Film School Rejects » Industry Politics

Anyone Want to Buy MGM?

Dr. Cole Abaius — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:22:06 +0000

While driving around your neighborhood in two weeks or so, you might be drawn in by the allure of a poster board sign pointing you in the direction of a nearby garage sale where you can get a bag of clothes for $1, a VHS of Zeus and Roxanne for $1, and MGM for a negotiable price.

According to Variety and their sources, MGM might be sold to the highest bidder in the coming weeks. Not only that – MGM, United Artists and the copyright on Leo the Lion (the MGM logo that you only care about when trying to sync up “Dark Side of the Moon”) might be sold separately.

Essentially what’s on the market is the library controlled by MGM which consists of many of their titles post-1986 (Ted Turner owns the library from years prior), most of the post-1952 United Artist catalog, post-1981 Orion Pictures titles, and several minor catalogs. So, yes, someone else might be controlling whether we get that Zeus and Roxanne Blu-ray we’ve been clamoring for.

Of course nothing in the business world is set in stone, the company could still sell at a negotiated price or declare bankruptcy.

I’m hoping they actually auction off the titles in the library one by one. That way I have a chance of owning, oh I don’t know, Zeus and Roxanne, for example.

Do you have the cash? We could split it.

Lionsgate May Buy Summit, Bloody Up ‘Twilight’

Neil Miller — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 17:41:08 +0000

News coming down the wire last night about a potential buy-out of Summit Entertainment by Lionsgate has sent shockwaves through the online film community this morning. Namely, everyone seems to want to speculate about what the blood-thirsty Execs. over at Lionsgate might do with Summit’s one and only successful property, Twilight. But first lets clear up some of the facts on the potential Lionsgate buy-out/merger with Summit, as reported by Sharon Waxman over at The Wrap. The deal has allegedly been in the works for some time now, as both studios have seen stock values drop and mid-level films flop at the box office in this unpredictable economic climate. For Summit, 2008’s only success was the frenzied teen-vamp flick Twilight ($186 million domestic gross). They found no success in the rest of their catalog, including the raunchy comedy Sex Drive ($8.4m domestic) and the fantasy romantic comedy Penelope ($10m domestic).

Lionsgate has had its share of problems as well, finding slim box office reciepts in two comic book properties (Punisher: War Zone and The Spirit) as well as mediocre takes on some of their other high-profile films such as Oliver Stone’s W. and the Friedberg/Seltzer spoof Disaster Movie (which was the first of its kind to gross below $20m). And after the flopping of Lionsgate’s latest comedy New in Town, which hit theaters this past weekend with a $6.7m opening, it is undoubtedly a studio in need of some change.

That change has already begun with the exit of president of theatrical Tom Ortenberg last week, and as Waxman reports, could continue with the Summit merger. The benefit to both studios is that in this rocky economic climate, the best thing for two smaller studios to do would be to combine and streamline resources in order to remain in competition with the big studios. As well, buying Summit would give Lionsgate access to a guaranteed hit franchise in Twilight, something they have grown accustomed to with both the Saw franchise and the films of Tyler Perry. And as the grosses of the Saw franchise continue to slide with each new sequel, it might be time to lock down a new sure thing if Lionsgate hopes to remain above water.

This brings us to another question about Lionsgate and Twilight that was raised today by Jeff Wells over at Hollywood Elsewhere. Would the traditionally edgy, gore-hungry minds over at Lionsgate be looking to turn New Moon and subsequent sequels into tween torture porn? From where I sit, it is unlikely that Lionsgate would want to push the violence and gore into any extreme territory. It is true that the future of the Twilight series does bring a much darker tone and some increased violence, but I don’t see the logic in Lionsgate taking the reigns and running the franchise away from its primarily female, largely young fanbase. If there is one thing Lionsgate has always been good for — with the exception of their live-action comic properties — it has been that they know how to play to a particular demographic segment. Take for example all of Tyler Perry’s movies, the Saw franchise and even the spoof movies. They all play predictably well with certain demos, therefore Lionsgate has always been quick to adopt a formula and stick with it. Creative criticism aside, they know how to milk a franchise. I don’t see any reason why they wouldn’t do the same with Twilight.

