I get it, Warner Brothers’ president Alan Horn made it very clear, Warner Brothers really has no interest in the specialty indie niche market. The folding / absorption of New Line brought in a much more lucrative, though quality-questionable, stable of young boy demographic genre-friendly suckfests, while also cutting the costs of about 500 jobs. And let’s face it, once you start saving money, cutting costs… it becomes addictive. What else is expendable? What else can we kill?
Sometimes it’s more like an endurance challenge: how little can I get by with? We’ve done it here at Film Threat, budgeting out film festival coverage in what could be considered a sado-masochistic exercise more than “financially responsible” method of operation (the lesson we learned: just because something can be done on a survival-only method, doesn’t mean it should be done). And I caution WB similarly: just because you can survive without Picturehouse and Warner Independent, it doesn’t mean you should.
What I found truly interesting about the piece, however, was the reasoning behind the shuttering of both companies as it relates to the glut of indie fare in theaters:
“Horn cited the fact that 600 pics get released annually as having made the specialty biz less attractive financially in recent year.”
Are those numbers accurate? 600 specialty pics annually? Is this counting theatrical, DVD, VOD, etc? I mean, we review about 1,000+ films per year, sure, but I wouldn’t consider the majority of those films to be anything with a significant enough release to actually affect WB in such a way as to require them to shutter two companies. Many of the films were review are on the fest circuit without representation or distribution so… where did this figure come from? The reasoning continues:
“He also said that such pics have become more likely to screen at multiplexes rather than art-house venues and expressed confidence in Warner’s distribution side to ensure that smaller films receive the proper handling.”
There were 600 specialty pics in multiplexes, really?
I understand how WB distribution enables them to work in whatever specialty flicks they do go after and market them aggressively, on par with their more blockbuster fare, but what’s the point of that? They’re specialty because they’re unique, often niche films, where the big publicity push wouldn’t properly work, do justice to or properly convey the film anyway. I think it’s a bone being thrown to the critics of this move that the WB isn’t “getting out of the indie film biz but stressed that it will still acquire and produce specialty pics,” but we all know that that’ll last about as long as the first major campaign fails to make said specialty film have a $10 million opening weekend (and I’m being conservative).
Furthermore, from a business standpoint, it seems like WB is absorbing and jettisoning, essentially making one big beast instead of a number of smaller, interconnected ones. While this makes sense from a “behemoth to conquer the world” mentality, it doesn’t leave for very much longevity or dispersement of risk. If one of the smaller companies took a hit, in the past, then it affected that smaller company primarily and WB as a satellite. Now… all guns aimed at one target, WB. If there’s a failure, the risk is all in. Isn’t this what happens right before another company comes in a buys out? Make it one easy transaction, top gets rich and all the satellite businesses don’t exist or don’t have a say?
Anyway, these are all just questions because I’m no economics major. I was never a future business leader of America, I don’t wear suits and working an average 9-5 will likely result in me wandering the Earth homeless rather than “content” in my cubicle jail. I’m a passionate film fan who gets the opportunity to share his opinions with the intarweb, and I’m sad to see Picturehouse and WIP go, and I’m just trying to figure out the logic, s’all.
Posted by Felix Vasquez Jr. in Writer's Corner at 1:22 AM
PDT
So, watching them there flicks on that big screen and paying up the nose just to see if some blond tart can outrun an obsessed teacher, I realized that there were many discoveries this year that have made me a better man. Let’s take a look, shall we?
There should never have been a sequel to “Harold & Kumar.” Talk about a huge disappointment in theaters, this movie was horrible. Not only was it wholly unfunny, but it failed to capture everything the original grabbed from racial undertones, interesting characters, and a well paced story. Want to see them milk NPH until it’s sickening? Watch “Guantanamo Bay.” And yes, it really is as homophobic as “Wild Hogs.”
There’s apparently a market for “Speed Racer” in theaters. He’s always been a character incapable of being interesting (there’s been almost fifteen incarnations, I think) and I don’t think this movie will help. Not even John Goodman will be able to save it, I deduce. We shall see.
Mammoths WERE around in 10,000 B.C. Why didn’t anyone tell me? A-Whoops!
All praise about “Iron Man” being a hero who fights corporate corruption and real world villains will be grossly undermined with the sequel, set to introduce Mandarin and that giant dragon Fing Fang Foom. As long as Tony Stark doesn’t dance to disco music in front of a clothes store, I’ll be happy.
98 percent of the time bad movies begat bad remakes, which begat bad sequels. And in the seventh day, they rested.
“Jumper” is officially my favorite guilty pleasure of 2008. Bash me all ye want, folks, but I had a blast. It’s this year’s “I Am Legend,” for moi.
Tim and Eric… are pretty awesome after all.
And hey, so is “Fight Club.”
“Sex and the City”… the movie… from the series… which was a book… may end up a huge hit. Why god? Why?
If they can turn “Iron Man” into a cool hero, maybe there’s hope for people like Superpro, Deathlok, Darkhawk, Rocket Racer, Stiltman, Matter Eater Lad, The Wonder Twins, and the sexually ambiguous Aqualad! It’s possible!
Posted by Felix Vasquez Jr. in Writer's Corner at 6:58 PM
PDT
Leave it to Marvel Comics to sweep in out of nowhere and steal all of Batman’s spotlight. Going from second most anticipated to THE most anticipated comic movie of the summer, “Iron Man” refused to let us down, and lo and behold it didn’t.
Watching it in theaters was an incredible experience. And this is mainly because I’ve always thought Iron Man was as interesting a comic character as Stilt Man or Rocket Racer. My uncle and I would laugh and always say: “Just punch him in the fucking chest, and he’s down for the count! So fucking lame!”
And alas, Favreau completely shook my brain and convinced me to give the iron monster with a cherry red coating another chance. “Iron Man” is finally a fantastic character. How’s about that? And the movie is nothing short of incredible.
Downey, Paltrow, Bridges, Terrence Howard, the great origin, beautiful special effects, allusions to War Machine, and that incredible cameo at the end of the credits, it’s Marvel gold, and I think “The Dark Knight” has a lot to follow in a month or so.
“Iron Man” kicks off what is hopefully a season of excellent event films.
‘Nuff said.
P.S. Yes, Sabbath’s “Iron Man” does play in the movie.
Film fans won a great victory on April 21st when Code Red DVD finally released one of the greatest horror movies of all time: “Sole Survivor”. It was directed by Thom Eberhardt, who did the very cool “Night of the Comet”, a teen horror comedy that shares nothing of the dark nihilistic Survivor except that for the fact that it’s also an above average and underappreciated work. So, if you want to see a major influence on J-horror, go get this film. It’s an incredibly scary ride and one of my favorite horror movies of all time.
Oh, and while I’ve got your attention, I would like us all to point our fingers and yell SHAME, SHAME, SHAME to Paramount Studios and John Hughes for still not giving “Planes, Trains and Automobiles” a decent DVD release. The friggin’ format is going to change to Blu-ray before someone figures out that PT&A has the potential to become a huge seller. This is a film that EVERYONE likes, even jaded, cynical, misanthrope film critics like me. So what the fuck you waiting for Paramount, for the film to become forgotten so you can do a remake with Martin Lawrence?
Oh… god… that’s probably it.
Now I’m depressed.
Anyway, I just hope Paramount figures out what the hell they wanna do and DO IT QUICKLY. If they actually do remake it (and all kidding aside, I wouldn’t be surprised if they did.) they’ll release the original in a super-duper deluxe edition as part of the marketing campaign for the new film. In which case, we win. And, if they’re not remaking it, then could they pretty fucking please release the damn thing with something more, like maybe a trailer, before we all die? The 25th anniversary of the movie is coming up in 2012. I’ll only be almost forty by then and I was fourteen when it came out. Getting the hint Paramount?
Posted by Felix Vasquez Jr. in Writer's Corner at 6:24 PM
PDT
Black and White, Neo Noir, Pulp Comic Book Movie? My ass is planted on that uncomfortable folding leather seat with the sticky cup rests come 2009. Stow the “Untouchables” score, though.
Posted by Felix Vasquez Jr. in Writer's Corner at 5:28 PM
PDT
This scenario sounds like someone on a fan board threw names together to goof on remakes and an exec from Hollywood decided to act upon it. Take a brilliant science fiction film like “The Incredible Shrinking Man,” put it through the Hollywood grinder, and you’ll get: “Brett Ratner is in negotiations to direct Universal Pictures and Imagine Entertainment’s remake of “The Incredible Shrinking Man.” Brian Grazer is producing the project, which has Eddie Murphy attached to star.
An updated version of the best-selling novel and 1957 sci-fi classic starring Grant Williams, “Man” is taking the comedic approach to the fantastical material, telling the story of a famous Las Vegas magician who is put under a spell that causes him to shrink. He must find a way to reverse the spell before he gets so small that he “disappears.”
Source: The Hollywood Reporter Doesn’t that sound like a barrel of laughs. I mean, Murphy did “Norbit,” so this has a good chance of being a riot.
I’ve always said that “Teen Witch” was a movie I could get behind being remade. I mean, have you seen it lately? It’s awful. Beyond awful. Watching white boys rap to a horrible rap song is just the epitome of terrible. But as expected, Disney has it, Ashley Tisdale (the hot blond from that musical about the high school) will star, and voila, an instant vehicle for a fading child star. I’m on the fence.
DC Universe vs. Mortal Kombat. Bwah? Batman vs. Liu Kang…? Superman vs. Sonja Blade…?
And finally, I beg George Lucas to stop whining like a bitch, and be the bigger man and suck it up: Entertainment Weekly: So Why Resurrect Indy after all these years? Lucas: “We’re doing it to have fun. We don’t need the money. We’re only going to get aggravation. The fans think it’s gonna be the Second Coming. And it’s not the Second Coming. They’ve already written the story [in their heads], and lemme tell ya, it’s not that story. So they’re going to be very disappointed. I went through this with Phantom Menace. Believe me, I’ve been there, I’ve done it, I know exactly the way they react …We’re not gonna have adoring fans sending us e-mails saying how much they loved the movie. We’re gonna have a bunch of angry people saying, ‘You’re a bunch of assholes, you should never have done this. You’ve ruined my life forever. I loved Indiana Jones so much and now it’s ruined.’” Spielberg: “Uh, he needs to speak for himself here. [Laughter all around] You need to put in parentheses, ‘George Lucas is totally speaking for himself.’ And I absolve myself of any connection with that last statement about fans not liking it.” Lucas: “All I’m saying is, I have been there, and I have walked through the valley of death on highly anticipated sequels.”
Posted by Felix Vasquez Jr. in Writer's Corner at 5:00 AM
PDT
Honest to god, this isn’t an attempt at a plug of any kind, but “Attack of the Show!” is one of my new favorite guilty pleasures. If you were watching last night, then they signed off with one of the funniest (impromptu?) stunts on the set I’ve seen since I started watching. I was in literal tears, and rewatched it twice.
If you didn’t see “Attack of the Show!” then notice Kevin trying to play off his pain, and doing it well:
For years, I was puzzled as to what name Bastian screams at the end of “The Neverending Story.” Thanks to Wikipedia, and a clip from YouTube to confirm, I now know that the little shit screams “Moon Child!” This was a mystery of my life dispelled by Wikipedia. The power of the internet truly revealed!
I’m a big fan of Gus Van Sant’s films. Be it the films themselves, the courage he shows in hop-scotching styles and genre or the simple power of the images and stories he brings forth, Van Sant never ceases to follow his muse. I also love the way he dares to make non-mainstream fare and then back it up with a studio project. I don’t know why more filmmakers don’t do that. Aside from boo-boo’s like the pointless “Psycho” remake and the inherently doomed “Even Cowgirls Get the Blues,” Van Sant always brings something interesting to the screen. However I’ve noticed a rather disturbing trend in some of his recent films and I want to see what everyone else has to say.
I’m going to come right out and say something that might not be popular or politically correct but I have to ask, what’s up with Van Sant’s fetishising of teenage boys and why is it acceptable? The shower scene in Van Sant’s Columbine inspired “Elephant” where the two young, unknown actors strip down, take a shower together while making out seemed oddly tacked on and rather lecherous. Now in Van Sant’s latest film “Paranoid Park” the director chooses to show his star, young Gabe Nevins (another unknown teen actor who was apparently cast via some myspace ads looking for young actors…gross) stripping down and taking a nice, long hot shower. The camera lingers on his wet face and hair and travels down his body with the streams of water. It just feels kind of wrong to me and yet no one else seems to care or feel it’s inappropriate. Or maybe they do and don’t feel comfortable saying something about the elephant in the room. Pun intended.
After “Paranoid Park” ended, I started to walk home and tried to tell myself I was just being too overcritical and sensitive. There was nothing to what I had just seen and what I had seen in “Elephant” I thought. Plus it feels homophobic to even say such a thing which is a shame because there’s nothing homophobic about not being thrilled at seeing sinewy teenage boys in various states of undress. I wouldn’t want to see teenage girls portrayed this way either. Yet, as I walked on I realized I had also caught something in the shooting style of “Paranoid Park” that was equally off-putting and finally lead me to write this piece.
As someone who spends way too much time studying film, I caught some pretty clear references in “Paranoid Park” to Kenneth Anger’s “Scorpio Rising” which is a really cool, Brechtian styled short film from the 1960’s. In the film Anger features popular music of the day with really languid, fetishised shots of greaser guys working on and riding their motorcycles. “Scorpio Rising” is like a sexless gay porn featuring the Fonz or better, a really arty Queen video and it’s very clear in its intentions.
Yet the homosexual overtones of “Scorpio Rising” don’t bother me because the men in the film are just that, adult men and they consented to looking sexy for Anger as they slowly lubed a chassis or their hair or shined some chrome. Cut to “Paranoid Park” and Van Sant repeatedly uses similar techniques as Anger as we see toned young boys skating shirtless in slow-motion or we see Alex’s face softly lit and focused on like a film star from the 1950’s. In another scene a conflicted Alex slowly walks down the hallway, the camera focused on his face while Billy Swan’s classic seventies pop song “I Can Help” croons in the background. These are all clear parallels to “Scorpio Rising” yet here the focus is on young boys instead of young men. The males in the frame are not yet at the age of consent so by definition (and, well, law) they cannot be considered able to consent. Can they?
I hate to come off like a neo-con, but Van Sant’s use and eye for young teenage boys seems exploitative and it’s really starting to creep me out. These are teenage boys under the age of 18 and I don’t see why this camera gaze is acceptable or at least not questioned. Again, maybe I’m just being too sensitive or maybe even reading too much into the film. But then again, a pattern is a pattern and an homage is supposed to speak to it’s predecessor and I feel “Paranoid Park” and “Scorpio Rising” are too similar for it to be a mistake. What do you say Film Threat readers?
So, I never closed out the “Cloverfield” Investigation properly and for many reasons. Mainly it was because I may continue the viral explosion if there happens to be a sequel, but mostly because I could never figure out how to go out on a high note.
In lieu of the April 22nd DVD release, I thought it would be only proper to close out the investigation and send my regards and thanks to people, and explain that, yes, I loved “Cloverfield,” and I’ve seen it three times. Clovey is a creepy monster, and there will be many more surprises to be had, if you’ve kept up with Reeves and Abrams’ explanations of what Clovey is and why it stomped onto New York one night in January.
The viral marketing had almost nothing to do with the movie beyond the hammer, the horse, Slusho, and stomach bursting, but hey, I had fun; I can never get enough of Viral Marketing.
Now here comes the sap.
The following people have to be thanked for contributing to the success of this blog frenzy that resulted in one particular blog entry garnering a little over two hundred responses; if I miss anyone, apologies:
Mike Watt, Movie Marketing Madness
Don Lewis
Phil Hall
Jeremy Knox
Michael Ferraro
Cloverfield News
Cloverfield Clues
Rory L. Aronsky
And especially: Mark Bell, who allowed me to write about the first teaser trailer, sat for two hours tailoring the the article as Film Threat’s very own stunt, and pretty much co-writing the piece with me. As well, he allowed me to run rampant on the blogs, posting theories and articles leading up to the movie, and I’m in his debt.
On that, I go out on this note:
For further proof that “Cloverfield” was truly an experience worth having, it’s been revealed that there were three subliminal stills inserted into the DVD Release of the movie that occur during the course of the film. There are stills of King Kong, Them, and the Beast from 20,000 Fathoms. In this climactic scene (possible spoilers), a particular king of the apes can be seen:
