Friday, March 29, 2013
Monday, March 18, 2013
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Veronica Mars, Crowd Funding, and the easiest decision Warner Brothers ever made.
Earlier today it was announced that the cult TV show Veronica Mars would be coming back as a movie, assuming they could crowd fund the production costs through Kickstarter. Some people have taken this opportunity to publicly wonder if Warner Brothers, who owns Veronica Mars, has gone completely insane, or if this is the beginning of the end for the studio system. If Veronica Mars can get crowd funded to the tune of 2 million dollars, in the span of less than 24 hours, do we even need studios anymore?
The answer, ultimately, is yes, we still need studios and no, they probably won't be going anywhere anytime soon. For all of their complaining about how poorly the box office seems to perpetually be doing (even though, in recent years, profits have shown a sharp rise), these folks are ridiculously shrewd, and have so many back door deals going on, they have an almost endless supply of cash coming in. Even in hard times, they will be able to pay the bills.
But what about Warner Brothers? Are they really so insane, or so strapped for cash, that they would simply let Rob Thomas, creator of Veronica Mars, crowd source a big screen version of the show? I'm not an insider (obviously), so I have no idea what WB's fortunes look like, but, ultimately, this is one of the most shrewd, and potentially profitable, decisions they could make.
Think about it - A studio allows a show runner to take the idea that the studio owns the rights to, and crowd source funds to create a movie out of it. This person is able to raise the funds for the production and (I assume post production), and the studio takes over on distribution. Warner Brothers has, essentially, just gained an extra film for their 2014 schedule, and didn't have to put out a single up front penny. They don't have to squeeze out a single, up front dime until the movie is finished. And then, all they have to do is distribute it, which is easy, because they already have all of their necessary channels and deals set up. Getting the word out is a cinch - They simply continue to take advantage of the army of folks that helped them raise that staggering sum of 2 million dollars.
Put simply, Warner Brothers wins. They put out nothing up front, they give away some BS prizes for the different Kickstarter levels, they get content (of which, THEY still own the rights to), and they collect the profits.
Don't get me wrong, Veronica Mars fans win, too, but only because WB wins. Don't think, not even for a second, that WB would allow this to happen if they didn't see dollar signs. There is a reason Veronica Mars was cancelled, and there is a reason it has never been made into a movie before now. Warner Brothers sees a sure thing, and Veronica Mars fans are willing to do whatever it takes to get their little piece. The awful truth? 2 million is a drop in the bucket for someone like Warner Brothers. They could EASILY have floated that at any time, if they truly believed in this project, but they don't.
The answer, ultimately, is yes, we still need studios and no, they probably won't be going anywhere anytime soon. For all of their complaining about how poorly the box office seems to perpetually be doing (even though, in recent years, profits have shown a sharp rise), these folks are ridiculously shrewd, and have so many back door deals going on, they have an almost endless supply of cash coming in. Even in hard times, they will be able to pay the bills.
But what about Warner Brothers? Are they really so insane, or so strapped for cash, that they would simply let Rob Thomas, creator of Veronica Mars, crowd source a big screen version of the show? I'm not an insider (obviously), so I have no idea what WB's fortunes look like, but, ultimately, this is one of the most shrewd, and potentially profitable, decisions they could make.
Think about it - A studio allows a show runner to take the idea that the studio owns the rights to, and crowd source funds to create a movie out of it. This person is able to raise the funds for the production and (I assume post production), and the studio takes over on distribution. Warner Brothers has, essentially, just gained an extra film for their 2014 schedule, and didn't have to put out a single up front penny. They don't have to squeeze out a single, up front dime until the movie is finished. And then, all they have to do is distribute it, which is easy, because they already have all of their necessary channels and deals set up. Getting the word out is a cinch - They simply continue to take advantage of the army of folks that helped them raise that staggering sum of 2 million dollars.
Put simply, Warner Brothers wins. They put out nothing up front, they give away some BS prizes for the different Kickstarter levels, they get content (of which, THEY still own the rights to), and they collect the profits.
Don't get me wrong, Veronica Mars fans win, too, but only because WB wins. Don't think, not even for a second, that WB would allow this to happen if they didn't see dollar signs. There is a reason Veronica Mars was cancelled, and there is a reason it has never been made into a movie before now. Warner Brothers sees a sure thing, and Veronica Mars fans are willing to do whatever it takes to get their little piece. The awful truth? 2 million is a drop in the bucket for someone like Warner Brothers. They could EASILY have floated that at any time, if they truly believed in this project, but they don't.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Jeremy Adams' "Herb Williams - The Call of the Wild"
HERB WILLIAMS "The Call of the Wild" / short documentary from Jeremy Adams on Vimeo.
