some stuff from hollywood.
Dec. 9th, 2007 08:43 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
duchess_of_piethings on the WGA front look bad bad bad. neither side is budging, and it looks like the higher ups can wait it out. there is now an estimated report that says the situation could go on until september. you heard me. sep. tem. ber. so get ready folks, tv apocalypse is upon us. now is the time to live free and happy lives away from the tv, to get yourself weaned, because you'll be much happier without an addiction later. but if this sounds daunting to you, remember that netflix loves you and has many good shows on dvd. you can start from the beginning of a series and learn to love something new, or you can gain a new addiction to movies and become a buff.
and, may i remind you, *hard nudge nudge* there is LOTS of live theatre out there for your entertainment needs. also, books! the new tv...in your head!!! y'know. might be nice to use the opportunity to try something new.
all i'm saying is: there's a studio out there that's already developing tv remakes of "the A-team" and "mission impossible". and when i say re-makes, i mean they're just shooting the old scripts again. yep. studios own scripts to their own old shows. all they have to do is hire a non-union script doctor and pow. the studios can hold out forever. think about what this means.
the writers won't back down. what they're specifically looking for is residuals on streaming internet shows. we all know that the internet is the future of tv...soon they will mate to make the only home media we know. so to agree on a contract that leaves them making NO money--nothing, $0, zip--on internet tv for the next 20 years would leave them with a salary below the poverty level. (think about that. actors that make millions and writers that make nothing. the foundation of your house is rotten, but the siding sure is perty.) which means that nobody would want to write for tv or movies. which means death of anything worth watching period.
suddenly, september seems hopeful.
alright, let's switch over to movies. one in particular. "the golden compass." it seemed like a sure thing. fantasy's up right now. they laid low on the advertising front, keeping it mostly to the internet and a few magazine on-pagers, thinking that a cast like this--nicole kidman, daniel craig, eva green, sam whatsisface--and the popularity of the books would draw in the masses. and indeed, when we went to see it on opening night at the grove, it was completely sold out (which is why we saw "juno" instead. what a mess).
but i wonder about the so-called "popularity" of the books. i really haven't heard about a strong fan base. read it myself and thought it was pretty boring--both as a kid's book and as a clever remake of milton's "paradise lost." this is one of the only films i've ever been excited about because i thought the movie would be better than the book. i mean, there's some really fun ideas in it, but the writer's not great at lingering over the good parts or describing the more spectacular characters that deserve definition.
but, from the reports i've heard, the movie kind of stinks. even once they've taken out all the anti-catholic sentiments and left it a straight story of what-is-good-what-is-evil and focused on the characters and action (imagine that!).
then we checked the figures. it made 8 million dollars opening night.
8 million dollars.
perhaps you are not familiar with opening night figures. a big-budget film like this one--fantasy, lots of effects, based on a book that probably took up a good chunk of the budget to get the rights for, ESPECIALLY during holiday season--should be making double figure millions. like, in the fifties double figure millions. and "golden compass" made...8.
even if it's just the opening night, even if it picks up during the run...it will go down in history as a bomb.
have you seen any poster ads for this? probably one or two, right? you know there's a talking polar bear in it. the character doesn't show up for quite a long time, but it's featured pretty heavily in the ads because kids like polar bears. do you know who voices that polar bear?
ian mckellan.
why... if you're making a fantasy film... would you forget half of your marketing audience? sure, advertise to the kids, but remember that it was adults who laid down all the g's for "lord of the rings" and "x-men." grown-up geeks love the sir ian. GET HIS NAME ON YOUR POSTERS, RETARDS.
the age of fantasy may be over. sure, we've still got the "harry potter" franchise to finish up, but there's only two more films. and sure, LOTR made a lot of money. but it takes just one major bomb to fell a genre. studio executives are very touchy people. burn them once and they're not just shy, they deny the need for fire at all. so "golden compass" has potentially killed it for us all just because the marketing team tried to cut corners and decided that sam whatsisface needed the poster space over a known audience-puller.
ah well...let's just hope that peter jackson is turning the other cheek and that new line trusts him enough, and we may at least have "the hobbit" to look forward to during the fantasy drought.
and, may i remind you, *hard nudge nudge* there is LOTS of live theatre out there for your entertainment needs. also, books! the new tv...in your head!!! y'know. might be nice to use the opportunity to try something new.
all i'm saying is: there's a studio out there that's already developing tv remakes of "the A-team" and "mission impossible". and when i say re-makes, i mean they're just shooting the old scripts again. yep. studios own scripts to their own old shows. all they have to do is hire a non-union script doctor and pow. the studios can hold out forever. think about what this means.
the writers won't back down. what they're specifically looking for is residuals on streaming internet shows. we all know that the internet is the future of tv...soon they will mate to make the only home media we know. so to agree on a contract that leaves them making NO money--nothing, $0, zip--on internet tv for the next 20 years would leave them with a salary below the poverty level. (think about that. actors that make millions and writers that make nothing. the foundation of your house is rotten, but the siding sure is perty.) which means that nobody would want to write for tv or movies. which means death of anything worth watching period.
suddenly, september seems hopeful.
alright, let's switch over to movies. one in particular. "the golden compass." it seemed like a sure thing. fantasy's up right now. they laid low on the advertising front, keeping it mostly to the internet and a few magazine on-pagers, thinking that a cast like this--nicole kidman, daniel craig, eva green, sam whatsisface--and the popularity of the books would draw in the masses. and indeed, when we went to see it on opening night at the grove, it was completely sold out (which is why we saw "juno" instead. what a mess).
but i wonder about the so-called "popularity" of the books. i really haven't heard about a strong fan base. read it myself and thought it was pretty boring--both as a kid's book and as a clever remake of milton's "paradise lost." this is one of the only films i've ever been excited about because i thought the movie would be better than the book. i mean, there's some really fun ideas in it, but the writer's not great at lingering over the good parts or describing the more spectacular characters that deserve definition.
but, from the reports i've heard, the movie kind of stinks. even once they've taken out all the anti-catholic sentiments and left it a straight story of what-is-good-what-is-evil and focused on the characters and action (imagine that!).
then we checked the figures. it made 8 million dollars opening night.
8 million dollars.
perhaps you are not familiar with opening night figures. a big-budget film like this one--fantasy, lots of effects, based on a book that probably took up a good chunk of the budget to get the rights for, ESPECIALLY during holiday season--should be making double figure millions. like, in the fifties double figure millions. and "golden compass" made...8.
even if it's just the opening night, even if it picks up during the run...it will go down in history as a bomb.
have you seen any poster ads for this? probably one or two, right? you know there's a talking polar bear in it. the character doesn't show up for quite a long time, but it's featured pretty heavily in the ads because kids like polar bears. do you know who voices that polar bear?
ian mckellan.
why... if you're making a fantasy film... would you forget half of your marketing audience? sure, advertise to the kids, but remember that it was adults who laid down all the g's for "lord of the rings" and "x-men." grown-up geeks love the sir ian. GET HIS NAME ON YOUR POSTERS, RETARDS.
the age of fantasy may be over. sure, we've still got the "harry potter" franchise to finish up, but there's only two more films. and sure, LOTR made a lot of money. but it takes just one major bomb to fell a genre. studio executives are very touchy people. burn them once and they're not just shy, they deny the need for fire at all. so "golden compass" has potentially killed it for us all just because the marketing team tried to cut corners and decided that sam whatsisface needed the poster space over a known audience-puller.
ah well...let's just hope that peter jackson is turning the other cheek and that new line trusts him enough, and we may at least have "the hobbit" to look forward to during the fantasy drought.
