Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

All the dirt. All the top secret stuff. Anything that has to do with the process of getting us to sit and watch something projected on the big screen.

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby Peven on Wed Feb 16, 2011 10:39 pm

Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:
Peven wrote:I'm still waiting for my copy of "Walter and the Tigers" to arrive in the mail......I am guessing Kirk's tried to use tiny pictures of himself as stamps.....again


Didn't we discuss this and I sent it? It not turn up yet?


it has not. and i sent you all the old episodes of "McMillan and Wife" on dvd i could scrape up, too......
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14487
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby The Vicar on Wed Feb 16, 2011 10:50 pm

Probably been quarantined by the US Postal Service.

Dude, I want those Mc & Wife eps...Susan St. James was so damned cute.....
.
........................................
Image
User avatar
The Vicar
Fear & Loathing in the Zone
 
Posts: 16179
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:21 am

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby Peven on Wed Feb 16, 2011 11:04 pm

i agree, Susan St James was one of my first actress crushes when i was a kid.......love her voice, too
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14487
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby The Vicar on Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:30 pm

Is it just me, or does The Adjustment Bureau look like an extended episode of Fringe, featuring the Observers?
It sure looks like it.
.
........................................
Image
User avatar
The Vicar
Fear & Loathing in the Zone
 
Posts: 16179
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:21 am

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby The Vicar on Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:31 pm

Peven wrote:i agree, Susan St James was one of my first actress crushes when i was a kid.......love her voice, too


Oh yeah..... the voice. Hard to resist.
.
........................................
Image
User avatar
The Vicar
Fear & Loathing in the Zone
 
Posts: 16179
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:21 am

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby TheButcher on Mon Feb 21, 2011 7:30 pm

User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby minstrel on Mon Feb 21, 2011 7:59 pm



Isn't Charlie Sheen in enough trouble over the things Charlie Sheen wants?
"Everybody is equally shitty and wrong." - Ribbons
User avatar
minstrel
Leader of the Insquirrelgency
 
Posts: 12634
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:03 pm
Location: Area 52

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby Bob Samonkey on Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:18 am

minstrel wrote:


Isn't Charlie Sheen in enough trouble over the things Charlie Sheen wants?


IPAMPILASH!!
User avatar
Bob Samonkey
Große Fäuste
 
Posts: 8982
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:49 pm
Location: Samonkey Island

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby Nachokoolaid on Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:53 am

Most likely part of a plan to create some positive press for himself. Lord knows he needs it.
User avatar
Nachokoolaid
THE DORK KNIGHT
 
Posts: 5588
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:00 am
Location: Gotham City

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby Retardo_Montalban on Tue Feb 22, 2011 2:59 am

If Sheen is going to make a sequel to anything, it better be Hot Shots.
Image
User avatar
Retardo_Montalban
doubleplusungood
 
Posts: 3682
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:28 am

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby Bob Samonkey on Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:06 am

Retardo_Montalban wrote:If Sheen is going to make a sequel to anything, it better be Hot Shots.



But what of Men at Work??!? I need more answers!!
User avatar
Bob Samonkey
Große Fäuste
 
Posts: 8982
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:49 pm
Location: Samonkey Island

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby Retardo_Montalban on Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:17 am

I liked Men at Work. I think I actually ran out into the streets and started kicking over garbage cans looking for dead bodies after watching that movie.
Image
User avatar
Retardo_Montalban
doubleplusungood
 
Posts: 3682
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:28 am

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby minstrel on Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:19 am

Retardo_Montalban wrote:I liked Men at Work. I think I actually ran out into the streets and started kicking over garbage cans looking for dead bodies after watching that movie.


Wow. YOU may have like Men at Work, but I bet your neighbors didn't like you liking Men at Work. Yeesh ...
"Everybody is equally shitty and wrong." - Ribbons
User avatar
minstrel
Leader of the Insquirrelgency
 
Posts: 12634
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:03 pm
Location: Area 52

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby TheButcher on Tue Feb 22, 2011 7:12 am

The Oscars: Fresh story ideas a tough sell in Hollywood
NICOLE SPERLING wrote:Los Angeles Times

LOS ANGELES -- David Seidler first sparked to the idea of writing a movie about the life of King George VI in 1980. A stutterer himself, he found the real-life narrative of the English monarch's struggles to overcome a debilitating stammer moving and profoundly relatable, but Seidler understood that it wasn't going to be easy to see his script turned into a feature film.

First, he had to wait for the Queen Mum to die; he had asked the royal matriarch for her blessing to tell her husband's story, and she had requested that he wait until after her passing, since the memories of that time were still too painful. And then, the 73-year-old Seidler explains, there was another, possibly even more significant hurdle: "It was the subject matter.

"If I had gone into any executive office in Hollywood to pitch a story about a dead king who stutters, I would have been out of there in 30 seconds," he said. "They would have thought I was out of my mind."

Seidler has a point. For years now, the notoriously risk-averse Hollywood studios have been spending their money on the safest bets possible, big-budget projects and potential franchise properties that usually are based on a book, a video game, a toy or even an amusement park ride. It's a trend that shows no signs of abatement, with Universal working to bring Stretch Armstrong to the screen, while Paramount develops a Magic 8 Ball movie among many other projects that have been co-opted from the toy aisle.

"We used to make toys based on our movies, and now we are making movies based on toys," said Nina Jacobson, former head of production at Disney who's now an independent producer. "We used to be the generators of intellectual property, not just recyclers of it."

It's a fact that's helped drive many of the industry's most highly acclaimed screenwriters - people such as Steven Zaillian ("Schindler's List") and Akiva Goldsman ("A Beautiful Mind") - to devote more of their time to plum writing assignments such as Zaillian's current work on "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" and Goldsman's adaptation of Stephen King's "The Dark Tower," rather than develop their own ideas.

And it paints a grim picture for many screenwriters hoping to tell original tales, even ones drawn from the lives of compelling people. Among the nominees who will be competing for the original screenplay Oscar when the Academy Awards are handed out Feb. 27, writer-director Christopher Nolan spent 10 years on his mind-bending dream heist thriller "Inception" before the film made it to the screen. Stuart Blumberg and Lisa Cholodenko went through countless drafts in the five years they labored on the script for the Annette Bening-starrer "The Kids Are All Right." And Scott Silver and Paul Tamsay & Eric Johnson, among others, worked on "The Fighter" for five years before cameras rolled on the Boston-based drama in July 2009. (Mike Leigh, the fifth nominee in the category, stands apart from the group; his script for the low-budget indie "Another Year," like many of his films, was workshopped extensively with his actors during a long rehearsals process but was made fairly quickly.)

The other four contenders, though very different, have one thing in common: a long, difficult path to the big screen.

"An adaptation often has an easier road," says Seidler, whose credits also include 1988's "Tucker: The Man and His Dream" and 1999's animated telling of "The King and I." "(The studio) has a security blanket with a book. (They say), 'We've optioned a book, it was a successful book. ... Now, if the script doesn't turn out well, or the film doesn't turn out brilliantly, then that's not my fault. That's the writer's fault.'"


At one point not so long ago, a well-known writer could pitch an idea to a movie studio, and if it had potential, he could reasonably expect interest - and often cash to turn it into a screenplay. But things really began to change after the writers' strike in 2007-08. The appetite for original material markedly diminished as studios took the opportunity to cut a lot of the expensive development deals in place at the time.

"The era of the middle-class writer who makes $250,000 a script and people like them, they don't necessarily deliver movies but they do a good job and they are pleasant to work with, that's done," said an agent who represents screenwriters and directors but asked for anonymity. "That was the staple writer business 10 years ago."

As a result, producers are forced to take on a greater role in advocating for original scripts. "Several years ago, you could walk into a studio with a one-liner and a writer who's written some scripts and sell it in the room if it was commercial enough," says Todd Lieberman, a producer on "The Fighter." "Now you have to prove that there is a movie there, and the best way to prove that is to have the writer write the script."

Nowadays, those scribes must complete a screenplay and often must land an actor - in the case of Seidler, Geoffrey Rush was the crucial lynchpin that moved "The King's Speech" closer to a greenlight - or a director before bringing it to the studio. Blumberg and Cholodenko worked closely with Julianne Moore for years before Bening came on board and financing finally came together on "The Kids Are All Right."

But in the case of "The Fighter," not even a movie star helped. The story of boxer Micky Ward, his struggle for success and his tempestuous relationship with his half brother, Dicky Eklund, was hindered because it would likely carry an R rating, it was a drama targeted to adults, and it was expensive. In one iteration of the film, its budget hovered around $70 million, with Brad Pitt set to star opposite Mark Wahlberg, also a producer on the film, and Darren Aronofsky directing.

"At the point when Brad Pitt wants to do a movie and you still can't get it made, it made me think, 'I've got to start doing something else,'" joked Silver, one of three credited writers on "Fighter." "But a $70-million film about two guys in Lowell, Mass. - one of whom is a crack head - is a huge risk."

