SoulHonky

Venturing into the next month, let's see how 2008 stacks up with 2007.  As I noted in the previous entry, this coming weekend features a horror film (The Eye) just like last year's top new release (The Messengers). And honestly, I think 14 million (which is what The Messenger's opened with) might not be such a bad haul for the Jessica Alba film.

The top film in the second week of February in 2007 was Norbit ($34m). In fact, this weekend has usually been a week for a big comedy: The Pink Panther (2006), Hitch (2005), Barbershop 2 (2004). With three of the four latest films featuring African-American leads, Universal Studios figured that it was the right time to release Martin Lawrence's "Welcome Home Roscoe Jenkins". The other big release this week is "Fool's Gold" starring Matthew McConaughey and Kate Hudson. I bet you'll never guess what film debuted at #1 this weekend in 2003? Yep, McConaughey/Hudson's "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days". 

The other release of note this weekend in 2007 was "The Lives of Others". That critically acclaimed film failed to find an audience so perhaps that is why this year's anticipated foreign language film "City of Men" isn't being released until the 4th weekend of the month.

The top three debuts in the third week of February were: Ghost Rider ($45), Bridge to Terabithia ($22m), and Music and Lyrics ($13m). And as luck would have it, the three releases this third week of February are actioner "Jumper", children's fantasy book adaptation "The Spiderwick Chronicles", and rom-com "Definitely Maybe" (I guess since they didn't have a rom-com about a former brit-pop singer, they decided to name it after a brit-pop album). And if "Jumper" can't make 40 million, Fox is going to be upset. Not only did Ghost Rider make that much last year but it's how much Daredevil made in 2003.

Surprisingly, February is going to be without Tyler Perry. His first two films were debuted at #1 the third weekend of February in 2005 and 2006 and then, last year, "Daddy's Little Girls" opened in the second week of the month. The box office for the films has been dropping so Hollywood has decided to go absolutely insane and move Tyler Perry's new film... to the third weekend of March.

For the third week of 2007, conspiracy theorists will have their thirst quenched again. Replacing "The Number 23" is the assassination conspiracy film "Vantage Point".  "Reno 911: Miami" came out to decent numbers last year so it seems like a good time to release Larry the Cable Guy's silly cop film "Witless Protection". In 2006, Michael Gondry did well with his limited late-February release of "Dave Chapelle's Block Party" so Michel and Mos Def are back (with Jack Black replacing Black Thought) in "Be Kind Rewind". Charlie Bartlett is a bit of a wild card but it makes sense. There hasn't really been a good high school released yet so it could have that niche

If Hollywood actually made films featuring black women, this would likely be the place they put it. The only new films to debut at #1 in the last decade have been Madea (2005 and 2006) and Aaliyah (Queen of the Damned).  Before that, the last new film to debut #1 was Jackie Chan's Rumble in the Bronx.

The final weekend of February is where things start to break down. Yes, Christina Ricci (Black Snake Moan) is back (this year in Penelope) and Will Ferrell returns to the late-February release that made him a star in 2003 (Old School) but Semi-Pro isn't a great comparison to Wild Hogs.  And while you could say both films are talky period dramas about young lovers in peril, I'd say that you were really reaching when comparing "Zodiac" to "The Other Boleyn Girl" 

In the end, there's one last gasp of deja vu. The first week of March, which was won by "300" last year, is the weekend in which "10,000 BC" opens. (And if you want to really reach, "Shutter" opens the next weekend, the same time that "Shooter" opened last year). But after that, 2008 will thankfully be allowed to carve out its own identity.

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

While I have to admit being depressed that "Meet the Spartans" managed to win the box office and rake in 18 million dollars, I can't say that I'm surprised. January is filled with dumb movies and dumb movies can easily make 18 - 20 million dollars when there's nothing else new coming out. In fact, this year is starting off almost exactly like 2007 did.

Week #1
2007: Night at the Museum $23m, Pursuit of Happyness $12m, Children of Men $10
2008: National Treasure 2: $20m, Juno $15m, I Am Legend $15m

So the first week was owned by holdovers and the order is the same: family friend at #1, critically acclaimed surprise succes at #2, and the not-so-typical actioner #3. While comparing the Ellen Page-led "Juno" to the Will Smith drama might be a stretch, they are both films that many people feared wouldn't find an audience.

Week #2
2007: Stomp the Yard $21m, Night at the Museum 17m, Pursuit of Happyness $9m
2008: The Bucket List: $19m, First Sunday $17, Juno $13m

The biggest difference between these two years is that the film that moved to a major release fared better. The Bucket List moved into 3000 theaters in its third week of release and took the box office. In 2007, Dreamgirls (after its fifth week of release) played in 2000 theaters but only mustered a 4th place finish. Also, National Treasure: Book of Secrets didn't have the legs that Night at the Museum had (and fell behind Juno).

Week #3
2007: Stomp the Yard $12m, Night at the Museum $12m, Dreamgirls $8
2008: Cloverfield: $40m, 27 Dresses $23m, The Bucket List $14m

Aside from Bucket List/Dreamgirls holding down the third spot, this week seems very different but it shares some similarities. To start, the new big release of this week in 2007 was, like Cloverfield, a horror film. The Hitcher simply didn't draw in anyone. And the counter-programming romantic comedy came a week early this year and fared better than 2007's Catch and Release (which only opened in half the theaters of 27 Dresses).

Week #4
2007: Epic Movie $18m, Smokin' Aces $14m, Night at the Museum $9
2008: Meet the Spartans: $18m, Rambo $18m, 27 Dresses $13m

Brain-dead comedy #1 and brain-dead actioner #2. Jennifer Garner's Catch and Release opened at #5 in 2007 taking in $4700 per theater while Diane Lane's Untraceable came in #7 with $4700 per theater. Also this week, the Oscar nominations helped art films jump to #8 (Pan's Labrynth $4.7m; There Will Be Blood $4.8m). The Departed got an expanded release (good for $3 million) as did Michael Clayton this year (good for 2 million) while The Queen (2007) and Atonement (2008) both brought in 4 million. Babel saw a slight bump in its theater count to earn 2.5 million in its 14 week while No Country for Old Men saw a similar bump in both theater count and money in its 12th week. 2008's fourth week also saw the debut of a Sundance Film Festival entry How She Move, which disappointed ($4m) about as much as Alpha Dog ($6m) which opened a couple of weeks earlier in 2007.

And what about Week 5? What will Hollywood put up against Super Bowl weekend? Well, the big release is a horror film (The Eye), like last year (The Messengers $14m).  Last year also featured the debut of Diane Keaton in "Because I Said So". Needless to say, I'm sure the studio wishes they had held Keaton's "Mad Money" to this weekend rather than going up against "Cloverfield" and "27 Dresses". Replacing it is the crappy-looking romantic comedy "Over Her Dead Body" and goofball comedy "Strange Wilderness" along with the Hannah Montana concert film (only opening in 680 theaters).
--- 

So there are two lessons to be learned here. The first is that heavily-advertised crap movies will be a decent bet to open with 15 - 20 million. Going back through the decade, January is littered with crap that lands in that range (Snow Dogs, Just Married, The Recruit, Final Destination 2, Hostel, You Got Served, The Butterfly Effect, etc.). Usually you they'll take home 30 or 40 million overall (a recognizable name actor might add around 10 millon to that gross).

The other lesson that SHOULD be learned but simply won't be is the fact that slow releasing Oscar candidates at the end of the year is a great way to insure your film gets lost in the shuffle. There might be one or two films that breakthrough but most fall by the wayside and manage 30 - 50 million (which is barely more than the crap films that are dumped on the public in January).

Unfortunately, Hollywood isn't going to learn that any time soon because this January is going to be the biggest on record, crossing the 800 million mark for the first time ever. The best January had been in 2002, when three films made over 50 million dollars for the month and the total box office was just under 700 million. This year, 6 films have made over 50 million (with 27 Dresses knocking on the door at 45 million). On the bright side, Juno is the #1 film of the month, making 72 million. The other films are: National Treasure: Book of Secrets, Cloverfield, The Bucket List, Alvin and the Chipmunks, and I Am Legend. Needless to say, despite Juno being #1, I think Hollywood is more likely to be making more National Treasure's and Chipmunk movies in the future than smart comedies.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This was one of the more amazing theater experiences I've had. At the end of the film, the entire audience gave out an collective groan, followed by a pause, and then a shared laugh as people starting to talk about how terrible the film was.  The movie played like a high school rendition of Godzilla (imagine Jason Schwartzman's character in "Rushmore" enacting Godzilla and you have the best idea) narrated by Bill Paxton's character in Aliens.

Although I have to admit, the previews alone took me out of this movie. Some Karate Kid meets Fast & The Furious movie got the ball rolling in the wrong direction. Of course, things didn't get better once the movie started. The main characters all acted like they were tweens. Two people totally had sex and its a huge scandal. Mind you, the main character is the VP of an unnamed company and everyone is supposed to be a few year (at least) removed from college. The reactions of the characters to any traumatic event are either unrealistic or simply not there at all. Honestly, a monster is stomping through New York and the main characters all seem pretty cool, calm, and collected throughout.

This movie is absolutely ridiculous. If you are expecting a stupid monster movie with two scares, some bland acting, nonsensical characters, and a ridiculous plotline, this movie is for you. But I still wouldn't recommend it. 

Things You Should Know Before Viewing: If you still are going to see it, here's what I think you need to be ready for before viewing. First and foremost, it's a dumb b-movie. It doesn't elevate the genre above horror movie cliches. Check any common sense at the door and expect only Slasher flick intelligence from your characters. Expect the opening party scene to be too slow, too long, and too boring.  Forget anything you've seen in "The Descent", "Godzilla", or most any other monster film and you'll be frightened. Imagine the characters are actually high school kids. Then I think you might be able to at least accept the film but I'm still not sure you'll enjoy it unless you have zero expectations.

Posted by SoulHonky at 03:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This weekend the 2008 film year truly begins. Some legitimate releases hit the theater and it's time to take a look at what Hollywood has to offer this fine January.

The Definites:
None. There's no one film that I'm really amped up to see. But then again, it's January, the month in which studios try to avoid releasing actual quality movies.

The Maybe's
- The Air I Breathe: A lot depends on the reviews. It appears to be a compilation of stories and has a cast of Kevin Bacon, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Brendan Fraser, Forest Whitaker, Emile Hirsch, and Andy Garcia. And no, I'm not sure what I meant by naming the cast. Intriguing but not 15 dollars and two hours of my life intriguing.
- Tropa De Elite: A film about Brazil's elite police force? Sounds like it be could be City of God meets The Shield. Sounds promising.
- Cloverfield: Not that I'm expecting this movie to be all that good but I'll probably get roped in to seeing it. I'm not a fan of JJ Abrams so I'm preparing to be underwhelmed. If my friends want to go, I'll probably see it but it's one of those films that I'd gladly let slip through the cracks and just wait to see on DVD. If only I had been even underwhelmed.

The No Way's 
- 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days: "The description is a drama about a woman who assists her friend to arrange an illegal abortion in 1980's Romania." I think I'll find a way to pass on this.
- Cassandra's Dream: Woody Allen, Colin Farrell, and Ewen McGregor. Three high profile names whose movies I usually find disappointing. Yes, two negatives make a positive but THREE negatives have it right back at a big fat minus sign.
- Day Zero: Interest The Same.
- Alice's House: If it gets good reviews, I'll put it on my Netflix queue. Probably at the bottom of my Netflix queue.
- How She Move: Why Me Care?
- Meet the Spartans: Ugh. Not only will I not see this but I am rooting for it to fail.

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'm going to break up my film reviews into two categories: reviews (in which I'll say what I think and who I'd recommend the film to) and responses (breakdown of the film, which would include spoilers).  This is a response so if you haven't seen "There Will Be Blood", you might not want to continue.

