Yes This Is An Actual Movie and Yes I Probably Would Bawl My Eyes Out

Even though some dolphins are assholes...

Is Life Hell For Kevin Farley?

I was watching that episode of Curb where Kevin Farley plays that exterminator and Larry ends up taking him to that school play.  Throughout the whole performance it is hard not to think of him as Chris.  He's just about a spitting image of him, and even evokes the same mannerisms.  Not sure if that's a family thing.  But I wonder how hard it must be for him.  He knows he will never live up to the stature that is Chris Farley.  I'm sure he hears it from critics, detractors, and probably even his fans.  There has to be a lot of conflict there though, he knows he will never fill his shoes but in a way I think he wants honor his brother through his performances.

The Nines a Poor Man's Smart Movie

 Here is a summary of The Nines in case you were interested in watching, crazy shit, stupid shit, crazy shit, stupid shit, crazy shit, stupid shit, oh he is a God so it all makes sense.  I didn't think it was possible to have a twist ending any more tired than "it was all a dream". That's all you could come up with?  Couldn't figure out how to tie every stupid strange thing together other than he's a God so he can make and do whatever he wants?  It basically absolves the creator, cough John August cough cough, of any responsibility in developing an intricate, multi layered story, that concludes the characters in innovative yet sobering ending.  It absolves him from making a movie.  

What is the right religion?  Don't know, check out The Nines, it makes it's own religion up.  So not only does it try to use the tired twist, but it doesn't even base itself in any kind of historic version of a deity which may make it somewhat interesting and enjoyable.  You say nuh uh, there was some Scientology based crap.  Okay but I can say there is also buddhist beliefs throughout.  That is the point he can do anything and tie back to his god in his made up religion that will make it seem smart because in some inconsequental way it reminds someone of this one religion.  The ability to do anything you want is the mind of child, which ah is cute for a few minutes, but try listening to one for an hour and a half, then they say and he was a god the end.  I picture a four year old actually telling the ending to the Nines.  

Hey why don't we just end every movie where  the characters are all martians that crashed on Earth and only the stupid ones survived we are all brain dead martians.  like we kind of get technology right, but we ruin things a lot.  We are children and sadly will always be.  Because movies shouldn't be like that.  Because if every movie were like that it would suck, not the same movie but the basic story. If every movie shouldn't be like it then no movie should be like it.  

I have respect for John August too.  He is very independent and is open to the fans, and teaches good screenwriting techniqueswhich is great, but The Nines was shit, not to mention Big Fish kind of sucked. 

Why do people want movies based on video games?

What happens to video games based on movies for the most part?  Don't they all suck, haven't they all dissappoint.  But every time we get a fake Halo movie update the nerds and noobs collectively release in their pants.  Shouldn't we have learned from the last 20 years of hollywood trying to capitalize on video games.  They are probably rolling on the ground laughing literally.  They can make it as bad as they want and it will make $200 million domestically easily.  They will say they are getting some underground director, are working intensely on a script, but do they really care?  It's the same principle of video games based on the movies. 

I really can't understand the reason for this.  Oh I get your a huge fan boy, you love Halo, you have all 20 or whatever actually video games, the hundreds of additional maps you need to fucking buy.  You've probably spent a good $3000 on the whole halo experience since Day 1.  Which is precisely the point of why I don't know the reason fanboys love this shit.  It's not like Mario Bros, Double Dragon, or Street Fighter that essentially have no story, you've spent hours (days) immersing yourself completely in this world.  A world filled with characters, action, compelling story, fantastic effects that you get to interact with, and now you are willing to pay opening day ticket prices hand over fist to watch a 1 hour 50 minute movie that will probably explore everything you already know about the story because they want to include the people who don't play the halo games, keep them up to date and ready for the sequel.  Have people played a video game recently?  That is all it is.  You have this completely immersive experience, what technology is ultimately going for, and you take a evolutionary step back, jack up the price, and get pissed off about it after you see it and bitch on message boards over how much it sucked. 

I guess it makes you want to play the game more but in comparison it is like having a teleporter and having a car.  obviously you are are still going to use the car but you aren't going to drive somewhere if you can teleport there with no problem.  The same could be said in that case of the vintage value of going to see a movie, but do you really think interacting in a complete world of fiction and living your life in there  can even compare to a PG-13 summer tentpole watered down mung?

Oh and you are excited for the Bioshock movie rumors too?

Is Graft Rampant in the Film Industry?