At this point we are taking this as a complete rumor, as both sides — including our half-dozen inside sources — are staying relatively quiet. What we know is that the two studios have been quite close for some time now, working together on international distributions, consulting back and forth, etc. We also know that the current economic climate makes it a logical pairing. As always, our appendages are to the grindstone on this one and we’ll let you know the moment we find out more.

Do you think that Lionsgate and Summit merging would be a good idea? Also, what effect do you think it would have on the Twilight franchise, if any?

The Watchmen Lawsuit: A Tale of Two Letters

Robin Ruinsky — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:53:26 +0000

It’s now a tale of two letters. One is from producer Larry Gordon to US District Court Judge Feess. The other is an open letter written by producer Lloyd Levin on behalf of the film he has worked on for fifteen years.

By now anyone following this story knows that Fox at one time owned the rights to Watchmen. On December 24, Feess had found that Gordon didn’t secure the rights from Fox for Watchmen. In addition Feess charged that Gordon didn’t answer all the questions in his deposition and as a result would have no standing in the case. Obviously Gordon disagreed with Judge Feess and wrote him a letter telling him so. Feess has refused to read the letter calling it improper communication with the court.

Gordon has testified that he was unaware of a 1991 quitclaim agreement with Fox that guaranteed Fox distribution rights and a share of the profits and reasserts that claim in the letter to Feess. In December Feess had ruled that Watchmen wasn’t under complete control of Gordon because he hadn’t reimbursed Fox for development costs and he had failed to resubmit the project when creative elements changed.

The two sides are scheduled to meet in court today. At stake is the release of the film.

Hit Flix offered producer Lloyd Levin the opportunity to state his case online. He responded with an impassioned account of the long road Watchmen took to the screen.

In his letter titled “Watchmen. A producer’s perspective” Levin talks about what it took to make the film and how he feels about the lawsuit.

Here are some excerpts from Levin’s letter which is online at HitFix.

“The response we got from Fox was a flat “pass.” That’s it. An internal Fox email documents that executives there felt the script was one of the most unintelligible pieces of shit they had read in years. Conversely, Warner Brothers called us after having read the script and said they were interested in the movie – yes, they were unsure of the screenplay, and had many questions, but wanted to set a meeting to discuss the project, which they promptly did.”

He goes on to praise the commitment Warner Bros. has made to the film when everyone else turned it down.

“Now here’s the part that has to be fully appreciated, if for nothing more than providing insight into producing movies in Hollywood: The Watchmen script was way above the norm in length, near 150 pages, meaning the film could clock in at close to 3 hours, the movie would not only be R rated but a hard R – for graphic violence and explicit sex – would feature no stars, and had a budget north of $100M. We also asked Warner Brothers to support an additional 1 to 1.5 hours of content incurring additional cost that would tie in with the movie but only be featured in DVD iterations of the film. Warners supported the whole package and I cannot begin to emphasize how ballsy and unprecedented a move this was on the part of a major Hollywood studio.

Towards the end of his letter Levin makes a plea for the team that has made Watchmen:

For the sake of the artists involved, for the hundreds of people, executives and filmmakers, actors and crew, who invested their time, their money, and dedicated a good portion of their lives in order to bring this extraordinary project to life, the question of what is right is clear and unambiguous – Fox should stand down with its claim.

You can read the letter in its entirety over at HitFix.

Will either letter have any effect on Fox or the case? No, but it is certainly an insight into the frustration felt by the producers of the film. They spent years devoted to getting the project off the ground and now they’re caught in legal wrangling over rights to the source material. It’s an issue that should have been settled before the film was made.

Fox and Warner Bros. are likely to battle it all out until Warner Bros. pays Fox off in some way. With the court siding with Fox it seems they have very little choice. They stand to lose much more if the film’s opening is delayed.

What do you think of the ongoing battle for Watchmen? Should Warner Bros. pay off Fox or fight it out in court?

Will Fox Stop Us From Watching the Watchmen?

Robin Ruinsky — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 06:10:52 +0000

The Warner Bros. production of Watchmen directed by Zack Synder was supposed to open March 2009. But that plan is now in jeopardy.

“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise.”

Walter Kovacs/Rorschach

It appears that quote could end up describing the stance taken by both Warner Bros. and Fox. Fox claimed they never fully relinquished the rights to the Alan Moore/David Gibbons graphic novel. Last week. U.S. District Court Judge Gary Feess agreed with Fox that WB infringed on their copyright by developing and shooting the film.

With that victory in hand 20th Century Fox is seeking to delay the release of the film.

A trial is set for January 20, 2009 to deal with issues involving the film’s future. The question is whether the two studios can come to some kind of compromise to allow the film to open.

WB faces something of its own Armageddon if they can’t find a way to resolve this before March. It’s not that missing that date will mean the film is never released, but it will mess with Warner’s marketing of the film. Alright, maybe not.

Of course a delay might just be a blessing in disguise making Watchmen fans more anxious than ever to see if Snyder’s film can do justice to the original material.

“Who watches the Watchmen?”

Hopefully Watchmen fans will in March.

Court Finds For Fox In ‘Watchmen’ Case, Rules Against WB

Rob Hunter — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 14:54:57 +0000

Santa left an early present in Warner Bros. stocking on Wednesday… a lump of coal in the form of an early ruling in 20th Century Fox’s Watchmen copyright lawsuit against them. Nikki Finke is reporting that while Los Angeles-based District Court Judge Gary Feess had set a mid-January start date for a trial, he instead issued an order on Wednesday stating that “Fox should prevail.”

“Fox owns a copyright interest consisting of, at the very least, the right to distribute the ‘Watchmen’ motion picture,” the ruling states. What does this mean? A few things actually…

For one thing, the trial start date is now seemingly moot. The judge himself suggests that both WB and FOX start talking immediately. “The parties may wish to turn their efforts from preparing for trial to negotiating a resolution of this dispute or positioning the case for review.” Secondly, it’s all but guaranteed that whatever happens, Watchmen will no longer be a purely WB release. Expect to see Fox’s logo on the screen alongside (or instead of) the WB’s. “Negotiating a resolution” translates into ransom money that WB will be paying Fox.

Most importantly, all of this means the March 2009 release date is still in potential jeapardy. The best bet for that release date will be for WB to fork over either a flat fee if Fox expects Watchmen to be a dud, or a percentage of the profits if Fox expects a blockbuster hit. If WB refuses to bend over on this, then they may choose to appeal the judge’s ruling… which could push Watchmen’s release into 2010 and beyond.

Merry Fucking Christmas Watchmen fans!

Roger Ebert is Wrong About the CelebCult

Dr. Cole Abaius — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 23:26:43 +0000

Last week, there were a lot of responses to Roger Ebert’s passionate condemnation of what he termed the CelebCult – a phrase that speaks for itself. The posts were almost immediate, either pointing out the article’s existence or taking the long road toward claiming Ebert was spot on. I might be slow on the uptake, but I wanted some time to mull it over, and after a few days I find myself in the interesting position of disagreeing with Roger Ebert. And disagreeing with most of my colleagues.

Before you read this, you should definitely read Ebert’s article regarding the death of the informed reader as a response to the death of the film critic.

A Lonely Funeral

It’s clear that when the Associated Press limits all reviews, interviews, and cultural film pieces to 500 words, that newspapers aren’t so much polishing the brass on their Titanic, but rushing it to the pawn shop to hock it for life vests and golden parachutes.

To reassure you, I’m just as irritated about society’s saturation with celebrity culture as Ebert is. It’s exploitative and vacuous. It keeps the bulk of people as consumers, unable to hold a conversation if the topic strays from what celebrity is dropping her panties to half mast in the bathroom of a night club that won’t be trendy in three months. It’s aiding in the creation of a somnambulist, masturbatory society – and if I just gave you the mental image of zombies pleasuring themselves, you’ve just done more creative work than most people who immerse themselves in celebrity gossip and only celebrity gossip.

However, I disagree that the film critic is dying. And I disagree that the readership is becoming dispassionate. And I disagree that it’s the CelebCult that’s wielding the ax. What I do agree with is that newspaper critics are on the outs just as every other newspaper employee should be updating his or her resume.

We live in a time of unparalleled access to cultural items. The internet is a major part of that equation – arguably the integral part. In 1995, I would have had to go to my local music store or join that annoying mail club that sends ten CDs for a penny to find the popular songs of the day. Now, I can go online and get all the popular songs of the day. And the unpopular ones. And the ones that haven’t been around long enough to be deemed as either. Everyone with a few hundred dollars can make a movie, anyone with a wireless card can find it, and anyone with a blog can write a review of it.