As I waited for the theater light to dim and the film to begin, I couldn't help but eavesdrop on a conversation a group of people sitting behind me were having.  They were talking about their cross-country trip and going over many of the crazy places they'd been. One of the "funniest" was somewhere in New Mexico where they saw people, including some Native Americans, doing their grocery shopping at a gas station.  I thought the story was depressing but the group behind me giggled as they mocked the people for buying marshmallows for sustenance. I could only shake my head as, finally, the lights went down and the film began.

The movie started and I have to admit, I never cared.  Perhaps the travelers behind me had stirred up my lack of faith in humanity but I simply didn't get into the movie.  I never saw any hope in the characters. I never thought Daniel (played amazingly by Daniel Day-Lewis) had an ounce of good in him. I never believed Eli Sunday was pure of heart. I never thought there was any love between Daniel and H.W. or Daniel and his "brother". I was simply watching evil men do evil things and end up where you'd expect them to in America.  Day-Lewis had everything but still woke up in the gutter of his own creation.  Sunday would renounce his God if he thought it meant Earthly salvation. To me, the film was not much different than the story I overheard earlier; I was observing people who didn't just have misplace values as much as they didn't even understand that their values (and emotions) belonged elsewhere.

And this is perhaps by biggest complaint about the movie.  Yes, it was superbly acted and an almost perfectly constructed metaphor for the ills of capitalism and its bastard offspring, big business and sham religion, but do we really still need those metaphors?  Shouldn't we be updating Upton Sinclair rather than simply repeating his storm warning, a cry to which we've most certainly turned a deaf ear? People understood the metaphors of the film but they only saw it as far as it affected others and not as it continues to infect all of our lives. "There Will Be Blood" was a tremendous piece of art. Many film critics and cinemaphiles already place it high upon a pedestal, a most ironic place for a socialist adaptation to end up.  If there's no real argument being made, what's the purpose?  Isn't it just watching two people crumble under the weight of their own misplaced desires?  And if that is all there is, how much better is that to the story the travelers told before the film? Is admiring a well-crafted tale about the fall of the well to do any better than laughing at a crude story about the less fortunate?

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

If you've ever wondered how Uwe Boll keeps being able to make movies, look no further than this blurb from CinemaBlend. 

Often you will find that filming in a certain country offers incentives and tax breaks not offered in the US. Usually though, you’ll find that in order to be entitled to them, you have to meet certain conditions, for example filming in that particular country and/or employing a certain percentage of native workers as your film crew. Germany has these incentives but, crucially, no such restrictive requirements put upon them. Germans can fund your movie and you can make it wherever and however you like.

But crucially, the bizarre tax laws in Germany mean that any wealthy Germans who invest in a movie can write-off the production cost, delay paying their taxes and generally reduce their tax burden. When you disseminate all the boring legal business law surrounding it the bottom line is this – the German investors in a movie only pay tax on any RETURNS the movie makes, their investment is 100% deductible, so the minute the movie makes a profit, said investor has to start paying tax. Plus the investors can actually borrow money to put towards investment and write that off too. Assuming you’re a sharp enough businessman you have a potential goldmine in the making; a way to make money from investing in bad movies...

Uwe took advantage of this loophole and has been a director ever since.  They've recently closed the loophole but projects already in development were grandfathered in so Uwe still has some properties which can lose money and make his financiers rich. 

Uwe's films haven't improved but apparently CinemaBlend's opinion of him has. Boll's latest "In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale" was well on its way to matching "One Missed Call" as the worst reviewed film of the year ("Call" has a 0% at Rotten Tomatoes) but CinemaBlend's three star review (the only positive review) saved it. (Well, kind of saved it; over at Metacritic, Uwe's film is ranked last with a 17% rating to 24% for "One Missed".)

Posted by SoulHonky at 02:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This Presidential Race has been the most depressing of my life.  The campaigns started earlier than ever which is funny because the candidates are all saying less than ever. The only time someone discusses an actual issue is when they need to take a stance to shape their image as dictated by wherever the lastest polls are. And yet the media loves it.

