Quick clips for Thursday July 31
Now's the time for your "superhero who pees miracles" pitch
Having watched Marvel Studios march off with "lesser properties," only to see those "lesser properties" like Iron Man stomp on Hancock's Hancock, Sony Pictures wants back in the superhero business big time. Maybe it's because 6 of the studio's top 10 grossing movies are superhero or comic book properties (yes, there is a difference and no, I won't explain it to you) or maybe it's because The Dark Knight has accumulated enough jack to right the economy with proper reinvestments (save us, Warner Brothers, you're our only hope), but either way the studio's boner for box office is leading them to explore a Venom spinoff, one of the few remaining properties they have access to. According to the Hollywood Reporter, Joker-envy is behind the resurgence of the long-considered-dead project, which was long considered dead because A.) the character's appearance in Spider-man 3 really, really sucked and B.) the character of Venom kinda sucks all on its own (and that's coming from a guy who owns like a billion Spider-man comics...well, not a billion, that would be ridiculous, just 20 boxes full). Topher Grace will likely be replaced by someone more popular, so look for Miley Cyrus as Venom...actually, if they cast her, I'm totally there. Oh, who am I kidding, we all know I'm there either way. Damn you, Sony, damn you to hell.
If you aren't Juno, you're dead to us
In really depressing news (hey, I waited until Thursday and didn't poop on you mid-week), the Hollywood Reporter did a story about how nobody wants to touch indie movies unless they come with free publicity, a former-stripper-turned-screenwriter, or contractually obligated Oscar nominations. While we can all understand Obtuse McGee's 4-hour documentary opus on the mating habits of gerbils to have a hard time finding a home, could you have guessed that, after fairly warm responses at the Cannes festival, Oscar-winner Charlie Kaufman's Synecdoche, New York to take months to find a distributor and that Oscar-winner Steven Soderbergh's Che (starring Benicio Del Toro) would still not have a home? Indie films are in the shitter, despite Juno's incredible triumph last year. Why? Some people try to point to the economy, which is crap because the box office remains hot. Others suggest that it's just burnout, with so many indies having been given a chance recently. Oh yes, by all means, blame the fact that we've had TOO MANY choices for independent thought and creative films. The real reason is simple: if studios can pass on "risky" films and only greenlight, I don't know, Beverly Hills Chihuahua (which will make money, by the way), there's no incentive for them to try. Nobody watches the Oscars anymore and, say what you will about that ceremony, at least its popularity used to keep some studios more honest (even if that was based on their desire to win gold). Point is, there's always something you can do: watch independent movies. Shocking, I know. DVD is a safe haven for most of these places, so seek out cool indie fare at your rental store or on Netflix and let some other muthersucker rent Harold and Kumar Make the Same Joke for Another Hour and a Half.
Consuming movie spoilers is safer than consuming spoiled anything else
My favorite movie Web site, Chud always has clever takes on things (even if I disagree sometimes) and generally behaves as I myself would like to behave. Recently, one of the guys on that site discovered a potentially gigantic spoiler about the upcoming Terminator film, which I believe is called Terminator: Oh, we gonna ride this pony until she stops with the cash. The spoiler is just catastrophically huge, we're talking "he's a ghost the whole time," "it's really a dude," or "the talking spider dies in the end" kind of gigantic. He sat on it...until another site announced it, then he confirmed it. I get all of these decisions, even the one by the "other site" to run the spoiler in the first place. They gave appropriate warnings, so that no wayward visitor stepped in spoiler, but it got me thinking. Entertainment Weekly also had a piece about whether spoilers are evil outright or just mostly evil. On the one hand, I get the desire of people who want the information to get it. On the other, it does kinda suck that filmmakers have their load blown for them, taking all the powder out of their musket before they can fire it themselves. As we all know, the Internet is nothing more than a smut-laden tool of mental destruction and perhaps this extends to the movie world as well. I do know that the right kind of spoilers in the right hands just make things more interesting (such as the often carefully disclosed and obtuse information provided by the guys behind "Lost"), but I suppose I could do without them. So my real question is this: What does it say about you if you're the type of person who wants to read the spoiler? Are you a read-the-last-page kind of person? Does it suggest you demand instant gratification? Are you an asshole? I'm not sure. I do know that this is a question that will likely tell more about you than the "who would you save if you could only save one person" questions. So, ask around, and determine if you're secretly married to a spoiler-seeking spouse or a puritanical poo-poo head.
Having watched Marvel Studios march off with "lesser properties," only to see those "lesser properties" like Iron Man stomp on Hancock's Hancock, Sony Pictures wants back in the superhero business big time. Maybe it's because 6 of the studio's top 10 grossing movies are superhero or comic book properties (yes, there is a difference and no, I won't explain it to you) or maybe it's because The Dark Knight has accumulated enough jack to right the economy with proper reinvestments (save us, Warner Brothers, you're our only hope), but either way the studio's boner for box office is leading them to explore a Venom spinoff, one of the few remaining properties they have access to. According to the Hollywood Reporter, Joker-envy is behind the resurgence of the long-considered-dead project, which was long considered dead because A.) the character's appearance in Spider-man 3 really, really sucked and B.) the character of Venom kinda sucks all on its own (and that's coming from a guy who owns like a billion Spider-man comics...well, not a billion, that would be ridiculous, just 20 boxes full). Topher Grace will likely be replaced by someone more popular, so look for Miley Cyrus as Venom...actually, if they cast her, I'm totally there. Oh, who am I kidding, we all know I'm there either way. Damn you, Sony, damn you to hell.
If you aren't Juno, you're dead to us
In really depressing news (hey, I waited until Thursday and didn't poop on you mid-week), the Hollywood Reporter did a story about how nobody wants to touch indie movies unless they come with free publicity, a former-stripper-turned-screenwriter, or contractually obligated Oscar nominations. While we can all understand Obtuse McGee's 4-hour documentary opus on the mating habits of gerbils to have a hard time finding a home, could you have guessed that, after fairly warm responses at the Cannes festival, Oscar-winner Charlie Kaufman's Synecdoche, New York to take months to find a distributor and that Oscar-winner Steven Soderbergh's Che (starring Benicio Del Toro) would still not have a home? Indie films are in the shitter, despite Juno's incredible triumph last year. Why? Some people try to point to the economy, which is crap because the box office remains hot. Others suggest that it's just burnout, with so many indies having been given a chance recently. Oh yes, by all means, blame the fact that we've had TOO MANY choices for independent thought and creative films. The real reason is simple: if studios can pass on "risky" films and only greenlight, I don't know, Beverly Hills Chihuahua (which will make money, by the way), there's no incentive for them to try. Nobody watches the Oscars anymore and, say what you will about that ceremony, at least its popularity used to keep some studios more honest (even if that was based on their desire to win gold). Point is, there's always something you can do: watch independent movies. Shocking, I know. DVD is a safe haven for most of these places, so seek out cool indie fare at your rental store or on Netflix and let some other muthersucker rent Harold and Kumar Make the Same Joke for Another Hour and a Half.
Consuming movie spoilers is safer than consuming spoiled anything else
My favorite movie Web site, Chud always has clever takes on things (even if I disagree sometimes) and generally behaves as I myself would like to behave. Recently, one of the guys on that site discovered a potentially gigantic spoiler about the upcoming Terminator film, which I believe is called Terminator: Oh, we gonna ride this pony until she stops with the cash. The spoiler is just catastrophically huge, we're talking "he's a ghost the whole time," "it's really a dude," or "the talking spider dies in the end" kind of gigantic. He sat on it...until another site announced it, then he confirmed it. I get all of these decisions, even the one by the "other site" to run the spoiler in the first place. They gave appropriate warnings, so that no wayward visitor stepped in spoiler, but it got me thinking. Entertainment Weekly also had a piece about whether spoilers are evil outright or just mostly evil. On the one hand, I get the desire of people who want the information to get it. On the other, it does kinda suck that filmmakers have their load blown for them, taking all the powder out of their musket before they can fire it themselves. As we all know, the Internet is nothing more than a smut-laden tool of mental destruction and perhaps this extends to the movie world as well. I do know that the right kind of spoilers in the right hands just make things more interesting (such as the often carefully disclosed and obtuse information provided by the guys behind "Lost"), but I suppose I could do without them. So my real question is this: What does it say about you if you're the type of person who wants to read the spoiler? Are you a read-the-last-page kind of person? Does it suggest you demand instant gratification? Are you an asshole? I'm not sure. I do know that this is a question that will likely tell more about you than the "who would you save if you could only save one person" questions. So, ask around, and determine if you're secretly married to a spoiler-seeking spouse or a puritanical poo-poo head.
posted by Ryan at
8:44 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home