Amongst that swelling tide of media, we also have so much more dry information that people with printing presses aren’t able to keep up. If we, as a society, are going to have a shot at absorbing this much information, we’re going to have to either 1) think less critically about what we’re absorbing or 2) process information faster. The Associated Press (and other print outlets) are reducing their cultural writers to ad hoc paparazzi because they have no other choice. The marketplace has spoken, and they want more candid shots of Angelina Jolie breastfeeding. The AP, as a business, has to make the money it can before vanishing off the face off the ink-stained world, and their cultural writers are going to have to wear black to work from now on, but by the time newspapers actually die, I’m afraid there won’t be anyone who cares enough to go to the funeral.

We Find the Defendant

While newspapers sound the death cry, film critics are actually alive and well. That the position of film critic is shifting to the internet is no secret, and it comes along with the same pitfalls that open-sourcing offers: more critics means a sea of bad or casual critics among the same small number of truly insightful voices that’s always been around.

That being said, the CelebCult isn’t killing the film critic because the film critic isn’t dying. Sure, you have to wade through that virtual sea of crappy writers to find the diamonds in the rough, but the diamonds are there still, and as long as films continue to be engaging and challenging, there will always be a group of people that obsess over thinking critically about the meaning of what they’ve just seen.

I, as a snarky member of the entitlement-crazed Millennials, have to ask when the Golden Age of the Film Critic took place. When was this heyday where the greater public listened with baited breath for the local movie guru to bestow his knowledge upon them? How long did this last? Were offerings made? I might have missed it – and if so, I’m pissed because I want my frankincense (for reviewing Frankenstein) - but critics have always filled two simple but necessary positions, neither of which cultivate larger-scale celebrity:

1) A thinker to challenge the greater sensibilities of the public consumption of cultural items and to provide the proper context for how those pieces of our humanity might be viewed, and

2) To de facto create the importance of cultural items.

The second position may seem too basic to bring up, but I think it’s important because we’ve lost sight of how intrinsic the job is to being a critic. Critics legitimize art simply by talking about it. Reviews, good or bad, mean a piece of culture has made an impact on us. In fact, critics (and other conversation starters) are perhaps the only indicator of whether something is socially significant in the art world. After all, if a tree falls and no one is around to say that it’s landing could have been better, it might as well have not fallen at all.

Ebert himself has done an incredible job of rising to the top through hard work, contemplative writing, and – most helpfully – his television career, but most critics wither in obscurity. So, if there is a death of the film critic at all, it’s more likely the death of the local film critic. Now that audiences can read twenty opinions from varied sources means they no longer have to rely on whomever the cultures editor decided to hire for their local newspaper. Our options have expanded, and the critics who can’t make the jump successfully to the internet (or foolishly see no need to) won’t survive.

The Future was Three Years Ago

It may seem like the conclusion I’m leading to is that we’ll find The Internet’s fingerprints on the knife that stabbed newspapers in the back, but that’s just not true. It’s the marketplace – a marketplace that found a cheap, more interesting, more varied source of information – that is killing the print medium and the print film critic along with it.

I’m exhausted by the endless hit parade of commenters decrying the internet as part of the problem – the major player in the dumbing down of culture, an enabler of our addiction to the lives of Miley Cyrus and Jennifer Aniston. Obviously, Ebert doesn’t feel this way, since he has his own prolix blog, but far too many people have jumped on the jury who would rather short-sightedly see the internet as the killer of newspapers (or of the film critic). These are the snarly individuals who probably complain that no one sends letters anymore.

Plus, the true brilliance of the internet is that it has enough room for the masses hungry for celebrity culture news and for those interested in dissecting the meaning behind Synecdoche, NY. There won’t be any Dodge City-style shoot outs between the two groups because it’s win-win for everyone. The critics who continue to love McDonald’s because the public does have a place, and those who dare to challenge sentimentality will gather their own audience.

It’s far too easy to see a correlation between the growth of celebrity gawking (as if we haven’t been obsessed with attractive, famous people since the first spotlight hit someone on stage) and the slow death of newspapers (and the film critics who get their paychecks from them). However, it’s a bit much to read cause and effect into the situation.