This is a short documentary that was shot and directed by Jeremy Adams and edited by myself. Hope you enjoy!
All The Light In The Sky
No Budge, Kentucker Audley's website dedicated to giving smaller, independent films an opportunity to gain an internet signal boost that they might not otherwise gain by just self releasing on YouTube or Vimeo, recently hosted a "secret" (and limited time) screening of Joe Swanberg's new feature All The Light In The Sky. I had a chance to see the film, and I have to say, I truly feel like it is Swanberg's most accomplished film yet. I am putting it on my list of favorites of his, alongside Hannah Takes The Stairs and Nights and Weekends.
The film stars Jane Adams as Marie, an aging actress, who is visited by her niece, Faye, played by Sophia Takal. During their visit, Marie see's the spark of youth she is missing, while Faye revels in the spoils of war that only someone who has been around long enough to achieve these things might have. Kent Osborne makes an appearance as a friend of a friend of Faye's, who ends up getting involved with Marie. Larry Fessenden also pops up in a great performance as Rusty, Marie's neighbor and surfing partner.
Moments are the key to most Swanberg films. You're not looking to get the typical Hollywood formula out of these films, and, if you are, you'll be leaving frustrated. Moments like Marie's conversation with her agent, in which she slowly gives into the idea of an extremely low budgeted film in order to just be doing something, or Faye's fear of being caught by Marie if she shows some skin to her boyfriend over Skype. There's an amazing moment with Marie and Dan (Osborne), where they're trying to figure out whether it feels right to kiss. All of these moments, and some pretty gorgeous cinematography, add up to another great piece by Swanberg. Adams perfectly encompasses that late thirties/early forties malaise of actors who have given up a traditional family structure to further their career, and the emptiness and loneliness that can breed when that career slows (which is natural for almost any working actor short of the 1% superstars).
I wish we would have had more time with Faye. It felt like her character could have been explored more and issues could have been addressed from the perspective of a younger character, but, ultimately, this is Marie's film, and Adams commands the screen in a way that, as a viewer, you don't question that.
The film stars Jane Adams as Marie, an aging actress, who is visited by her niece, Faye, played by Sophia Takal. During their visit, Marie see's the spark of youth she is missing, while Faye revels in the spoils of war that only someone who has been around long enough to achieve these things might have. Kent Osborne makes an appearance as a friend of a friend of Faye's, who ends up getting involved with Marie. Larry Fessenden also pops up in a great performance as Rusty, Marie's neighbor and surfing partner.
Moments are the key to most Swanberg films. You're not looking to get the typical Hollywood formula out of these films, and, if you are, you'll be leaving frustrated. Moments like Marie's conversation with her agent, in which she slowly gives into the idea of an extremely low budgeted film in order to just be doing something, or Faye's fear of being caught by Marie if she shows some skin to her boyfriend over Skype. There's an amazing moment with Marie and Dan (Osborne), where they're trying to figure out whether it feels right to kiss. All of these moments, and some pretty gorgeous cinematography, add up to another great piece by Swanberg. Adams perfectly encompasses that late thirties/early forties malaise of actors who have given up a traditional family structure to further their career, and the emptiness and loneliness that can breed when that career slows (which is natural for almost any working actor short of the 1% superstars).
I wish we would have had more time with Faye. It felt like her character could have been explored more and issues could have been addressed from the perspective of a younger character, but, ultimately, this is Marie's film, and Adams commands the screen in a way that, as a viewer, you don't question that.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Texas Chainsaw 3D
**I did not see this movie in 3D.**
There are some experiences you have in the movie theater that are so utterly confusing and depressing, you don't even know what to say about them. This was my experience with Texas Chainsaw 3D. The original film is, to this day, one of the best horror films ever made, but in the forty, or so, years that have followed, Hollywood has desperately tried to capture that magic again, but never has been able to. All of the follow ups, short of (surprisingly), Marcus Nispels Platinum Dunes produced remake, have been a sorry attempt to make a franchise out of lightning in a bottle. This newest addition is no different than all of the others.
Texas Chainsaw 3D's first mistake is immediate. The film begins with an opening credits sequence, which is, basically, a highlight reel of the original film. By the time the credits are over, one is left to wonder - Now that I've seen all of the most important parts of the original, why am I still watching this? And that's just a few minutes in. It gets worse. The film is supposed to be a direct sequel to the original. The next mistake it makes, though, is that, once you've sat through the aforementioned highlight reel, they immediately change the story. We pick up at the farm, probably half an hour or an hour later, and the sheriff, who, at this point it is presumed, has talked to Sally (from the original film), has come to the house to arrest Leatherface and the three other members of his family - The Old Man, Grandpa, and the Hitchhiker. Now, SOMEHOW, in that short period of time, those four people grow to, like, TWELVE people. WHO ARE ALL OF THESE OTHER PEOPLE??? A shootout ensues, Leatherface manages to escape, and a baby girl is torn away from one of these (illegitimate) family members. She grows up (and, mind you, if this film was actually following logic, would be in her late thirties or early forties at this point) to be an artistic butcher shop worker named Heather (assumedly in her early to mid twenties, because, apparently, she went into stasis for twenty years). When Heather finds out that she is inheriting a piece of property in Texas, it is revealed that she was adopted (even though she was actually stolen). Looking to discover more about her roots, her and a small group of friends head up to the farm where, of course, they discover Leatherface and craziness ensues.
You could write a BOOK about everything that is wrong or ridiculous about this movie. That anyone, on the money side, who read this script thought that it was a good idea is BAFFLING. I'm not going to bother going into everything, it would take too long, but just know that this film is RIDICULOUS and, honestly, most of the horrible sequels that have been made to the original film are better than this one.
One thing I do want to mention, though, that ABSOLUTELY KILLED ME, was the fact that they brought Gunnar Hansen back (the original Leatherface) to play an unnamed member of the (illegitimate) family, who dies in the opening flashback sequence. If this is, in fact, a direct sequel, why not have Hansen play Leatherface? What was the point in bringing in some other guy to play him?
Again, so much that is ridiculous in this film.
There are some experiences you have in the movie theater that are so utterly confusing and depressing, you don't even know what to say about them. This was my experience with Texas Chainsaw 3D. The original film is, to this day, one of the best horror films ever made, but in the forty, or so, years that have followed, Hollywood has desperately tried to capture that magic again, but never has been able to. All of the follow ups, short of (surprisingly), Marcus Nispels Platinum Dunes produced remake, have been a sorry attempt to make a franchise out of lightning in a bottle. This newest addition is no different than all of the others.
Texas Chainsaw 3D's first mistake is immediate. The film begins with an opening credits sequence, which is, basically, a highlight reel of the original film. By the time the credits are over, one is left to wonder - Now that I've seen all of the most important parts of the original, why am I still watching this? And that's just a few minutes in. It gets worse. The film is supposed to be a direct sequel to the original. The next mistake it makes, though, is that, once you've sat through the aforementioned highlight reel, they immediately change the story. We pick up at the farm, probably half an hour or an hour later, and the sheriff, who, at this point it is presumed, has talked to Sally (from the original film), has come to the house to arrest Leatherface and the three other members of his family - The Old Man, Grandpa, and the Hitchhiker. Now, SOMEHOW, in that short period of time, those four people grow to, like, TWELVE people. WHO ARE ALL OF THESE OTHER PEOPLE??? A shootout ensues, Leatherface manages to escape, and a baby girl is torn away from one of these (illegitimate) family members. She grows up (and, mind you, if this film was actually following logic, would be in her late thirties or early forties at this point) to be an artistic butcher shop worker named Heather (assumedly in her early to mid twenties, because, apparently, she went into stasis for twenty years). When Heather finds out that she is inheriting a piece of property in Texas, it is revealed that she was adopted (even though she was actually stolen). Looking to discover more about her roots, her and a small group of friends head up to the farm where, of course, they discover Leatherface and craziness ensues.
You could write a BOOK about everything that is wrong or ridiculous about this movie. That anyone, on the money side, who read this script thought that it was a good idea is BAFFLING. I'm not going to bother going into everything, it would take too long, but just know that this film is RIDICULOUS and, honestly, most of the horrible sequels that have been made to the original film are better than this one.
One thing I do want to mention, though, that ABSOLUTELY KILLED ME, was the fact that they brought Gunnar Hansen back (the original Leatherface) to play an unnamed member of the (illegitimate) family, who dies in the opening flashback sequence. If this is, in fact, a direct sequel, why not have Hansen play Leatherface? What was the point in bringing in some other guy to play him?
Again, so much that is ridiculous in this film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