It wasn't until the project was retooled as a $25-million production - an initial first act that took place at the time of Eklund's famous fight against Sugar Ray Leonard was cut to reduce costs, Christian Bale was cast as Eklund, and director David O. Russell took the helm - that it found a home. But even then it wasn't financed by a studio; Ryan Kavanaugh's Relativity Media put up the money for the film.

Lieberman says being required to deliver a complete package to a studio - a great script with a star and/or filmmaker attached - actually can be empowering.

"We're doing that right now with something that's been exposed to no one," Lieberman said. "It's a spec script with a director involved, and we're creating a visual plan, a physical effects plan, and we're going to the studios and saying: 'Here's the movie, here's what it will look like and here's what it will cost you. Are you in or are you out?'

"For a producer, it's fun. You get to do the work, you get invested in what it will be and then you get to go make it."


Additionally, most writers say the extra time they spend shopping an original project usually enables them to improve a script. Blumberg, for example, says that "The Kids Are All Right" nearly went into production in 2006 but that it fell apart at the last moment. It was an event that was crushing at the time, but today, he and Cholodenko consider it a blessing. It afforded them the opportunity to further refine the story about lesbian partners (Bening and Moore) whose long-term relationship is upended when their teenage children reach out to the couple's sperm donor (Mark Ruffalo).

"We were lucky it didn't go in 2006," Blumberg said. "We both agree the script took some big leaps forward in the intervening years."

He said scenes including those in which Bening's character sings a Joni Mitchell song at the dinner table and rants about organic farming and heirloom tomatoes were among later additions.

Of course, for every rule, there's an exception, and in this instance, his name is Christopher Nolan. After cowriting and directing the highest-grossing film of 2008, "The Dark Knight," for Warner Bros., he was given the greenlight by the studio for "Inception." But according to Nolan's wife and producing partner, Emma Thomas, it wasn't quite that easy.

Nolan first wrote 80 pages of the thriller in 2000 after completing his breakout feature "Memento." He then had the opportunity to develop "Inception" at Warner's but declined and instead chose to complete the script on his own.

He wanted more time to refine the project, which is replete with heady ideas and visually intense sequences. It was a more complex project than anything Thomas and Nolan had yet tackled as producers, and they needed time to learn to master a film with special effects that, according to Thomas, seemed "intimidating and read expensive."

After eight years and "The Dark Knight," the time seemed right. "We were finally able to go to Warner Bros. and show them a big movie that wasn't an obvious one for anyone to greenlight," Thomas said. "They looked on it in a much kinder way than they would have done six to seven years earlier. The previous four movies we made for them were essentially our audition process."

"Inception," along with many of the other films in this year's Oscar race, have done exceedingly well at the box office, proving to studios that original projects executed effectively can be must-sees even if they don't begin from a piece of existing material.

Many in Hollywood are hopeful it will be the beginning of a new chapter.

"Look at films like 'Inception,' 'Black Swan' or 'The Kids Are All Right' - these are all completely original pieces from writer-directors who are themselves a brand," independent producer Jacobson said. "I think there is an audience appetite for original material from filmmakers who are willing to create something without the infrastructure of the studio. Working that way has become a great source of originality and invention."
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby TheButcher on Tue Feb 22, 2011 7:18 am

From GQ:
The Day the Movies Died
No, Hollywood films aren't going to get better anytime soon. Mark Harris on the (potential) death of the great American art form

Mark Harris wrote:You want to understand how bad things are in Hollywood right now—how stifling and airless and cautious the atmosphere is, how little nourishment or encouragement a good new idea receives, and how devoid of ambition the horizon currently appears—it helps to start with a success story.

Consider: Years ago, an ace filmmaker, the man who happened to direct the third-highest-grossing movie in U.S. history, The Dark Knight, came up with an idea for a big summer movie. It's a story he loved—in fact, he wrote it himself—and it belonged to a genre, the sci-fi action thriller, that zipped right down the center lane of American popular taste. He cast as his leading man a handsome actor, Leonardo DiCaprio, who happened to star in the second-highest-grossing movie in history. Finally, to cover his bet even more, he hired half a dozen Oscar nominees and winners for supporting roles.

Sounds like a sure thing, right? Exactly the kind of movie that a studio would die to have and an audience would kill to see? Well, it was. That film, Christopher Nolan's Inception, received admiring reviews, became last summer's most discussed movie, and has grossed, as of this writing, more than three-quarters of a billion dollars worldwide.

And now the twist: The studios are trying very hard not to notice its success, or to care. Before anybody saw the movie, the buzz within the industry was: It's just a favor Warner Bros. is doing for Nolan because the studio needs him to make Batman 3. After it started to screen, the party line changed: It's too smart for the room, too smart for the summer, too smart for the audience. Just before it opened, it shifted again: Nolan is only a brand-name director to Web geeks, and his drawing power is being wildly overestimated. After it grossed $62 million on its first weekend, the word was: Yeah, that's pretty good, but it just means all the Nolan groupies came out early—now watch it drop like a stone.

And here was the buzz three months later, after Inception became the only release of 2010 to log eleven consecutive weeks in the top ten: Huh. Well, you never know.

"Huh. Well, you never know" is an admission that, put simply, things have never been worse.

It has always been disheartening when good movies flop; it gives endless comfort to those who would rather not have to try to make them and can happily take cover behind a shield labeled "The people have spoken." But it's really bad news when the industry essentially rejects a success, when a movie that should have spawned two dozen taste-based gambles on passion projects is instead greeted as an unanswerable anomaly. That kind of thinking is why Hollywood studio filmmaking, as 2010 came to its end, was at an all-time low—by which I don't mean that there are fewer really good movies than ever before (last year had its share, and so will 2011) but that it has never been harder for an intelligent, moderately budgeted, original movie aimed at adults to get onto movie screens nationwide. "It's true at every studio," says producer Dan Jinks, whose credits include the Oscar winners American Beauty and Milk. "Everyone has cut back on not just 'Oscar-worthy' movies, but on dramas, period. Caution has made them pull away. It's infected the entire business."

For the studios, a good new idea has become just too scary a road to travel. Inception, they will tell you, is an exceptional movie. And movies that need to be exceptional to succeed are bad business. "The scab you're picking at is called execution," says legendary producer Scott Rudin (The Social Network, True Grit). "Studios are hardwired not to bet on execution, and the terrible thing is, they're right. Because in terms of execution, most movies disappoint."

With that in mind, let's look ahead to what's on the menu for this year: four adaptations of comic books. One prequel to an adaptation of a comic book. One sequel to a sequel to a movie based on a toy. One sequel to a sequel to a sequel to a movie based on an amusement-park ride. One prequel to a remake. Two sequels to cartoons. One sequel to a comedy. An adaptation of a children's book. An adaptation of a Saturday-morning cartoon. One sequel with a 4 in the title. Two sequels with a 5 in the title. One sequel that, if it were inclined to use numbers, would have to have a 7 1/2 in the title.1

And no Inception. Now, to be fair, in modern Hollywood, it usually takes two years, not one, for an idea to make its way through the alimentary canal of the system and onto multiplex screens, so we should really be looking at summer 2012 to see the fruit of Nolan's success. So here's what's on tap two summers from now: an adaptation of a comic book. A reboot of an adaptation of a comic book. A sequel to a sequel to an adaptation of a comic book. A sequel to a reboot of an adaptation of a TV show. A sequel to a sequel to a reboot of an adaptation of a comic book. A sequel to a cartoon. A sequel to a sequel to a cartoon. A sequel to a sequel to a sequel to a cartoon. A sequel to a sequel to a sequel to a sequel to a movie based on a young-adult novel.2 And soon after: Stretch Armstrong. You remember Stretch Armstrong, right? That rubberized doll you could stretch and then stretch again, at least until the sludge inside the doll would dry up and he would become Osteoporosis Armstrong? A toy that offered less narrative interest than bingo?

Let me stipulate that we will probably come out of three or four of the movies categorized above saying "That rocked!" (One of them is even being directed by Nolan.) And yes, it is technically possible that some years hence, a magazine article will begin with the sentence, "Stretch Armstrong's surprising journey to a Best Picture nomination began when..." But for now, let's just admit it: Hollywood has become an institution that is more interested in launching the next rubberized action figure than in making the next interesting movie.

At this moment of awards-giving and back-patting, however, we can all agree to love movies again, for a little while, because we're living within a mirage that exists for only about six or eight weeks around the end of each year. Right now, we can argue that any system that allows David Fincher to plumb the invention of Facebook and the Coen brothers to visit the old West, that lets us spend the holidays gorging on new work by Darren Aronofsky and David O. Russell, has got to mean that American filmmaking is in reasonably good health. But the truth is that we'll be back to summer—which seems to come sooner every year—in a heartbeat. And it's hard to hold out much hope when you hear the words that one studio executive, who could have been speaking for all her kin, is ready to chisel onto Hollywood's tombstone: "We don't tell stories anymore."
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby TheButcher on Tue Feb 22, 2011 7:19 am

From GQ:
The Day the Movies Died pt. 2

How did hollywood get here? There's no overarching theory, no readily identifiable villain, no single moment to which the current combination of caution, despair, and underachievement that defines studio thinking can be traced. But let's pick one anyway: Top Gun.

It's now a movie-history commonplace that the late-'60s-to-mid-'70s creative resurgence of American moviemaking—the Coppola-Altman-Penn-Nichols-Bogdanovich-Ashby decade—was cut short by two movies, Jaws in 1975 and Star Wars in 1977, that lit the fuse for the summer-blockbuster era. But good summer blockbusters never hurt anyone, and in the decade that followed, the notion of "summer movie season" entered the pop-culture lexicon, but the definition of "summer movie" was far more diverse than it is today. The label could encompass a science fiction film as hushed and somber as Alien, a two-and-a-half-hour horror movie like The Shining, a directorial vision as singular as Blade Runner, an adult film noir like Body Heat, a small-scale (yes, it was) movie like E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial, a frankly erotic romantic drama like An Officer and a Gentleman. Sex was okay—so was an R rating. Adults were treated as adults rather than as overgrown children hell-bent on enshrining their own arrested development.

Then came Top Gun. The man calling the shots may have been Tony Scott, but the film's real auteurs were producers Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer, two men who pioneered the "high-concept" blockbuster—films for which the trailer or even the tagline told the story instantly. At their most basic, their movies weren't movies; they were pure product—stitched-together amalgams of amphetamine action beats, star casting, music videos, and a diamond-hard laminate of technological adrenaline all designed to distract you from their lack of internal coherence, narrative credibility, or recognizable human qualities. They were rails of celluloid cocaine with only one goal: the transient heightening of sensation.

Top Gun landed directly in the cortexes of a generation of young moviegoers whose attention spans and narrative tastes were already being recalibrated by MTV and video games. That generation of 16-to-24-year-olds—the guys who felt the rush of Top Gun because it was custom-built to excite them—is now in its forties, exactly the age of many mid- and upper-midrange studio executives. And increasingly, it is their taste, their appetite, and the aesthetic of their late-'80s postadolescence that is shaping moviemaking. Which may be a brutally unfair generalization, but also leads to a legitimate question: Who would you rather have in charge—someone whose definition of a classic is Jaws or someone whose definition of a classic is Top Gun?

The Top Gun era sent the ambitions of those who wanted to break into the biz spiraling in a new direction. Fifteen years earlier, scores of young people headed to film schools to become directors. With the advent of the Reagan years, a more bottom-line-oriented cadre of would-be studio players was born, with an MBA as the new Hollywood calling card. The Top Gun era shifted that paradigm again—this time toward marketing. Which was only natural: If movies were now seen as packages, then the new kings of the business would be marketers, who could make the wrapping on that package look spectacular even if the contents were deficient.

In some ways, the ascent of the marketer was inevitable: Now that would-be blockbusters often open on more than 4,000 screens, the cost of selling a movie has skyrocketed toward—and sometimes past—$40 million to $50 million per film, which is often more than the movie itself cost to make. According to the Los Angeles Times, the studios spent $1 billion just to market the movies that were released in the summer of 2009. "Opening a movie everywhere at once is a very, very expensive proposition," says Jinks, who points out that ten years ago American Beauty could open slowly and become "ridiculously profitable without ever being the number one movie. But today, if you're opening, you're inevitably going to overspend in order to try to buy that first-place finish."

With so much money at stake, the marketer's voice at the studio table is now pivotal from the day a studio decides whether to make a movie—and usually what that voice expresses is trepidation. Their first question is not "Will the movie be good?" but "Can it be sold?" And by "sold," what they mean is "sold on the first weekend." Good movies aimed at adults tend to make their money more slowly than kid stuff, and they're helped by good reviews and word of mouth, which, from a marketing standpoint, are impossible to engineer. That's one reason studios would rather spend $100 million on a franchise film than a fraction of that on an original idea. When Rudin first got hold of The Social Network, he says, "I would get calls from people at other studios saying, 'Is that movie going? We'd love to do it. How much do you need to make it?' And I'd say, 'Somewhere between $35 and $40 million.' And they'd say, 'Oh, well, we were thinking $15.' The days of having five companies chase you for a movie that needs to be good in order to work are over."

"Fear has descended," says James Schamus, the screenwriter-producer who also heads the profitable indie company Focus Features, "and nobody in Hollywood wants to be the person who green-lit a movie that not only crashes but about which you can't protect yourself by saying, 'But at least it was based on a comic book!' "

···

Such an unrelenting focus on the sell rather than the goods may be why so many of the dispiritingly awful movies that studios throw at us look as if they were planned from the poster backward rather than from the good idea forward. Marketers revere the idea of brands, because a brand means that somebody, somewhere, once bought the thing they're now trying to sell. The Magic 8 Ball (tragically, yes, there is going to be a Magic 8 Ball movie) is a brand because it was a toy. Pirates of the Caribbean is a brand because it was a ride. Harry Potter is a brand because it was a series of books. Jonah Hex is a brand because it was a comic book. (Here lies one fallacy of putting marketers in charge of everything: Sometimes they forget to ask if it's a good brand.) Sequels are brands. Remakes are brands. For a good long stretch, movie stars were considered brands; this was the era in which magazines like Premiere attempted to quantify the waxing or waning clout of actors and actresses from year to year because, to the industry, having the right star seemed to be the ultimate hedge against failure.

But after three or four hundred cases in which that didn't prove out, Hollywood's obsession with star power has started to erode. In the last several years, a new rule of operation has taken over: The movie itself has to be the brand. And because a brand is, by definition, familiar, a brand is also, by definition, not original. The fear of nonbranded movies can occasionally approach the ridiculous, as it did in 2006 when Martin Scorsese's The Departed was widely viewed within the industry as a "surprise" hit, primarily because of its R rating and unfamiliar source material. It may not have been a brand, but, says its producer Graham King, "Risky? With the guy I think is the greatest living director and Nicholson, Matt Damon, Wahlberg, and Leo? If you're at a studio and you can't market that movie, then you shouldn't be in business."
Last edited by TheButcher on Tue Feb 22, 2011 7:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby TheButcher on Tue Feb 22, 2011 7:20 am

From GQ:
The Day the Movies Died pt. 3
Inception was not a brand, which is why nobody with a marketing background is too eager to go find the next Inception—although ironically, any studio in town would eagerly green-light Inception 2. On the other hand, as you read this, the person who gave the go-ahead to Fast Five, the (I hate to prejudge, but...) utterly unnecessary fifth installment in the Vin Diesel–Paul Walker epic The Fast and the Furious, is sleeping soundly right now, possibly even at his desk. On June 10, 2011, he will bestow on several thousand screens a product that people have already purchased four times before. How can it miss?

Of course, it can miss; can't-miss movies miss all the time. But when a movie that everyone agrees is pre-sold falls on its face, the dullness of the idea itself never gets the blame. Because the idea that familiarity might actually work against a movie, were it to take hold in Hollywood, would be so annihilating to the studio ecosystem that it would have to be rebuilt from the ground up. Give the people what they don't know they want yet is a recipe for more terror than Hollywood can accommodate.

And while that bland assembly-line ethos hasn't affected the small handful of terrific American movies that reach screens every year, it's been absolutely devastating for the stuff in the middle—that whole tier of movies that used to reside in quality somewhere below, say, There Will Be Blood but well north of Tyler Perry's Why Did I Get Married Too? It's your run-of-the-mill hey-what's-playing-tonight movie—the kind of film about which you should be able to say, "That was nothing special, but it was okay"—that has suffered most from Hollywood's collective inattention/indifference to the basic virtues of story development. If films like The Bounty Hunter and Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time define the new "okay," then the system is, not to put too fine a point on it, in very deep shit.

Fixing that, however, is nobody's current priority—because fixing it would require an admission that something's broken. Marketing isn't about that; it's about looking at what's selling and then selling more of it. These days, Hollywood's most popular commodity is the concept of endless summer. Back in the mid-'80s, the season adhered at least somewhat to actual summer: It'd launch around the last weekend of May and peter out by mid-August. That left eight months for movies that did not involve CGI or spandex. But the last decade has seen an extraordinary degree of calendar creep: In 2010, "summer" arguably began on April 30, with a remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street, and was still going pretty strong on September 10, with the opening of Resident Evil: Afterlife. And since summer's so popular, why not have more than one of them? In Hollywood thinking, what we used to call "spring" is now "Summer: The Prequel," festooned with movies like Clash of the Titans that are designed to slake your blockbuster thirst as early as the first weeks of spring. And once you go that far, it's not much of a leap to reimagine Thanksgiving as "WinterSummer." And then Christmas—which, last year, offered a new Narnia movie as well as reboots of Yogi Bear, Gulliver's Travels, and Tron—sort of becomes "WinterSummer II: The Return of WinterSummer!"

The rise of marketers has also brought on an obsession with demographics. As anyone in Hollywood will tell you, the American filmgoing populace is divided two ways: by gender and by age. Gender is self-explanatory (usually); the over-under dividing line for age is 25. Naturally, every studio chief dreams of finding a movie like Avatar that reaches all four "quadrants" of the audience: male and female, young and not. But if it can be made for the right price, a two- or even one-quadrant film can be a viable business proposition.

In Hollywood, though, not all quadrants are created equal. If you, for instance, have a vagina, you're pretty much out of luck, because women, in studio thinking, are considered a niche audience that, except when Sandra Bullock reads a script or Nicholas Sparks writes a novel, generally isn't worth taking the time to figure out. And if you were born before 1985... well, it is my sad duty to inform you that in the eyes of Hollywood, you are one of what the kids on the Internet call "the olds." I know—you thought you were one of the kids on the Internet. Not to the studios, which have realized that the closer you get to (or the farther you get from) your thirtieth birthday, the more likely you are to develop things like taste and discernment, which render you such an exhausting proposition in terms of selling a movie that, well, you might as well have a vagina.

That leaves one quadrant—men under 25—at whom the majority of studio movies are aimed, the thinking being that they'll eat just about anything that's put in front of them as long as it's spiked with the proper set of stimulants. That's why, when you look at the genres that currently dominate Hollywood—action, raunchy comedy, game/toy/ride/comic-book adaptations, horror, and, to add an extra jolt of Red Bull to all of the preceding categories, 3-D—they're all aimed at the same ADD-addled, short-term-memory-lacking, easily excitable testosterone junkie. In a world dominated by marketing, it was inevitable that the single quadrant that would come to matter most is the quadrant that's most willing to buy product even if it's mediocre.

"It's a chicken-versus-egg thing," says writer-producer Vince Gilligan, the creator of the why-aren't-there-movies-this-good cable hit Breaking Bad. "The studios say, 'Well, no one else is coming to movies reliably these days except for young males, so we'll make our movies for them.' And yet if you make movies simply for young males, nobody else is going to want to go. So Hollywood has become like Logan's Run: You turn 30, and they kill you."

he good news is that the four-quadrant theory of marketing may now be eroding. The bad news is that it's giving way to something worse—a new classification that encompasses all ages and both genders: the "I won't grow up" demographic. As recently as 1993, three kid-oriented genres—animated movies, movies based on comic books, and movies based on children's books—represented a relatively small percentage of the overall film marketplace; that year they grossed about $400 million combined (thanks mostly to Mrs. Doubtfire) and owned just a single spot in the year's top ten. In 2010, those same three genres took in more than $3 billion and by December represented eight of the year's top nine grossers.

Let me posit something: That's bad. We can all acknowledge that the world of American movies is an infinitely richer place because of Pixar and that the very best comic-book movies, from Iron Man to The Dark Knight, are pretty terrific, but the degree to which children's genres have colonized the entire movie industry goes beyond overkill. More often than not, these collectively infantilizing movies are breeding an audience—not to mention a generation of future filmmakers and studio executives—who will grow up believing that movies aimed at adults should be considered a peculiar and antique art. Like books. Or plays.

In a way, that kind of thinking is just the terminus of a decades-long marginalization of the very notion of creative ambition by the studios. If in the 1970s making good original movies was a central goal of the men who ran the studios, by the 1980s that goal had devolved to making good original movies to release at the end of the year, for Oscar season. In the 1990s, as the boom in American independent filmmaking began, the idea of a "good" movie, as New York Times critic Manohla Dargis has pointed out, eventually became a niche that could be outsourced—first to self-made moguls like Harvey Weinstein and then to boutique divisions of the studios themselves. "There was a moment a few years ago," says Schamus, "when studios said, 'Hey, all of these specialty companies seem to be taking up all the seats in the front row at the Oscars, so if they can do it, we can do it—we'll just throw money at them!' And the results, financially, ranged from mildly catastrophic to ridiculously catastrophic."
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby TheButcher on Tue Feb 22, 2011 7:21 am

From GQ:
The Day the Movies Died pt. 4
That boom went bust. Several of the studio-owned boutique divisions overspent insanely, often on weak material (and we can all agree that a really bad small movie is every bit as wretched as a really bad big movie). They muscled into the marketplace, laying waste to smaller indie companies in the process; then they collapsed of their own weight and left the field of dramatic filmmaking devastated. "And for all those people who spent years trying to get movies made at all the companies that are now gone, there's now one place to work where you can get respectfully treated and fairly judged," says Rudin. "It's HBO."

So cable has become the custodian of the "good" niche; entities like HBO, Showtime, and AMC have found a business model with which they can satisfy a deep public appetite for long-form drama. Their original series don't need to attract huge audiences; and as a result, any number of ambitious writers, directors, and producers who might long ago have pitched their best stuff to studios now turn to the small screen, because one thing nobody in cable television will ever say to them is "We don't tell stories anymore."

"The sad thing," says HBO programming chief Michael Lombardo, "is that a world has closed to a group of serious storytellers—and there are some stories that should be told in a two-hour format. Our success is a sort of silver lining in a story that's economically driven by what studios are doing to try to survive in a complicated international market. But the losers ultimately are people who are looking to appreciate serious work in film."

···

So who's the bad guy here? It must be said that studio executives and marketers make such tempting bad guys that it becomes too easy to assume that the problem could be fixed by nothing more than a changing of the guard. In public esteem, they stand somewhere alongside congressmen, bankers, and health insurers.

They're philistines, foes of art, craven bottom-liners, vulgarians. It's a nice theory, but it ignores the fact that each studio has its own culture. And after all, somebody green-lit The Social Network and True Grit and The Town—a modestly budgeted movie that surprised even its own director-star by opening in a robust first place and then racking up strong grosses week after week. "The business has been bifurcated into big tentpole movies and dramas that have become more and more marginalized," says Ben Affleck. "I understand that the kind of movie I made is hard to sell, so even though it was probably the least expensive movie Warner Bros. will make all year, it still represented a risk. And it'd be nice to imagine that it's a viable business to make twelve or fifteen of those movies a year at a studio, but it's just not."

The economic pressures the studios are facing aren't just an excuse—they're real. Movie-ticket sales may be reasonably strong, but any number of economic forces are conspiring against the production of adult dramas. They don't generally have the kind of repeat-viewing appeal that would make them DVD smashes. They often end up with an R rating, which puts a ceiling on their earning capacity and makes a modest budget absolutely essential. Oscar nominations or even wins can no longer be relied upon to goose a quality film's revenues. (Last spring's top honoree, The Hurt Locker, ended up as the lowest-grossing Best Picture winner since the 1950s.) And overseas markets are becoming less predictable and more insular—Schamus points out that Japan and Italy have taken a pronounced turn away from Hollywood films and toward homegrown fare, a trend that's likely to spread around the globe. (And adult dramas play particularly poorly abroad.)

"Listen, the obligation of anyone in those studio jobs is to help their company make a profit," says Scott Stuber, who served as Universal's president of production before leaving in 2005 to become a producer. "When things are going well, sometimes you're willing to reach a little bit more; you'll say, once in a while, 'We're just going to do this movie because we believe in it.' But when they're not going so well... it gets difficult. There's just not as much money out there as there used to be, and we're all inundated with so much noise now that it's hard to cut through every weekend for consumers' attention."

Which brings us to the embarrassing part. Blaming the studios for everything lets another culprit off too easily: us. We can complain until we're hoarse that Hollywood abandoned us by ceasing to make the kinds of movies we want to see, but it's just as true that we abandoned Hollywood. Studios make movies for people who go to the movies, and the fact is, we don't go anymore—and by we, I mean the complaining class, of which, if you've read this far, you are absolutely a member. We stay home, and we do it for countless reasons: A trip to the multiplex means paying for parking, a babysitter, and overpriced unhealthy food in order to be trapped in a room with people who refuse to pay for a babysitter, as well as psychos, talkers, line repeaters, texters, cell-phone users, and bedbugs. We can see the movie later, and "later" is pretty soon—on a customized home-theater system or, forget that, just a nice big wide-screen TV, via Netflix, or Amazon streaming, or on-demand, or iPad. The urgency of seeing movies the way they're presumably intended to be seen has given way to the primacy of privacy and the security of knowing that there's really almost no risk of missing a movie you want to see and never having another opportunity to see it. Put simply, we'd rather stay home, and movies are made for people who'd rather go out.

"Remember when a video didn't come out until ten months after the movie opened, so you really had to go see it?" says Graham King. "Gone now. It's a vicious circle, because audiences are saying—or we're guessing they're saying—that they want these movies, but it's so easy to say, 'I'm going to wait,' and it's not a cheap night out to go to the movies anymore. So it's not surprising that the studios aren't willing to risk much money on the chance that this time, the audience is going to say, 'Let's actually go see this on the big screen.' "

Still, sometimes we do actually show up. Moviegoing is, after all, a lifelong habit, and we don't need all that much encouragement to keep trying. During one remarkable stretch last fall, the box office was dominated, on successive weekends, by The Town, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, and The Social Network, and as the studios suddenly seemed to reassert that they didn't intend to give up on us completely, we fulfilled our half of the bargain by buying tickets. Now it's your turn again, Hollywood. Because somewhere out there, somebody has a pitch as good as Inception. There will no doubt be a dozen reasons not to green-light it. But say yes and we just might give you another $800 million out of gratitude.

Make no mistake: Hollywood wants that $800 million. And in fact, they may have figured out the perfect way to extract it from our wallets. It took twenty-four years to get here, but it's finally happening: Top Gun 2.
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Austin Powers 4

Postby TheButcher on Fri Aug 12, 2011 11:17 pm

Motion Captured Exclusive:
Mike Myers is signed, sealed, delivered for 'Austin Powers 4' - Comic star returns to his best-loved movie role for a new sequel
Moriarty wrote:It was inevitable.

Mike Myers had a small part in Quentin Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds," and he's reprised his role as Shrek for both a sequel and a TV special in the last few years, but as far as live-action movies where he's the star, the last one was the disastrous "The Love Guru" in 2008, and the response to that nearly drove him out of the business.

Myers is a very particular talent, a guy who likes to workshop a character for a while before he actually makes a movie. He has not made that many films, all things considered, and a few times over the course of his career, he has actually pulled the plug on things that probably could have gotten made because he didn't feel they were ready. That happened most famously with "Sprockets," the feature-film version of one of his SNL characters. I liked the script he co-wrote with Mike McCullers, but Myers bowed out just before it was supposed to start, killing the film in the process.

His most successful bigscreen character, of course, is the hyper-horny snaggletoothed secret agent Austin Powers, and there has been much talk about the possibility of a fourth film in that series over the last few years. For a while, there was talk of a Dr. Evil spin-off film, but I think all of those weird characters need to share the same universe. Taking one of them into a solo film just seems odd. Whatever the case, we haven't' seen the character since 2002's "Goldmember."

That's about to change, as HitFix can now confirm that Mike Myers just closed his deal to return to the role. Yep. "Austin Powers 4" is coming, officially.

No word yet on who will be directing. I would hope Jay Roach returns as well, since I think a lot of the kick of the films is the '60s pop aesthetic, and Roach has been a big part of that since day one. There's also no word yet on a proposed storyline, but I will certainly start digging to see what I can come up with.

Right now, all that's sure is that someone's going to get shagged, and for the first time in a decade, Austin Powers fans are going to have new material to get excited about. We'll update you as more details become available.
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby Nachokoolaid on Sat Aug 13, 2011 3:34 pm

I find it a bit funny and ironic that this thread was started in 05, and yet, here we are. Still watching stuff Hollywood is churning out.
User avatar
Nachokoolaid
THE DORK KNIGHT
 
Posts: 5588
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:00 am
Location: Gotham City

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby minstrel on Sat Aug 13, 2011 8:05 pm

Nachokoolaid wrote:I find it a bit funny and ironic that this thread was started in 05, and yet, here we are. Still watching stuff Hollywood is churning out.


We have to watch stuff. We need stuff. And Hollywood produces stuff. If it's not fresh, original stuff, it's at least stuff, and we'd die of boredom without stuff. Of course, Hollywood is trying to make us die of boredom WITH stuff, because their stuff is just retreads and requels and remakes and restuffings of old stuff, but we're not dead yet, and we're addicted to stuff. So we keep watching stuff. We wish we had better stuff, but Hollywood has realized that they don't have to produce good stuff because we'll watch any old stuff. And pay for any old stuff. So they give us cheap stuff - I mean, it may be stuff that costs a lot, but it's still cheap stuff.
"Everybody is equally shitty and wrong." - Ribbons
User avatar
minstrel
Leader of the Insquirrelgency
 
Posts: 12634
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:03 pm
Location: Area 52

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Sat Aug 13, 2011 8:40 pm

Instead of complaining about the same ol' stuff, only to end up playing into Hollywood's hands and watching same ol' stuff, (Spiderman/Star Trek Reboot, I'm looking at yo... actually I choose NOT to, literally) why don't you guys simply refuse to watch it.

Like me.

I swear, this place is the centre of movie hypocrisy. Hollywood suits come to this place and laugh. I mean it. It's part of their job to see what people are talking about. They come here and know that you guys with your bashing of unoriginal remake/pre-sequels only to say that you actually saw and even liked it, are easy pickings.
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16585
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby TheBaxter on Mon Aug 15, 2011 10:46 am

Nachokoolaid wrote:I find it a bit funny and ironic that this thread was started in 05, and yet, here we are. Still watching stuff Hollywood is churning out.


what's even more ironic is that, in the time since this thread was started, entire films have been made, released, and then remade, all in that period. let the right one in, girl with the dragon tattoo, oldboy, and on and on.
Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
Carlos Danger
 
Posts: 18956
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Mon Aug 15, 2011 2:21 pm

TheBaxter wrote:
Nachokoolaid wrote:I find it a bit funny and ironic that this thread was started in 05, and yet, here we are. Still watching stuff Hollywood is churning out.


what's even more ironic is that, in the time since this thread was started, entire films have been made, released, and then remade, all in that period. let the right one in, girl with the dragon tattoo, oldboy, and on and on.

And I've seen every one. As unlike Kirk, I see every film I talk about here, hence putting money into Hollywood's pockets like the complaining yet obedient good boy that I am. DOH!


Well at least you admit your hypocrisy.
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16585
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby TheBaxter on Mon Aug 15, 2011 2:29 pm

Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:
TheBaxter wrote:
Nachokoolaid wrote:I find it a bit funny and ironic that this thread was started in 05, and yet, here we are. Still watching stuff Hollywood is churning out.


what's even more ironic is that, in the time since this thread was started, entire films have been made, released, and then remade, all in that period. let the right one in, girl with the dragon tattoo, oldboy, and on and on.

And I've seen every one. As unlike Kirk, I see every film I talk about here, hence putting money into Hollywood's pockets like the complaining yet obedient good boy that I am. DOH!


Well at least you admit your hypocrisy. but unlike TheBaxter, i didn't realize you haven't seen the "Let Me In" remake and didn't even know that the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo remake hasn't been released yet and the Oldboy remake hasn't even been shot yet, so there's no way you could have seen those two either, so i must just be one dumb motherfucker trolling the internet to make up for my lonely pathetic life. DOH!


well, at least you admit your stupidity and patheticness.
Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
Carlos Danger
 
Posts: 18956
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Mon Aug 15, 2011 7:52 pm

TheBaxter wrote:
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:
TheBaxter wrote:
Nachokoolaid wrote:I find it a bit funny and ironic that this thread was started in 05, and yet, here we are. Still watching stuff Hollywood is churning out.


what's even more ironic is that, in the time since this thread was started, entire films have been made, released, and then remade, all in that period. let the right one in, girl with the dragon tattoo, oldboy, and on and on.

And I've seen every one. As unlike Kirk, I see every film I talk about here, hence putting money into Hollywood's pockets like the complaining yet obedient good boy that I am. DOH!


Well at least you admit your hypocrisy. but unlike TheBaxter, i didn't realize you haven't seen the "Let Me In" remake and didn't even know that the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo remake hasn't been released yet and the Oldboy remake hasn't even been shot yet, so there's no way you could have seen those two either, so i must just be one dumb motherfucker trolling the internet to make up for my lonely pathetic life. DOH!


well, at least you admit your stupidity and patheticness.


HAH! So you ARE talking about movies you HAVEN'T seen yet. Henceforth, you fall into my Spider's trap! No answer you can give can win. Double Indemnity!

Right now I wanna see someone post a pic of Gary Oldman's Dracula laughing and clenching his hands together as if to say "Gotchya!" as I've never been able to find that pic anywhere.
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16585
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby TheButcher on Sun Aug 28, 2011 11:24 pm

Martin Scorsese, William Monahan Teaming for 'The Gambler' at Paramount (THR Exclusive)
Daniel Miller wrote:Paramount is going all-in on The Gambler, a remake of the 1974 James Caan addiction drama.

The studio has set Martin Scorsese to direct and William Monahan to write. Irwin Winkler, who produced the original, will again act as producer of the new film.

The 1974 movie, an adaptation of the short novel The Gambler by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, detailed a New York English professor who inspires his students but suffers from a secret gambling addiction. The affliction causes him to extort money from his mother and convince one of his students to shave points in a basketball game.

Caan received a Golden Globe nomination for best actor for his performance in the original. Lauren Hutton and Paul Sorvino co-starred for director Karel Reisz. (The project is not related to the series of Gambler TV movies that starred Kenny Rogers in the 1980s and 90s.)

The gritty New York setting of the original seems a perfect match for Scorsese, who teamed with Monahan on 2006 best picture Oscar winner The Departed.

The director has been especially active lately. He has his first family film, Hugo, slated for a Thanksgiving release, and he’s preparing to direct Silence, an adaptation of the Shusaku Endo novel. He’s also attached to The Wolf of Wall Street, an adaptation of the Jordan Belfort memoir that has attached Leonardo DiCaprio, with whom Scorsese collaborated on Shutter Island.

Scorsese is repped by WME. Monahan is repped by WME and Anonymous.

Paramount declined to comment.


DEADLINE EXCLUSIVE:
Leonardo DiCaprio Attached To ‘Gambler’ Remake At Paramount With Martin Scorsese
MIKE FLEMING wrote:In what shapes up as a reteam for the writer, director and star of the Oscar-winning The Departed, Leonardo DiCaprio is attached to star in The Gambler, a Paramount remake of the 1974 drama. James Caan starred in the original as an academic whose gambling addiction begins to get the best of him. William Monahan is writing the script as a potential directing vehicle for Martin Scorsese. Irwin Winkler and Bob Chartoff are attached as producers. DiCaprio recently completed the Clint Eastwood-directed J. Edgar, and he’s playing Jay Gatsby in Baz Luhrmann’s remake of The Great Gatsby for Warner Bros, based on the F. Scott Fitzgerald classic. DiCaprio then takes a villainous turn in the Quentin Tarantino-directed Django Unchained for The Weinstein Company.

The gambler was a gritty film which Caan did when he was one of the top stars in Hollywood. His gambling addiction got to the point where he convinces a student athlete to shave points so he can win a bet, and the high he experiences from risking everything takes him into even darker places. DiCaprio has so far starred for Scorsese in Shutter Island, The Departed, The Aviator and The Gangs of New York. DiCaprio is repped by Rick Yorn.



DEADLINE EXCLUSIVE:
James Toback On ‘The Gambler’ Remake: “Not Possible… Rudeness And Disrespect”
NIKKI FINKE wrote:Imagine if you’d written a 1974 autobiographical masterpiece of a screenplay about compulsive gambling directed by Karel Reisz and starring James Caan. Imagine also if you just found out it was being remade by writer William Monahan, director Marty Scorsese, and actor Leonardo DiCaprio and no one told you. What is most incredible, and also despicable, is that neither the original studio Paramount nor the original producers Irwin Winkler and Bob Chartoff bothered to reveal they were going back to Toback’s creative well without him. On Saturday, Toback phoned me and asked if he could write about this surreal experience for Deadline Hollywood. Here in its entirety is his sadness and anger mixed with his trademark humor, against the backdrop of the late, great, and heady filmmaking days of that decade:
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby so sorry on Mon Aug 29, 2011 10:05 am

TheButcher wrote:
NIKKI FINKE wrote:Imagine if you’d written a 1974 autobiographical masterpiece of a screenplay about compulsive gambling directed by Karel Reisz and starring James Caan. Imagine also if you just found out it was being remade by writer William Monahan, director Marty Scorsese, and actor Leonardo DiCaprio and no one told you. What is most incredible, and also despicable, is that neither the original studio Paramount nor the original producers Irwin Winkler and Bob Chartoff bothered to reveal they were going back to Toback’s creative well without him. On Saturday, Toback phoned me and asked if he could write about this surreal experience for Deadline Hollywood. Here in its entirety is his sadness and anger mixed with his trademark humor, against the backdrop of the late, great, and heady filmmaking days of that decade:


That's a nice little read into the backstory of the original movie.
User avatar
so sorry
Deacon Blues
 
Posts: 15464
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:29 am

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby TheBaxter on Mon Aug 29, 2011 10:28 am

Dear Martin Scorsese,

Please stop remaking films. Go back to making original films (or at least adaptations of books that haven't been made into films yet). Shutter Island was a good film. That's the kind of movie you should be making more of. No more remakes, no more children's films, no more music documentaries. And while you're at it, can you please hire another actor besides Leo DiCaprio? He's not terrible, but he's no DeNiro either. Even Tim Burton occasionally makes a movie without Johnny Depp from time to time. You should try one without Leo for a change this decade and see how it goes.

Sincerely,
TheBaxter
Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
Carlos Danger
 
Posts: 18956
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby Spandau Belly on Mon Aug 29, 2011 10:34 am

Ten bucks says they retitle it ROUNDERS RISING 3D.
Image
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Mon Aug 29, 2011 12:24 pm

I feel it really anger inducing that I come here to see all these remakes being done! It seems so bad that Hollywood has now run out of ideas and is remaking so many films these days that they never did before.

Now I'm glad that rant is over I'm going back to watching Mutiny on the Bounty.
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16585
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby SilentScream on Mon Aug 29, 2011 1:03 pm

TheBaxter wrote:Dear Martin Scorsese,

Please stop remaking films. Go back to making original films (or at least adaptations of books that haven't been made into films yet). Shutter Island was a good film. That's the kind of movie you should be making more of. No more remakes, no more children's films, no more music documentaries. And while you're at it, can you please hire another actor besides Leo DiCaprio? He's not terrible, but he's no DeNiro either. Even Tim Burton occasionally makes a movie without Johnny Depp from time to time. You should try one without Leo for a change this decade and see how it goes.

Sincerely,
TheBaxter


Scorsese's music documentries are pretty shit to be honest. The Last Waltz and The Stones thing were nothing but concerts being filmed with the obligatory backstage, backslapping scenes added in. BOOOORING. They added nothing particularly new, no insights, nothing original, no nothing. A big, f@t musical ZERO. The Dylan flick was ok though. Just about. The Blues one, too, but maybe too long and boring.
I worry for Marty sometimes. I weally, weally do. He's so up and down of late (well make that the past 10 or so years). Moments of former glories shine through but he seems a director stuck on autopilot. Lame variations on themes he's done to death. Crime, check. Corruption, check. New Yawk, check. Gangsters, check. Zippy, zappy dialgoue and cinematography, check. Piggy-eyes Leo, check. So it bleedin' goes, on and on, the same type of thing.
Where's your mojo, Marty? Where's the variation of the 80's and 90's? King Of Comedy, After Hours, Kundun, Last Temptation of Christ, Raging Bull?
You're a great director but you need to branch out. Do something different. A full on comedy, a modern day musical, a sci-fi drama, a gay-themed flick,; anything that'll get you out of that comfort zone you're currently encased in.
SilentScream
CHEETS ON HIS WIFE
 
Posts: 348
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:23 pm

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby Spandau Belly on Mon Aug 29, 2011 1:10 pm

I dunno, I'll actually say Marty has tried his hand at a number of different types of film, the only things most of them have in common is Leonardo DiCaprio and me not liking them.

I mean, his next film looks like some corny kids adventure movie, and GANGS OF NEW YORK was a totally original although horrible failure of a film, THE AVIATOR was at least trying to be a different type of biopic (not the standard story about a poor guy with talent who gets rich, struggles with drugs, has a comeback yadda yadda yadda), and THE DEPARTED probably had the most onscreen drunkeness for a film its budget, and SHUTTER ISLAND was your typical lame twist Hollywood movie but Marty hadn't really done one of those before.

So I can't really accuse the guy of lacking diversity as much as he's lacking quality.
Image
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

Re: Beetlejuice 2

Postby TheButcher on Tue Sep 06, 2011 10:16 pm

DEADLINE EXCLUSIVE:
KatzSmith Duo Makes First-Look Warner Bros Deal; Will Bring ‘Beetlejuice’ Back From Dead
MIKE FLEMING wrote:KatzSmith Productions partners David Katzenberg and Seth Grahame-Smith have just signed a two-year first-look feature producing deal at Warner Bros. While rights are still being worked out, one of their first projects is expected to be a sequel to Beetlejuice, the 1988 Tim Burton-directed hit that starred Michael Keaton as a ghoul hired by a recently deceased couple to drive the new owners out of their house. Burton and Keaton made the movie while they were working on the studio’s first Batman film, which was released the following year. Beetlejuice also starred Alec Baldwin, Winona Ryder and Geena Davis. The film will not be a remake; the intention is to reboot it by advancing the storyline of the original, which was done by The Geffen Company and Warner Bros.

The Warner Bros producing deal grew from the screenwriting work that Grahame-Smith did for Burton on Dark Shadows, currently in production with Johnny Depp heading the cast. While Warner Bros and other studios continue to cut back producing pacts, in KatzSmith the studio gets two partners who while just getting started producing features bring a lot of their own ideas to the table and are established writers and aspiring feature directors.

“We first got to know Seth through his fantastic work on Dark Shadows, and it immediately became a priority to expand our relationship with him,” said Warner Bros production president Greg Silverman. “Seth introduced us to David, who greatly impresses us with the vision for KatzSmith from the very first meeting. We firmly believe in their talents and are extremely excited to welcome them to the Warners family.” WME made KatzSmith’s deal.

Grahame-Smith will write two scripts as part of the deal, and it’s a distinct possibility that Beetlejuice 2 will be one of them. Katzenberg and Grahame-Smith tell me the model for their company is Bad Robot and Imagine Entertainment, where the principals generate many of the ideas that are turned into films. Katzenberg and Grahame-Smith met at CBS, where they worked on a series of humorous webisodes generated by Michael Cera and Clarke Duke. When Katzenberg (the son of DreamWorks Animation chief Jeffrey Katzenberg) wrote and directed a short film about a well-endowed high school nerd, Grahame-Smith produced it and they turned it into the MTV series The Hard Times of RJ Berger. They exec produced that scripted show, each directing episodes. Separately, Grahame-Smith wrote the bestselling novels Pride and Prejudice and Zombies and Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, and helped start a cottage industry in publishing where literary classics are dusted off and pollinated with supernatural elements. Grahame-Smith wrote the script for the latter film, which Timur Bekmambetov directed and which Fox releases June 22, 2012. Burton produced that film with Bekmambetov, and he hired Grahame-Smith for the Dark Shadows assignment at Warner Bros.

Before this deal, Grahame-Smith and Katzenberg were considered as co-directors by Lionsgate for the David O Russell-scripted Pride and Prejudice and Zombies before Craig Gillespie got the job, and Katzenberg is separately attached to direct the KatzSmith-produced From Mia With Love, a Fox comedy that the duo wrote with Kevin Chesley & Bryan Shukoff about three high school guys who are looking to lose their virginity before college, hire a Russian mail-order bride and find she has brought a lot of baggage. The film is something of an homage to Weird Science by John Hughes, one of their favorite filmmakers.

“We want to make big movies based on big ideas and inspired by the comedies we grew up loving,” the 35-year old Grahame-Smith told me. “The thing we like about Bad Robot and Imagine is that they are never pigeonholed because they do good work across a broad spectrum. We want to slowly grow into a company that follows in those footsteps.” Said Katzenberg, who’s 28: “We’re young, we’ve got a lot to learn, and we are going to have producers who help us on the first couple of big films. Warner Bros is a studio that gets behind its movies and is filmmaker-friendly.” The deal will allow them to buy material, but when possible they intend to self-generate, Katzenberg said. “We pride ourselves on coming up with a lot of our own ideas; about 90% of the projects we’ve generated in film and TV are ones we created and developed. The studio will help us bring our ideas to the finish line.”

They will give the studio first look at several projects they’re developing including We Three Kings, Grahame-Smith’s next novel, which is a large-scale telling of what the Three Wisemen from the Bible were actually doing in the manger that night (Grahame-Smith has turned in the book to Grand Central for an April 2012 publication, and he’s writing the script on spec with KatzSmith producing); Bryantology, in which a loser on the verge of losing his house exploits a tax loophole, invents a religion and names his home a tax-exempt place of worship. When the religion goes viral, followers show up on his doorstep and the hapless guy is suddenly a cult leader; Night of the Living, a stop-motion animated film that Grahame-Smith might script, with Burton producing along with KatzSmith. A town of peaceful monsters must learn how to fight when it is invaded by humans. KatzSmith also is producing an adaptation of Stuart Kaminsky’s novel series about 1940s Hollywood private eye Toby Peters, and Fire Teddy, a comedy script by Matthew Kaplan & Jason Leinwand that Katzenberg will direct. An underachieving nice guy is hired as a low-level employee at a corporate office. Ordered by his Machiavellian boss to fire Teddy, the newcomer can’t do it and becomes fast friends with Teddy through his futile attempts.
Last edited by TheButcher on Sun Oct 30, 2011 10:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby TheBaxter on Wed Sep 07, 2011 9:38 am



that's not that hard. just say "Beetlejuice!... Beetlejuice!.... Beetlej...."
Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
Carlos Danger
 
Posts: 18956
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby so sorry on Tue Sep 13, 2011 12:56 pm

User avatar
so sorry
Deacon Blues
 
Posts: 15464
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:29 am

Re: Beetlejuice 2

Postby TheButcher on Sun Oct 30, 2011 10:44 pm

Beetlejuice Sequel To Star Michael Keaton In “True Continuation 26 Years Later”
Brendon Connelly wrote:The first promises for the Beetlejuice sequel have been made. Now I’ve been told that this is what I’m going to get, I’ll probably blow a gasket if I don’t.

So, here’s what the new film’s screenwriter Seth Grahame-Smith has pledged:
The star of the movie has to be Michael Keaton as Beetlejuice, and it’s a true continuation 26 years later. Not just throwing him in as a cameo going, “Hey, it’s me. I endorse this movie.”


Okay, Grahame-Smith, I’d have accepted a good sequel without Keaton, but now you’ve baited me with his return, I’m going to hold you to it.

Another self-imposed condition the at the writer-producer and his co-producer David Katzenberg set for themselves was securing the involvement of Tim Burton, and they’ve told Entertainment Weekly that he’s definitely onboard – though not in which capacity. I’d be fascinated to see him direct, and go back to the goofy, Tashlin-esque cartoon lunacy of the original. Maybe he could shoot it right after he’s finished with that new Pee Wee Herman film I was praying he’d get involved with.

Yeah. I know. But I’ve been sleeping a lot, what with all of these knock-you-out pills for my arm injury, so I need a lot of silly dreams just to fill up all of that space.

Now. As for locking down Keaton to the Beetlejuice sequel, Grahame-Smith admits:
We’re not there yet because we don’t have a film to present to him.


By which I assume they mean a pitch, because if they meant script they would have said script. Which just goes to show how sketchy the plan is at the moment.
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Police Academy Reboot

Postby TheButcher on Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:58 pm

From Deadline:
New Line Taps Scott Zabielski To Helm ‘Police Academy’ Remake
MIKE FLEMING wrote:BREAKING: New Line Cinema has set Scott Zabielski to direct Police Academy, its remake of the long-running film series that started at Warner Bros in 1984 and spanned seven films. They were considered lowbrow, but how many Warner Bros series has spanned that many movies, other than Harry Potter? Zabielski is making his feature directing debut after directing several seasons of episodes of the hit Comedy Central show Tosh.O. While Zabielski is new to features, he’s quite familiar with the concept of police academy: He went through the academy and is a reserve police officer in West Hollywood. He’s repped by Underground and UTA

How do you become a reverse police officer? Is that like a Bizarro cop?

Tyrone_Shoelaces wrote:
TheButcher wrote:From THR:
New Line reviving 'Police Academy'
Borys Kit wrote:New Line is looking for recruits for a relaunched "Police Academy" movie. Original producer Paul Maslansky is back for the new iteration, which has no writer or director attached.

"Academy" was a seven-film lowbrow comedy series from Warner Bros. that saw a city throw open the doors of its police force to any recruit, much to the chagrin of its serious officers. The misfit officers band together and, of course, save the city.

The first film, released in 1984, starred Steve Guttenberg as Mahoney, a repeat offender who is forced to enter the academy and emerges as the group's leader. Other notable characters included Moses Hightower (Bubba Smith), gun-crazy Tackleberry (David Graf), mousy Hooks (Marion Ramsey) and sound effects-spewing Larvell Jones (Michael Winslow).

Bobcat Goldthwait joined the cast for the second movie in 1985. The series, which included Kim Cattrall and Sharon Stone as romantic leads, ended with the 1994's "Mission to Moscow." All told, the franchise took in about $240 million worldwide and inspired a pair of TV series.

"It's going to be very worthwhile to the people who remember it and to those who saw it on TV," Maslansky said. "It's going to be a new class. We hope to discover new talent and season it with great comedians. It'll be anything but another movie with a numeral next to it. And we'll most probably retain the wonderful musical theme."

The early entries in the series featured sexual humor, but later films became more kid-friendly. Details of the tone of new movie, which would take the story to its beginnings with new characters, were unavailable.

This time around, corporate parent Warner Bros. has sister company New Line taking the title out of its library, as it recently did with the "National Lampoon's Vacation" series.

Sam Brown is overseeing.

Somebody get me Maslansky's number.
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby TheButcher on Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:03 am

'Bruce Almighty' sequel in the works - Universal hires ''Yes Men' scribes to pen follow-up to 2003 comedy
Dave McNary wrote:Universal wants to bring back "Bruce Almighty."

The studio is in talks with the scripting team of Jarrad Paul and Andrew Mogel ("Hot Tub Time Machine," "Yes Men") to write a followup to the 2003 hit "Bruce Almighty."