Why? Because it is easy to report. Rather than having only a couple of candidates and actually having to put together thougtful reports on the issues, they can just go on and on about the horse race. Huckabee's an upstart! Hillary with the upset!  Ron Paul is a spoiler!  The Hillary Clinton win in New Hampshire was perfect because it gave them so many stories to discuss, from voter fraud, poor polling, Hillary's tear, was the crying faked (were the "Iron Our Shirts!" guys plants?), etc.  Anything, of course, besides something that might impact the nation.

Bill Maher asked on a recent show if Americans are a serious people.  How can he blame the people?  Politics has become a dog and pony show and the media refuses to play watchdog.  How can you blame the people?  Hell, look at Bill Maher himself. He acts like he's some beacon of truth but he's a comedian. Are we are serious people?  I don't know, is Bill a serious person?  Sitting in front of a TV camera and making wisecracks doesn't make one "serious" in my opinion. If someone was serious, wouldn't they actually be trying to DO something as opposed to commenting on it. (Am I serious person? Of course not, I live in Los Angeles. Nobody moves here to be serious.)

Will Rogers once said that "Everyone is ignorant, only on different subjects" and I think the same can be said for seriousness.  Americans are serious about all sorts of different topics, from raising their kids, moving forward in their careers, helping their community, spreading their religion, making money, etc.  If most people aren't serious about politics, it's because it seems like a waste of time. Unless I'm actually going out and running for office or taking part on a community board, how can I really be "serious" about politics? Voting? Campaigning for someone? What does that change/ How can I make a serious decision when all I really have to go off are stump speeches and the alternating coverage of softball questions and muckracking? How can I really make a serious change when the all I'm voting on is why side of the same coin I prefer?

This is why most people focus on one or two issues and that's what defines an election.  Most people are serious about abortion and the war.  Make a stand on those and suddenly people will be serious about your candidacy. (The proiblem, of course, is that they could seriously oppose you and lord knows politicians don't want to tick anyone off, even their opponents, during an election)  As long as people toe the line or dance around issues, how can you expect people to respond seriosly to them? 

Elections have become glorified dating shows.  You say the right things, give off the right vibe, and you'll be in.  Whether anyone will get what they were expecting out of the relationship is anyone's guess.

Seriously. 

Posted by SoulHonky at 01:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

CBS has announced that on Sunday, February 17th they will start running the first season of the Showtime series Dexter.  Word is that the show has been ADRing clean lines to use over the swears and also shooting some alternate scenes to place the more violent moments of the show. While I can't say that A&E's cleaned up version of The Sopranos wowed me, this is the logical step for the networks.

I wouldn't be stunned if Fox soon started replaying the early seasons of their stalwart FX shows (The Shield, Nip/Tuck, Rescue Me, and even Damages). NBC has already moved Law & Order:Criminal Intent back to the Peacock (it had been shuttled over to USA this year) and they also have other shows like Monk, Psych, and Burn Notice ready to be moved over as well. Should networks be relaxed knowing that they have these aces in the hole waiting to be aired? Should programming departments be nervous, knowing that these higher quality shows are about to hit the air?  

As odd as it sounds, the one group that should probably root for these shows to succeed is writers. These shows are better than 99% of the current television fodder and if higher caliber shows can attract a wide audience, perhaps networks (when the strike is over) will be more willing to take a chance on headier material.  While I can't imagine that something like "The Wire" will ever cross over, shows like Monk, Burn Notice, and Dexter seem like they could definitely catch the general public's attention. Yes, the WGA would prefer to see all network ratings to crumble, but they also have to be afraid of the worst case scenario: these shows struggle to find audiences while reality reaches like "Dance War" or "When Women Rule the World" stack up the ratings.

The WGA may be fighting for better treatment behind the scenes but their efforts could also impact the television landscape on the screen as well. As Hollywood would have it, it seems like both the writers and the networks could now be rooting for a serial killer to save the day.

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

One of the cooler things I've signed up for recently is a web service called Very Short List.  Every day they send you a new link to an interesting book, film, website, etc.  Examples of past interesting sites are Musicovery (a very neat internet radio site), a site that shows you the front page of every newspaper in the world, and a notice reminding everyone that one of the more interesting Making Of documentaries of all time was coming out on DVD.

I highly recommend signing up for this.  The newspaper site showed one of the funnier solutions to a real life whodunnit.  Can you figure out how the police caught the pickpocket in the bottom story?

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

If you know the names, you know this is no contest.  Uwe Boll is famous for making crap while J.J. Abrams has built his name with shows like Felicity, Alias, Lost and with films like Mission Impossible:3 (which I didn't love but it was much better than anything Boll has done). The suits at Fox 2000, however, seem to like their chances against J.J. more than Uwe.

The Fox romantic-comedy "27 Dresses (starring Katherine Heigl, James Marsden, and Judy Greer) was slated to open on January 11th against Boll's new film as well as the Veggietales' "Pirates Who Don't Do Anything" and Ice Cube's "First Sunday".  The film has been testing well so the studio decided that the wise move was to move it back a week so they could take advantage of the long weekend for Martin Luther King Jr. Day.  On its own that makes sense but what makes the move curious is that the much-hyped "Cloverfield" opens that same day, as does "Mad Money", the crime caper starring Queen Latifah, Diane Keaton, and an actually attractive looking Katie Holmes. While I know that Hollywood focuses on the opening weekend, I can't help but think that, if the film is as good as the studio thinks, it would make more sense to come out on the 11th and help build word-of-mouth.  We shall see.

Posted by SoulHonky at 03:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The first rule of Hollywood is "Nobody knows anything".  That is basically William Goldman's mantra in his groundbreaking memoir.  The book got Goldman in hot water with some people as he pulled no punches, gave examples of stars behaving badly, and also was merciless on some films, almost giddily pointing out their flaws. 

But perhaps the most interesting part of the book is how Goldman almost seemed to predict the current Marketing Era of film.  While Goldman didn't foresee the script process being as rushed as it is in many cases today, he correctly predicted that sequels would become all the rage and that pre-sold audiences would become more and more important to studio heads (as opposed to quality which would draw in crowds). 

Be sure to pick up the copy of the book that comes with Goldmen's script of "Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid".  The book is a quick read but will definitely stay with you.

Posted by SoulHonky at 11:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

When the WGA was wooing reality writers to join their cause (although not letting us actually join the Guild), I always thought that the whole thing seemed sketchy.  If the WGA really respected us and wanted us, why not let us join the Guild?  In the end, it was obvious that the main concern for the WGA was the WGA and that having reality writers on their side would give them more leverage in the strike talks.  I was annoyed by it then (as a reality writer) just as I am growing wary and a bit frustrated that it seems the same thing is happening to the WGA.

Near the beginning of the strike, right after Studios sent out letters to show runners that they could be sued for breaking their contract (which is different than that of writers), a few show runners voiced their concerns and some even hinted at wanting the strike to end ASAP.  One even uttered the unmentionable, crossing the picket line.  But then something happened, the actors rode in on their white horses and told the writers to hold steady. Your fight is our fight, they sang. Solidarity! And with that, resolve was strengthened and the lines were maintained.

Now maybe it's my personal paranoia but I just don't buy any of this, especially since many actors continued working during the strike. Is SAG really about solidarity?  I don't think so.  If the WGA is still on strike when their negotiations begin, it only helps SAG's position. Not only can they threaten their own strike, they can also offer help to end WGA's labor dispute.  If you don't think that actors won't sell out the writers if it means sweetening their own deal, you haven't live in Hollywood very long. The actors are going to want to go back to work and I can't imagine that once they strike a deal that they won't want the WGA back at work as well. Unless SAG offers 100% support, I can't see this all working out. Cancelling a silly awards show is one thing but staying out of work to show solidarity with the writing staff is another.

The WGA might have struck because they thought it would help their own negotiations but as the weeks turn to months, the strikes only real value is going to be as leverage for others.

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I thought I'd start spreading the Hollywood "wisdom" I've learned over the years to the six or so people who actually look at this site. The first saying isn't just based on the entertainment business, I've actually heard it from an auto mechanic as well. It's something that holds true for pretty much everyone.

"There's three things: fast, cheap, and good. You can only have two."

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sidney Lumet's "Making Movies" should be essential reading for anyone interesting in filmmaking.  It goes over through the many steps of filmmaking and offers intriguing insights from one of America's best directors. I probably learned as much from reading this book as I did from my four years at Syracuse's Newhouse School.  (Okay, I learned more at the 'Cuse but I'm not sure I learned more actually useful information).

Some of the lessons are very basic but for some reason they seemed to stick with me more while reading this book.  Something like. "In drama, the characters should determind the story. In melodrama, the story determines the characters." A very basic line but a small tidbit that has always helped me from staying away from writing melodramatic moments into my script. The section on the camera was especially interesting to me but that might be because I never really had training on a film camera (Syracuse focused on the future of cinema DV, which is quickly becoming a thing of the past).

The book is only 11 bucks so it's a cheap and quick read.  Some of the later chapters were a little too technical for my taste but overall, this book is a must-read and is one of the texts I recommend for people trying to learn filmmaking without spending the money to go to film school. 

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

My Hollywood tenure has been filled with hits and misses, lowering of expecations, and a whole lot of laziness. This is the year of actually getting out there and doing something (or, in terms of writing, staying in and sitting down and doing something).  I have a bunch of ideas just gathering dust and its high time I did something.

Currently, I'm a story producer in reality television.  I'm basically the middle step in the process. Footage is shot, I work to pare it down and mold it into a story and then hand it off to the editors so they can add music, transitions, and make it sing. It can be interesting work but it's also mind-numbing.  If you think reality television is bad, imagine sifting through the hundreds of hours that don't make the actual programs. On the bright side, because I work in reality TV I'm not on strike right now. While part of me feels like a scab, most of me simply wants nothing to do with the WGA until I have to deal with the WGA (after I, hopefully, sell a script). 

The Writers Guild tried to organize reality TV but failed.  The one group of writer they actually talked into striking (America's Next Top Model) all got fired. The producers realized that their show was so formatted that they could get away with skipping the middle step and just giving the editors the footage and notes from the directors and producers in the field.  The show continued to get ratings (even if there was a  reported decline in quality) and suddenly other producers followed suit.  More and more reality shows are going off without a story team.  Not that I can blame them.  Some shows are so set-up that you simply don't need the middle man. A lot of dating shows or faux-reality (The Hills, for example) can survive with the editors just working off of the notes someone takes during shooting.  It's not like The Real World, Survivor, or Big Brother in which hundreds of hours of footage are shot and it takes someone to collect all of the moments and put them together as a story.

In the end, I support the Writers but I just don't see how they can win.  If the producers can make deals with the directors and actors, I'd have to imagine that the writers will start getting pressure from all sides to come back to work. The actors will want to get back to work and the below-the-line crew members will really be pushing for the writers to get off the picket lines so that they can get back to making a living.  The first ones to cross will likely be the film scribes because most of the major issues deal with television.  I wouldn't be stunned to see a number of top writers crossing over and simply negotiating their own deals.

Now, this isn't to say the WGA isn't in the right on most, if not all, of the issues.  The problem is that they are dealing with studios that aren't studios anymore.  In the past, studios and networks would feel the pinch if there was a strike.  But now they are all parts of big corporations. NBC is owned by GE. The strike just means that the entertainment arm of GE is in trouble and that they need to up the revenues in their other departments.  Unless the strike is going to become a boycott of all GE merchandise, it isn't going to have a crippling impact to anyone but the smaller studios and the writers themselves.

Sad to say, but that's the world we live in. Now I remember why I got so lazy. 

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)