July 20, 2004

It's catch-up day at The Hot Button…

DIRECTOR'S ROUND ROBIN - Tinker to Evans to Chance has been replaced as the triple play of choice by McG to Bay to Singer. Or is that Singer to Carnahan to the unknown?

So, here is the Superman thing… Bryan Singer can direct. There is no doubt. But he likes it a little kinky and he's best when he is twisting the genre just a little bit. So, while I am sure there will certainly be a watchable Superman movie - Singer has always shown taste - the lead character is about as boring as the most boring X-Man… Cyclops. Moreover, Singer doesn't have the time to start the script all over again, which gives him an excuse, but not necessarily a great movie. We'll see.

Meanwhile over at Fox, they have to replace Singer on X3. How that ends up playing out is going to be interesting. Fox has a history of going against the grain and to talent that is nearby with these kinds of hires. Singer himself was considered a bit of a gamble when he took the reins of X-Men. So who's next? Well, the studio is feeling pretty good about Paul W.S. Anderson's Alien vs. Predator, which also follows a success with Resident Evil. Roland Emmerich might be willing to jump aboard an already moving train. Getting Tony Scott, who just gave the studio a hit with Man on Fire and is known for tougher, more adult work, would be a huge get for Fox. I, Robot's Alex Proyas would be a solid choice.

If Zhang Yimou spoke English, that would be… unlikely… but brilliant. Marcus Nispel would be interesting… but perhaps a little too dramatic for the studio. Guillermo del Toro? Sam Raimi? Not Stephen Norrington!!!

What about Joe Carnahan? He still hasn't directed a big budget movie, but the humanity he would bring out in a bunch of screwed-up superheroes… it could be the comic book movie Frank Miller lovers have always dreamt.

'Cause, you know, Carno is free these days. My guess is that he'll rev up the Pablo Escobar movie fairly quickly with a low to mid-range budget. But just weeks before production, with Scarlet Johansson pumped and ready to shoot her Barrymore-in-Scream style cameo in the film, dumping Carnahan - who has been waiting on a script for 14 months - is a bit of a shock.

Will Frank Darabont, who has been the last one in on the script and seen hanging out with Cruise quite often, take over? He knows how to shoot a movie, even if he's made slower rather than faster paced films. Cruise pal Robert Towne is unlikely to be the choice. Could David Fincher come back to the project or did that bridge burn to the ground after Fincher walked once before. (The film he walked to do he is no longer working on, except as an exec producer.)

Right now, the hot get out there is about to be Paul Greengrass, though my guess is that Cruise & Co would not want to deliver a movie that looks like this year's smart actioner.

Is Mission: Impossible ready for a Michel Gondry? I doubt it. Is there a Wachowski interested in working alone for the exercise? Could they get Luc Besson to get off his producing duff and make a movie? (He's scheduled to start a flick about a female MI6 agent in the fall or early next year, but who knows?)

Anyway, we'll see what the future holds. After all, they're only movies. But the odds of three $150 million-plus greenlit films switching oars so late in the game… wow.

MGM SALE - The spin of the moment on the MGM sale is that Time-Warner has moved into the lead because they have a cleaner financing plan. But one has to wonder, who is leaking that info? Because the stories are quite thin outside of the central message… Sony better catch up.

Time-Warner, of course, has the advantage of knowing the catalog intimately after exploiting it under lease for many years. It has taken Sony six weeks to get through due diligence on the catalog. But how much is Time-Warner willing to pay? And is there any cash in the deal at all?

The other thing we don't know is what the disposition of either contender is as far as any ongoing MGM or UA operations. This, too, could make a big difference. If, as expected, Revolution's deal with Sony is not re-upped next year, MGM/UA could fill the pipeline as a "new" supplier. Given Chris McGurk's skills with cash flow and the possibility that half of each year's line-up could be filled with MGM franchise or remake product, much of the operation could even be financed with outside capital.

Then there is the possibility of Harvey Weinstein retrenching post-Disney at UA, though the likelihood is greater that he would want to start a business more like an Imagine Entertainment than a small indie studio. And, of course, with Sony Classics and Screen Gems already at Sony and recent start-ups (or start-back-ups) of Tri-Star and Warner Independent Pictures, where is the room for a new art arm in these two companies anyway. But there is always the possibility that Harvey comes into big MGM and runs that production arm. Outside funding would be key to such a plan for either buyer and that probably is not as easy as some are saying these days. But…

There is little doubt inside or outside of MGM that they will sell to someone before this summer is over. Whoever wins is going to need a really big shoehorn.

MIRAMAX/DISNEY - Speaking of Harvey Weinstein and the future…

The other popular basis for rumoring around town these days is about the future of Miramax and Disney. The current most repeated theory is Bob Weinstein and Dimension staying alive and active at Disney while Harvey Weinstein goes off to God knows where.

There has yet to be a single story that has even a strong rumor that Disney wants this to happen. On the other hand, it almost makes sense. That said, the core trouble with the relationship between the Weinsteins and Disney is that Miramax has been unpredictable and not terribly interested in "normal" business methods. The notion of keeping a Dimension production division going, probably with Buena Vista taking over distribution chores with a Dimension marketing department keeps things rolling in that department.

Meanwhile, the notion of Harvey Weinstein working primarily as a producer, with none of the weight of a small studio's infrastructure on his shoulders is interesting. Certainly, any studio would be thrilled to have this man help them market his films. After all, that is his true gift, not moviemaking. The big question is how the big man would operate without the freedom to dump half of his production slate every year.

The key to any deal separating the brothers would be some hardcore rules of conduct. And while that seems very un-Weinstein, the brothers made concessions to Disney's ideas of neatness when they finalized the deal for selling Fahrenheit 9/11 to the brothers.

I don't know. But from what I can tell from the stories I've been seeing, neither does anyone else… except the Weinsteins, who know what their interests and boundaries really are. One thing is clear… an operation like Miramax needs a major studio by its side to survive. There is no upside to Dimension leaving Disney. There isn't a better deal out there. Disney holds the option of re-hiring or not, but the existence of negotiations tells you that both sides see some upside from staying together. But what does Harvey want to do? He is unlikely to be handed $500 million to make five films a year by anyone. But he can certainly make two or three big films a year. And God knows, he could go back to the core Miramax business and people will line up to fund him. But it's time to excrete nitrogen-based waste or to get off the pot. Expect an answer to emerge during the Toronto Film Festival or earlier.

READER OF THE DAY: THE (SELF-PROCLAIMED) MORON writes: "What attracts so many people to FOX NEWS? David, the answer is so non-complex I'm shocked (shocked I say!) that you missed it: It's entertaining. The other news netlet thingies are about as exciting as a narcoleptic goat.

I agree that the news portion of the show (with Shep Smith, Brit Hume, etc…which by the way, is very well done) is awfully biased towards the right but I differ with you on their primary Prime Time line-up. That would make me a moron I suppose, well I've been called worse (by family members even); watching Bill O' Reilly (yes an arrogant bully, but an ENTERTAINING arrogant bully), for the most part I see a debate between two different ideologies: I've seen O'Reilly debate Michael Moore, Cornell West, Susan Sarandon, Al Sharpton, Russell Simmons, Robert Reich, Dan Rather, Richard Roeper, etc, and he's been loud, obnoxious, and arrogant each time, but you know what? I also heard the other side.

Next up is Hannity and Colmes in which the more charismatic and good looking Hannity debates the less charismatic and less good looking Colmes. But missing from that description is that Colmes is a bright guy and he has a national radio show that, while no where near as popular as Hannity's, is national.

Then you have Greta Van Sustern, who is a liberal, though does less of a political show and more of a news analysis type show. It's easily my least favorite of the FOX NEWS line-up, and the most similar to the kind of fare generally found on CNN or MSNBC.

On the weekends you have the potpourri of Oliver North, Geraldo Rivera, Fred Barnes, Mort Kondrake, etc. Those would be two lefties and two righties. You also got Neil Cavuto's financial show during the week. I hate financial talk but I dig this show because Cavuto is a likeable wit, and he comes across as more middle of the road than Conservative or Liberal.

So, from my not so humble point of view FOX NEWS isn't as biased as I hear people keep making it out to be. But hey, I'm just a moron.

The Moron"

THE PAULER writes: "I have to applaud you for one of your best columns yet in addressing the flaws of both Fox News and the documentary that derides it. I also want to thank you for the term "truth-twisting monkeys" which I will now incorporate into my everyday vocabulary, especially when describing Fox News.

I personally can't stand Fox News - from its smug personalities to its brazenly inaccurate tagline. However, I agree that any documentary attacking Fox News should place it into the larger context of media conglomerations that feel they can freely use the news to further their own agendas and corporate priorities. I will say that Fox News is an egregious offender particularly because of their claim to present balanced news despite their complete lack of effort to do so. But that being said - that should not make a filmmaker stoop to the level of manipulating footage and selectively editing items out of
context just to present a stronger story - something their target, Fox, probably does regularly. This is a practice that should stop - and even filmmakers of high profile such as Michael Moore, should also limit their manipulation of their subjects. The ends do not always justify the means.

I was hoping to get your thoughts on a documentary that does aim to look at the larger context of corporate control of America and its ramifications, The Corporation. I recently read the book version and thought the authors were very effective in outlining several issues, political, legal and cultural, that have led to our current state of corporate control in America. I have not yet seen the film, but I hope that it doesn't fall into the trap that Outfoxed, and even Fahrenheit 9/11 did at times, and limit its impact and effectiveness by opening itself up for criticism of its methods and drawing attention away from its message. I know the book touched upon media conglomerations, and hope that the documentary will do so as well. I'm sorry to hear that Outfoxed has not sparked the debate that America desperately needs, but I know that when that debate is sparked, I will definitely make reference to the "truth-twisting monkeys" that contribute to the problem - so thanks. Also - if your readers are interested, here is a great site that asks some of the difficult questions that Outfoxed apparently glosses over. http://www.mediaed.org"

And this came from OH VERY YOUNG: "I watch the fox channel because I need to see both sides of the spectrum in order to make an educated decision. Most of the network news is so left-wing biased, I need to have another source. I am completely disgusted with the Hollywood crap.

Is there not one (1) person in the Hollywood community who is for traditional values????? Why is supporting traditional values, like man/woman marriage being trounced upon? Probably because Hollywood is owned by Jews, (SKG) who do not care about anything but money, and if sodomy makes money, they are all for it. Please understand, I do not hate people of the Jewish faith, I believe that these Hollywood Jews are people who use being Jewish to further their greed, and are in collusion with sexual deviants who cannot control themselves. I prefer not to be subjected to their perverted philosophies.

I realize you don't give a damn about what I have to say, I just need to tell you that I usually enjoy the website, but lately I have found it to be engulfed in "Hollywood" crap. You used to be a website where I could see news about the latest movies, but you seem to have veered toward the sensationalist news and I prefer a website that tells me about ALL the movies that are coming out, not just the blockbusters. So sorry you sold out."

E ME: We are the world….