You Can't Make It Big By Going Small: Or Fox's Crap Summer

Fox does have a powerhouse lineup of movies for next summer, so I'm certainly not predicting any precipitous fall from grace. But if the studio really believes it can continue to compete, year in and year out, without regularly working with top-flight artists, I think it will eventually find itself in decline. For decades, studios have tried, in one way or another, to take the risk out of filmmaking, either by laying off financing to outside entities or employing various sorts of quality-control formulas.

But art is elusive. It rarely responds to or can be regulated by any sort of formula. When Fox made "MASH" nearly 40 years ago, it thought the film was a disaster because it felt so far out of the mainstream. It turned out the film was more plugged into the emerging new culture than any of the studio executives. The same could be said about George Lucas' "Star Wars," or James Cameron's "Titanic," which was written off as an epic blunder before anyone saw a foot of footage. Great films come from great filmmakers.

The above is an excerpt from an August 11 La Times piece about the lackluster summer Fox is experiencing. It is amazing that Fox hasn't had one film cross the $100 million finish line. The crash of Meet Dave might be the most spectacular considering that in the modern era there's few bankable stars like Eddie Murphy.

Over the last few Summers, nearly every year, there's one studio that bites it hard. the most eventful I can remember is the one Summer that neither Disney nor Sony crossed the billion dollar line. Craptacular product, especially craptacular product back to back, will always result in craptacular results. Not bad, or mediocre, but craptacular. And that particular Summer, it had been especially bad for Disney. Pixar was a bright spot, but not only had they not released a film that might have added to the Mouse House's coffers, but even if it had, it would have been a painful reminder of how awful the once powerful studio's films had become. Sister Pixar gets straight A's, why can't you be like your sister?

One of the main issues is that few people within the Hollywood system speak up. Folks complain about the government being inept, but at least with the government the truth always comes oozing out in one form or another. And in government, the solutions aren't so cut and dry. Policy solutions today, can have an effect decades into the future (see the City of Atlanta's crumbling infrastructure). In film, folks clam up faster than Scrooge McDuck's wallet at Christmas.

This is a fear based business, in which few folks are willing to openly say why their films didn't work. And, even when they know why their films didn't work, there's even greater reluctance to make the changes needed to create films that do. In fact, studios are prone to allow the success or failure of one film to dictate the direction they take creatively with other films on their slate. Even Michael Mann's Manhunter was renamed from the original title of Red Dragon because the film Year of the Dragon was a flop. And they're not even closely related in genre or storyline.

Anne Thompson of Variety warned the director of Babylon A.D. against biting the hand that feeds him. He's been complaining that Fox's interference wrecked the film's chances before he could even assemble a rough cut. He should be encouraged to do so. As long as he's being truthful, there shouldn't be any reason he shouldn't be able to vent. (Although, having Gothika on his resume is enough to undermine his credibility alone. Which also has one of the worse posters in modern history by the way.)

All industries have their taboos and overt and not so overt rules of engagement. However, at least there, the rules aren't based on irrational fear, heavy emphasis on the irrational.

The movie industry is built on a bedrock of insecurity. Which is odd, because when you dig down deep enough, the industry as a whole is actually pretty solid. Star Trek's vision of the future aside, movies and television aren't going anywhere. It will reinvent itself and it may never look the same, but the same basic principles will exist.

1) People will go to the movies en masse
2) There will be people who love blockbuster/tentpole films
3) There will always be an arthouse crowd
4) There will always be work that connects with both the arthouse and blockbuster crowd
5) With no arms, an empty wallet and stuck in the North Georgia Mountains without equipment, filmmakers will find a way to make films (great, good, bad and the crappy)
6) Regardless of how many peope see it, there will be great work

The question is, will studios always have the heart to trust that good stories and visionary filmmaking is enough to put butts in seats? It's not simply that studios have to put more money into films. In fact, that's how we're in the mess we are now. The money cycle has infected everyone and all aspects of the industry to such an extent that now everyone is feeling the squeeze.

Even if you pare down the number of films released every year from the current 400 plus, down to something like 150 titles, the ratio of bona fide hits to right out bombs isn't going to change much. There will always be films that stink up movie houses like a dead rat trapped in a wall. Knowing that, why not swing for the fences artistically. Not every film needs to be Oscar-bait, nor should they be. But taking a few more chances is healthy for the industry as a whole. There's no such thing as no risk, and the sooner Hollywood embraces that, the better it will be for filmmakers, audiences and studios.

Best Movie Summer of the Last 10 Years?

Pretty much everyone kicks ass in this. Jason Statham and Tyrese Gibson not only compete on the track, but in one of the single greatest grumbling contests ever put to film. Every time they talk to each other, they seem to drop their testicles lower in an attempt to hit notes so low that only whales and heavy machinery can understand them.

This pull-quote is from an Ain't It Cool News review of Death Race 2000. And I'd be lying if I said the final judgment, that the film is good exploitation fun, doesn't it make the giddy kid inside me happy. (Although, I still haven't seen the thing, so that may change.)

On the whole this has to go on record as one of the strongest Summers when it comes to movies. The shear number of hits this season pretty much confirms it. Iron Man, Kung Fu Panda, Wall*E, The Dark Knight, it's been a fun Summer for flicks.

There's some crazy madness out there claiming that 2002 is a contender, but I'm sorry, but the list of Spiderman, Men in Black 2, Austin Powers Goldmember, Minority Report, Bourne Identity, and Signs has to take a few hits just for Signs' inane premise of aliens--sans suits-- invading a planet in which 70% of it's surface can kill them. And Men in Black 2 takes the prize for most uninspired sequel since Battle for Planet of the Apes. At least Battle has the excuse of having a significantly lower budget than the other four Apes flicks.

Although it is ironic that in a Summer that includes The Happening, which is probably the best comedy of the summer, some folks would bring up 2002. And also The Love Guru, which I haven't seen, apparently shares with Austin Powers' not only Mike Myers as lead and writer, but also that movie's fascination with a particular male member and bodily functions as a source of humor. So maybe there is something to that 2002/2008 connection.

P.S. And I purposely forgot about Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones...as far as I'm concerned the prequels never existed...

I Must Be The Crazy One

So apparently, out off all the folks here in the office who took a toke of Pineapple Express, I was the only one who didn't find it all that entertaining. In fact, I was bored through about 60% of it.

Two things that irked me were the underwhelming plot and the way so many scenes ran long past their expiration date.

What's ironic, is that if this had been straight stoner movie, the lack of a plot and the long scenes would have fit the wacky weed aesthetic that's been a part of the genre since forever. Even before the stoner film came into existence, movies featuring folks like Hope and Crosby or the Marx Bros. were just a string of loosly connected scenes, that had little narrative drive.

However, when you're trying create a stoner-action film, you can't ignore the plot. That's one of the key components of an action film.
The undercooked plot does several things, but its worse offense is that it renders the--equally underdeveloped--villians impotent as a threat.

Which is another problem with the film, so many side characters were never fully formed. They mainly existed to be an obstacle or complication for Rogen and Franco. The girlfriend character and storyline are both useless at best, and insulting at worse. And while I agree that the women characters don't get as much to do in the Apatow films as the men, I wouldn't have thrown out the mysoginistic label. Not until now. Rosie Perez's cop could have been a legndary comic foil, instead of playing second banana to the always awesome--even when the movie sucks--Gary Cole. It's never clear if she's working for or with Cole's Ted Jones. At one point its insinuated that she and Ted Jones might be equals, then they just seem to stop worrying about fleshing that out.

But, my greatest reservation about the film is that they take to long to get Rogen and Franco together, then they spend too little time getting us to understand why Rogen and Franco's bromance is destined to be.

Strangely, Rogen and crew make the same mistake that 99% of bad romantic comedies make. Which is they never give us a cogent reason why these two people would--not should--end up together. And while I could buy Franco having a man-crush on Rogen, it's never articulated why Rogen would call Franco is BFFF by the end of the movie.

You could say they were borrowing from the 80s/90s action film template, in which, for no logical reason, the leading man and semi-leading lady, decide to consumate their relationship in the middle of a gangland war, or after having their car shot to hell and back. The only reason these two people are in a shared predicament is by the hand of fate, and not out of actual choice. In otherwords, if these two people weren't been chased down by a T-7000, would they even notice each other from across a crowded room? Probably not. Actual sexual tension between them goes a long way to believability.

I really wish the first 20 minutes could have just been Rogen and Franco sitting back doing some doobies and doing some actual bonding. Even when they make jokes about a situation being homoerotic, or try to give their bromance a homoerotic subtext for comic effect, it never quite works. While Franco and Rogen work well together, there's no real tension. They're like that couple that gets engaged at the end of their Senior year of college. Everyone knows that its never going to last because they don't actually click. As soon as one of them moves away, one of them will quickly realize how much they aren't jonesing for the other.

I'm not totally down on the movie though. Because that other 40% that didn't bore me was all Franco and Danny McBride. In fact, the McBride/Franco dynamic when they're reminisining about their past adventures should have been the template for the entire movie. And to reinforce that comes the coda: the ending diner scene. Give me two hours of that and we're talking top 20 of stoner films. As is, this film doesn't even come close.

Two Stoners and a Trio of Oblivious Actors...

Maybe I'm off the mark here, but the potential impact Pineapple Express and Tropic Thunder could have on the industry may be felt for years.

Judd Apatow's slate of R films has already reawaken the industry's appreciation for films that are decidely not for the kiddie set. However, I for one haven't been convinced that the folks writing the checks are fully on board. Live Free or Die Hard went PG-13. The next Termintaor 4 is rumored to be heading towards a similar PG-13 rating as well. A real sign of the "family friendly" rating's pull is that if Beverly Hills Cop IV ever gets off the ground, it may too be PG-13. Putting Eddie Murphy in a non-R BHC would almost be a sign of the apocalypse.

However, if Pineapple Express and Tropic Thunder can...well...deliver the thunder, we'll hopefully see the end to studios using a PG-13 stamp to water down R films, just so they can supposedly milk a few more dollars out of the public.

Live Free or Die Hard only did $135 million dollars. If you adjust Die Hard's gross into 2007 dollars, it would have made $150 million. For all the hype of going PG-13 has, I think it could be argued that wrapping films that should be for adults in a PG-13 bow doesn't bring in the extra butts the studios think it does. A film about killing a whole bunch of folks, is still a film about killing a whole bunch of folks. And a film primarly about relationships aren't more attractive to the tween set even if you add fart and penis jokes. (And let's be honest, it's insulting to parents who feel bait and switched)

If Pineapple and Tropic (which just 5 years ago would have been decidely PG-13, regardless of what studio it was at) can open north of $25 or $30 million and cross the $100 million mark, we may officially see the end of PG-13's status as a primary marketing tool.