VP of production Kristin Lowe will oversee the project.

Project's being developed as a starring vehice with "Bruce Almighty" star Jim Carrey in mind. Carrey starred as TV reporter given the chance to be God for a week after complaining to God about a rival co-worker, portrayed by Steve Carell, being promoted to the anchor slot.

"Bruce" grossed nearly $500 million worldwide and led to 2007's "Evan Almighty," with Carell in a spinoff as a freshman Congressman told by God to emulate Noah and build an ark. "Evan" was far less successful, with worldwide grosses of about $175 million. Tom Shadyac directed both "Bruce" and "Evan."

Paul and Mogel are represented by UTA, managers Paul Young and Allen Fischer of Principato/Young Management and attorney P.J. Shapiro of Ziffren Brittenham.
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Police Academy Reboot

Postby TheButcher on Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:06 am

'Police Academy' Remake to Be Directed by Scott Zabielski
Borys Kit wrote:New Line Cinema is entrusting its Police Academy franchise to first-time director Scott Zabielski.

Zabielski has helmed episodes of Comedy Central's Tosh.0 and is a reserve police officer in West Hollywood. Original producer Paul Maslansky is back for the new iteration, which aims to reboot the seven-film comedy series about a ragtag group of police recruits who repeatedly are called to help save the city.

The first film, released in 1984 by Warner Bros., starred Steve Guttenberg as Mahoney, the group's leader. The last film in the series was 1994's Mission to Moscow. The series grossed a combined $242 million worldwide and spawned a pair of TV series.

When The Hollywood Reporter first reported on the attempt to reboot the franchise in 2010, Maslansky said he aims to completely recast the film with up-and-comers.

"It's going to be very worthwhile to the people who remember it and to those who saw it on TV," Maslansky told THR. "It's going to be a new class. We hope to discover new talent and season it with great comedians. It'll be anything but another movie with a numeral next to it. And we'll most probably retain the wonderful musical theme."
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby The Vicar on Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:48 am

A Police Academy reboot? How the fuck did the Mayans miss this? Sign of the End Times, baby.
.
........................................
Image
User avatar
The Vicar
Fear & Loathing in the Zone
 
Posts: 16179
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:21 am

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby minstrel on Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:13 am

Next there will be a re-imagining of Mac and Me. And Leonard Part 6.

When Uwe Boll remakes Gigli with Matthew Lillard and some European porn star, the world will end.
"Everybody is equally shitty and wrong." - Ribbons
User avatar
minstrel
Leader of the Insquirrelgency
 
Posts: 12634
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:03 pm
Location: Area 52

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby TheBaxter on Tue Jan 10, 2012 10:56 am

The Vicar wrote:A Police Academy reboot? How the fuck did the Mayans miss this? Sign of the End Times, baby.


meanwhile, bubba smith is rolling over in his grave, and the gutenpackage weeps.
Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
Carlos Danger
 
Posts: 18956
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Re: Hollywood has OFFICIALLY run out of ideas

Postby Fievel on Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:15 am

TheBaxter wrote:
The Vicar wrote:A Police Academy reboot? How the fuck did the Mayans miss this? Sign of the End Times, baby.


meanwhile, bubba smith is rolling over in his grave, and the gutenpackage weeps.


Weeps.... drips... it's all the same.
Achievement Unlocked: TOTAL DOMINATION (Win a Werewolf Game without losing a single player on your team)
User avatar
Fievel
Mouse Of The House
 
Posts: 12107
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:07 pm
Location: White Lake, MI

Re: Beetlejuice 2

Postby TheButcher on Sat Jan 14, 2012 9:48 pm

But Will It Be Called BEETLEJUICE, BEETLEJUICE...??
Merrick here...

Late last year we learned that Seth Grahame-Smith - author of ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER and PRIDE AND PREJUDICE AND ZOMBIES - had been tasked with whipping up a sequel to Tm Burton's 1988 comedy BEETLEJUICE, or at least a new BEETLEJUICE film of some sort (Continuation? Reboot? Both?)

From THIS interview over at MTV, we now learn that not only is Grahame-Smith now actively mulling the project, but it's sounding like Burton and original star Michael Keaton may be coming along for the ride. The article provides a bit of interesting insights into several current Burton projects (the new FRANKENWEENIE and DARK SHADOWS pictures) and should definitely be checked out, but here's the specific snippet pertinent to a BEETLEJUICE revival.
MTV: Is it true that you're considering doing another "Beetlejuice" film?

Burton: Yes. I love that character, and Michael [Keaton] is so great in it. I always think about how great and fun that character was, so I just said to ["Vampire Hunter" writer] Seth [Grahame-Smith], "If you have some idea about it, go for it, and then I'll look at it freshly." In the past, I tried some things, but that was way back when. He seemed really excited about it.

MTV: Has he run any of his ideas by you yet?

Burton: No. I told him to try some stuff, but he hasn't come back to me yet. Michael was so great in it. I'm sure he'd strangely tap right back into it.
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Beetlejuice 2

Postby TheButcher on Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:59 pm

User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: HOME ALONE 5

Postby TheButcher on Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:18 pm

User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Beetlejuice 2

Postby TheButcher on Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:20 am

User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: “Die Hard in a…”

Postby TheButcher on Mon Apr 02, 2012 7:51 pm

Sony lands hot spec from 'Spider-Man' scribe - Par also bid on James Vanderbilt's 'White House Down' actioner
Jeff Sneider wrote:In what amounts to the biggest spec deal of the year, Sony Pictures has closed a $3 million deal to acquire "White House Down," an action spec from "Amazing Spider-Man" scribe James Vanderbilt that had studios buzzing this week.

Heated bidding came down to Sony and Paramount.

"White House Down," which is described as "Die Hard" meets "Air Force One," will mark the second time this month an action spec set at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. has sold for impressive coin, following Millennium Films' acquisition of Creighton Rothenberger and Katrin Benedikt's "Olympus Has Fallen," which quickly attached Gerard Butler to star.

Vanderbilt will produce "White House Down" with his Mythology Entertainment partners Bradley Fischer and Laeta Kalogridis.

Additionally, Vanderbilt has come on to polish the script for Jose Padilha's remake of "RoboCop," which will star Joel Kinnaman (AMC's "The Killing"). "The Infiltrator" scribe Josh Zetumer wrote the initial draft for MGM, while Nick Schenk ("Gran Torino") was tapped for rewrite duties back in January.

It's no surprise that Sony would outbid the competition for a spec from Vanderbilt, who has become one of the studio's go-to scribes. Not only did he write Sony's "Amazing Spider-Man" and "Total Recall" reboots and work on its "Red Riding" adaptation, but he has already been hired to write a treatment for an "Amazing Spider-Man" sequel.

Launched last November, Mythology is currently developing two potential franchise-launching projects; "The House With a Clock in Its Walls," based on the first book in John Bellairs' popular fantasy series, which "Supernatural" creator Erik Kripke is set to adapt and produce, as well as an adaptation of Richard Morgan's novel "Altered Carbon," which Kalogridis is writing with David Goodman ("Fringe"). Mythology, which also set up the drama series "The Lobotomist" at HBO with Leonardo DiCaprio's Appian Way banner, is currently in production on Showtime's Antoine Fuqua-directed Suge Knight documentary.

Vanderbilt is repped by WME and uFuse Management, while Mythology is repped by attorneys Katz Golden Rosenman and McKuin, Frankel & Whitehead.
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: “Die Hard in a…”

Postby TheButcher on Mon Apr 02, 2012 7:52 pm

From Deadline:
Universal Acquires ‘Speeding Bullet’ Pitch As The ‘Die Hard’ Premise Flourishes Again
MIKE FLEMING wrote:EXCLUSIVE: In the second significant material sale in a week that has a Die Hard theme to it, Universal Pictures acquired Speeding Bullet, a pitch by Jeremiah Friedman and Nick Palmer that went for mid-six figures. Paramount also pursued the pitch which is described as a throwback to the Die Hard-esque 90s buddy cop movie. KatzSmith Productions partners Seth Grahame-Smith and David Katzenberg are producing.

This comes after Sony last week acquired White House Down, a spec by Amazing Spider-Man scribe James Vanderbilt that is being loglined as Die Hard in the White House. While this surge of material sales is certainly welcome–White House Down went for a 2012 spec best $3 million–I can recall that after Die Hard became a hit, studios for the next 20 years bought pitches and specs that were loglined “Die Hard in a…” Maybe some smart studio exec will go back and dust off some of those scripts, now that the Die Hard premise is back in vogue.

The UTA-repped scripted wrote Family Getaway and are working on the remake of the Whitney Houston-Kevin Costner film The Bodyguard at Warner Bros.
Last edited by TheButcher on Tue Apr 03, 2012 5:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

PreviousNext

Return to Movie News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests