One of the many DVD Premieres we've been waiting for from DC Comics and Warner Bros. Animation:
Monday, April 30, 2007
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Friday, April 27, 2007
We Get Some Respect!
In a brilliant article in the prestigious financial publication, The Wall Street Journal, the D2DVD end of the business gets its due:
Even though DVD growth is slowing, low-budget and well-marketed made-for-DVD films targeted at specific audiences are enjoying pockets of success.
Warner is attempting to set itself apart with a more creative approach, including experimenting with releases like "Get Smarter" and the use of top filmmakers.
Joel Silver, the producer behind "The Matrix" series, has forged a deal with Warner's new Premiere unit to make 10 direct-to-DVD movies over the next three years, for instance. His first project, a sequel to the 1999 horror movie "House on Haunted Hill," will give viewers the option to pick different story lines and four alternative endings.
Direct-to-DVD has shaken off much of the stigma of its early days. Once considered a dumping ground for movies that weren't good enough for theatrical release, it is becoming a place that top-flight filmmakers are considering taking their projects.
"It's not the biggest part of the market, but it's the most important slice of home entertainment today due to the enormous growth potential for each studio," says Amir Malin, a managing principal at the media investment fund Qualia Capital, who oversaw such early DVD hits as "Barbie" in his previous role as a studio executive.
"You can really experiment and take more risks in direct-to-DVD," says Mr. Silver.
Amen.
Even though DVD growth is slowing, low-budget and well-marketed made-for-DVD films targeted at specific audiences are enjoying pockets of success.
Warner is attempting to set itself apart with a more creative approach, including experimenting with releases like "Get Smarter" and the use of top filmmakers.
Joel Silver, the producer behind "The Matrix" series, has forged a deal with Warner's new Premiere unit to make 10 direct-to-DVD movies over the next three years, for instance. His first project, a sequel to the 1999 horror movie "House on Haunted Hill," will give viewers the option to pick different story lines and four alternative endings.
Direct-to-DVD has shaken off much of the stigma of its early days. Once considered a dumping ground for movies that weren't good enough for theatrical release, it is becoming a place that top-flight filmmakers are considering taking their projects.
"It's not the biggest part of the market, but it's the most important slice of home entertainment today due to the enormous growth potential for each studio," says Amir Malin, a managing principal at the media investment fund Qualia Capital, who oversaw such early DVD hits as "Barbie" in his previous role as a studio executive.
"You can really experiment and take more risks in direct-to-DVD," says Mr. Silver.
Amen.
Back to the Grind
Before I got sick last week, I had promised to let you know my thoughts on what went wrong with GRINDHOUSE. For a pair of movies that cost around $50M to make it's very disappointing to hear that it only took in around $12M the first weekend. GRINDHOUSE was supposed to be a slam dunk for the Weinsteins - their two favorite directors delivering what they do best -- genre entertainment.
So where was the ball dropped?
1. The movies were too expensive.
Grindhouse exploitation cinema was a cinema of the cheap and the lurid. A kinetic equivalent of looking at a "true crime" or bondage magazine from the fifties. These two pictures, and the trailers cost $50M. What would have been much cooler would be to shoot them for $5M each and use lower level tv names or complete unknowns (except for a cameo or two).
2. The movies were released over Easter weekend.
That is "family time." Parents who wanted to see the films couldn't take the kids with them, and teens who wanted to see it were at Spring Break or stuck with the whole family over the weekend. These are "niche" movies - designed to appeal to the prurient interests amongst the audience.
3. The movies pulled their punches.
Grindhouse cinema was unrelenting. It dared to show the things only hinted at in larger studio releases of the time. Their modus operandi was torture, sex, violence, horror, sex, nudity action and violence. That was the only way they could compete with the studios and make money.
PLANET TERROR was a laughfest. DEATH PROOF was a gabfest. When the action was there - it was there, but you had to wade through a lot of stuff to get there. Grindhouse movies cut out that stuff. they knew what the audience was there for and they delivered. Rodriguez and Tarantino didn't.
Even the trailers were funny. Not a one failed to elicit laughter. Not good. Not good at all.
4. Apparently, some segment of the audience left after the first movie not realizing it was a double feature.
I really don't know what to say to this as I thought it was pretty clear. I'm of average intelligence. I can read a paper or a magazine.
-----------------
So is releasing the films as separate entities going to fix this? I don't think so. It's only going to add to the expense sheet. Theatrical distribution is an expensive proposition. Now it might be cool to "round robin" the prints territory by territory, but that takes time too.
My thought would be to release the films separately on DVD with their full length cuts, then release a double feature package with tons of extras. I'm going to pick up the book this weekend and take a look at the screenplays and all of the pre-production material.
All this said, I want to see this as a label under the Weinstein name. MACHETE would make a great $2M movie and GRINDHOUSE is a great hook for these pictures - developed by Tarantino and Rodriguez and written and directed by other folks. The Weinsteins did this with the FROM DUSK TIL DAWN pictures to great success.
Any way it shakes out, I applaud Rodriguez and tarantino for bringing back the double-feature and the sense that going to the movies was an event.
That's been lacking for far too long at the theater.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Indie Doesn't Have to Mean Stupid!
But damnit, some people are making it seem that way...
Variety has an article here about a husband and wife team who made a movie for $100,000 and were surprised at the kind of deal offers they were getting so they turned to Amazon's Unbox to sell their movie direct.
That part is all fine and good except for these paragraphs from the article:
"We knew we didn't have the quality to stand up to a theatrical release," Nelson says. "But we got five offers from DVD distributors." Nelson, however, was shocked by the deal terms, which were typical: No advance without a star or a decent budget. No piece of the backend. The distributor hangs on to its rights for seven to 10 years. And when they sell the DVD on the Internet via Amazon or Netflix, the distrib takes 25% of the gross and subtracts all expenses, including replicating and supplying DVDs and marketing. (Netflix won't take any films without a distributor.)
Nelson was amazed, too, by the distributors' lack of accountability. "They send quarterly reports by country," she says, "But they don't tell you how many units they sold. They don't keep track by film. They don't have systems or bookkeeping capabilities. There's no such thing as making money. What you get upfront is what you are going to see."
Let's dissect every instance of A) lack of salesmanship, B) Ignorance or C) Just bald faced untruth (I'm not going to say they are lying because I don't think their intent is to deceive).
1. "We knew we didn't have the quality to stand up to a theatrical release," Nelson says. "But we got five offers from DVD distributors." --
Now who in their right mind, who has manufactured a product to sell is going to say that out loud in a public forum? That's like Ford saying, "We know the car sucks, but you should buy it anyway for a lot of money."
2. "No advance without a star or a decent budget. No piece of the backend. The distributor hangs on to its rights for seven to 10 years. And when they sell the DVD on the Internet via Amazon or Netflix, the distrib takes 25% of the gross and subtracts all expenses, including replicating and supplying DVDs and marketing." --
Well, if you make a movie without stars then the story must become your star (And you at least have a genre name in Jill Wagner, star of the BLADE TV series, but I don't see that anywhere in your article). It MUST have a specific marketing hook that people will instantly get.
Hanging onto the rights for 7-10 years is typical - no arguement there - because it usually takes that long for a film to go into profit. That's why international rights are extremely important to any filmmaker. (see below)
And you could have negotiated another type of deal -- if your film was worth it. Every deal is different. Every deal is a whole new ball game - the rules are the same but the outcome is up for grabs. How could you not think that a distributor would tally his expenses???
3. "They send quarterly reports by country," she says, "But they don't tell you how many units they sold. They don't keep track by film. They don't have systems or bookkeeping capabilities. There's no such thing as making money. What you get upfront is what you are going to see."
Well the fact is that many, many of these contracts are straight license-deals! The country licensing them pays a fee (in steps) as they release. They don't account for royalties based on DVD sales in another country because the deal isn't structured that way! There ARE those deals for some of the larger territories, but you have to specifically ask for that sort of deal, and with most DVD deals being packages, they aren't going to do a separate deal just for your film - they are going to choose another to license.
In addition, AFMA (also known as the IFTA) keeps track of a lot of numbers for various distributors and producers when they are owed money in a royalty deal. There are options! There is accountability!
Many licensing deals are flat percentages with no expenses tacked on - meaning the distributor takes 35% of the license fee they get for you and you get the remaining 65%. No cost for ads, etc...
The reason I'm steamed about this is because they are saying that they turned to the web because traditional distribution failed them. The facts suggest otherwise. There is no distributor that I know of that will turn down negotiating for a movie they think they can make money on. It all depends on where the threshold is... is the movie marketable?
Take a look at the Amazon web page for the movie.
I think the box for it looks boring. I don't think the opening credits qualify as a trailer for the movie (press the preview button), and certainly don't sell something anyone would want to buy.
I've made movies for $100,000. I've marketed and sold $100,000 movies. I've made half of my budget back on the first day of a market with one sale to an overseas territory (which, five minutes and a phone call later greenlit the sequel !)... and I'm not the only guy who's done this. I'm not special. I don't have a secret...
I just know that if I expect to get top dollar for a movie, I have to make and market a movie that's worth top dollar. I have to come up with a hook and work it. I have to entertain.
I have to sell.
We have a movie coming out in May. I think it's worth it. I know you will too. Fangoria does. You will be entertained. You will look at the screen and ask, "How'd they do that?" If you rented it you'll ask, "Where can I get a copy?"
Yes, you will be able to get it on the web, via download -- but it won't be because we didn't have other options. It won't be because we don't believe in our film. It won't be because we were ignorant of the process and laid blame at the feet of a "cold, cruel industry that doesn't support us."
It will be because that is part of our strategy to get this crazy movie into as many hands (and minds) as possible.
Variety has an article here about a husband and wife team who made a movie for $100,000 and were surprised at the kind of deal offers they were getting so they turned to Amazon's Unbox to sell their movie direct.
That part is all fine and good except for these paragraphs from the article:
"We knew we didn't have the quality to stand up to a theatrical release," Nelson says. "But we got five offers from DVD distributors." Nelson, however, was shocked by the deal terms, which were typical: No advance without a star or a decent budget. No piece of the backend. The distributor hangs on to its rights for seven to 10 years. And when they sell the DVD on the Internet via Amazon or Netflix, the distrib takes 25% of the gross and subtracts all expenses, including replicating and supplying DVDs and marketing. (Netflix won't take any films without a distributor.)
Nelson was amazed, too, by the distributors' lack of accountability. "They send quarterly reports by country," she says, "But they don't tell you how many units they sold. They don't keep track by film. They don't have systems or bookkeeping capabilities. There's no such thing as making money. What you get upfront is what you are going to see."
Let's dissect every instance of A) lack of salesmanship, B) Ignorance or C) Just bald faced untruth (I'm not going to say they are lying because I don't think their intent is to deceive).
1. "We knew we didn't have the quality to stand up to a theatrical release," Nelson says. "But we got five offers from DVD distributors." --
Now who in their right mind, who has manufactured a product to sell is going to say that out loud in a public forum? That's like Ford saying, "We know the car sucks, but you should buy it anyway for a lot of money."
2. "No advance without a star or a decent budget. No piece of the backend. The distributor hangs on to its rights for seven to 10 years. And when they sell the DVD on the Internet via Amazon or Netflix, the distrib takes 25% of the gross and subtracts all expenses, including replicating and supplying DVDs and marketing." --
Well, if you make a movie without stars then the story must become your star (And you at least have a genre name in Jill Wagner, star of the BLADE TV series, but I don't see that anywhere in your article). It MUST have a specific marketing hook that people will instantly get.
Hanging onto the rights for 7-10 years is typical - no arguement there - because it usually takes that long for a film to go into profit. That's why international rights are extremely important to any filmmaker. (see below)
And you could have negotiated another type of deal -- if your film was worth it. Every deal is different. Every deal is a whole new ball game - the rules are the same but the outcome is up for grabs. How could you not think that a distributor would tally his expenses???
3. "They send quarterly reports by country," she says, "But they don't tell you how many units they sold. They don't keep track by film. They don't have systems or bookkeeping capabilities. There's no such thing as making money. What you get upfront is what you are going to see."
Well the fact is that many, many of these contracts are straight license-deals! The country licensing them pays a fee (in steps) as they release. They don't account for royalties based on DVD sales in another country because the deal isn't structured that way! There ARE those deals for some of the larger territories, but you have to specifically ask for that sort of deal, and with most DVD deals being packages, they aren't going to do a separate deal just for your film - they are going to choose another to license.
In addition, AFMA (also known as the IFTA) keeps track of a lot of numbers for various distributors and producers when they are owed money in a royalty deal. There are options! There is accountability!
Many licensing deals are flat percentages with no expenses tacked on - meaning the distributor takes 35% of the license fee they get for you and you get the remaining 65%. No cost for ads, etc...
The reason I'm steamed about this is because they are saying that they turned to the web because traditional distribution failed them. The facts suggest otherwise. There is no distributor that I know of that will turn down negotiating for a movie they think they can make money on. It all depends on where the threshold is... is the movie marketable?
Take a look at the Amazon web page for the movie.
I think the box for it looks boring. I don't think the opening credits qualify as a trailer for the movie (press the preview button), and certainly don't sell something anyone would want to buy.
I've made movies for $100,000. I've marketed and sold $100,000 movies. I've made half of my budget back on the first day of a market with one sale to an overseas territory (which, five minutes and a phone call later greenlit the sequel !)... and I'm not the only guy who's done this. I'm not special. I don't have a secret...
I just know that if I expect to get top dollar for a movie, I have to make and market a movie that's worth top dollar. I have to come up with a hook and work it. I have to entertain.
I have to sell.
We have a movie coming out in May. I think it's worth it. I know you will too. Fangoria does. You will be entertained. You will look at the screen and ask, "How'd they do that?" If you rented it you'll ask, "Where can I get a copy?"
Yes, you will be able to get it on the web, via download -- but it won't be because we didn't have other options. It won't be because we don't believe in our film. It won't be because we were ignorant of the process and laid blame at the feet of a "cold, cruel industry that doesn't support us."
It will be because that is part of our strategy to get this crazy movie into as many hands (and minds) as possible.
Review: Clockwork Creature
When the word went out from Ambrosia Publishing that they would give out a free PDF of their new graphic novel series CLOCKWORK CREATURE to any serious blogger (oh wait...hmmm) who wanted to read and write about it, I thought I would jump into the fray. I like the idea of getting free stuff to review, and learning about what other folks are doing in comics, literature, movies and television. In case it wasn't readily apparent - that was a hint. Send your comics, graphic novels, magazines, books, DVDs and toys to me for my honest opinion.
.