The film critic isn’t dying, she’s moving. The CelebCult isn’t destroying anything, it’s just more prevalent. And my proof that the readership base isn’t growing more complacent? You just slogged through an opinion piece almost three-times the length allotted by the AP, and I’m guessing you’ve got some strong opinions of your own.

The internet is as much a challenge as it is a solution to the limitations of physical mediums. It’s going to be everyone’s responsibility to be steadfast in creating a community of earnest, culturally relevant, professional appreciators. This can seem daunting, and for the old guard, it might seem too difficult for the younger generation to handle. But we’re going to have to handle it. We’re going to have to continue the tradition of insightful analysis if film is going to continue to have true cultural relevance. In short, we’re going to have to keep fighting the good fight or the CelebCult actually will take over. If there’s one thing I agree with Mr. Ebert about, it’s that we absolutely cannot let that happen.

Why Terrence Howard Won’t Get His Dose of Iron Man 2

Adam Sweeney — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:16:44 +0000

By now you’ve probably heard that there won’t be a “next time, baby,” for Terrence Howard in Iron Man 2. Now we know why, a bout over the Benjamins and bad behavior.

Everything seemed to be set for Terrence Howard to receive an expanded role in Iron Man 2 as Colonel Jim Rhodes. The character even gave us the heads up with a quick one-liner in the original. But as negotiations began for Iron Man 2 things rumors started flying that the relationship between Howard and Marvel Studios were starting to fall apart. Now it seems, according to EW.com, that there were cracks in the foundation long before that.

To understand the tangled web behind Howard’s dismissal it is important to note that he received a larger contract that anyone on Iron Man. Howard was the first actor signed and the highest paid. How Howard made more money than central characters like, oh, Robert Downey Jr. is beyond me. But it happened and once the ball got rolling it was too late to change his contract.

Many Hollywood insiders have claimed that the dropping of Howard, who was replaced with Don Cheadle, largely came from his frustrating behavior on the set of Iron Man. It’s also been reported that Jon Favreau, director of Iron Man, and his producers were extremely unhappy with Howard’s performance, often having to spend lengthy time periods editing and reshooting his particular scenes.

Due the difficulty they had with Howard as an actor, Favreau and screenwriter Justin Theroux found themselves cutting back on Rhodes’ storyline as they fleshed out the script for the sequel. When Marvel noticed they were cutting back on Howard’s involvement they went to his agent and asked him to take a revised salary similar to the supporting characters in the original. Howard’s agents were shocked by the pay cut, which is estimated at 50-80 percent of what Howard got in Iron Man, and questioned the reasoning behind it. Marvel never told Howard’s agents that they took issue with his on-set behavior.

It’s amazing to me that Howard’s contract couldn’t have been worked out for Iron Man 2. The film is going to rake in the dough so you think there would be enough of the cabbage to go around. Having said that, this is Hollywood, the and where only egos overshadow salaries.

I am a bit disappointed that Howard won’t be in the sequel. I have always been impressed with his work and his uptight attitude as Col. Rhodes played well off of the cockiness of Tony Stark. Still, I have no doubt that Don Cheadle, one of the most underrated actors in Hollywood, can do the job. I just hope this won’t sour the relationship between any other co-stars. But, as they say, business is business … even for superhero sidekicks.

Richard Donner Disappoints the Three Fans Who Were Hoping for Lethal Weapon 5

Neil Miller — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:51:11 +0000

“Mel turned it down. I would like to think that Mel turned it down because I wasn’t involved. Knowing Mel, I would like to think that. Would that be the kind of thing he does? It sure would be.”

That is the quote that Richard Donner gave to The LA Times’ Hero Complex today regarding Lethal Weapon 5, a movie that has been rumored to be on the fast-track. But according to Donner, the man who produced and directed the first four films in the series, the project is “pretty much dead in the water unless someone had the sense to come to me.”

Donner went on to explain that the reason he isn’t involved has everything to do with producer Joel Silver:

“Joel Silver tried to ace me out of it. He tried to put it together but made sure he didn’t do it until my contract was up. You know, it’s typical of the man. A guy who wasn’t even around at the beginning when we started on the first one. He came in late. It’s too bad, actually, because Channing Gibson, who wrote the fourth one, and Mike Riva, a designer on three of them, and myself and Derek [Hoffman, an associate at The Donner Company] had an incredibly strong story for the fifth movie. But we weren’t given the opportunity and I think maybe I could have convinced Mel to do it. But Warners chose to go with Joel Silver.”

He also went on to explain that due to the fact that Lethal Weapon 4 didn’t receive universal acclaim, he can understand why Warner Bros. might want to go another direction and bring on a writer like Shane Black (Kiss Kiss Bang Bang), who wrote a spec script for the fifth film. Ultimately though, it all seems to be moot at this point. While the rumor mill continues to churn on another Lethal Weapon flick, it appears that the people who are actually needed in order for it to happen are either staying silent or issuing denials. And for the two or three people who were getting all hot and bothered about a Lethal Weapon 5, this will be disappointing news. For the rest of us, it’s just more rumor-laden filler.

For more, check out Geoff Boucher’s report at Hero Complex.

Does the apparent death of Lethal Weapon 5 make you happy or sad?

Protest Watch: Blind People Offended by Blindness

Brian C. Gibson — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:38:40 +0000

I have to start by saying that I have great respect for people who work past disabilities and afflictions to lead healthy, rewarding lives. I have nothing against blind people, just ignorant people. So I apologize early if I offend any of our blind readers out there – wait, can blind people read?

News has hit that the National Federation of the Blind plans to protest Miramax and director Fernando Meirelles’s film Blindness. The film is set to release October 3rd in a limited run of about 75 screens across the country. The film is based on Jose Saramago’s 1995 novel of the same title. The film is about a mysterious epidemic that causes blindness, and consequently hysteria and chaos. So what’s the problem? It would seem that someone who actually saw the film, told the NFB what the film is about. Apparently the NFB doesn’t appreciate the depiction of blind people in the film. The quarantined blind are kept in a mental institution and travel to several extremes such as trading sex for food and fighting each other for survival.

I will take this one as delicately as possible. It isn’t the NFB’s fault for not being able to see… that this is simply a metaphor. Some people just cant see beyond their reach. This is a movie. Movies are meant to do a few things such as entertain, inform and explore. Some films do all of these, some do none. Some films explore the present political and social climate of the world, and become a powerful allegory for people to relate with. Some films inform viewers, and provide a mostly factual view of a subject matter. So why is it that some people are just too blind to see the line between fact and metaphor?

Blindness is simply a metaphor for a chaotic breakdown in communication and basic societal behaviors. the metaphor is not a vehicle that has not been seen in cinema. Everyone knows that James Cameron’s Titanic wasn’t about a sinking ship, it was a metaphor for the looming economic crisis to be expected at the turn of the century. It is a well known fact, in many circles, that I Am Legend was a brilliant social commentary on the energy and fuel crisis. So enough bragging about my film knowledge. Let’s get back on point and turn to a statement from Miramax regarding the protest, “We are saddened to learn that the National Federation of the Blind plans to protest the film Blindness.’”

You know what saddens me? The fact that the National Federation of the Blind, can not see their own ignorance. You didn’t see people running around and caging apes after the release of Planet of the Apes out of paranoia that we would be overthrown by primates. No, we used them as butlers. Little monkey butlers. We didn’t see everyone running out and caring about the environment because of that crazy Gore flick An Inconvenient Truth now did we? We don’t actually think that blind people are chaotic and void of common sense of order. I’m not sure about the whole soiling themselves, and trading sex for food thing though. I better google that.

What do you think of the National Federation of the Blind’s outrage over Blindness?

MGM and The Weinstein Co. Break Up

Neil Miller — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 19:45:16 +0000

A week after Dreamworks made a deal that would finally separate them from Paramount’s power-teat, it looks like another pair of Hollywood studios are going the way of the break up. According to Variety, The Weinstein Co. and MGM have cut short their distribution deal three months earlier than their original three-year contract, which was scheduled to expire on December 31.

The Weinstein’s, brothers Harvey and Bob, will take seven movies back from MGM for distribution through the end of the year, including Kevin Smith’s Zack and Miri Make a Porno (October 31), the adaptation of Cormac McCarthy’s The Road (November 14). MGM will still distribute two Dimension Films release, Soul Men (November 7), starring Samuel L. Jackson and the late Bernie Mac and Forest Whitaker’s sports drama Hurricane Season (December 25).

