|
Sony optioning Richard Clarke's book has hit the web press. Newsmax.com, a web-based publication that sits decidedly on the hardline of the American political "Right Wing," has a report on it. Naturally, they're perspective on this is going to be a little skewed negative, but their report does list some interesting factoids on the subject:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/10/180344.shtml
This is the first shot of what could become a pretty big story once the weekend is over. I'll keep an eye on it.
The publishing story of the year has been the deluge of books being written about 9/11 from "insiders." Just about everyone who so much as had a temp job in the White House has published this or that book, and it was innevitable that ONE of them would be made into a movie eventually.
http://www.comingsoon.net/news.php?id=4244/
The lucky boy who gets the honor of being optioned first is Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies." For those of you currently enjoying life in the "under a rock" section of town, Clarke is one of the star witnesses in the current 9/11 Investigation Committee hearings, a former terror-czar for Clinton and Bush Sr. who claims that his pre-9/11 claims of Al Qaeda dangers fell on deaf ears prior to the attack. Sony has optioned the book.
This counts as a pretty bold move on Sony's part. Clarke's book is HUGELY controversial, the committee hasn't released it's final findings, etc., basically the "story" isn't over yet. The book itself is really more of an autobiography tracing Clarke's history as a terrorism expert, though the "money pages" are in the later chapters where he goes into his Bush II administration experiences. It's really, REALLY clinical, "old guys in suits talking" material to be optioned for what must have been a good chunk of change.
This'll be interesting to watch, lets see what happens when the mainstream press gets hold of it.
If you haven't downloaded this already, what are you waiting for?
http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/spider-man_2/trailer/
My take: Holy mother of God, is this a great spot.
This spot is for the fans, without a doubt. The casual filmgoer doesn't need to be sold on Spidey 2, the fact that #1 was great and that #2 promises more and better is all they require to buy tickets. THIS is to fire up the base.
I won't spoil for those who haven't seen it, but there's a shot about mid-point in that is a re-creation of one of the most famous "Spider-Man" comic book images and dialogue turns in the history of the character. If you're a fan, you'll know it when you see it... and prepare to be very, VERY excited.
At this stage it's just gossip, but this article from the New York Post is ultra-cool film fan news if it's true:
http://www.nypost.com/business/18437.htm
In summation: Months back, Pixar (Steve Jobs' animation company that made "Finding Nemo" and "Toy Story") decided not to re-up it's exclusivity deal with Disney because CEO Michael Eisner wasn't willing to bend in negotiations. This turned out bad for Eisner, as the decision fueled a brewing shareholder's revolt against him, ousting him from the position (but not entirely from the company.) Jobs and Pixar kicked off a very public "search for a new studio" that made them the most sought-after free-agent in filmmaking, the Alex Rodriquez of animation companies.
But NOW, if the Post's article is to be believed, Jobs and Pixar have turned right back around and tossed Disney and ultimatum: We'll consider re-teaming, but Eisner has to go.
To those who follow the history of the computer biz and thus remember the reputation of Steve Jobs PRIOR to his rebirth as a producer of warm n' fuzzy CGI cartoons, this is what some would politely call "classic" manuvering for him: Jobs' reputation in the Apple days (well-chronicled if a bit negatively-slanted in the EXCELLENT telefilm "Pirates of Silicon Valley") was that of a kicker-of-butt in his business dealings.
Eisner has been one of the most negative influences on American film since he showed up. He doesn't take risks, doesn't respect fans of the franchises he was running and treated the Disney name like little more than a tradable commodity. He's THE classic example of why a guy who defines the moniker of "Suit" shouldn't be in charge of creative directions, and there's not a movie geek drawing breath who who's likely to shed a tear at the passing of his regime.
Likewise, if Pixar re-ups with Disney it means that they get to continue working with characters like the Monsters, Toys, Bugs, etc. that they made with (and are still owned by) Disney. That'd be the best part, as it'd save us from innevitably seeing "Toy Story" sequels farmed out to lesser filmmakers.
Short and sweet: It just ain't very good.
"The Alamo," opening today, is one of those unfortunate films that's trying to be so many things at once all the different "heads" of the beast eventually get mad and start biting at eachother until it keels over dead. It's desire to be serious is offset by it's desire to be mythic, it's desire to be gritty and realistic is offset by it's desire to be suitable for a PG-13 rating, and it's desire for "fully developed" screen versions of it's legendary heroes is consumed both by it's desire for "dark sides" and it's desire for iconic speeches and "hero shots."
Worse still, it just looks and feels sloppy and obvious, the filmmakers all seem to be trying to make sure it "looks like movies like this should look," and it never develops a distinct voice.
To be sure, Director John Lee Hancock and his team certainly "know" quite a bit going into this: They KNOW that the "somber" moments require mandatory-since-Braveheart woodwind instruments on the soundtrack, they KNOW that the best shortcut to "humanize" the bad guys is to make one of them a young frightened guy and keep cutting to his closeup in battle, they KNOW that when rugged older frontiersmen gather around campfires in "realistic" movies one of them is required to tell a self-cleansing/regretful tale of Indian massacres, etc. Yes, they even KNOW that bad guys, regardless of national origin or time in history, all MUST march in formation and be photographed in the manner of the Nazis in "Triumph of the Will."
They KNOW all that, though, for the same reason most people who see it know the same: Because it's all stuff thats been done again and again in every single "big" historical actioner since "Braveheart." Hancock manages a few clever shots and some unexpected moments are sprinkled throughout the film, but in the end he can't aquit himself of a basic fact: EVERYTHING in this movie has been done better somewhere else.
The actors, for the most part, do their best amid a film that has no real plan for them or their characters and emerge basically unscathed.
Dennis Quaid, playing Sam Houston, sadly comes out the worst of the bunch. Quaid is a capable actor still in the midst of an unusual slow-burn of a comeback, but this isn't the role for him and the film does him no favors: Reputedly cut severely for time, Houston's scenes are limited to drunken bluster in the first part, patriotic bluster at the end and a long stretch of middle where he barely appears.
Billy Bob Thorton, as Davey Crockett, comes out the best of `em. He gets all the best lines and the best character arc (the man who trades on a heroic legend that he despises but rises to a different sort of heroic legend to inspire others) and a sendoff that's not quite on for the ages but, compared to everything else going on, is pretty memorable.
The silver lining is, I the film isn't NEARLY as "reviisionist" in it's history (or, rather, it's deviation from legend) as the early word had foretold, so though we'll still be hearing the caterwalling of Culture War conservatives over this I don't think the "story" will have much traction. In simple math: maybe THIS non-story will only rate ONE segment on "The O'Reilly Factor." Here's hoping.
Jeffery Wells, who has a "Hollywood Elsewhere" column on Moviepoopshoot.com, damns the film with faint praise but liked it enough. It leads off his Friday column:
http://www.moviepoopshoot.com/elsewhere/index.html
Roger Ebert, on the other hand, gives it probably the most favorable review of any major critic:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/wkp-news-alamo09f.html
I've got real doubts that this film will have any legs, or even win the weekend like it needs to. Look for this on DVD soon, A LOT sooner than Disney expected.
Just wanted to throw you're attention, in relation to the prior post about Robert Rodriguez labor situation, to some excellent analysis with some choice additional news from Variety as reported by Garth Franklin and his "Dark Horizons" website:
http://www.darkhorizons.com/news04/040408c.php
If you're a Movie Geek or even just a junky for industry news, I encourage you to check out Garth's site CONSTANTLY. Based in Australia, FAR removed from the bustle of Hollywood, he provides consistently some of the best no-nonsense material and buzz you'll find.
Not really a lot of good news here, sadly and, whats more, frankly it's RODRIGUEZ who so far is looking like the "bad guy" in this mess.
I'll probably catch heck in the comments for saying so, but I'm sorry, even at this early juncture it sounds as though the problem (recap: RR dropped from the DGA in order to complete "Sin City," and can't make "Princess of Mars" for Paramount unless he signs back up) would be solved swiftly and completely if Rodriguez simply re-ups with the Guild after "Sin" wraps. So far, he seems unwilling to do so. Most-disheartening quote from the Variety article:
"Insiders close to Rodriguez insist he is unwilling to rejoin the DGA just to direct the $100+ million CG-extensive "Princess of Mars" which Paramount hopes will become its equivalent of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy."
Okay, so, what's going on here is Rodriguez seems to be looking to thumb his nose permanently at the DGA. The emotion is understandable, but if he's thinking he'll affect some kind of change in the union with this he's got another thing coming: The LAST major director to tell the DGA where to get off was George Lucas and they STILL never caved (and he never fully re-joined.) Meanwhile, "Princess of Mars" apparently is one-step-closer to either sinking back into oblivion or, worse, being made by a lesser filmmaker if Rodriguez forces himself out.
SLIGHTLY less-doom-and-gloom quote IGN.com got from RR's wife and producing partner: "As of today, we are not dropping out. We are still very much making that movie".
Okay, getting better, but that "as of today.." is a big red-market-highlighted concern on my end.
If I could talk to Rodriguez, I'd be asking him to SERIOUSLY reconsider his position here. His annoyance at the restrictions of the DGA rules are justifiable, but by torpedoing his chance to make "Princess" in order to make a "statement" about his annoyance (if that is indeed whats going on, sure seems like it could be the case) he has nothing to gain and a lot to lose.
Mr. Rodriguez, if you can hear me, one hardcore film geek to another... think this one through: Is the satisfaction to be derived from telling the Guild to take a hike really worth losing the chance to make a MAJOR kickass film and, still worse, to see that same film likely fall into the hands of a hack and wind up awful?
This is NOT turning into a good story, folks...
BIG labor dispute brewing up within the U.S. film business, and once again the man at the center is perrenial do-it-yourself'er Robert Rodriguez, late of the "Spy Kids" and "El Mariachi" trilogies.
IMDB.com & Studio Briefing put it like this:
http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/#3
Unless RR resolves this and fast, it's going to be a good-sized industry news story with both the fandom AND the studios trying to put two different spins on the issue and it's going to be hard to sort out what exactly is going on.
So lemme make it easy for you :)
Rodriguez prefers to do everything on his own, his book (which I reccommend) reads like a Gospel of self-sufficiency. He likes to do his own directing, editing, FX and score as much as possible; and as a result usually brings in expensive-looking films on a scale budget. His fans generally dig this, as it means we generally get "100% undilluted" director's vision from his work.
Industry UNIONS, on the other hand, have never been exactly thrilled with the way Rodriguez works. The reason for this is fairly obvious: "One-man-army" filmmakers bring in their films under budget in large part because the studio isn't paying the automatic-rate salary for the union workers who'd be filling the various tasks otherwise.
The studios are rock-and-a-hard-place about this: Rodriguez is a proven hitmaker who brings in moneymaking product often for nearly half what others might've "charged," so they like that. BUT the same studios also recognize that not EVERYONE (in fact, almost NO ONE) else works in RR's lone wolf (he calls it "Mariachi-style,") manner; so they need to take the union's opinion on things like this seriously: A studio or production house that winds up on an industry labor group's "naughty-list" can, potentially, kiss their help goodbye entirely if they've been "naughty enough."
All of this, of course, is really just so much sturm and drang until Rodriguez actually BREAKS a Union/Industry rule; and then the figurative wrath of heaven comes down on him. It happened once before, and the resulting firestorm nearly shut down production of his Tarantino-scripted vampire saga "From Dusk Till Dawn."
And now it's threatening to happen again. Rodriguez is currently at work on "Sin City," an adaptation of a well-regarded Frank Miller comic book series from a few years back. RR want's Miller, who's heavily involved in the production, to have a co-director credit on the project. Problem: The DGA (Directors Guild of America) union, of which virtually all Hollywood directors are members of, mandate a "one-director-credit-per-film" rule.
Basically, rules like this are in place to ensure that the "directed by" credit doesn't get tossed around lightly by the studios (say, by a zealous producer who decides he deserves a co-credit) and potentially dillute the importance (and possibly the monetary value) of actual directors. Wavers are available on a case-by-case basis, but when he applied for one RR was denied. His response: He's resigned from the Guild, disallowing himself their protection in his business dealings on the film but also freeing him from the one-director rule.
Thus far, RR's resignation (the most high-profile of it's kind) hasn't harmed "Sin City's" production overall, but it's creating a HUGE potential problem for his NEXT job, the big-budget actioner "A Princess of Mars." Pic is an "it's about freakin' time" adaptation of an Edgar Rice Burroughs novel where a Civil War soldier named John Carter is transported to the Red Planet, where he becomes a hero amid alien battles and falls in love with the titular princess. The book and it's subsequent sequels are considered classics of pulp literature and required reading in much of Geekdom, and filmmakers have been trying and failing to get in onscreen since the material was new (pre-WWII.)
The Geek Community went into near-joygasm over the news that the film would finally be made, (it's widely being seen as part of the literal wave of geek-centric scifi/fantasy greenlighting that has followed the astonishing success of the Lord of the Rings trilogy,) and by fan-favorite Rodriguez no less. Subsequent news that one of the Web's most infamous Geekdom figures, AICN's Harry Knowles, had become a co-producer on the project. However you feel about Knowles, the message to movie geeks worldwide was clear enough: One of the wish-dream projects of scifi/fantasy was finally happening, and the good guys were in charge.
Problem: Rodriguez apparently doesn't plan on returning to the DGA as a member after Sin City is over. Paramount, like most other major studios, has an agreement policy with the DGA about only employing directors who are themselves guild members. RR may have been planning to do the WORK on the film on his own, but Paramount and their investors would be the one's PAYING for it all to happen, so he works at their discretion. If he doesn't re-up with the guild, the project may cease to be.
That would be a terrible shame on all fronts, of course, but especially for the fans who've been waiting for this to happen for too long already. But there you have it.
The end to this mess is still a little far off, though, but if you're a fan of anyone or anything involved here this will be an important event no matter how it goes down. Make no mistake, this is a BIG dispute involving a BIG director, BIG studios, a BIG union and a movie with BIG financial expectations attached to it, and the end result will ripple through the whole biz.
So, naturally, what you should do is check back here often for updates an analysis as I get `em :)
No sooner do I post the lone positive Alamo review than a few more pop up on the decidedly-negative side.
This one comes from "Aint-It-Cool-News," still the Web's most-reliable barometer of Geek Community collective psyche, courtesy of recurring critic "Quint":
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17326
There's also some downer opening text from AICN webmaster and newly-minted producer Harry Knowles, who I think has a better perspective on this than usual: Knowles isn't JUST a experienced uber-geek and critic, he's ALSO an Austin Texas native and thus has more than a passing familiarity with both the story and the legend at play here. His review I'm looking forward to.
It took longer than Disney execs probably hoped, but ONE positive early review has finally come in for "The Alamo" courtesy of CNN.com's Paul Clinton.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/04/08/review.alamo/index.html
Clinton's a methodical, workmanlike critic, but he's got a better handle on things (usually) than most other entertainment journalist-style critics who tend to come off as more interested in celebrity gossip than in film-as-art critiques. "Money" quote:
"There have been more than a dozen films made about the Alamo over the years, but none has captured the hearts and souls of the people there better than this one." -- Paul Clinton CNN.com.
That's exactly the response the Mouse House is looking for on this, though they must be disheartened that it's coming from only ONE critic thus far.
Actually, if you look at the slate for this weekend you can see what a "niche" business theater-blocking has become. Five films are opening and NONE seem to have been made with audience-overlap in mind: "Girl Next Door" for teens, "Ella Enchanted" for tweenaged girls, "Alamo" for 'da guys' and "Johnson Family Vacation" aimed at the "urban" market.
The only common thread any of those have, on my end, is that I'm not particularly looking FORWARD to any of them save "Ella," for the sole and sufficient reason that lead star Anne Hathaway has bloomed into a GODDESS while, apparently, no one was looking.
And SPEAKING of worried, remember when John Woo could do NO wrong?
Seriously. Remember back before, well, before he came to the U.S.? Back around the mid-1990s, John Woo was THE foreign director to be into: An action maestro who turned the coolest aspects of the martial-arts and gangland-gunfighting movies into a fusion genre that spawned "A Better Tommorow," "Hard Boiled" and "The Killer," three of the greatest action movies of all time?
At the time, the news that John Woo was to direct a live-action scifi blockbuster based on a classic video game would've been greeted by unanimous Movie Geek hosannas.
So it's depressingly telling of how overall-poorly Woo's Hong Kong-to-America transition has been going that today's Hollywood Reporter announcement that Woo has elected to produce (with an option to direct) a version of the popular Nintendo scifi franchise "Metroid" has been met by the Geek Community with something LESS than zealous praise.
http://www.comingsoon.net/news.php?id=4202
Either way, file this in the "POSSIBLE GOOD NEWS" bin. (right alongside the equally-decent news that Hong Kong master Corey Yuen has signed on to the "Dead or Alive" movie.) Woo's star may have lost A LOT of luster in between The Killer and Paycheck, but he's still a solid filmmaker with the right creds.
SIDE NOTE: Hey, want to LOOK like an informed Film Geek but not actually have to be one? Here's some prediction to keep you "ahead of the game" on "Metroid" fan-debates:
Every "cult" adaptation has at least one "detail" to it that studios almost immediately want to tamper with and fans would regard as blasphemy any attempt to change. With "Metroid," the rallying cry of the fans will almost certainly be "FULL ARMOR!" In the games, the heroine Samus Aran is a babe but does all her fighting covered head-to-toe in an armored battlesuit and helmet. It's a near-certainty that the studio will push VERY hard for modifications to be made so that they can have a top-billed "name" actress in the role with a visible face for glamour-shots, and an equal near-certainty that "Metroid" fans will greet such a concept with open hostility.
Just watch.
|
Search This Site
Syndicate this blog site
Powered by BlogEasy
Free Blog Hosting
|