CREATURE is a 52 page graphic novel that is a creepy blender of SIN CITY and NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS. Written and drawn in high-contrast black & white by Kyle Strahm, this book is the first chapter in what promises to be a very twisted little fairy tale. The story is a simple tale of a town that is plagued by the titular creature, which seemingly attacks and eats the populace at random. We enter the story several disappearances into it as two of the gentle townsfolk are ambushed.
.
When the town is in a panic, along comes the genuinely frightening Baron von Salt who has a past (and an agenda) with the creature.
Overall Strahm does a good job introducing his fairy tale, but I sort of wish we had a little more story to sink our teeth into here. Strahm has eliminated text boxes from his compositions, but I am of the opinion that he could have added a whole other level of story to the proceedings, making a good little fairy tale into a great one.
That's not to say I'm disappointed with CREATURE - I'm not; nor should you shy away from picking this one up. This especially true for anyone who's picked up the COURTNEY CRUMRIN books or is a Tim Burton fan.
This is your cup of tea. Don't just sip - drink deep.
.
CREATURE is a 52 page graphic novel that is a creepy blender of SIN CITY and NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS. Written and drawn in high-contrast black & white by Kyle Strahm, this book is the first chapter in what promises to be a very twisted little fairy tale. The story is a simple tale of a town that is plagued by the titular creature, which seemingly attacks and eats the populace at random. We enter the story several disappearances into it as two of the gentle townsfolk are ambushed..
When the town is in a panic, along comes the genuinely frightening Baron von Salt who has a past (and an agenda) with the creature.
Overall Strahm does a good job introducing his fairy tale, but I sort of wish we had a little more story to sink our teeth into here. Strahm has eliminated text boxes from his compositions, but I am of the opinion that he could have added a whole other level of story to the proceedings, making a good little fairy tale into a great one.
That's not to say I'm disappointed with CREATURE - I'm not; nor should you shy away from picking this one up. This especially true for anyone who's picked up the COURTNEY CRUMRIN books or is a Tim Burton fan.
This is your cup of tea. Don't just sip - drink deep.
The Future of Television is Passion(s)
Aintitcool news has a nice little news item today that points toward the future of television.
For those of you lamenting the demise of DRIVE, or the possible (insane) notion of there being no more VERONICA MARS (aaaaarrgh! Just the thought pinches the colon!) then read the article. It points to a place where shows survive and flourish with their core audience only, and won't be dependent upon millions of casual viewers every week. It points to an incredibly diverse lineup of programming, catering to many different tastes. It points to opportunity for independent writer-producers like myself to find financing outside the system and produce the programming we like with little to no compromises.
It points to the future.
PASSIONS is a soap on the NBC network. I have never seen a full episode before. I am not its audience... but damnit, I applaud their thinking. I applaud their moxie. I wish them luck, and you should too. Especially if you're someone who wants to make programming for a narrow audience - something you feel passionate about, but know that it will NEVER EVER fit into mainstream /network agendas.
PASSIONS is blazing a path. Hopefully we will all learn and profit from it.
For those of you lamenting the demise of DRIVE, or the possible (insane) notion of there being no more VERONICA MARS (aaaaarrgh! Just the thought pinches the colon!) then read the article. It points to a place where shows survive and flourish with their core audience only, and won't be dependent upon millions of casual viewers every week. It points to an incredibly diverse lineup of programming, catering to many different tastes. It points to opportunity for independent writer-producers like myself to find financing outside the system and produce the programming we like with little to no compromises.
It points to the future.
PASSIONS is a soap on the NBC network. I have never seen a full episode before. I am not its audience... but damnit, I applaud their thinking. I applaud their moxie. I wish them luck, and you should too. Especially if you're someone who wants to make programming for a narrow audience - something you feel passionate about, but know that it will NEVER EVER fit into mainstream /network agendas.
PASSIONS is blazing a path. Hopefully we will all learn and profit from it.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Thursday, April 19, 2007
There's Only Good News...
Got a 'regretful PASS' on a spec I sent in to a successful production company thanks to a connection I had there (always have a champion of your work!). What was really wonderful about the whole process though (which was conducted via email) was I got back their notes on what they liked and didn't like about the script.
SCORE!
You are always, always going to get people who say 'no' to your work and move on. That is a given in this industry considering the workload that is generated on the development side of the biz...but to have someone forward CONSTRUCTIVE NOTES (not how-to-do-it but here's-where-ya-lost-me-and-why ) that is PRICELESS. I also managed to snag a second read based on a further rewrite.
So great. I got notes, but where do I go from here?
Well, I go back to the OUTLINE and start plugging in those notes. KEEPING the stuff that I agree with (or see their point on) and CONSIDERING the stuff I don't necessarily agree with. They may have a point I'M not clear on. You do this at the outline stage and not at the script stage because it's simpler that way. You can see it all in 3-4 pages instead of 115.
You also have to make sure the changes they suggest don't violate the stuff they liked about it in the first place.
In my case:
- I didn't follow my own advice and keep it simple to follow.
- They liked the concept of the character, but didn't like the main character's motivations or background. He wasn't distinctive enough.