This entire curfuffel was actually sniffed out by our friends at The Bad and Ugly on Tuesday, when they received an updated poster for Zack and Miri, from which MGM’s logo had been removed. But more important than “who found it” is the question of “what does it mean for these movies?” The answer is simple — it should have absolutely no effect on the release of these titles. It appears that all of the releases will go ahead as scheduled. Though, this is The Weinstein Co. we are talking about, here, so you never know. We’ll keep an eye on it for you, as we know that many of you are excited for a few of these films.

Official Zack and Miri Make a Porno Poster Gets the Joke

Neil Miller — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:38:00 +0000

If there is one thing I love, it is the sarcastic nature of Kevin Smith’s sense of humor. He’s not a mean guy, by any means, but he sure does like to bring absurdity to light. In this example, we have the official domestic poster for his upcoming film Zack and Miri Make a Porno, which was released via Smith’s site SilentBobSpeaks.com this morning. After their first poster was denied by the MPAA, they resorted to a much more direct approach. Smith explained the change on his site:

Our frustration in getting an MPAA approval on the American poster led to last-resort ideas about showcasing dopey, simple images instead of risque pics of our leads – which, in turn, led to what’s now the official American poster for the flick…

Have a look for yourself below. Zack and Miri Make a Porno hits theaters on October 31st. For more, check out the film’s red band trailer.

Spielberg Sued For Imitating Hitchcock

Kevin Gustafson — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:23:45 +0000

Reuters reported this week that the owners of the short story that inspired Alfred Hitchock’s 1954 film Rear Window are suing Steven Spielberg, Dreamworks, its parent company Viacom Inc, and Universal Pictures. Sheldon Abend Revocable Trust holds the rights to “Murder From a Fixed Viewpoint,” a short story by Cornell Woolrich. They’re furious that Spielberg and Co didn’t buy the rights to adapt the story when making 2007’s Disturbia. Made for $20 million, the film dragged home $80 million in ticket sales.

Let’s compare the two movies. Rear Window stars Jimmy Stewart as a photographer who spends his time recuperating from a broken leg by spying on his neighbors. Disturbia stars Shia LaBeouf as a high school bad boy under house arrest who spies on his neighbors. Peering out their windows, both characters think they’ve witnessed a murder inside one neighbor’s home. Both have two friends who help investigate.

The people suing Spielberg and Co. may have a point. Disturbia is Rear Window for teenagers. As a true remake, it falls slightly short. The two films differ in that Rear Window leaves you wondering if Stewart’s character is paranoid by questioning every trivial action he sees happening. Only towards the end, do the clues add up. The newer Disturbia lacks any real doubt that LaBeouf’s neighbor is a serial killer who lures women home to kill them. The killer (David Morse) quickly knows he’s being watched. Its third act is a slasher-style gore fest.

How close is too close? This lawsuit brings up the question of what is the dividing line between paying homage and outright stealing. Does Disturbia deserve to be sued for not giving credit?

Robert De Niro Says ‘F&%k Off’ to the Edge of Darkness

Neil Miller — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 15:45:09 +0000

Just when things were starting to look up for Mel Gibson. People were starting to get over all of his hate-mongering, he was ready to bury his directorial hatchet and come back to the world of acting, and he was going to star alongside Robert De Niro in Casino Royale director Martin Campbell’s Edge of Darkness. Then, just like that, the rug has been pulled out from under the production with the abrupt exit of Bobby D, citing creative differences as the cause.

According to Variety, a spokesman for De Niro had this to say: “Sometimes things don’t work out; it’s called creative differences.” Translation: one or more of the aforementioned parties wasn’t getting along with one of the other aforementioned parties. The film had just begun shooting on August 18th in Massachusetts, with De Niro arriving on set this week. And mere days after his arrival, he was gone — almost in a flash.

De Niro had signed to play an operative sent to clean up the evidence in the murder of a young woman. Mel Gibson stars as the victim’s father, a homicide detective for the Boston Police Dept. who uncovers her secret life, a corporate cover-up and government collusion. The filmmakers currently plan to shoot around the scenes that involve De Niro’s character until they can cast someone to replace him. No timetable has been set for the recasting and there is no indication that this will delay the production in any way. Overall, it is a big pile of non-news, but it did offer me the opportunity to put “Robert De Niro Says F&%k Off” in a title, so it did serve some purpose.

