Okay so apparently there is a Sleepaway Camp reunion movie in the works with the writer/director Robert Hiltzik of the original classic. I know we're all excited, what is Sleepaway Camp you ask? FOR SHAME! One of the all time B movie greats of the 1980's. With a disturbingly young cast and bizarre queer subtexts that become VERY explicit in the shocking twist ending which I am providing for your viewing pleasure, it is a must for anyone into camp/cult films. The plot really is secondary, a tragic boating accident leaves a newly orphaned Angela, who looks a lot like Sarah Silverman, with her aunt Martha and cousin Ricky, and off to camp the kids go, where bad things start to happen. Judy as the main bad girl truly makes this film for me,and her demise is tragic, a fate so terrible that the filmmakers don't have the guts to show the aftermath. Yes, a curling iron to the crotch is never a pleasant experience R.I.P Judy, R.I.P. This is from a time when horror was an odd creature, the film is clearly made for 12 year olds, much in the way that Deadly Friend was too, but contains fairly graphic, albeit silly, death scenes and strings of profanity designed to make the young ones giggle. If this were made today, no doubt it would be neutered, given a PG-13 rating, with bland yet classy production values, and a cast from One Tree Hill.
Following the events of Return to Sleepaway Camp, "Reunion" focuses on the long-awaited return of Aunt Martha as well as Ricky and Angela Baker. I can't wait!
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Monday, September 10, 2007
Friday, September 7, 2007
Is There Life After Birth?
"More generally, my obsessiveness about books, songs, and films was a beard about growing up, which I didn't want to catch myself doing. I wanted it behind me while it was ahead of me. This exertion of will was also an act of sensory deprivation, of self abnegation. The two- will and deprivation- were weirdly compatible. I tried to obliterate my teenage years in movie theaters because my teenage years embarrassed and saddened me. Between double features of French films, between putting one book down and picking up the next , I'd glance at my wristwatch to see if I was in my twenties yet."
-Jonathan Lethem
The Disappointment Artist
-Jonathan Lethem
The Disappointment Artist
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Apple and Starbucks like PB and J
From IMDB
In what Starbucks founder and Chairman Howard Schultz described as a "transformation" of the marketplace for digital entertainment, thousands of recordings of music and movies will soon be able to be purchased and downloaded at nearly 6,000 Starbucks coffee shops via Apple's iTunes Music Store and eventually in all 14,000 Starbucks shops worldwide. Some analysts predicted that the deal between Apple and Starbucks could mark the end of brick-and-mortar music/video stores if not the CD and DVD themselves. During an Apple presentation in San Francisco to announce the release of new video-capable iPods, Schultz said, "It's rare a physical retailer can transform the marketplace. ... This is going to be a transformation." Analysts predicted that Starbucks will likely install small terabyte-size wireless servers in its shops, enabling customers to download a movie during the time they wait for their coffee instead of the several hours it often takes to do so over the Internet.
In what Starbucks founder and Chairman Howard Schultz described as a "transformation" of the marketplace for digital entertainment, thousands of recordings of music and movies will soon be able to be purchased and downloaded at nearly 6,000 Starbucks coffee shops via Apple's iTunes Music Store and eventually in all 14,000 Starbucks shops worldwide. Some analysts predicted that the deal between Apple and Starbucks could mark the end of brick-and-mortar music/video stores if not the CD and DVD themselves. During an Apple presentation in San Francisco to announce the release of new video-capable iPods, Schultz said, "It's rare a physical retailer can transform the marketplace. ... This is going to be a transformation." Analysts predicted that Starbucks will likely install small terabyte-size wireless servers in its shops, enabling customers to download a movie during the time they wait for their coffee instead of the several hours it often takes to do so over the Internet.
Film Future
Various media outlets are reporting on the record breaking summer of 2007 at the Box Office. The magical 4 billion dollar mark was crossed for the first time ever during the summer window period. Most of these stories often point out that the top grossing pics were largely threequels which could spell trouble for the future of Hollywood given the fact that if there are no originals today there can't be a threequel a few years from now. What interests and disturbs me more is the business model of a typical hollywood blockbuster.