- I wasn't pushing his powers enough...and explaining what his weaknesses were (and making those distinctive enough to this particular character).
- In trying to be timeless, I came off as being old-fashioned, or staid. Something I definitely didn't want.
- They liked several of the set pieces and plot twists.
But in the few minutes since I have received those notes, I have already sparked a few ideas (and I've only had one cup of coffee - win!) so I am pleased. The new ideas are radical, but that's what's so damn exciting. Closing one door and opening another. Perspective. Writing the movie instead of the script.
This is what this writing is - rewriting. Honing. Crafting. Tossing out the been-there-seen-that for the Oh-my-Gawd!
You often don't see it until someone points it out to you...and that's good.
SCORE!
You are always, always going to get people who say 'no' to your work and move on. That is a given in this industry considering the workload that is generated on the development side of the biz...but to have someone forward CONSTRUCTIVE NOTES (not how-to-do-it but here's-where-ya-lost-me-and-why ) that is PRICELESS. I also managed to snag a second read based on a further rewrite.
So great. I got notes, but where do I go from here?
Well, I go back to the OUTLINE and start plugging in those notes. KEEPING the stuff that I agree with (or see their point on) and CONSIDERING the stuff I don't necessarily agree with. They may have a point I'M not clear on. You do this at the outline stage and not at the script stage because it's simpler that way. You can see it all in 3-4 pages instead of 115.
You also have to make sure the changes they suggest don't violate the stuff they liked about it in the first place.
In my case:
- I didn't follow my own advice and keep it simple to follow.
- They liked the concept of the character, but didn't like the main character's motivations or background. He wasn't distinctive enough.
- I wasn't pushing his powers enough...and explaining what his weaknesses were (and making those distinctive enough to this particular character).
- In trying to be timeless, I came off as being old-fashioned, or staid. Something I definitely didn't want.
- They liked several of the set pieces and plot twists.
But in the few minutes since I have received those notes, I have already sparked a few ideas (and I've only had one cup of coffee - win!) so I am pleased. The new ideas are radical, but that's what's so damn exciting. Closing one door and opening another. Perspective. Writing the movie instead of the script.
This is what this writing is - rewriting. Honing. Crafting. Tossing out the been-there-seen-that for the Oh-my-Gawd!
You often don't see it until someone points it out to you...and that's good.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Kurt Vonnegut is Dead...
and I don't feel too good myself. I have been attacked by the deadly flu and have been entombed here in the Mad Pulp Pad coughing up things last seen on a Star Trek episode.
The country is in turmoil. I empathize with all the students and faculty at VTU. Theories are being floated, and assumptions are being made. Fears are being accepted as fact.
That has to stop until all the facts come into play.
The experts haven't done a complete analysis of the facts, and that's what we need - the facts. We test our assumptions against the evidence. So let's question and not assume. This tragedy has many facets we aren't even aware of yet. After all the facts are in, only then can we go forward.
The country is in turmoil. I empathize with all the students and faculty at VTU. Theories are being floated, and assumptions are being made. Fears are being accepted as fact.
That has to stop until all the facts come into play.
The experts haven't done a complete analysis of the facts, and that's what we need - the facts. We test our assumptions against the evidence. So let's question and not assume. This tragedy has many facets we aren't even aware of yet. After all the facts are in, only then can we go forward.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
It's Stress Release Reboot Time!
We've had a very stressful past couple of weeks here at the Mad Pulp Pad without much time for some mindless internet fun...
And Warren Ellis is holding a remake/reboot thread over at The Engine, and Flash Gordon is being made into a television series. So as this is the six month anniversary of one of the more popular posts here at DISContent, I thought:
What the hell, let's do it.
So here are the Reboot Rules of Conduct:
1. This time you can reboot any comic, book, radio & tv show or movie ever made.
2. You have to think through your reboot - what is the unique quality of the original show and what makes your reboot different ?
3. Who would star, write, direct or draw your reboot?
4. Two completely different takes on the same idea are okay, but they must both be really thought out and not just tossed out there onto the fire for comment.
5. Links to outside reference material is encouraged. Especially for obscure stuff some people won't remember.
(When posting, you may want to number your responses as above to avoid confusion)
I will post my reboot in the comments section tomorrow as everyone else is invited to do. I want to hear from all the tv people out there, the comic people, the pulpsters and the feature film freaks. Let's remake the pop culture universe to our individual visions...but more importantly let's have fun doing it...
And Warren Ellis is holding a remake/reboot thread over at The Engine, and Flash Gordon is being made into a television series. So as this is the six month anniversary of one of the more popular posts here at DISContent, I thought:
What the hell, let's do it.
So here are the Reboot Rules of Conduct:
1. This time you can reboot any comic, book, radio & tv show or movie ever made.
2. You have to think through your reboot - what is the unique quality of the original show and what makes your reboot different ?
3. Who would star, write, direct or draw your reboot?
4. Two completely different takes on the same idea are okay, but they must both be really thought out and not just tossed out there onto the fire for comment.
5. Links to outside reference material is encouraged. Especially for obscure stuff some people won't remember.
(When posting, you may want to number your responses as above to avoid confusion)
I will post my reboot in the comments section tomorrow as everyone else is invited to do. I want to hear from all the tv people out there, the comic people, the pulpsters and the feature film freaks. Let's remake the pop culture universe to our individual visions...but more importantly let's have fun doing it...
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Grindhouse: Post Mortem
Sunday I went to see Grindhouse at the Grauman’s Chinese Theater here in the heart of Hollywood. After dodging the tourists (of which there were multitudes) and getting refreshments (Nachos, Diet Coke) and going to the restroom (this would, after all be a three hour tour) I settled into my comfortable seat to watch the movie…
Okay, make that movies.
For those of you who don’t know (and what rock have you been living under that you don’t know) this is a double feature event - just like the old exploitation double bills at the “bad theater” or the Drive-in back in small town America. In my case, the bad theater of my youth was the “Rocking Chair Theater” which conjures up images of old people whittling on the front porch of the homestead rather than an exploitation palace. That and the fact the theater was only blocks away from the “Good theater” -- well, that’s Aiken, SC for you.
Where were we?
So Grindhouse is made up of two movies - Planet Terror and Death Proof and features trailers interspersed throughout the event by notable directors Eli Roth, Rob Zombie and Edgar Wright. The whole package was designed to be a popcorn munchin’, drink swillin’ good time (minus the sticky floors and multiple stale odors of real ‘grind houses‘).
Planet Terror is a new look at an 80’s style zombie flick. There are echoes of Dawn of the Dead, Zombie and countless other movies thrown into the mix - including an homage to Dario Argento. Writer-Director Robert Rodriguez wants to make this an “archetype-filled” romp and for the most part succeeds. He knows and liberally steals from his source material, but often gives it all a unique spin.
It was also nice to see so many familiar veterans in the movie including Jeff Fahey, Tom Savini and Michael Parks - all of whom know the material and know how to elevate it beyond cliché (well, almost). The characters they play are all part of the same universe that includes Kill Bill and From Dusk til Dawn. It’s a strange, twisted alternate dimension where zombies, vampires, ninja-like assassins and Texas all come together.
We also have Marley Shelton, Josh Brolin, Freddy Rodriguez and Rose McGowan in the cast. All fill their roles nicely, and deal with plot turns and twists well. McGowan is especially “nasty hawt” if you get my meaning.
Oh yeah, Bruce Willis, Quentin Tarantino and that guy from Lost are in it too…
What’s funny about Planet Terror is that it’s well, funny. Every scene has a different element of humor - the one-liner, the visual joke, the parody, character humor and the flipping of the convention (amongst others). That dear audience is where Planet Terror runs off the tracks for me.
See, these exploitation “masterpieces” of the 60’s , 70’s and 80’s always took themselves seriously. Yes, there was always bad dialogue, bad acting or poor directing - but through it all it took itself seriously. If there were laughs (HG Lewis anyone?) they were played to show the depravity of the characters. For example, Vigilante is an exploitation picture by Bill Lustig (Maniac, Relentless) that has some bad moments - but it takes itself seriously and doesn’t break down into parody. Same goes for Ms. 45 or Bad Lieutenant or Dawn of the Dead or Zombi(e)… they immersed you in a world that didn’t make fun of the genre (or anything else associated with the film).
Planet Terror not so much.
There is a lot to admire about this film - its energy, its twists (when was the last time you saw a kid do that?) and its production value (especially in the makeup effects arena) - but all of that is undercut by the fact they are making fun of zombie movies instead of doing what grind house writers and directors should be doing or have done in the past:
Give us a (zombie) movie that pulls no punches.
Rodriguez violated the cardinal rules of exploitation - don’t second guess yourself and make it all into a comedy expecting the audience to get the joke. Make a movie the studios can’t (or won’t ) make. Make an intense, memorable, visual experience.
Rodriguez got two of those right. The humor cut him out of the running for the third.
Most of the trailers fall into the same category. Machete and Eli Roth’s Thanksgiving being the only ones to follow the path set forth by other exploitation films without delving into parody. I want to see those two films because they did take themselves seriously (or at least serious enough to make me want to see them) and were transgressive enough to merit the “grind house” label (I will not jump on a trampoline or eat turkey again, especially after that bit which wasn’t shown in the Youtube trailer).
Death Proof is the second half of this Grindhouse double bill, and like Rodriguez, Director Quentin Tarantino knows of which he speaks when it comes to exploitation cinema. Death Proof is his take on a car chase, killer-on-the-loose picture. It mixes elements of such car classics as Grand Theft Auto (the opening credit sequence for instance), Eat My Dust, Dirty Mary Crazy Larry and Vanishing Point. All movies which Tarantino blatantly references in his feature.
Death Proof is the story of Stuntman Mike , a movie car stuntman who can only get off by killing someone with his specially outfitted vehicle designed to keep him from being killed while he goes on his jet-fueled, hormones ragin’ death spree. Mike, played with dirt-under-the-fingernails charisma by Kurt Russell, is a guy who meets his match on the highway when he targets a trio of movie crew girls who are out on a joyride in a white Challenger recreating the thrills of movies like Vanishing Point.
What makes this movie different is Tarantino doesn’t make fun of the genre so much as ignore it in favor of his own dialogue fetish. This is a talky movie. Okay, very talky. Chick flick talky as written by an aging adolescent boy… am I clear here?
While there are moments of brilliance in the film (the atmosphere and detail, some of the car stuntwork and the casting of Vanessa Ferlita who has the saddest and yet most wonderful eyes I‘ve ever seen), there is simply not enough action nor thrills to classify this as an exploitation picture. The story would have been better served if Tarantino had watched more Mad Max and Road Warrior and less Crossroads (yes, the awful Britney Spears movie).
It is also clear both men love the city of Austin (Rodriguez’s home and Tarantino’s getaway spot) and its culture, and yes there are many more stories to tell there, but there comes a point where the whole scene becomes too “in-jokey” and not “real”. Sure you can show the Alamo and the local chili and BBQ joints, but by drawing so much attention to how great these places are - you take us right out of the story. We get that Texas is part of the DNA of this picture (as many exploitation classics were shot there), but seriously - start swimming in the deeper end of the gene pool. The place where the really dark stuff lies at the bottom.
That's where the real exploitation films come from...
Coming Soon: Grindhouse is (supposedly) a failure - so what happened and what’s next?
Okay, make that movies.
For those of you who don’t know (and what rock have you been living under that you don’t know) this is a double feature event - just like the old exploitation double bills at the “bad theater” or the Drive-in back in small town America. In my case, the bad theater of my youth was the “Rocking Chair Theater” which conjures up images of old people whittling on the front porch of the homestead rather than an exploitation palace. That and the fact the theater was only blocks away from the “Good theater” -- well, that’s Aiken, SC for you.
Where were we?
So Grindhouse is made up of two movies - Planet Terror and Death Proof and features trailers interspersed throughout the event by notable directors Eli Roth, Rob Zombie and Edgar Wright. The whole package was designed to be a popcorn munchin’, drink swillin’ good time (minus the sticky floors and multiple stale odors of real ‘grind houses‘).
Planet Terror is a new look at an 80’s style zombie flick. There are echoes of Dawn of the Dead, Zombie and countless other movies thrown into the mix - including an homage to Dario Argento. Writer-Director Robert Rodriguez wants to make this an “archetype-filled” romp and for the most part succeeds. He knows and liberally steals from his source material, but often gives it all a unique spin.
It was also nice to see so many familiar veterans in the movie including Jeff Fahey, Tom Savini and Michael Parks - all of whom know the material and know how to elevate it beyond cliché (well, almost). The characters they play are all part of the same universe that includes Kill Bill and From Dusk til Dawn. It’s a strange, twisted alternate dimension where zombies, vampires, ninja-like assassins and Texas all come together.
We also have Marley Shelton, Josh Brolin, Freddy Rodriguez and Rose McGowan in the cast. All fill their roles nicely, and deal with plot turns and twists well. McGowan is especially “nasty hawt” if you get my meaning.
Oh yeah, Bruce Willis, Quentin Tarantino and that guy from Lost are in it too…
What’s funny about Planet Terror is that it’s well, funny. Every scene has a different element of humor - the one-liner, the visual joke, the parody, character humor and the flipping of the convention (amongst others). That dear audience is where Planet Terror runs off the tracks for me.
See, these exploitation “masterpieces” of the 60’s , 70’s and 80’s always took themselves seriously. Yes, there was always bad dialogue, bad acting or poor directing - but through it all it took itself seriously. If there were laughs (HG Lewis anyone?) they were played to show the depravity of the characters. For example, Vigilante is an exploitation picture by Bill Lustig (Maniac, Relentless) that has some bad moments - but it takes itself seriously and doesn’t break down into parody. Same goes for Ms. 45 or Bad Lieutenant or Dawn of the Dead or Zombi(e)… they immersed you in a world that didn’t make fun of the genre (or anything else associated with the film).
Planet Terror not so much.
There is a lot to admire about this film - its energy, its twists (when was the last time you saw a kid do that?) and its production value (especially in the makeup effects arena) - but all of that is undercut by the fact they are making fun of zombie movies instead of doing what grind house writers and directors should be doing or have done in the past:
Give us a (zombie) movie that pulls no punches.
Rodriguez violated the cardinal rules of exploitation - don’t second guess yourself and make it all into a comedy expecting the audience to get the joke. Make a movie the studios can’t (or won’t ) make. Make an intense, memorable, visual experience.
Rodriguez got two of those right. The humor cut him out of the running for the third.
Most of the trailers fall into the same category. Machete and Eli Roth’s Thanksgiving being the only ones to follow the path set forth by other exploitation films without delving into parody. I want to see those two films because they did take themselves seriously (or at least serious enough to make me want to see them) and were transgressive enough to merit the “grind house” label (I will not jump on a trampoline or eat turkey again, especially after that bit which wasn’t shown in the Youtube trailer).
Death Proof is the second half of this Grindhouse double bill, and like Rodriguez, Director Quentin Tarantino knows of which he speaks when it comes to exploitation cinema. Death Proof is his take on a car chase, killer-on-the-loose picture. It mixes elements of such car classics as Grand Theft Auto (the opening credit sequence for instance), Eat My Dust, Dirty Mary Crazy Larry and Vanishing Point. All movies which Tarantino blatantly references in his feature.
Death Proof is the story of Stuntman Mike , a movie car stuntman who can only get off by killing someone with his specially outfitted vehicle designed to keep him from being killed while he goes on his jet-fueled, hormones ragin’ death spree. Mike, played with dirt-under-the-fingernails charisma by Kurt Russell, is a guy who meets his match on the highway when he targets a trio of movie crew girls who are out on a joyride in a white Challenger recreating the thrills of movies like Vanishing Point.
What makes this movie different is Tarantino doesn’t make fun of the genre so much as ignore it in favor of his own dialogue fetish. This is a talky movie. Okay, very talky. Chick flick talky as written by an aging adolescent boy… am I clear here?
While there are moments of brilliance in the film (the atmosphere and detail, some of the car stuntwork and the casting of Vanessa Ferlita who has the saddest and yet most wonderful eyes I‘ve ever seen), there is simply not enough action nor thrills to classify this as an exploitation picture. The story would have been better served if Tarantino had watched more Mad Max and Road Warrior and less Crossroads (yes, the awful Britney Spears movie).
It is also clear both men love the city of Austin (Rodriguez’s home and Tarantino’s getaway spot) and its culture, and yes there are many more stories to tell there, but there comes a point where the whole scene becomes too “in-jokey” and not “real”. Sure you can show the Alamo and the local chili and BBQ joints, but by drawing so much attention to how great these places are - you take us right out of the story. We get that Texas is part of the DNA of this picture (as many exploitation classics were shot there), but seriously - start swimming in the deeper end of the gene pool. The place where the really dark stuff lies at the bottom.
That's where the real exploitation films come from...
Coming Soon: Grindhouse is (supposedly) a failure - so what happened and what’s next?
Monday, April 09, 2007
Into the Grind...
I had hoped to get my GRINDHOUSE review written and out to you today, but I have been caught up in a rewrite all day today (and all of last week too). You'll just have to be satisfied with this:
Thanks go out to Fangoria magazine and Anthem Pictures for their support.
Thanks go out to Fangoria magazine and Anthem Pictures for their support.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Grindhouse is the New Black
Warning: This trailer has nudity, graphic violence and bad special effects wrapped in dark humor. Contains the RDA of cheese...
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
You Are What You Grew Up With...
Many people ask me why I'm so interested in "pulp" or "exploitation" material - what made me that way...
(usually asked with head cocked to the side as if interrogating a serial killer)
My answer is the title of this post, and some examples of what made me the mad pulp bastard that I am today are below:
------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
Order these DVDs today and you too can get those long looks from across the bar followed by those fateful words:
.
"We've identified the suspect. Move in!"
Monday, April 02, 2007
I like a Challenge...
There's nothing like it - the challenge that's slapped across your face like a duellist's glove, begging you to bring it to the table. Your heart beats out of your chest, your breath comes in shallow gulps, the sweat beads on your forehead more than when you asked that pretty girl you've admired from afar for oh so long to dance back in the 9th grade...
Then you ask yourself, 'Am I up to this?" and you hit that fork-in-the-road moment and you can't tell your right from your left or even up from down.
Thump thump thump thump...
I've been experiencing this feeling this morning with a script I've been rewriting. In picking it apart, I wasn't able to discern why this one of my children was going to be stuck on the short school bus of film development. Doomed to languish in the special needs class where the kids wear football helmets all the time. Damnit! Not my kid!
But what was the problem?!!!!!
Then it hit me - and I got sick about it. Figuratively if not literally. Because it meant surgery. Radical surgery to remove the malignant growth that was preventing my kid from keeping up with the rest of his peers. Cutting scenes entirely - nearly 20 pages worth.
Thump thump thump thump...
Challenge = butt + chair + coffee
Then you ask yourself, 'Am I up to this?" and you hit that fork-in-the-road moment and you can't tell your right from your left or even up from down.
Thump thump thump thump...
I've been experiencing this feeling this morning with a script I've been rewriting. In picking it apart, I wasn't able to discern why this one of my children was going to be stuck on the short school bus of film development. Doomed to languish in the special needs class where the kids wear football helmets all the time. Damnit! Not my kid!
But what was the problem?!!!!!
Then it hit me - and I got sick about it. Figuratively if not literally. Because it meant surgery. Radical surgery to remove the malignant growth that was preventing my kid from keeping up with the rest of his peers. Cutting scenes entirely - nearly 20 pages worth.
Thump thump thump thump...
Challenge = butt + chair + coffee
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)