Paris Hilton Doesn’t Want You to See ‘Paris, Not France’

Neil Miller — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 22:47:56 +0000

Apparently in the world of a hotel heiress, cooperating in the making of a documentary about your life and actually showing it to the public are two different things. According to reports from various sources, socialite Paris Hilton has succeeded in putting a stop to most, but not all of the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) screenings of Paris, Not France. The documentary, which is directed by Tom Petty’s daughter Adria Petty, supposedly follows Paris through one full year as she deals with whatever it is she does in her life.

Check out the full synopsis of the film below, from the TIFF programming guide:

Director Adria Petty gained close access to Paris during a tumultuous year, and her film reveals different sides of the heiress than we are used to seeing. Petty has a penchant for creating fantastic worlds out of special effects, like the magical funhouse she directed in the music video for Regina Spektor’s song “Us.” In the case of Paris, no special effects are required. Her world is a real-life fantasy.

According to Steven Zeitchik over at THR’s Risky Biz Blog, Toronto has caved to the requests from Hilton’s legal team, canceling all but one screening at the upcoming festival. The two scheduled press screenings have also been canceled. So if you are one of the lucky ones to get into the Tuesday night screening on Sept. 9th, you can count yourself lucky, no matter how good or bad the film may be, as it is likely that this particular cut of Paris, Not France will never see the light of day again.

In the wake of all this, we really have to question what it is about the film’s cut that has Paris all up in a tizzy. What could possibly be revealed in a documentary that could damage her publically? What could she possibly say or do on the big screen that is worse than what we’ve seen from her before? If anything, as Sean over at Film Junk points out, “an honest, heartfelt documentary could change people’s perception of her in a positive way.” It could allow people to see her as a human. Unless, of course, she isn’t. Like many of you, I am still open to that possibility.

What do you make of Paris Hilton getting all gung-ho over her own documentary?

SAG Strike Speculation Heats Up

Robert Fure — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 11:43:54 +0000

Working, sleeping, eating, and hedonizing (yes, I made that word up) in Hollywood, sometimes I hear things. The talk of the town these days revolves around the “will they, won’t they, but aren’t they already” over the Screen Actors Guild and whether or not they’ll authorize a strike. Some argue that by not signing new contracts, SAG is, in effect, already striking as many new projects, notably in the theatrical department, have declined to pursue new productions. Some television shows are still moving forward, as they are more likely to work under IATSE guidelines.

While this can be filed under speculation or rumor, the word on the street is that the AMPTP (Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers) have issued their final deal and will not negotiate further at this time. The interesting part comes in September, when more than a third of the SAG leaders are up for re-election. Most people are thinking now that the re-election vote will be a de facto vote on whether or not to strike. If the current SAG leaders/strike supporters are all re-elected, it will be seen as a vote of confidence in the strike. If they’re ousted, new SAG leadership will likely put forth the current AMPTP offer for ratification. Even if re-elected, many in the AMPTP feel there is insufficient support for a strike, after the months long work stoppage due to the WGA Strike earlier in the year.

We’ll keep our ear to the ground and let you know what we know as this delicate issue moves gingerly forward.

Should SAG strike or get on with it and sign the papers so we can see more movies?

Film School Rejects » Industry Politics

Anyone Want to Buy MGM?

Related Reading:

Lionsgate May Buy Summit, Bloody Up ‘Twilight’

Related Reading:

The Watchmen Lawsuit: A Tale of Two Letters

Related Reading:

Will Fox Stop Us From Watching the Watchmen?

Related Reading:

Court Finds For Fox In ‘Watchmen’ Case, Rules Against WB

Related Reading:

Roger Ebert is Wrong About the CelebCult

Related Reading:

Why Terrence Howard Won’t Get His Dose of Iron Man 2

Related Reading:

Richard Donner Disappoints the Three Fans Who Were Hoping for Lethal Weapon 5

Related Reading:

Protest Watch: Blind People Offended by Blindness

Related Reading:

MGM and The Weinstein Co. Break Up

Related Reading:

Official Zack and Miri Make a Porno Poster Gets the Joke

Related Reading:

Spielberg Sued For Imitating Hitchcock

Related Reading:

Robert De Niro Says ‘F&%k Off’ to the Edge of Darkness

Related Reading:

Paris Hilton Doesn’t Want You to See ‘Paris, Not France’

Related Reading:

SAG Strike Speculation Heats Up

Related Reading: