July 8, 2003

How much money did Spike Lee get to go away? How many people would contribute to a fund to make it permanent?

But seriously, folks…

I have been watching Project Greenlight this season and I am having a grand old time. How I pray to have my head turned by the end result of this year’s project. But right now, it is like watching a blow-by-blow of every idiot first timer who got themselves blown out of Hollywood three minutes after their first film wrapped.

The first timer, in this case, is a pair of guys, directors Efram Potelle and Kyle Rankin. Oy! Maybe the TV show is like The Real World, where all reality is bent to fit storylines that the show producers want to make more compelling. Or maybe, these two are modestly talented control freaks who think they can make a feature film all by themselves. Having been there myself (in my early 20s), I can identify. And perhaps that’s why it is so damned amusing to me.

On the flip side, there is the Greenlight screenwriter, Erica Beeney, who works the room like she’s been there forever. Slick, smart, sexy in that way that makes it look like she has no intention of being sexy at all, aggressive and occasionally passive aggressive. If she doesn’t make it as a screenwriter, her career as a studio exec is assured.

Joseph Middleton has been the great new character of the first few episodes, as the flamboyant, straight-talking, no nonsense casting director who really doesn’t care what these punks have to say… until someone tries to go around them and his professionalism kicks into high gear. And it does. The guy is a pro and so far, he is the only one who is 100% direct with the Bungle Brothers.

We’re a couple episodes away from the actual production and when it happens, we can expect Chris Moore and Jeff Balis to re-emerge as characters. It looks like it will also be a lesson on how an old pro cinematographer – in this case, Thomas Ackerman – can take a dominant role in a production when newbie directors are coming up short.

HA CHA CHA: I caught a commercial on TV the other night, followed it to a website and put the link up on Movie City News. And I am still trying to figure out how these guys can be in business.

They offer a videotape or DVD of a bunch of two-minute sequences of famous stars in legit movie nude scenes. For instance, Phoebe Cates is on the box cover, in her bikini scene for Fast Times At Ridgemont High. As far as I can tell, Universal still holds the video rights to that scene in that movie. Is there any chance in hell that they signed off on some tape selling a clip of Phoebe Cates taking her bikini top off to some tiny company selling stuff to pervs? (Full disclosure: If I was 15, I’d be sending a money order tomorrow.)

The web site includes pictures of Nicole Kidman, Halle Berry, Jada Pinkett (now Smith), Reese Witherspoon, Drew Barrymore, Sharon Stone, Katie Holmes, etc, etc, etc. Every studio is represented. What the hell?

TRADING ON PIRATES: Yo ho! I wouldn’t be reading either Todd McCarthy or Kirk Honeycutt’s reviews of Pirates of the Caribbean if you don’t want to have the movie spoiled. However, I do feel compelled to broach the question: have two reviews ever felt more out of touch with the audiences for whom a film is intended? (I would sure like to see Todd McCarthy’s review of Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle, if only to get it on the record.)

Both reviews are willing to put up with the movie. Both reviews seem obsessed with the “It’s a park ride” theme, which so obviously has been pushed aside by Jerry Bruckheimer and crew a long, long time ago.

I would call McCarthy’s review a mixed negative and Honeycutt’s a mixed positive. And they are certainly welcome to their opinions. But there is a dry distance that seems better spent on a more complicated movie, like The Hulk, than this out and out party picture.

ATTACK OF NEGATIVITY: I am not surprised by the wave of negative stories about the summer at the movies that has followed the sad starts for T3, Legally Blonde 2, Sinbad and Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle.

And yet, almost none of them seem to get the point. They keep following these deeply tortured paths of logic to figure out “what went wrong.” Patrick Goldstein has gone as far to blame Demi Moore for the Full Throttle disaster… as though the movie was about her character, who has maybe – MAYBE – 10 minutes of screen time. Then there is the “too many sequels” theory. Then there is the idea that 28 Days Later – which I love – is some indicator when, in fact, if any of the movies that allegedly tanked did 28 Days’ numbers, they would be accused of tanking.

Get some perspective, folks!!! (Patrick is hardly alone in ringing the alarm bell a bit too enthusiastically.) This was the year of massive hits for the first six weeks of the summer. Five $50 million-plus openings in six weekends. Three of the five were sequels. The other two were launched with complete reliance on franchises, respectively, Jim Carrey and Pixar. In other words, all five were the same old same old. (With respect, I am exaggerating… but not.)

Three weekends later, panic mode arrives. Chicken Fucking Little. There was no way to keep up the pace. Hulk missed the mark. Angels’ promotion was more fun than the movie and it showed in the clips. No one wanted to see Sinbad, at all. Legally Blonde 2 was a car wreck. And T3 never got as much traction as it could have.

Now what?

If Pirates of the Caribbean never gets past $125 million, get scared. If Bad Boys II doesn’t open over $50 million, start worrying. But don’t keep whining about it when League of Extraordinary Gentlemen tanks or Tomb Raider 2 only does $90 million. Maybe they’ll be better than expected. Maybe they’ll get box office traction. But they are not the trendsetters.

You know, when things go in a direction for a few weeks, everything seems to make sense and the things that go against the grain are written off as flukes. But they aren’t. Trends in the movie business are lies most of the time. They are convenient. But they aren’t real.

Fox took a wild shot with Down With Love and lost. Justin & Kelly was a shot at an old fashioned, Grease-style musical. Nope. So the lesson of the summer is “more originality, please?”

