I was so happy for Wanda Sykes about getting a new show, but why do those commercials make it seem so godawful? She can't really be that bad, can she? #miramax
If Jack Black hosts the Oscars, I will set fire to my TV. When will the Academy get with the program and realize that NPH is the only acceptable host for an awards show these days? Yes, I realize he's not exactly a movie actor, but he did do some excellent work in Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle, so, yeah. Yeah! #miramax
@DahlELama: Here Here! NPH forever. Maybe he could just fulltime host ALL award shows so this endless guessing game would just stop. And let's hurry it up before they get Seaquest and my eyes and ears bleed. #miramax
There was a time in the 90's when the Miramax label on a film nearly GUARANTEED quality. Then they started putting that stamp on things like "Bionicle 3", "My Baby's Daddy", "Duplex", Pokemon movies and brainless Hellraiser sequels. This isn't a death, so much as the cessation of the activity of a zombie... #disney
@Lincolnsbeard33: The 90s were definitely the hey day, but I think the cathartic effect of movies has been unfulfilled by the current schlock shoved down our collective throats. Add in a recession and woo-lah! New indie movement in film.
So: studio indies are coming to an end. Thank god.
Did any of the people involved realize the oxymoron they were dealing with? Imminent doom of a business model if there ever was one. The idea that studios could fashion themselves after juggernaut independent features was, is and always will be the height of arrogance on their part. I suppose they thought (hoped?) they could always market the hell out of anything that was obvious crap pre-release and still turn a profit. Problem is there isn't any profit when your "indie" has a budget of $10-million-plus. The best part of seeing a good indie is knowing that the makers have hit movie lotto by investing more sweat equity and heart than cash into their film.
If they're looking for ideas, they should go no further than hacking down the price tags of their "blockbusters," because the audience just isn't fooled by hundreds of millions spent on CGI without a story anymore, and finance multiple smaller movies--law of averages they will turn a profit on a few of them and make up for their stinkers. They'll also put a lot more people to work on endeavors that are actually worth being a part of.
@Lincolnsbeard33: The studio is so desperate for a "hit" (defined in their perception as earning a dollar amount that can be bragged on as a profit even if our marketing costs rise above production costs) that they ran a good 2-minute segment of the SFX as a "commercial" during Jay Leno's show last week. This movie is going to be awful. Guaran-effing-teed.
@mexiback: T2 will not win any creative awards and will stand as the beginning of the end of the trilogies of tripe peddled by the studios: Too expensive to market, too panned by critics to be taken seriously and too predictably bad after minimal initial success. It would be interesting to know how their marketing budget stacked up to the production budget on this (and a few others this summer). If it weren't for the Battle of The Beauty and The Beast (Meagan Fox and Michael Bay) in the tabloids, how would anyone even remember this movie was released this summer?
@PaisleyPajamas: It doesn't even matter if no one remembers it because it sucks; that's beside the point.
It was by far the highest grossing movie of the year in the US (the second highest was Harry Potter, which was behind by a hundred millions). So, basically, a lot of people enjoy crap, and that's a fact. And maybe the mkt budget was very high, but with a grossing of more than 400'000'000 (in the US alone!) I think it's pretty safe to say the studio made a big buck with it.
Disclaimer: I haven't even seen it, so I'm not actually defending it, but those numbers don't lie.
@PaisleyPajamas: oh I know it will be horrible but that doesn't mean it won't be a huge hit.
Saw the latest trailer before Zombieland last night in a packed theater and the crowed was just cheering for it.
Big budget disaseter movies tend to be a hit.
Not to mention there is a large part of the population that is convinced something is going to happen on 2012 so they will go see the movie.
@mexiback: I haven't seen it either and watched T1 on HBO over my shoulder as I read a book (so there's my full disclosure), but I will say this with every ounce of my conviction: HOLLYWOOD FIDDLES WITH NUMBERS. I give you Superman Returns as the most egregious example of this. They had the gall to spout off about their "opening weekend box office." Problem was, they had a 7-DAY OPENING WEEKEND, people.
They ploy the public into thinking they're missing something, when in actuality the public is just going to miss the price of admission after they plunk their hard-earned dollars down for these shitty movies.
Since Superman Returns I haven't given any credence to box office in my movie going decisions, except for maybe 300 and that had nekkid Gerard Butler goin' for it.
@Lincolnsbeard33: Again I point out the fact that the title of a movie is part of the marketing. Therefore, this back pocket fear that people have about 12-21-2012 is as much a part of the making of this junk piece of shit as is the casting of John Cusack and Amanda Peet; it will not stand the test of time, except perhaps to show future generations how not to make a movie with an emotional charge or any sort of unique storyline.
@PaisleyPajamas: no one is talking about it standing the test of time we are talking about if it will be a hit and make the studios a lot of money which it will.
@PaisleyPajamas: Agree with you that Hollywood lies. But do you honestly believe that they keep doing these crappy movies for other reasons than simply because they get a lot of money from them?
There's no logic behind making a big budget movie, difficult to produce, time consuming, and costly to market, if it didn't bring them the BIG bucks.
@mexiback: They only have to worry about one production (expensive) and they can keep all of their corporate hacks on salary throughout the year. YES, I think there are BIG financial reasons for them to justify what they are doing. We might be having two different arguments at this point--I'm saying what they are doing is not worthwhile, even if they make a dollar for dollar profit margin. The amount of money it takes for the company to produce one is just out of proportion to what is being produced. I feel the same way about Hummers.
@Lincolnsbeard33: Why yes, I was talking about the worthiness of the film and whether anyone will want to even purchase it for high-rotation pay cable playback and more and more the answer is a resounding "No, t'anks" for the big budget, sequel-esque crapfests the studios like to throw out because they know some dude with a camera in Podunk, Middle America can't make their product.
Five. Dollars. A Word. I mean, listen: I know it's semi-inexcusable for me to be shocked by that number, but it's like looking at what a one bedroom loft costs in downtown Omaha: you simply can't believe people are (or were) living like that. Adjust for inflation and holy shit: the only way a writer could pull that kind of con now is if he's taking money for every word he doesn't write [bidding starts at $0.45].
@Foster Kamer: I too refuse to buy such a thing. They're all wildly hyperbolizing or have their pants aflame. No way in hell did that transaction ever happen in the world of print journalism. Copywriters for Microsoft or Apple product, on the other hand.. They prolly get paid $500,000/word.
@snugbug: Hmm, more like $4 a word, but it happened. Just not for most of us. That rate was for the famous authors/essayists who would write one 3000-word feature a year at two or three mags tops.
@elinorwhyme: Even not-so-famous niche-media types (such as yours truly) could get $1/word a few years ago. One could (sort of) scrape by at that rate.
Today, at 10ยข a word, I can no longer afford to write. I know that I'm supposed to suffer for my art, and that I should feel awful for being unable to keep my creative fires burning, but I don't.
@snugbug: Oh, no, the thing is, I know it happened. I'm just still shocked by it. Tina Brown paying $5/word in '99 = Tina Brown paying upwards of $250/feature at The Daily Beast in '09.
11/04/09
11/03/09
My, that man can dance! #miramax
11/03/09
11/03/09
11/03/09
11/03/09
11/03/09
11/03/09
11/03/09
10/31/09
10/31/09
10/30/09
10/30/09
10/03/09
10/03/09
10/03/09
Did any of the people involved realize the oxymoron they were dealing with? Imminent doom of a business model if there ever was one. The idea that studios could fashion themselves after juggernaut independent features was, is and always will be the height of arrogance on their part. I suppose they thought (hoped?) they could always market the hell out of anything that was obvious crap pre-release and still turn a profit. Problem is there isn't any profit when your "indie" has a budget of $10-million-plus. The best part of seeing a good indie is knowing that the makers have hit movie lotto by investing more sweat equity and heart than cash into their film.
If they're looking for ideas, they should go no further than hacking down the price tags of their "blockbusters," because the audience just isn't fooled by hundreds of millions spent on CGI without a story anymore, and finance multiple smaller movies--law of averages they will turn a profit on a few of them and make up for their stinkers. They'll also put a lot more people to work on endeavors that are actually worth being a part of.
10/03/09
Yes, they so are: Transformers 2.
10/03/09
10/03/09
10/03/09
10/03/09
It was by far the highest grossing movie of the year in the US (the second highest was Harry Potter, which was behind by a hundred millions). So, basically, a lot of people enjoy crap, and that's a fact. And maybe the mkt budget was very high, but with a grossing of more than 400'000'000 (in the US alone!) I think it's pretty safe to say the studio made a big buck with it.
Disclaimer: I haven't even seen it, so I'm not actually defending it, but those numbers don't lie.
10/03/09
Saw the latest trailer before Zombieland last night in a packed theater and the crowed was just cheering for it.
Big budget disaseter movies tend to be a hit.
Not to mention there is a large part of the population that is convinced something is going to happen on 2012 so they will go see the movie.
10/03/09
They ploy the public into thinking they're missing something, when in actuality the public is just going to miss the price of admission after they plunk their hard-earned dollars down for these shitty movies.
Since Superman Returns I haven't given any credence to box office in my movie going decisions, except for maybe 300 and that had nekkid Gerard Butler goin' for it.
10/03/09
10/04/09
10/04/09
There's no logic behind making a big budget movie, difficult to produce, time consuming, and costly to market, if it didn't bring them the BIG bucks.
10/04/09
10/04/09
08/03/09
08/03/09
08/03/09
08/03/09
Today, at 10ยข a word, I can no longer afford to write. I know that I'm supposed to suffer for my art, and that I should feel awful for being unable to keep my creative fires burning, but I don't.
08/03/09
08/03/09
08/03/09