Let's look at the number one film of the summer Spider Man 3 with roughly 336.5 million dollars. This does not surprise or upset me. The first two films were enormously popular and more importantly well liked. It was the first film of the summer, opening on May 4th so there were a lot of people eager to catch the first blockbuster that came their way. Even if it is the weakest of the series, it makes sense. Spider man 3 carried a production budget of 260 million dollars. Let me repeat that, 260 million dollars. This is NOT the most expensive film of the summer [Pirates 3 carries that honor] and does NOT include the costs of a print and advertising campaign. For high profile pics of this nature an advertising/marketing campaign usually adds between 30 to 60 million dollars, sometimes more, sometimes less. So basically Spidey movie cost about 300 million [at the very least] to make and market. I'm sorry, perhaps shove down our throats is a better word than market. And why shouldn't they, given the cost of the film. It opened to a record breaking 151 million in its first weekend. Lets pause and think about that. In three days it made basically half of its entire revenue. More and more blockbusters are frontloaded. Opening on the largest number of screens possible often with around the clock showtimes in hopes of breaking some sort of record which would create positive media buzz. This often means a movie is instantly deemed a hit or failure based off its first weekend. It also means that whether or not the film is any good is irrelevant because they are making all of their money during the first week. Word of mouth seems to be a thing of the past.
So for all these media pundits proclaiming that this summer's breakthrough box office is a triumph of quality storytelling, it might be more correct to say a triumph of advertising. If they didn't get you to sit in the theatre during the first three days, they probably didn't catch you.
So back to the Spider Man 3 budget. According to Box Office Mojo, a studio keeps roughly 55% of a movie's gross, the other 45 goes to the theatre owners. So you basically have to double the film's production costs in order to see what figure would make a movie break even. Spider Man 3 would need to gross 600 million in theaters to "break even". Given the worldwide box office take of 890 million, it achieved this. In fact, this film will be an enormous cash cow for Sony as ancillary markets such as DVD, toys, TV rights, rentals, fast food promotions, etc are not taken into account. But what exactly goes into making sure films with dangerously high budgets are monster hits?
One could argue that with such high budgets, the soul of a film must be compromised. Studio execs have to be risk averse and above all protect and represent the interests of their shareholders, not an audience member. This means the higher the budget goes the less a director will be trusted or allowed to take chances. If a film costs 200 million dollars then it better appeal to the largest number of people possible. This is where cynical studio bosses often decide to appeal to the worst and most base instincts of an audience member. They view us as stupid and always go for the cheapest and easiest route. A film will often be screened at 1000 malls, test audienced to death so that when it is released it is a desperate collage of all highs and peaks, no lows. Is it me or do many of these large blockbuster films feel less like a movie and more like brand extension. Often choppy, incoherent, and with flat storytelling and blatant product placement it is less like a movie and more like an informercial, selling nothing except the experience of the movie itself.
Aside from the mind blowing amounts of money that are spent and made on studio tent pole pictures, and the implications in an American blockbuster that costs over 300 million or future releases that will need to generate a billion dollars in revenues to be determined successful, what disturbs me is the trickle down effect that has taken place in the film industry. This sink or swim opening weekend mentality has weaved its way down to the independent, adult oriented, and foreign film markets. If a film doesn't do gangbusters business that first weekend [think Miranda July] then its on DVD within two months. Call me old fashioned or a film purist, but my preferred mode of seeing a film I am interested in, is on the big screen. Granted, I'm sure Shrek 3 will play beautifully in the backseat of a Honda Odyssey. If your film is complex, difficult, or odd; that equals hard to market which spells box office poison. Quality and entertainment seem to be less of a factor of ensuing a box office hit.
Now I'm not trying to say that high profile blockbusters were any better or worse ten years ago. Looking back ten years ago is quite telling and puts things in swift perspective. Men In Black, Air Force One and Liar Liar are no more intelligent or better than their respective counterpart positions in the top ten this year. However, even bad movies at least felt like movies and not a barrage of images pasted together by a committee of disinterested business men. Interestingly enough, 1997 was the year of Titanic. Titanic as we all know is the highest grossing film of all time, both domestically and internationally. At the time of its release, it was also the most expensive film ever made, carrying a reported budget of 200 million. But perhaps this is where my lament becomes more clear. Titanic was number one for 15 consecutive weeks and opened to a strong but not stellar 28 million back in December of 1997. It was allowed time to breathe and grow which films simply cannot do today. The longest any film was able to stay number one over this summer was two weeks.
So this whole article has been a giant smokescreen. It really boils down to the fact that the window between theatrical and home viewing release is ever shrinking and it will only be a matter of time when all films are released simultaneously or in my darkest Orwellian nightmares, only very expensive studio produced fare will make to big screens with everything else only available on your ipod or VOD.
all facts and figures from Box Office Mojo
Let's look at the number one film of the summer Spider Man 3 with roughly 336.5 million dollars. This does not surprise or upset me. The first two films were enormously popular and more importantly well liked. It was the first film of the summer, opening on May 4th so there were a lot of people eager to catch the first blockbuster that came their way. Even if it is the weakest of the series, it makes sense. Spider man 3 carried a production budget of 260 million dollars. Let me repeat that, 260 million dollars. This is NOT the most expensive film of the summer [Pirates 3 carries that honor] and does NOT include the costs of a print and advertising campaign. For high profile pics of this nature an advertising/marketing campaign usually adds between 30 to 60 million dollars, sometimes more, sometimes less. So basically Spidey movie cost about 300 million [at the very least] to make and market. I'm sorry, perhaps shove down our throats is a better word than market. And why shouldn't they, given the cost of the film. It opened to a record breaking 151 million in its first weekend. Lets pause and think about that. In three days it made basically half of its entire revenue. More and more blockbusters are frontloaded. Opening on the largest number of screens possible often with around the clock showtimes in hopes of breaking some sort of record which would create positive media buzz. This often means a movie is instantly deemed a hit or failure based off its first weekend. It also means that whether or not the film is any good is irrelevant because they are making all of their money during the first week. Word of mouth seems to be a thing of the past.
So for all these media pundits proclaiming that this summer's breakthrough box office is a triumph of quality storytelling, it might be more correct to say a triumph of advertising. If they didn't get you to sit in the theatre during the first three days, they probably didn't catch you.
So back to the Spider Man 3 budget. According to Box Office Mojo, a studio keeps roughly 55% of a movie's gross, the other 45 goes to the theatre owners. So you basically have to double the film's production costs in order to see what figure would make a movie break even. Spider Man 3 would need to gross 600 million in theaters to "break even". Given the worldwide box office take of 890 million, it achieved this. In fact, this film will be an enormous cash cow for Sony as ancillary markets such as DVD, toys, TV rights, rentals, fast food promotions, etc are not taken into account. But what exactly goes into making sure films with dangerously high budgets are monster hits?
One could argue that with such high budgets, the soul of a film must be compromised. Studio execs have to be risk averse and above all protect and represent the interests of their shareholders, not an audience member. This means the higher the budget goes the less a director will be trusted or allowed to take chances. If a film costs 200 million dollars then it better appeal to the largest number of people possible. This is where cynical studio bosses often decide to appeal to the worst and most base instincts of an audience member. They view us as stupid and always go for the cheapest and easiest route. A film will often be screened at 1000 malls, test audienced to death so that when it is released it is a desperate collage of all highs and peaks, no lows. Is it me or do many of these large blockbuster films feel less like a movie and more like brand extension. Often choppy, incoherent, and with flat storytelling and blatant product placement it is less like a movie and more like an informercial, selling nothing except the experience of the movie itself.
Aside from the mind blowing amounts of money that are spent and made on studio tent pole pictures, and the implications in an American blockbuster that costs over 300 million or future releases that will need to generate a billion dollars in revenues to be determined successful, what disturbs me is the trickle down effect that has taken place in the film industry. This sink or swim opening weekend mentality has weaved its way down to the independent, adult oriented, and foreign film markets. If a film doesn't do gangbusters business that first weekend [think Miranda July] then its on DVD within two months. Call me old fashioned or a film purist, but my preferred mode of seeing a film I am interested in, is on the big screen. Granted, I'm sure Shrek 3 will play beautifully in the backseat of a Honda Odyssey. If your film is complex, difficult, or odd; that equals hard to market which spells box office poison. Quality and entertainment seem to be less of a factor of ensuing a box office hit.
Now I'm not trying to say that high profile blockbusters were any better or worse ten years ago. Looking back ten years ago is quite telling and puts things in swift perspective. Men In Black, Air Force One and Liar Liar are no more intelligent or better than their respective counterpart positions in the top ten this year. However, even bad movies at least felt like movies and not a barrage of images pasted together by a committee of disinterested business men. Interestingly enough, 1997 was the year of Titanic. Titanic as we all know is the highest grossing film of all time, both domestically and internationally. At the time of its release, it was also the most expensive film ever made, carrying a reported budget of 200 million. But perhaps this is where my lament becomes more clear. Titanic was number one for 15 consecutive weeks and opened to a strong but not stellar 28 million back in December of 1997. It was allowed time to breathe and grow which films simply cannot do today. The longest any film was able to stay number one over this summer was two weeks.
So this whole article has been a giant smokescreen. It really boils down to the fact that the window between theatrical and home viewing release is ever shrinking and it will only be a matter of time when all films are released simultaneously or in my darkest Orwellian nightmares, only very expensive studio produced fare will make to big screens with everything else only available on your ipod or VOD.
all facts and figures from Box Office Mojo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