Last week I saw Prince of Persia Sands of who cares, which was a shit storm in and of itself, but when I checked out some reviews on it afterward I noticed a startling figure.  The projected budget of the film is $200 million dollars.  Really?  For what?  The specials effects where sci fi channel quality at best which I can appreciate on some level just not at $200 million.  Like you wouldn't pay $200 for a $20 hooker you know.  I guess locations, flying people around and stuff, but $200 million?  Even if you did get a special effects house to do a movie like this and a majority of the money went to them, you are saying that you paid a team of a few dozen people $120 million for a years worth of work to play after effects over Jake G's face???  Then again maybe it's not that much money considering that Disney probably thought they thought they had the next Pirates of the Carribean but look what they were getting and what they went with, Jake Gyllenthaal who most people still only know him from Darko.  You have a video game that was semi popular but never reached the level of say a halo or bioshock or Mario Kart.  Then you have a movie based around a culture that isn't too popular right now in the US.  Why would anyone say that is worth spending $200 million dollars?  Why couldn't it have been made for $80 million?

But here is the twist, the movie still made a shit ton of money (approx $370 million all told with release and video, only $90 was domestic or 25%).  Just made much less in gross profit than it would if it was made for $80 million  which it easily could have been (see first Mummy for $80 million in budget).  What effect does having it cost $200 million vs $80 million or even say $120 million which is still a nice chunk of change for a decent action picture?

Along of the lines of Price of Persia, here are some of the other more outrageous costs for seemingly light fare:

• Sahara $160 million
• UP $175 million
• Wall-E $180 million
• Evan Almighty $175 million
• Toy Story 3 $200 million
• Tangled $260 million (WTF)
• How do you know? $120 million
• Funny People $75 million
• The Out of Towners (199) $75 million
• See any current Adam Sandler movie
• Town and Country $105 million
• The Wolf Man $150 million
• A Sound of Thunder $80 million
• The Invasion $80 million

When did it become this acceptable for budgets going over $100 million so many times, but now it almost seems $200 million is a flick of the wrist.  I get UP, Toy Story, and Wall E were huge feats in computer animation but take into account that the original Toy Story cost $30 million.  Haven't computers improved since then?  Shouldn't special effects be getting cheaper and cheaper, that was suppose to revolutionize the entire industry.  You wouldn't have to blow up a real truck, you could do it digitally.  That was suppose to be cheaper, now it is more expensive and for everything.  But again, the twist is with all new media outlets, expanding foreign markets, movie channels, netflix, DVD's, Blu Rays, with enough marketing it is almost impossible to lose money.  So what is the big deal as long as they make there money back?

This issue has been brought up before by actors when they defer upfront pay to get more back end dollars.  See if an actor or actress wants to take a risk that the movie will be a big hit  they get production agreements that they make a percentage of the gross profits after producers recoup all their expenses instead of taking a flat fee upfront.  Keanu Reeves is famous for doing this with the Matrix sequels and making a few hundred million dollars in the process.  This is where it gets fishy, and what actors have been accusing producers of doing.  They claim that producers are inflating prices of production in order to pass on less and less to actors who take a percentage.  What is an expense then?  See that car over there, that is my personal drivers car, I have to pay him $20,000/day to drive me around where ever I want, well there you go, that is an expense right.  I have the carrots at the craft services table brought in specially and they cost $500/lb, by the way it is my brothers garden that isn't registered you know.  Is this what is going on in film?  Remember when that guy from Independence Day said you don't really think it costs $20,000 for a hammer, $10,000 for a toilet seat, this is kind of similar to this I think if I remember my AP History.  So could a producer potentially get a personal expense paid for plus make larger profits.  Like oh we need to buy 10 lincolns to spin around but don't break them they are christmas presents for some of you guys.  Then boom that takes care of Christmas for a lot of people.  Instead of making $30,000, he makes $20,000 but writes-off all there personal expenses as a loss as a production budget asset. 

I guess I can see why the actors are getting mad they are getting railroaded so they decide to take the higher salary upfront but guess what then the producer can add that as expense then another win win.  So lets say in both situations you get $8 million but with the deferred you would get $2 million plus you would make $6 million on the backend.  The producer could now say that all 8 million was expense instead of getting you $6 of their profits.   But in the end is this something to get upset about, just Hollywood doing things dirty, same ol same old.  Maybe it is part of the reason why ticket prices have gone up okay.  But consider we are entertained more for far cheaper.  Everything is cheap when you spread it out, with a movie you get marketing for a year sometimes, if you love trailers you are entertained throughout for free.

Although it seems this trend is reversing slightly.  More and more the new generations are realizing that they can do what everyone else does for 1/10th the price.  In 2009-Present You had District 9, Monsters, Skyline, all Made for an average budget of what $13 million, and all grossed at least 400% their budget just domestically.  Or close enough, I'm not that great with numbers.  Sure there will always have the tent pole pick that gives them license to print money essentially, but slowly funded, cost savings approach will get better year after year since it benefits a greater group of people doing it that way and you have more control.   When there is more money there is more control, and $200 million is mighty big. 

 
Maybe everyone had to go through that cycle, it is a right of passage for the league of movie makers.  You start out financing your own shit then you work up until movie studios are pretty much your personal ATM.   Bruckheimer can do it now because of what he did in the 80's and 90's, Blomkomp will probably be that guy in the 2030's, I mean look at James Cameron he made his for $600 million dollars or something but the movie still made more than 3 times that, but he started out with movies like Terminator, taking the risks.  Now he can basically use a budget to make his own special effects company that he now uses to make money on top of the billion dollars he probably made for Avatar.  You also have to think maybe some actors are in on it too.  Like the producer won't cut a deal for anybody but this dude, and he does and he gives him an expense account as part of the budget and runs up all sorts of tom foolery.  Aren't commercials getting to that point?  Commercials are costing millions of dollars now.   

Never Involve Yourself with a Brothel Ever Again, Especially in Europe

Because you never know when said brothel is licensed in the flesh trade and Liam Neeson comes looking for you hot off a transatlantic flight in a private jet, going over how many ways he can get to you and then kill you, thinking you have his daughter and he says "where is my daughter?!"  Then you get throat punched.  Bam!  The end on you. But no that would never happen to you, now would it. 

The Kings Speech and Never Let Me Go

I'm going to go back on a couple claims I made some months ago.  A) The Kings Speech looks like the greatest movie ever and B) Never Let Me Go is about robots and takes place in the future.

Starting with the Kings Speech, yes it did look* like the greatest movie ever made, however it was far from it.  I'm not saying it was horrible, it was a good picture, best picture of the year I'm not sure haven't seen everything on my list yet.  I like to think the academy awards best picture to more of the faultless movie, you know great acting, great editing, great directing, great cinematography, the whole package, one that may be not loved by everyone but that can be appreciated on a cinematic scale (although recently I have no idea what is going on).  I don't know how you can award a best picture with such a glaring fault that is Guy Pearce playing Colin Firth's older brother without looking or even in actuality being older than Firth.  What is this amateur hour?  Did they say, we got the costumes, we got the props to the exact time periods, we got the actors, but you know makeup department why don't you take a break, we think Guy Pearce looks great, don't make him look any older.  Other than that I felt they didn't show Firth's/the King's progression in giving speech as well as they could have.  It seemed that he was still having a tough time, and only improved slightly over several years of therapy.  Maybe that's the way it happened but they seemed to slip on a lot of other historical accuracies for sake of story so why not in that case?  The part before the coronation was also weak, really that's all your going to rehearse.  Again, it's a good movie, not the best I think of the year, but something I'd watch half through on TV or something. 

On to Never Let Me Go.  I actually liked it better than the Kings Speech, but it still had its faults, nothing major.  Was it about robots?  Kind of.  Probably a little too sci fi for people's taste since it wasn't marketed as such, only those that read the book really had a clue what it was about going in.  And Carey Mulligan, oh my god, I want to take her out for martini's and slow dancing.  Then throw her up against a book stack like keira knightley in Atonement.  Andrew Garfield is a goofy bastard...we'll see how he does with spider man. 

Independence Day and Communism

I'm not talking about the ideals of Soviet Russia, but instead with comparison to the text book form of communism since most historians know that they were for the most part communists in name (and anthem) only.  But what relation could Independence Day have to do with communism?  Maybe nothing, I mean it's a story about a technologically superior alien invader coming to Earth and putting one of their city sized spaceships in countries all over the world in order to destroy the native population and exploit the area for its natural resources for their personal gain, "like locusts" I believe they are referred to as.  Luckily the remaining survivors band together ignoring their religious, social, political, and cultural differences and in many cases sacrificing their individual lives in order to defeat the aliens for the good of all man kind.   But I don't know what that could do with communism or capitalism.  It's not like the President ignored his rank and fought for survival amongst the people.  I wonder what kind of society was formed after they destroyed all of the ships, especially since all of the human's major city and metro areas were in return destroyed. 

This seems a little interesting, just scratching the surface, I think I need to watch it again and take notes.  Maybe I'll explore it further a little later.  

PS  Although it made for a great effects shot I never understood why the aliens decided to destroy the white house first and not position itself over one of the many giant stone structures available, for that matter why the hell wouldn't the president at least move away from the exact center of it I'm sure they had diagrams showing that aspect, maybe check out the Pentagon or something.  Maybe it would have been cooler to see the capital instead and have the wave wreck the white house reversing what was shown.