Did a remake of a mostly forgotten comedy from the 70s, The In-Laws, flop because it was a remake or because it wasn’t very good and its stars don’t really open movies at this point in their careers? Was Hollywood Homicide too difficult to market because it was a cop comedy with a superstar – Harrison Ford – who hasn’t been effectively sold in a comedy in the 15 years since Working Girl? Did someone really think that Dumb & Dumberer was going to hit it big?

Are people really supposed to be disappointed in Matrix Reloaded because we in the media obsessed on it being the first $300 million R-rated film? It is the highest grossing R-rated film ever, outdistancing the runner up by 15%. If Finding Nemo falls short of The Lion King’s $318 million, will we be forced to call it a flop?

What drives me nuts about this is that we go through these theories like Chinese food. Every 30 minutes we are starving for a new theory. And worse, these theories perpetuate the clichés of the past and demand no thought of the people who make and distribute these movies. Blaming sequels is like blaming age groups or saying that comedy is out of fashion or horror is over. Quality is quality. You can make a great sequel. You can make a crappy original. Good movies fail and bad movies succeed.

Could there be any greater irony than the press trying to turn the summer in a high-concept pitch (25 words or less, please!) while complaining that the summer is too high-concept?

Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle did not have the same issues as The Hulk or Legally Blonde 2. The first was executed exactly as intended and that form of execution was rejected. The next was a movie that missed both of the target groups it was aiming at, despite very good intentions and a lot of very good work. The third was simply a sequel disaster that felt like it came out of a broken blender. To recap – Charm can only take you so far, heavy drama needs to be clean and sharp and if the script doesn’t work, don’t do the sequel. Three very different films. Three very different lessons.

One last note to journalists: What you personally feel about a movie is not news. It is opinion. If you and your friends didn’t like a film, so be it. But that does not make your feelings into facts that should be run in a newspaper as facts. Dear God, do some homework outside of your own Rolodex!!!

READER OF THE DAY: CC RIDER writes: “The LARGEST misstep that both DreamWorks and Disney has done is to cater to the WRONG demographic, at the expense of another. What do "Titan A.E.", "Atlantis", "Treasure Planet" and "Sinbad" have in common? They are action-adventure stories with the main protagonist being male, and the humor being secondary, and their appeal is ostensibly teen/tween boys. Problem. These boys are too wrapped up in video games and when they are attracted to

animation, it is in the anime/"Yu-Gi-Oh" vein. And girls are not compelled to watch these types of action adventure male oriented stories either. And the adults are indifferent to them, as it doesn't offer anything to appeal to them.

What was the only one traditional animated movie that worked in recent times, which you did point out in your article? "Lilo & Stitch", which appealed to both boys (in the form of Stitch) and girls (in the form of Lilo). Not to mention that it was a charming story with lots of laughs for kids and adults.

And don't forget one of THE most important factors, which is the element of music! Although I would have preferred to have seen a traditional musical in "Lilo & Stitch", it still had a underlying background of Elvis Presley music running through it. Therein lies the key factor, the one thing that traditional animated movies have over CGI, or live action for that matter, which is the movie musical. Even with the advent of "Chicago", which I liked immensely, I am sure that with the inevitable onslaught of musicals that aren't really suited for modern audiences, including "Bye Bye Birdie" and "Damn Yankees", it will die a dog's death. I can't imagine that they could find the hook that made "Chicago" work, so it will be back to the morgue for the musical genre.

But it has been a thriving and viable element in traditional animated movies since "The Little Mermaid" heralded the second golden age of Disney. It is like a self-fulfilling prophecy that Disney has stopped making animated musicals (I think the Phil Collins songs in "Brother Bear" will be sung over the scenes, like in "Tarzan"). Why not give the

marketplace what it cannot obtain any other place? The musical. Why specifically chase after a demographic that largely doesn't care for your offerings (teen and tween boys)? I say go back to the lush musicals with comedic elements. Appeal to the girls and their mothers (and the gay sector), since they don't seem to be catered to specifically.

Include elements that have cross-over appeal to boys and adults. If I was a conspiracy nut, I would almost say that this deviation from the musical formula was intentional, as if Disney decided that they no longer wanted to do traditional animated movies, so they approved a slate of movies that do not have cross-over appeal. DreamWorks hasn't had only one out and out musical animated movie, "The Prince Of Egypt" so it cannot be said they strayed from the path that severely to begin with.

We need more movies in the tradition of "Beauty & The Beast", "Aladdin", "The Lion King" and "Mulan", to name but a few. Even the lesser ones like "Hercules" and "Hunchback of Notre Dame" made $100 million. More stop-the-scene-to-break-out-in-song-for-no-apparent-reason-other-than-the-fact-that-it-is-joyful musical. It seems like Disney had the successful template but chose to disregard it. Where will they turn to for inspiration for future Broadway musicals (which I am all for)? Where would they turn to for musical themes for their amusement parks?

When I read "Ain't It Cool News" back in the day, for years they were berating the animated musical, and they (meaning Harry) kept calling for animated movies WITHOUT the music. Harry, are these the movies that you want, that may very well kill the whole traditional animated movie? I have very little hope that there will be a turn around anytime soon, with the new head of Disney feature animation, David Stainton, being the former head of the TV animation department that produced all those horrendous straight to DVD/video cheapquels to their classic movies. Disney is doing a great job of destroying their rich legacy. I would have thought that at least Jeffrey Katzenberg would know better over at DreamWorks. Sad times indeed.

E ME: Has anything gotten you pissed off lately?

The Matrix Reloaded. Reloaded.
Read Part One
Read Part Two