this is a bolder of an industry that is not willing to change anytime soon, yet the Box Office demands it. It is there in plain black and white. Until Tomorrow, let's talk film.